The NHL Playoff Thread 2008/09

RoughMix

I don't think the Hawks have a player from Thunder Bay.

Songburst

RoughMix wrote:

I don't think the Hawks have a player from Thunder Bay.

Patrick Sharp.

RoughMix

Songburst wrote:

RoughMix wrote:

I don't think the Hawks have a player from Thunder Bay.

Patrick Sharp.

That's cool.I thought he was from Winnipeg.Like Toews.
Hawks team page must be mistaken.

Songburst

RoughMix wrote:

Songburst wrote:

RoughMix wrote:

I don't think the Hawks have a player from Thunder Bay.

Patrick Sharp.

That's cool.I thought he was from Winnipeg.Like Toews.
Hawks team page must be mistaken.

I just checked that out. I'm 100% sure that he was born and raised in Thunder Bay. Team page is mistaken for sure. Hopefully his Hawks can dispose of the Wings this round.

RoughMix

Hawks won't win.To young and inexperienced.
One day but not yet.
GO WINGS!!

Songburst

RoughMix wrote:

Hawks won't win.To young and inexperienced.
One day but not yet.
GO WINGS!!

Haha -- that's what Flames fans and Canucks fans said.

Detroit is a tough task for them though because they play robot-hockey and Chicago actually plays a very entertaining style.

milarso

Songburst wrote:

Detroit is a tough task for them though because they play robot-hockey and Chicago actually plays a very entertaining style.

What does robot hockey vs. entertaining style have to do with anything?
Regardless of style of play, Detroit is just better.
More skill, more depth and more experience.
The Red Wings are arguably the most dominant franchise in all of professional sports right now.

Songburst

milarso wrote:

Songburst wrote:

Detroit is a tough task for them though because they play robot-hockey and Chicago actually plays a very entertaining style.

What does robot hockey vs. entertaining style have to do with anything?
Regardless of style of play, Detroit is just better.
More skill, more depth and more experience.
The Red Wings are arguably the most dominant franchise in all of professional sports right now.

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.

milarso

Songburst wrote:

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.

Whoa- calm down killer.
I was just pointing out that your post made no sense in any context.
Saying "Detroit is a tough task for them though because they play robot-hockey and Chicago actually plays a very entertaining style," is like saying Detroit is a tough task for them because they like to eat Fruit Loops, while Chicago likes to eat Lucky Charms.

Bringing up style of play has nothing to do with why Chicago will have a tough time, unless of course you mean that "Robot Hockey" is better...

Jason P

The robots had 43 shots and the hawks had 32. If anyone claims that Detroit games are boring then they are off their rocker or in some sort of denial. :roll: Anywho, Khabibulin played a heck of a game and kept Chicago in it as well as he could. As long as he keeps playing at a high level the Hawks will have a chance.

Also, we should establish some kind of bet on when Chris Osgood is going to snap and stab the next reporter in the neck that asks him what it's like to be the weak link. I can't believe that NBC moron's post game interview question. Not very classy . . .

pearljim

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.[/quote]

Is this Gary Bettman?

Luckily with the Wings we get good hockey and WINS. Stevie Yzerman was a hell of a player-exciting but no Stanley Cups until Bowman changed things.....Ask Stevie if he'd rather have scored 70 goals each year and no cups or 30 goals and 4 cups.......

I agree with Chicago being a good team and exciting at times but for 2 periods THEY were pretty boring, not the Wings.

Playiong on pure emotion can kill you

Songburst

milarso wrote:

Songburst wrote:

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.

Whoa- calm down killer.
I was just pointing out that your post made no sense in any context.
Saying "Detroit is a tough task for them though because they play robot-hockey and Chicago actually plays a very entertaining style," is like saying Detroit is a tough task for them because they like to eat Fruit Loops, while Chicago likes to eat Lucky Charms.

Bringing up style of play has nothing to do with why Chicago will have a tough time, unless of course you mean that "Robot Hockey" is better...

More successful? Yes. Better? No.

You guys crack me up.

Songburst

Jason P wrote:

The robots had 43 shots and the hawks had 32. If anyone claims that Detroit games are boring then they are off their rocker or in some sort of denial. :roll: Anywho, Khabibulin played a heck of a game and kept Chicago in it as well as he could. As long as he keeps playing at a high level the Hawks will have a chance.

Also, we should establish some kind of bet on when Chris Osgood is going to snap and stab the next reporter in the neck that asks him what it's like to be the weak link. I can't believe that NBC moron's post game interview question. Not very classy . . .

I watched the first period where the Wings had 15 shots and it was garbage hockey to watch. You can't judge the excitement level of a hockey game by the number of shots or goals etc.

Songburst

pearljim wrote:

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.

Is this Gary Bettman?

Luckily with the Wings we get good hockey and WINS. Stevie Yzerman was a hell of a player-exciting but no Stanley Cups until Bowman changed things.....Ask Stevie if he'd rather have scored 70 goals each year and no cups or 30 goals and 4 cups.......

I agree with Chicago being a good team and exciting at times but for 2 periods THEY were pretty boring, not the Wings.

Playiong on pure emotion can kill you [/quote]

Ask Yzerman if he thinks that the people who paid to watch him play wanted to see his successful defense-first style of play or his entertaining, creative style of play.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. At the end of the day nobody really cares who wins the Stanley Cup. Hockey is there to provide entertainment to the people who pay to watch it. Maybe I'm a little tough on the Wings because they are so successful (and there are other offending teams who are dreadful to watch) but it does bother me a little seeing people defend their style of play simply because it is successful.

pearljim

Songburst wrote:

pearljim wrote:

Get over it. Robot-hockey just means that the Wings rarely play off their emotions (which usually leads to fun games for fans to watch -- see game 6 of the Hawks-Canucks series). Nobody really gives a shit how successful a team is at the end of the day. We watch hockey to see good games. Detroit hockey is rarely fun to watch these days.

Let me know how this game turns out -- one period was enough for me today.

Is this Gary Bettman?

Luckily with the Wings we get good hockey and WINS. Stevie Yzerman was a hell of a player-exciting but no Stanley Cups until Bowman changed things.....Ask Stevie if he'd rather have scored 70 goals each year and no cups or 30 goals and 4 cups.......

I agree with Chicago being a good team and exciting at times but for 2 periods THEY were pretty boring, not the Wings.

Playiong on pure emotion can kill you

Ask Yzerman if he thinks that the people who paid to watch him play wanted to see his successful defense-first style of play or his entertaining, creative style of play.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. At the end of the day nobody really cares who wins the Stanley Cup. Hockey is there to provide entertainment to the people who pay to watch it. Maybe I'm a little tough on the Wings because they are so successful (and there are other offending teams who are dreadful to watch) but it does bother me a little seeing people defend their style of play simply because it is successful.[/quote]

In pro sports success is defined by won/loss records.

I truly understand part of your entertainment statement but then why have a championship? Why not just have teams play for no other reason but to play? All 30 teams and owners play to win the Cup, nothing else. If Chicago, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Detroit could win the Cup this year by playing a totally offensive style game don't you think they would? Quennville isn't sitting down today trying to figure out how to entertain fans tomorrow.
I didn't see too many games by Tampa Bay but I bet they had many exciting games but lost most. As a fan of hockey I don't think I'd keep shelling out money for it.....

I don't have to ask Yzerman as I'm one of those fans. Of course it was exciting watching early Yzerman, no doubt, but as a paying fan losing each year in the playoffs SUCKED. His change in style didn't bother me once we were able to win consistently in the playoffs. Despite what you say about no one cares who wins the Cup - that's true to every fan of the other 29 teams but to the one teams fans it does matter.

Out of curiosity what teams do you find entertaining?

Songburst

pearljim wrote:

In pro sports success is defined by won/loss records.

I truly understand part of your entertainment statement but then why have a championship? Why not just have teams play for no other reason but to play? All 30 teams and owners play to win the Cup, nothing else. If Chicago, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Detroit could win the Cup this year by playing a totally offensive style game don't you think they would? Quennville isn't sitting down today trying to figure out how to entertain fans tomorrow.
I didn't see too many games by Tampa Bay but I bet they had many exciting games but lost most. As a fan of hockey I don't think I'd keep shelling out money for it.....

I don't have to ask Yzerman as I'm one of those fans. Of course it was exciting watching early Yzerman, no doubt, but as a paying fan losing each year in the playoffs SUCKED. His change in style didn't bother me once we were able to win consistently in the playoffs. Despite what you say about no one cares who wins the Cup - that's true to every fan of the other 29 teams but to the one teams fans it does matter.

Out of curiosity what teams do you find entertaining?

I would argue that success in pro sports is actually defined by profit and not by record.

Quenville should be thinking about entertaining fans because that is what those guys are paid to do. Look at Brian Burke as a GM. Every place he has managed, his teams were all fast, tough, aggressive (and successful) and he makes no bones about saying that is he expects his teams to entertain first and succeed second. As much as I hate the Leafs, I think that they will be a great team to watch in 2 or 3 years.

As far as teams that I find entertaining, I really like to watch the Pacific Division teams play each other -- those are usually games that feature lots of scoring chances, lots of animosity (I think that this is what the Wings lack the most -- there really isn't anybody on their team to hate to create a game within a game atmosphere -- I know that I'm never sitting on the edge of my seat hoping that somebody creams Lidstrom). The Pens/Caps, Canes/Bruins and Hawks/Canucks series were all amazing to watch whether you were a fan of those teams or not. I really think that you had to be a Wings fan or a Ducks fan to watch those Wings-Ducks games and the Ducks are pretty much a team that I would watch whenever I got a chance. Maybe I'm nuts but I think that the Wings games are really tough to get into.

NCBRI

Ugghhh, too many mistakes for the Canes tonight. Reminded me of Game 1 against Boston in that respect. Still, oh so close to a game tying goal from Staal late. Hope Ruutu and Cole are OK. We will need them if we are going to salvage a split on the road to open the series.

blackredyellow

Songburst wrote:

I would argue that success in pro sports is actually defined by profit and not by record.

Quenville should be thinking about entertaining fans because that is what those guys are paid to do.

That could be the most asinine thing that I've ever read regarding sports...

GM: "Hey coach, why were the players flying around up and down the ice giving up all sorts of scoring chances in our 7-5 loss? It was like a jailbreak out there."

Coach: "Because boss, I'm here to entertain the fans... it would be nice if we won, but above all, we just want to put on a good show"

GM: "Entertain?!?!?! we're in 12 place... start packing up your office, because you're fired."


Coaches are paid to win games, period...

You seem to be getting actual sports confused with professional wrestling.

Songburst

blackredyellow wrote:

That could be the most asinine thing that I've ever read regarding sports...

GM: "Hey coach, why were the players flying around up and down the ice giving up all sorts of scoring chances in our 7-5 loss? It was like a jailbreak out there."

Coach: "Because boss, I'm here to entertain the fans... it would be nice if we won, but above all, we just want to put on a good show"

GM: "Entertain?!?!?! we're in 12 place... start packing up your office, because you're fired."


Coaches are paid to win games, period...

You seem to be getting actual sports confused with professional wrestling.

In your little fictional conversation, any GM worth his salt would likely have said: "Did you see how worked up the crowd was even though we lost that game 7-5? I bet you that every person that was at this game will come back and see these teams play each other again. Great game." A GM's bread is buttered by asses in the seats and little else.

I would rather watch a 12th place team that plays hard and entertains night after night than watch a machine-team rattle off Cup after Cup without playing any emotional hockey.

I found it very interesting that a couple of Hawks players said that they found it hard to get into the Wings games because there was no animosity or trash-talking between the two teams during the game. The Wings kept their mouths shut, played their ultra-disciplined system and lulled their opponent into yet another loss.

milarso

Songburst wrote:

I found it very interesting that a couple of Hawks players said that they found it hard to get into the Wings games because there was no animosity or trash-talking between the two teams during the game. The Wings kept their mouths shut, played their ultra-disciplined system and lulled their opponent into yet another loss.

Any professional athlete who can't get up for a playoff game because they don't talk shit to one another shouldn't be playing professionally.