Jump to content

congrats to the 2013-14 Champs, the Kings


msweet

Recommended Posts

As I find myself cheering for the Kings this week, all I can say is Doughty is the best defenseman in the NHL. Period. His puck handling skills and decision making are both top notch.

Makes you think about what Scott Niedermayer could have done if the Devils would have let him when he was that age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how terrible Brad Richards has become.  Shows the high risk and folly with giving out big money longer terms contracts to guys already well over 30.

 

I don't see how they don't buy out Richards despite his buddy-buddy relationship with St. Louis.  Rangers fans might cry about the officials, but Richards was instrumental in not one but two of the Kings goals tonight.

 

And Lundqvist might complain about that goal, but for every good save or sequence he's coming up just as small in some key spots.  Goaltending as a whole has been pretty craptastic at times these playoffs.  Some big saves and a good game here or there (including Lundqvist), but no consistency in games or in series.  No goalie has really owned a series these playoffs.

 

Brad Richards was always bad on defense, now he just lacks the offense to go with it.  He can certainly be a 2 C somewhere (and hell, I'd take him on a 1 year 5M deal if NJ misses out of Stastny), it's just not on a team with heavy Cup aspirations.

 

It's still tough for the Rangers to buy out Richards because they don't have another player who can do what he does, and the free agent market, Stastny aside, is barren.  They'd have to trade for Spezza, Thornton, or Kesler, and they don't have 1st round picks in either of the next 2 drafts, making it really difficult on them - they'd have to give up at least one of Kreider and Hagelin, along with other good stuff, and they don't have that much good stuff that's tradeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't "stole" any games, but if you are asking any goalie in the world to steal any games against this Kings team, you are asking too much. The Kings threw 41 shots on Lundqvist in regulation of game 1, and he only let in 2 goals. That was an excellent excellent game...especially considering he made 20 saves on 20 shots in the 3rd. He deserved a better fate.

 

Last night, he was not as good. But perhaps you aren't giving Lundqvist enough credit, or don't want to or don't realize how good the Kings are and how the Rangers defense isn't excellent.

 

I'll use Brodeur as an example here to compare what you are asking/expecting from Lundqvist compared to another goalie in the Cup Finals. In the Stanley Cup win vs Dallas. Brodeur faced a combined 35 shots in the 1st two games of that series. 40 in game 3 and 4 combined. Only 41 shots in the triple OT game 5 and only 31 in double OT Cup winning game (18, 17, 23, 17, 41, 31). In the 2003 Finals, Brodeur faced 16 shots in game1 and 2 and only 1 game over 26 shots (33 in games 3 OT finish). Game 5-7 he faced 22, 23 and 24 shots. Lastly in the Finals win against the Wings, Marty faced 17, 18,  24 and 16 shots in the 4 wins.

This is a good Kings team but we're not talking about Gretzky's oilers.  The Kings are a very good team and one of the best this year.  They deserve to be in the finals.  For the record, however, the Kings only scored 1 more goal in the regular season than the goal challenged Devils.  This is certainly a team that a goalie can steal a game against.  If you read my post thoroughly, you'd notice that I was pointing out that a legend can be born by stealing a game on this stage.  He hasn't so far.  That's the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers are playing way better than I expected against these king. and its not only about their team speed although that's helping in many areas

 

the rags breakouts have been very good, they aren't getting fore-checked heavily, they are making thing difficult in the neutral zone for the kings, and the kings are having trouble with their zone entries. hits are about equal too, so the physical play hasn't hurt the rags either.  that was nash's better game, I actually thought he was going to win it. zuccarela's skating well, and there forth line is giving good mins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes you think about what Scott Niedermayer could have done if the Devils would have let him when he was that age.

Funny you mention that because I was making the Niedermayer / Doughty comparison last night while watching the game. Lemaire reigned him in for sure. Neids was such a great defenseman, I'm not sure the Devils understood what they had in him because of the presence of Stevens and Daneyko.

Edited by slasher72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good Kings team but we're not talking about Gretzky's oilers. The Kings are a very good team and one of the best this year. They deserve to be in the finals. For the record, however, the Kings only scored 1 more goal in the regular season than the goal challenged Devils. This is certainly a team that a goalie can steal a game against. If you read my post thoroughly, you'd notice that I was pointing out that a legend can be born by stealing a game on this stage. He hasn't so far. That's the point.

How did we look so slow and physically challenged against this Kings team? Have they changed that much in 2 years? I was at Game 1 at the Rock during the Finals and even during the skatearound, the Kings seemed so damn quick on the ice. I remember thinking "oh sh*t, we better be on our game" even before the puck dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP, what that view is missing is that Dwight King was in the crease to begin with - yeah he gets pushed a little into Lundqvist, but not substantially - he puts himself inside the crease.  It was a pretty clear call, the refs just missed it.  Lundqvist wasn't going to be able to make the save regardless of King being actually pushed into him - where King was standing was impeding Lundqvist's ability to get the puck.

I disagree 

 

856074234.gif

King is set to skate to the front of the crease, I imagine to set a screen infront of lundqvist, maybe his foot will slide through the crease a little on his way but he won't interfere with henrik on his original course. It's McDonough that changes King's course and steers him into lundqvist.

This could have been waived off as incidental, or not. I think it's a coinflip, not as clear cut as every Rangers fan in mourning is making it out to seem.

Edit: ha, embedded the gif

Edited by squishyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good Kings team but we're not talking about Gretzky's oilers.  The Kings are a very good team and one of the best this year.  They deserve to be in the finals.  For the record, however, the Kings only scored 1 more goal in the regular season than the goal challenged Devils.  This is certainly a team that a goalie can steal a game against.  If you read my post thoroughly, you'd notice that I was pointing out that a legend can be born by stealing a game on this stage.  He hasn't so far.  That's the point. 

 

Fair enough. The Kings are a weird team. This is the second time in the Finals where an offensively challenged team came alive and looked dominant in the playoffs. The Gaborik trade was big, but they seem to always underachieve in the scoring department. The emergence of Toffoli and Pearson have been game changers as well. When everything is clicking, this team has a lot of fire power.

 

Lundqvist has to be better if the Rangers want to get back in this series.

Edited by devilsrule33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad Richards was always bad on defense, now he just lacks the offense to go with it.  He can certainly be a 2 C somewhere (and hell, I'd take him on a 1 year 5M deal if NJ misses out of Stastny), it's just not on a team with heavy Cup aspirations.

 

It's still tough for the Rangers to buy out Richards because they don't have another player who can do what he does, and the free agent market, Stastny aside, is barren.  They'd have to trade for Spezza, Thornton, or Kesler, and they don't have 1st round picks in either of the next 2 drafts, making it really difficult on them - they'd have to give up at least one of Kreider and Hagelin, along with other good stuff, and they don't have that much good stuff that's tradeable.

 

Kreider and Hagelin are big reasons why they are even in the Cup finals.  I agree with the difficulty of buying him out.  Tough choice for the Rangers.  I don't think they can get Spezza, Thornton, Kesler without hurting themselves.  I think they will keep Brassard and hope for the best that Richards can be protected more, because he's getting really exposed.  I know Ranger fans think JT Miller is worth a billion dollars

 

Their defense has come through in crunch time and it's delivered more offense, but it's not a unit I really fear, especially if they lose Stralman as I don't see much in their pipeline the next few years aside from McIlrath but the jury is still out as to his potential  development (kinda of iffy).  Staal is an okay defenseman but much like Clowe, hee's one hit away from being done.  fMcDonagh is just as solid as they come, and now with more offensive contributions than ever before, despite fighting through an apparent injury these playoffs.  Girardi is what he is.  A tough grinding defenseman who is pretty limited to eating up defensive assignments in 5v5 and PK situations.  He's been picked on a lot more than I remember this season and these playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. The Kings are a weird team. This is the second time in the Finals where an offensively challenged team came alive and looked dominant in the playoffs. The Gaborik trade was big, but they seem to always underachieve in the scoring department. The emergence of Toffoli and Pearson have been game changers as well. When everything is clicking, this team has a lot of fire power.

 

Lundqvist has to be better if the Rangers want to get back in this series.

 

They are much more balanced now and the offense is firing with all the scoring depth, solid role players.  Just well filled out roster.

 

However, their defensive corps is noticeably not as good as back in 2012 (despite the offensive potency from the back end that Voynov and Doughty provide) and Quick's sloppiness has exposed/exacerbated that.  The offense has had to bail them out numerous times this postseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That delay of game rule needs to be changed. Could you imagine if that cost someone the game in overtime of game 7 for the cup? It's ridiculous.

They should just make the rule that if you throw the puck out of play in your own end that you can't change lines for the faceoff.

Yep, been saying that since they implemented this stupid rule.  Imagine overtime in Game 7 of the finals and a team is killing a penalty and a clearing attempt goes over the glass, now it's a five on three with everything on the line.  It would especially be a disaster if the first penalty that put them on the kill to begin with was a bad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree 

 

856074234.gif

King is set to skate to the front of the crease, I imagine to set a screen infront of lundqvist, maybe his foot will slide through the crease a little on his way but he won't interfere with henrik on his original course. It's McDonough that changes King's course and steers him into lundqvist.

This could have been waived off as incidental, or not. I think it's a coinflip, not as clear cut as every Rangers fan in mourning is making it out to seem.

Edit: ha, embedded the gif

 

He's clearly going through the crease though, you can't just run through the crease like that.  The explanation that Lundqvist was given was that the puck was already by him, which is not correct at all, so the refs got the call wrong even if they ultimately got the call right.  It's at least incidental contact, maybe a penalty.

Funny you mention that because I was making the Niedermayer / Doughty comparison last night while watching the game. Lemaire reigned him in for sure. Neids was such a great defenseman, I'm not sure the Devils understood what they had in him because of the presence of Stevens and Daneyko.

 

You guys do all realize that Niedermayer and Doughty basically have the same number of points in the regular season, right?  Like, take 4 years of Doughty and take any 4 years of Niedermayer under Lemaire and they look the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You guys do all realize that Niedermayer and Doughty basically have the same number of points in the regular season, right?  Like, take 4 years of Doughty and take any 4 years of Niedermayer under Lemaire and they look the same.

 

Yup. I've seen a few articles that not only make the comparison of the players, but the comparison of the systems that both players were/are in that restricts the freedom that they could be playing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it doesn't happen to every team, but I just can't agree that the 'non-call' was the right call. My biggest issue with saying the refs did nothing wrong, is that I am 100% positive I would be finding out where the refs live if this happened to the Devils. As a matter of fact, it probably would have taken less. Dwight interferes at the exact point at which the puck beats Lundqvist. If that isn't goalie interference, then just get rid of the rule completely.

 

I'd be much quicker to agree with the argument that the refs made the right call "because the Rangers suck, and deserve to be screwed over while the rest of the league laughs at them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it doesn't happen to every team, but I just can't agree that the 'non-call' was the right call. My biggest issue with saying the refs did nothing wrong, is that I am 100% positive I would be finding out where the refs live if this happened to the Devils. As a matter of fact, it probably would have taken less. Dwight interferes at the exact point at which the puck beats Lundqvist. If that isn't goalie interference, then just get rid of the rule completely.

 

I'd be much quicker to agree with the argument that the refs made the right call "because the Rangers suck, and deserve to be screwed over while the rest of the league laughs at them."

 

There's two questions though. Did the McDonaugh nudge make the Henrik bump happen? It's hard to tell in replay, McD's a strong and capable guy. If the answer is yes, the rule's black and white, it's a goal. If the answer is no, even then you have to ask did the skates push Henrik too far to his left or was the rear bump he's complaining about the one that happened the split second after the goal went in?

 

This is definitely one of the tougher plays I've seen in a long time. I probably would've called it what the refs called it (good goal), BUT I do feel that they should be able to review it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two questions though. Did the McDonaugh nudge make the Henrik bump happen? It's hard to tell in replay, McD's a strong and capable guy. If the answer is yes, the rule's black and white, it's a goal. If the answer is no, even then you have to ask did the skates push Henrik too far to his left or was the rear bump he's complaining about the one that happened the split second after the goal went in?

 

This is definitely one of the tougher plays I've seen in a long time. I probably would've called it what the refs called it (good goal), BUT I do feel that they should be able to review it.

 

Again, King enters the crease of his own volition.  That changes the play entirely.  If King were taking a route outside the crease and were nudged in by McDonagh, then it's a clear goal.  He wasn't, so it isn't.  What happened is that King's presence in the crease impeded Lundqvist from making the save regardless if there was any body contact initiated by King.

 

Whatever, I think the ref still hasn't blown the whistle on King's Cup Finals goal in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this raises an important issue...

We have spent a couple days now debating multiple parts of this play that happened in less than a second--does McDonagh knock King into Lundqvist, how much contact is made before the puck actually goes in, etc., and even after seeing many replays from various angles we can't come to a definitive decision one way or the other, yet the referee is expected to immediately decide on all of this having seen the play happen one time, live, in full speed, with players whizzing around him, while also keeping an eye out for all other infractions (as opposed to us watching the replays specifically looking to see if there is goalie interference).  How can they possibly make correct calls on plays like this consistently without being able to review it?  These plays are too important to leave up to the referee's guess as to what happened in that split second.  Let them just check out the replay in the scorekeeper's box (we don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto) and give them a chance to see the play again and get the call right!

Edited by devilsfan26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this raises an important issue...

We have spent a couple days now debating multiple parts of this play that happened in less than a second--does McDonagh knock King into Lundqvist, how much contact is made before the puck actually goes in, etc., and even after seeing many replays from various angles we can't come to a definitive decision one way or the other, yet the referee is expected to immediately decide on all of this having seen the play happen one time, live, in full speed, with players whizzing around him, while also keeping an eye out for all other infractions (as opposed to us watching the replays specifically looking to see if there is goalie interference).  How can they possibly make correct calls on plays like this consistently without being able to review it?  These plays are too important to leave up to the referee's guess as to what happened in that split second.  Let them just check out the replay in the scorekeeper's box (we don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto) and give them a chance to see the play again and get the call right!

 

I think that's a terrible idea.  I understand the rationale, but review is horrible for sports, it completely robs the game of flow and has all sorts of unintended consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a terrible idea.  I understand the rationale, but review is horrible for sports, it completely robs the game of flow and has all sorts of unintended consequences.  

Making sure the right team wins is more important than "flow" and what are the other unintended consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making sure the right team wins is more important than "flow" and what are the other unintended consequences?

 

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

So say this play gets reviewed.  Now I think this one is pretty cut-and-dried - maybe 3 looks at it would prove it.  Meanwhile we all have to sit around waiting for the 'correct' answer.  But what if it wasn't so clear?  What if King's path was a little closer to McDonagh?  The trouble with replay in sports is that the hardest plays to call are the ones that take the most time and are ultimately inconclusive.  There's plenty of calls where the first call may be right, it may be wrong, and it's really impossible to tell.  Meanwhile the excitement value of any particular scoring play is devalued when there's a Byzantine review process after a greater portion of plays.  I'm not arguing for instant replay to go away - I actually think hockey has it right.  Whether or not a puck goes in legally are the only reviewable plays, and I'd guess that 90% of goals result in little to no delay in dropping the puck, with 5% resulting in a slight delay, and only the other 5% are legitimately disputed.

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.