NHL Playoffs 2014

[General Veers]

Tokarski was the reason the Rangers had to hustle the entire 3rd period since it was still a one-goal game. But it did look like the Habs were out of gas until they pulled the goalie. Got their best chances since the bonkers Lundqvist save with his blocker on Vanek.

[Young Grasshopper]

I honestly believe the turning point was game 2, that was Tokarsky’s first game and the Habs dominated the Rangers but still lost. After that it was hard to play well again even though #35 gave them every reason to trust him from game 3 on. As for game 6… the problem was both strategy and effort, the strategy to dump and chase was counter productive the team’s speed through the neutral zone (which was impassible to the Rangers credit), and the second problem (effort)… was essential for the first problem (strategy). The point of the dump in is to follow it with a strong forecheck, well… they had the dump in part right. The up hill climb next year when they try to get back to the conference final should be fun to watch… hopefully they can build on their success and start earning some… (you know what).

[axis_roll]

Wow.  Great series between LA and my Hawks.  The Kings proved they deserved to win and get to the Stanley Cup Finals.  Kudos to their team.

Sucks we’re out, but I doubt LA will lose in a seven game series to NY.

Kings in six.  Final game is a blow out (5-2).

[LHoffman]

While I would like to see the Rangers win, I don’t see how they can.

[Imperious Leader]

LA will win again, no doubt.

[Young Grasshopper]

LA should win of course, however… if NY can drive the net and take out Quick’s knee, the series will become a coin toss.

[General Veers]

I think Game 2 is the only loss the Habs can pin on losing Price. Tokarski was one of the team’s best players the rest of the series, which didn’t bode well since guys like Vanek disappeared. Grapes can’t be that sour.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

LA should win of course, however… if NY can drive the net and take out Quick’s knee, the series will become a coin toss.

:lol:

[General Veers]

That was a ghastly turnover by Girardi, it’s unfortunate since the Rangers had regained some form in OT after being dominated for two periods. Lundqvist kept them in the game after being bombarded in the third period. The Kings looked so flat in the first period, it had to be attributed to fatigue from the last series.

[Young Grasshopper]

Interesting that the King is playing against the Kings.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

Interesting that the King is playing against the Kings.

Or that King plays for the Kings…  :roll:

[axis_roll]

@Young:

LA should win of course, however… if NY can drive the net and take out Quick’s knee, the series will become a coin toss.

Nash tried to do so in Game #3 unsuccessfully.

Kings look unstoppable, not likely to lose 4 straight.

[LHoffman]

Yes, while I have counted out multiple teams this year who were are 3-0 or 3-1 deficits and been wrong… I really don’t think I could possibly be wrong here. LA will win, either tomorrow or the next game.

[General Veers]

Considering it’s happened five or six times in almost 90 years, you’re not exactly going out on a limb here.

If the Rangers let the Kings celebrate on their home ice it will totally destroy any good will they built up this spring. Brad Richards can’t be amnestied soon enough.

[Young Grasshopper]

I hope they get swept, it would help Montreal’s case as the team out of the east final that had the best chance to make a series out of it (or at least win one game).

[General Veers]

Can’t play the what-if game in sports. It’s why I’m not even thinking about an imaginary scenario where the Rangers won either of the first two games. Besides, Montreal and New York play nearly identical styles that would have struggled against a big Kings team that can skate.

[Imperious Leader]

If Montreal was playing, the Kings would win the series in 3 games without need for 4th.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

If Montreal was playing, the Kings would win the series in 3 games without need for 4th.

Fk you IL, you fking piece of dog s**t!!… just kidding, you’re probably right  :wink:.

[General Veers]

I’ll be the first to admit the Rangers were lucky to win that game, especially since Stralman and Stepan made the biggest saves of the game. As hollow as a win down 3-0 is, it felt good to have some lucky breaks go the Rangers way.

It seems to me every time Dan Girardi turns the puck over it results in a Kings goal.

[Young Grasshopper]

@General:

I’ll be the first to admit the Rangers were lucky to win that game, especially since Stralman and Stepan made the biggest saves of the game. As hollow as a win down 3-0 is, it felt good to have some lucky breaks go the Rangers way.

It seems to me every time Dan Girardi turns the puck over it results in a Kings goal.

At least they were playing hard and refusing to give up, if they played the opposite… at least one of those pucks on the goal line goes in.