What is considered a weak team come PO time? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

What is considered a weak team come PO time?

PistolPete

Registered User
May 3, 2025
1,457
1,308
I just saw a poster claim LA was weak, a team that finished 4th overall in the conference.

I see many people claim various teams, divisions, or one of the conferences is weak and that is why Team X got through to the proceeding rounds.

If a 4th place team is weak, what is not weak? I'm especially intrigued by this given the RS standings see teams spread by 10 wins or so from 1 to 8 and 2 or 3 when we're taking about two or three seeds apart.

So I am really curious as to what renders a team weak in the eyes of those who like to throw that term around.
 
PistolPete said:
I just saw a poster claim LA was weak, a team that finished 4th overall in the conference.

I see many people claim various teams, divisions, or one of the conferences is weak and that is why Team X got through to the proceeding rounds.

If a 4th place team is weak, what is not weak? I'm especially intrigued by this given the RS standings see teams spread by 10 wins or so from 1 to 8 and 2 or 3 when we're taking about two or three seeds apart.

So I am really curious as to what renders a team weak in the eyes of those who like to throw that term around.
Click to expand...
LA certainly wasn't weak, the coaching and team philosophy is failing them. when they attacked they had the Oilers on their back foot, but they spent 2 periods a game sitting back and they got owned. Jim Hillier cost them the series.

A weak team in the playoff is Dallas. Im not saying they a bad team, but they play weak. They are playing a weak game. 4 shots in the 3rd period each of the last 2 games when they were down is just awful. They don't show any heart, integrity, or urgency AT ALL. Of course it can change, they have the talent for it, but the games they've played so far have been weak. Its textbook.


Toronto, Carolina, NJ and Washington fit the bill as well.

Playoff hockey isn't the same as regular season. A lot of great regular season teams fail in the palyoffs because its a whole different rule book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bjornar Moxnes, majormajor, AbsentMojo and 3 others
bossram said:
Teams that don't control play well at 5v5, and/or mostly rely on superior goaltending and hot shooting conversion fit the profile of paper tiger playoff teams.
Click to expand...

Dallas had a lethal PP up until the Oilers series and that carried them. Now they can't score on Stuart Skinner 5v5
 
PistolPete said:
Yet it was all good enough to win 48 games- the same number of wins as Edmonton
Click to expand...
looking at team records is insufficient, when ppl say TML is weak, its because they dont handle adversity well, that is proven over the span of many seasons that employs the same core. there are ppl like Matthews and there are ppl like Justin Williams, team records dont reflect that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bjornar Moxnes and PistolPete
Teams like Toronto and Dallas that fold in the same spot in the playoffs every year. Not terrible teams but not contenders and very weak.
 
PistolPete said:
I just saw a poster claim LA was weak, a team that finished 4th overall in the conference.

I see many people claim various teams, divisions, or one of the conferences is weak and that is why Team X got through to the proceeding rounds.

If a 4th place team is weak, what is not weak? I'm especially intrigued by this given the RS standings see teams spread by 10 wins or so from 1 to 8 and 2 or 3 when we're taking about two or three seeds apart.

So I am really curious as to what renders a team weak in the eyes of those who like to throw that term around.
Click to expand...

Oilers were considered weak because of the poor expected goaltending and questionable D (Walman and Klingberg have silenced critics).

Top point getting teams like the Caps, Jets, Knights were considered strong contenders but faltered.

Teams that squeak in like the Blues were expected to be weak but actually overperformed. Habs and Sens were expected to lose in the first round and did.
 
voxel said:
They can't score 5v5 anyhow... all playofffs. How many 5v5 goals have they've had?
Click to expand...
23 vs 16

1748457054341.png
 
PistolPete said:
So would
Oilslick941611 said:
LA certainly wasn't weak, the coaching and team philosophy is failing them. when they attacked they had the Oilers on their back foot, but they spent 2 periods a game sitting back and they got owned. Jim Hillier cost them the series.

A weak team in the playoff is Dallas. Im not saying they a bad team, but they play weak. They are playing a weak game. 4 shots in the 3rd period each of the last 2 games when they were down is just awful. They don't show any heart, integrity, or urgency AT ALL. Of course it can change, they have the talent for it, but the games they've played so far have been weak. Its textbook.


Toronto, Carolina, NJ and Washington fit the bill as well.

Playoff hockey isn't the same as regular season. A lot of great regular season teams fail in the palyoffs because its a whole different rule book.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So it's not a matter of them being a weak team per se but just playing weak in the current series?

Fair enough. My question was more so directed at the belief of some that some teams are weak per se and this is why Team X was able to make it to Round #.
 
Raistlin said:
looking at team records is insufficient, when ppl say TML is weak, its because they dont handle adversity well, that is proven over the span of many seasons that employs the same core. there are ppl like Matthews and there are ppl like Justin Williams, team records dont reflect that.
Click to expand...
So weak = chokers?
 
PistolPete said:
I just saw a poster claim LA was weak, a team that finished 4th overall in the conference.

I see many people claim various teams, divisions, or one of the conferences is weak and that is why Team X got through to the proceeding rounds.

If a 4th place team is weak, what is not weak? I'm especially intrigued by this given the RS standings see teams spread by 10 wins or so from 1 to 8 and 2 or 3 when we're taking about two or three seeds apart.

So I am really curious as to what renders a team weak in the eyes of those who like to throw that term around.
Click to expand...

The Kings were not a weak team, and anybody that argues so is foolish.

The Kings simply encountered a BETTER team. The same BETTER team many years in a row.

As far as what determines a 'weak' playoff team, it's generally a team that does not control play at 5v5, does not outscore their opposition at 5v5, and over-relies on goaltending, hot shooting percentage, or their powerplay.

Teams that put up red flags this season were Washington, Winnipeg, Toronto.

Teams that made the playoffs, but everybody kind knew they were cooked include Montreal, Ottawa and Minnestoa.

I'd argue the teams in those two groups could be considered 'weak'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majormajor, PistolPete and PuckG
Standings alone don't tell the whole story

Weak teams in my opinion this year

NJ cause of Hughes injury
Ottawa
Montreal
Minnesota

In years past I would have called LA weak, this year that wasn't the case
 
AvroArrow said:
Standings alone don't tell the whole story

Weak teams in my opinion this year

NJ cause of Hughes injury
Ottawa
Montreal
Minnesota

In years past I would have called LA weak, this year that wasn't the case
Click to expand...
What makes Ottawa, Montreal and Minnesota weak in your view?
 
PistolPete said:
I know you're n9t saying it yourself, but do you think that makes them a weak team per se or a strong team that is playing weak in this series?
Click to expand...
I think they’re a good team just not good enough to be a threat in later rounds.

Their goal differential alone for the whole playoffs is abysmal for a team this deep on offense with an arguably Top 10 goalie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom