SCF Game #1, KINGS(3 vs. RANGERS(2 - 6/4/14, OT 3-2 Victory !!!!

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Here's and interesting question. How much of the growth in the TV market can we give to the Kings? vs the Dodger/Time Warner royal screw up?
I do think the Kings are up but I also think the fact that there was not a Dodger game for most of the population they tuned into the only local sporting event avail.
 

@Real_ESPNLeBrun
AV on Kings after watching film this morning: "They're one of the best teams I've seen in a long time."

Of course, his first motivation is to pump up the Kings' tires, but if you read between the lines he is basically saying what we have all been saying: His competition in the Least doesn't get close to matching up to a Western team.
 
Is he trying to do what Sutter does? :huh:

You mean bunker defensively around a good goalie and try to spring forwards on breakaways like Brown against the Canucks 2 years ago?

It's like MSL is their Carter, but they gave up Brown and a 1st and a 2nd to get him, and they have no Gaborik....

Really though what are you really going to get with a 28-30th pick in the first round? :laugh: 70!!!!

Or did you mean send not so subtle messages through the media?

Edit: I have a long way to go to be able to get anywhere close to Ron's skill level...
 
You mean bunker defensively around a good goalie and try to spring forwards on breakaways like Brown against the Canucks 2 years ago?

It's like MSL is their Carter, but they gave up Brown and a 1st and a 2nd to get him, and they have no Gaborik....

Really though what are you really going to get with a 28-30th pick in the first round? :laugh: 70!!!!

Or did you mean send not so subtle messages through the media?

Edit: I have a long way to go to be able to get anywhere close to Ron's skill level...

Option 4
 
Reading the thread here and the reports about how the media is presenting (or not presenting) the Kings, I must mention that here in Montreal in the French media (newspaper, RDS, radio) it's basically all about LAK. One of the best comments in this morning's LA PRESSE: The Rangers found out that the Kings are not the Canadiens and you cannot basically sit on a one or two goal lead.

At the same time, no time to become overconfident.

3 more to go... one at a time.

GKG!
 
Of course, his first motivation is to pump up the Kings' tires, but if you read between the lines he is basically saying what we have all been saying: His competition in the Least doesn't get close to matching up to a Western team.

Yes.
 
Reading the thread here and the reports about how the media is presenting (or not presenting) the Kings, I must mention that here in Montreal in the French media (newspaper, RDS, radio) it's basically all about LAK. One of the best comments in this morning's LA PRESSE: The Rangers found out that the Kings are not the Canadiens and you cannot basically sit on a one or two goal lead.

At the same time, no time to become overconfident.

3 more to go... one at a time.

GKG!

The fascinating part of last night's game was that the Rangers tried to sit on a no-goal lead. :) Curious strategy to say the least.
 
This Kings team is worlds better than 2012 team. The path to the finals in 2012 wasn't even close to what it was in 2014. I don't think the 2012 team stands much of a chance against the 2014 Blackhawks.
 
This Kings team is worlds better than 2012 team. The path to the finals in 2012 wasn't even close to what it was in 2014. I don't think the 2012 team stands much of a chance against the 2014 Blackhawks.

Hard to know one way or the other. The 2012 Hawks lost to the Coyotes. I still find it hard to believe, given the relatively easy time we had with PHX in the WCF.
 
Hard to know one way or the other. The 2012 Hawks lost to the Coyotes. I still find it hard to believe, given the relatively easy time we had with PHX in the WCF.

Was that the year Torres destroyed Hosser?

Edit: Yup

 
Last edited:
Hard to know one way or the other. The 2012 Hawks lost to the Coyotes. I still find it hard to believe, given the relatively easy time we had with PHX in the WCF.

Agreed it's hard to know, but just my opinion, I think if the 2012 Kings played the 2014 Kings that the 2014 team wins in 5 games.

This years team may not be as good defensively and Quick may not be the same, but the 2014 team is much more explosive offensively. I don't know if the 2012 team would have been able to do some of the special things this team has done, obviously 2012 will always be special because it was the first team to win the cup, but I don't know if I have been as impressed with a team as I have been with this years squad, it's just amazing.
 
Has any previous Cup winning team had as hard of a road to get to the Cup Final than the Kings this year? Sharks, Ducks and Hawks are all top 10 teams.

I just looked through previous Cup winners and their runs from 1980 up to this year and honestly, I don't see it.
 
Goaltending - 2012 > 2014
Defense - 2012 > 2014
Offense - 2012 < 2014

I don't think there is that much of a difference on defense. Quick was just at such an insane level that year that it made the defense look better. They also didn't face the types of offensive juggernauts they have seen in 2014.

I think there is a bigger difference between the forwards on the two teams than the difference in Quick's play.
 
I don't think there is that much of a difference on defense. Quick was just at such an insane level that year that it made the defense look better. They also didn't face the types of offensive juggernauts they have seen in 2014.

I think there is a bigger difference between the forwards on the two teams than the difference in Quick's play.

I agree, and I also agree with your 2014 in 5 statement. This team is simply unstoppable.
 
Has any previous Cup winning team had as hard of a road to get to the Cup Final than the Kings this year? Sharks, Ducks and Hawks are all top 10 teams.

I just looked through previous Cup winners and their runs from 1980 up to this year and honestly, I don't see it.

Didn't the Canadiens actually have a pretty tough road in 93?
 
Didn't the Canadiens actually have a pretty tough road in 93?

The best team they beat was Quebec (finished 4th) in the 1st round, 4-2. They then swept Buffalo (15th overall), and the Islanders (13th overall) 4-1, and the Kings (11th) 4-1.

Wasn't too tough of a road as they were able to avoid the Penguins and Boston simply choked that year when Buffalo eliminated them.
 
The best team they beat was Quebec (finished 4th) in the 1st round, 4-2. They then swept Buffalo (15th overall), and the Islanders (13th overall) 4-1, and the Kings (11th) 4-1.

Wasn't too tough of a road as they were able to avoid the Penguins and Boston simply choked that year when Buffalo eliminated them.

I remember Toronto fans having a cow after the Final, saying the Leafs would have been a better opponent for MTL.

Got news for you, Leafs fan: you didn't have the opportunity to play MTL in the Final because you didn't beat the Kings in the conference final. See, it works this way: if you win 4 games in the conference final, you get to go to the Stanley Cup Final. Winning 3 games is not enough.

The other important point is that even though we lost 4 games to 1, three of those games went into overtime (which we all lost, of course). The Kings were whipped by the time game 5 came around, and we really weren't competitive in that game. But that doesn't diminish the fact that we came back twice to force OT and we just couldn't get one past Roy ever in OT. Very frustrating.
 
I remember Toronto fans having a cow after the Final, saying the Leafs would have been a better opponent for MTL.

Got news for you, Leafs fan: you didn't have the opportunity to play MTL in the Final because you didn't beat the Kings in the conference final. See, it works this way: if you win 4 games in the conference final, you get to go to the Stanley Cup Final. Winning 3 games is not enough.

The other important point is that even though we lost 4 games to 1, three of those games went into overtime (which we all lost, of course). The Kings were whipped by the time game 5 came around, and we really weren't competitive in that game. But that doesn't diminish the fact that we came back twice to force OT and we just couldn't get one past Roy ever in OT. Very frustrating.

I hate revisionist history.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad