Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
okcanuck wrote:We didn't lose Willie we chose to get rid of him.His cap hit wasn't that bad at the time,considering how the plugs Gillis brought in to replace him have performed. No, Gillis completely blew it with Willie
Gillis and his so-called loyalty to his players was a lie. Here was a BC player , a big and tough defence man, and a great teammate who was discarded unceremoniously. We sure could have used him the last 3 years.
He was thought to be one hit away from playing with a bib, and our flat-footed D had just been torched by the Hawks.
If there's a defenseman GMMG blew it with, it was Ehrhoff.
The Brown Knight wrote:It takes a lot for me to be impressed, but I can honestly say that I rank this 2014 LA team and 2013 Chicago team right up there with the 2001 Avalanche and 2002 Wings in terms of greatest hockey teams ever assembled in the modern era.
The 2010 Hawks would've smoked the 2013 Hawks.
And the 2014 Kings one of the greatest teams of the modern era? LOL.
The were a 100 point, 6th-seeded team who needed three game sevens just to get to the Final.
The Brown Knight wrote:It takes a lot for me to be impressed, but I can honestly say that I rank this 2014 LA team and 2013 Chicago team right up there with the 2001 Avalanche and 2002 Wings in terms of greatest hockey teams ever assembled in the modern era.
The 2010 Hawks would've smoked the 2013 Hawks.
And the 2014 Kings one of the greatest teams of the modern era? LOL.
The were a 100 point, 6th-seeded team who needed three game sevens just to get to the Final.
Will have to disagree with your 2010 Hawks vs. 2013 Hawks. 2013 Hawks were on pace to having over 130+ points if I recall correctly. They completely and utterly dominated the 2013 season.
I think you might be right about the 2014 Kings, but keep in mind that the way they play in the playoffs is quite different from how they playoff in the regular season. After being down 3-0 to the Sharks, the Kings went into complete beast mode and destroyed the Sharks in 4 straight. Chicago and Anaheim are two very exceptional teams, and the Kings beat both of them back to back, and then proceeded to defeat the Rangers in 5 games.
In my opinion, these recent 2013 and 2014 Hawks and Kings are a class above the rest of the Cup champions in recent years (perhaps the 2008 Red Wings belong on that list as well), and are on the same level as the Avs/Wings from 2001 and 2002 respectively.
The Brown Knight wrote:It takes a lot for me to be impressed, but I can honestly say that I rank this 2014 LA team and 2013 Chicago team right up there with the 2001 Avalanche and 2002 Wings in terms of greatest hockey teams ever assembled in the modern era.
The 2010 Hawks would've smoked the 2013 Hawks.
And the 2014 Kings one of the greatest teams of the modern era? LOL.
The were a 100 point, 6th-seeded team who needed three game sevens just to get to the Final.
Will have to disagree with your 2010 Hawks vs. 2013 Hawks. 2013 Hawks were on pace to having over 130+ points if I recall correctly. They completely and utterly dominated the 2013 season.
I think you might be right about the 2014 Kings, but keep in mind that the way they play in the playoffs is quite different from how they playoff in the regular season. After being down 3-0 to the Sharks, the Kings went into complete beast mode and destroyed the Sharks in 4 straight. Chicago and Anaheim are two very exceptional teams, and the Kings beat both of them back to back, and then proceeded to defeat the Rangers in 5 games.
In my opinion, these recent 2013 and 2014 Hawks and Kings are a class above the rest of the Cup champions in recent years (perhaps the 2008 Red Wings belong on that list as well), and are on the same level as the Avs/Wings from 2001 and 2002 respectively.
Look at the roster of the 2010 Hawks. It kicks the shit out of their roster now and last year.
The Kings chief strength was in the depth required to wear good teams down in a series, not in ability to play the game at the highest level of skill. As the Kings progressed through the playoffs, the importance of their depth increased. Attrition was the Kings biggest playoff weapon.
That said, the Kings don't need a series to beat down the Tortorella coached Canucks.
sagebrush wrote:The Kings chief strength was in the depth required to wear good teams down in a series, not in ability to play the game at the highest level of skill. As the Kings progressed through the playoffs, the importance of their depth increased. Attrition was the Kings biggest playoff weapon.
That said, the Kings don't need a series to beat down the Tortorella coached Canucks.
Yeah, Mike Richards was their "4th line" centre. That basically sums things up.
sagebrush wrote:The Kings chief strength was in the depth required to wear good teams down in a series, not in ability to play the game at the highest level of skill. As the Kings progressed through the playoffs, the importance of their depth increased. Attrition was the Kings biggest playoff weapon.
That said, the Kings don't need a series to beat down the Tortorella coached Canucks.
Yeah, Mike Richards was their "4th line" centre. That basically sums things up.
And he looked like a 4th line center all season too. The guy has completely fallen off....too many rails probably.
The Habs had Danielle Briere on their 4th line, it didn't turn them into worldbeaters.
Lapierre was more effective on the 4th line for the Canucks in '11 than Richards was for the Kings in '14.
sagebrush wrote:The Kings chief strength was in the depth required to wear good teams down in a series, not in ability to play the game at the highest level of skill. As the Kings progressed through the playoffs, the importance of their depth increased. Attrition was the Kings biggest playoff weapon.
That said, the Kings don't need a series to beat down the Tortorella coached Canucks.
Yeah, Mike Richards was their "4th line" centre. That basically sums things up.
And he looked like a 4th line center all season too. The guy has completely fallen off....too many rails probably.
The Habs had Danielle Briere on their 4th line, it didn't turn them into worldbeaters.
Lapierre was more effective on the 4th line for the Canucks in '11 than Richards was for the Kings in '14.
I think it's safe to say that Richards is the best "4th line" centre in hockey. If you disagree, name me one you think is better.
Rumsfeld wrote:
And he looked like a 4th line center all season too. The guy has completely fallen off....too many rails probably.
The Habs had Danielle Briere on their 4th line, it didn't turn them into worldbeaters.
Lapierre was more effective on the 4th line for the Canucks in '11 than Richards was for the Kings in '14.
Pretty much agree with this, although I'd argue that Richards looked like more of a 3rd line calibre center all season long rather than a 4th (he only played on the 4th in LA since LA is stacked down the middle).
I'm basing this on nothing, but I suspect that Richards' partying ways outside of the rink is catching up to him. That was the reason why he was booted from Philly was he not?
I'll be very surprised if Richards isn't traded or even bought out by this summer. I wonder if Florida would be interested in Richards?
Betamax wrote:
I think it's safe to say that Richards is the best "4th line" centre in hockey. If you disagree, name me one you think is better.
in 2014 I'd say Gregory Campbell is a more effective player. I'm sure there are probably others.
The Hawks had Handzus, Versteeg, and at times Shaw playing 4C this season.
Richards did fuck all these playoffs.
Gregory Campbell, 2014 Playoffs, 12gp, ZERO points. 11:18 ATOI
Mike Richards, 2014 Playoffs, 26gp, TEN points. 15:33 ATOI
Anyway, it's pretty clear that Richards was more than a "4th line centre", given the average ice time he received and how he was deplored but it just shows how much depth they have at C when he was at times their 4th C option.
Betamax wrote:
I think it's safe to say that Richards is the best "4th line" centre in hockey. If you disagree, name me one you think is better.
in 2014 I'd say Gregory Campbell is a more effective player. I'm sure there are probably others.
The Hawks had Handzus, Versteeg, and at times Shaw playing 4C this season.
Richards did fuck all these playoffs.
Gregory Campbell, 2014 Playoffs, 12gp, ZERO points. 11:18 ATOI
Mike Richards, 2014 Playoffs, 26gp, TEN points. 15:33 ATOI
Anyway, it's pretty clear that Richards was more than a "4th line centre", given the average ice time he received and how he was deplored but it just shows how much depth they have at C when he was at times their 4th C option.
You're living in the past, Beta.
Richards is really not an important piece of the Kings anymore. And he was getting second-line minutes this playoffs anyway.
Rumsfeld wrote:Richards is really not an important piece of the Kings anymore. And he was getting second-line minutes this playoffs anyway.
Richards is probably trade fodder, as they probably need the cap space to re-sign Gaborik and others; they will possibly have to retain some AAV like what the Canucks did with Lu's contract.
The Kings have tremendous depth but like all cap teams it will catch up to them. Maybe not next year but soon enough. The days of dynasties in the NHL are over. They will still be a good, competitive contender type team but it will catch up to them.
