2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Skintag Necklace
CC Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Skintag Necklace »

Hockey Widow wrote: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.

It will catch up to them . What the hell does that mean ? Wallow in mediocrity so you don't build up too much depth because it will catch up to you . Don't stockpile too many good players at every position because it will catch up to you. Management 101 right there.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4272
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Rumsfeld »

Skintag Necklace wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote: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.

It will catch up to them . What the hell does that mean ? Wallow in mediocrity so you don't build up too much depth because it will catch up to you . Don't stockpile too many good players at every position because it will catch up to you. Management 101 right there.
:lol:

Fuckin' love this guy!
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Island Nucklehead »

The Brown Knight wrote: 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.
Yikes.

They're certainly a great team, you have to be to win the Cup... but c'mon, really? If the Sharks were any kind of consistent, they wouldn't have made it past round 1. If the Hawks could've held it together defensively, they wouldn't have made the Final. The West is much, much better than the East and the Final was over before it started. Yes, LA had to go through a gauntlet to win it, but they were neither dominant, nor convincing along the way. This could've very easily been Chicago's third cup in five years.

They are a deep team, strong in all areas, but they are no Super-Team Dynasty.

And you're right out to lunch when it comes to the 2010 Hawks. Just look at the players scattered around the league that would be seriously coveted by a host of teams. Guys like Campbell, Ladd, Byfuglien are players that became franchise cornerstones for other teams. A player like Dave Bolland is now regarded as a high-level shut down center and likely to be paid in the $4-5M per year category. Anti Niemi is a starting goalie on one of the better teams in the league. John Madden was just hanging on that team, when he wasn't taking his pants off in a limo with Patty Kane.

Again, the Kings are a great team, built for the playoffs with veteran leadership and youthful depth... but they won't be going down in history in the same category as the 02 Wings or 10 Hawks. Just a quick glance at the series results should tell you this: playing 3 game 7's generally means you aren't significantly better than the teams you are beating.

Also, the 2010 Hawks never saw an elimination game, the 2014 LA Kings saw seven.
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by The Brown Knight »

Island Nucklehead wrote: Yikes.

They're certainly a great team, you have to be to win the Cup... but c'mon, really? If the Sharks were any kind of consistent, they wouldn't have made it past round 1.


True, but I think had more to do with the Kings going into beast mode than it did with the Sharks not being consistent enough. For the past 3 seasons, the Kings simply go into this weird 'beast mode' come playoff time. I've never seen any other team do this. San Jose had the Kings on the ropes and then got completely and utterly butt-fucked when the Kings flipped the switch.

If the Hawks could've held it together defensively, they wouldn't have made the Final. The West is much, much better than the East and the Final was over before it started. Yes, LA had to go through a gauntlet to win it, but they were neither dominant, nor convincing along the way. This could've very easily been Chicago's third cup in five years.
Definitely. Like I said - this current version of the Hawks (2013 and 2014) are also freakin' unbelievable in my opinion. This Anaheim Ducks team was also a very dangerous and deep team. No matter how you slice it, the Kings beat both teams back to back.

And you're right out to lunch when it comes to the 2010 Hawks. Just look at the players scattered around the league that would be seriously coveted by a host of teams. Guys like Campbell, Ladd, Byfuglien are players that became franchise cornerstones for other teams. A player like Dave Bolland is now regarded as a high-level shut down center and likely to be paid in the $4-5M per year category. Anti Niemi is a starting goalie on one of the better teams in the league. John Madden was just hanging on that team, when he wasn't taking his pants off in a limo with Patty Kane.
[/quote][/quote]

Are you talking about Brian Campbell? I would hardly call him a franchise cornerstone player in Florida (especially at that ridiculous cap hit), but I haven't been following him much. Byfuglien became gay and fat upon arriving in Winnipeg (still a good player, but hardly a cornerstone franchise). You're right about Andrew Ladd however. Bolland is a 3rd line center on a good team, and a borderline 2nd line center on most teams. I do agree though - there will be some sucker of a team that will pay Bolland between 4-5 million per year.

In Chicago, Niemi hid behind Keith, Seabrook, and Chicago's defensively responsible forwards. For the most part, he has been an "above average" but non-elite goalie ever since. Bordering on "good", but nowhere near great.

The 2010 Hawks were an extremely good team, but I thought the 2013 Hawks were on another level.
I think as a whole, there was far stiffer competition and much more talented top end teams over the past 2 seasons than there was in 2010. I think the level of play in this year's playoffs was like nothing that we've ever seen.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Island Nucklehead »

The Brown Knight wrote: Are you talking about Brian Campbell? I would hardly call him a franchise cornerstone player, but I haven't been following him much. Byfuglien became gay and fat upon arriving in Winnipeg (still a good player, but hardly a cornerstone franchise). You're right about Andrew Ladd however. Bolland is a 3rd line center on a good team, and a borderline 2nd line center on most teams. I do agree though - there will be some sucker of a team that will pay Bolland between 4-5 million per year.
Brian Campbell's been averaging 45 point seasons since leaving the Hawks, pretty comparable production to Duncan Keith (averaging 49 pt seasons) over the past 3 seasons, actually. Byfuglien hasn't been under 50 points (lockout adjusted) since leaving the Hawks. Not bad, no? Must be nice to be able to piss away talent like that and not miss a beat... Do you think guys from the 2013 Hawks team that have since moved on (Frolik, Stalberg...) are in that same category?
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by The Brown Knight »

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Brian Campbell's been averaging 45 point seasons since leaving the Hawks, pretty comparable production to Duncan Keith (averaging 49 pt seasons) over the past 3 seasons, actually. Byfuglien hasn't been under 50 points (lockout adjusted) since leaving the Hawks. Not bad, no? Must be nice to be able to piss away talent like that and not miss a beat... Do you think guys from the 2013 Hawks team that have since moved on (Frolik, Stalberg...) are in that same category?
The thing with Campbell, is that he brings almost nothing else to the table other than offense. Not only that, but he comes with an extremely heavy cap hit (not that this has anything to do with our debate, but I thought I'd mention). I don't think Campbell is regarded as being one of the best defensemen in the league, and I also suspect that if the Panthers had a chance to move Campbell (given his cap hit), they would. I don't think one can call Campbell a "franchise defenseman" like you can with Keith. Keith brings far more to the table.

Byfuglien also has some very significant holes in his game. There is a reason why he didn't make Team USA this year. Byfuglien is still a good player, but he hasn't really been the same since the 2010 playoffs. Again - like Campbell, I wouldn't consider him to be a "franchise guy" despite being a pretty good player.

You're right about Frolik and Stalberg.

I don't know. It's subjectivity on my part, but I wasn't overly impressed with that 2010 Chicago team. They were great no doubt, but I saw some holes and chinks in the armour. I think the 2013 Hawks were better as a whole, and the Kings of this year defeated what was essentially that 2013 Hawks team (and this 2014 Kings team is essentially the same team that won it in 2012 and almost no team in recent history has dominated a playoff like those 2012 Kings).
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4272
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Rumsfeld »

Island Nucklehead wrote:
The Brown Knight wrote: Are you talking about Brian Campbell? I would hardly call him a franchise cornerstone player, but I haven't been following him much. Byfuglien became gay and fat upon arriving in Winnipeg (still a good player, but hardly a cornerstone franchise). You're right about Andrew Ladd however. Bolland is a 3rd line center on a good team, and a borderline 2nd line center on most teams. I do agree though - there will be some sucker of a team that will pay Bolland between 4-5 million per year.
Brian Campbell's been averaging 45 point seasons since leaving the Hawks, pretty comparable production to Duncan Keith (averaging 49 pt seasons) over the past 3 seasons, actually. Byfuglien hasn't been under 50 points (lockout adjusted) since leaving the Hawks. Not bad, no? Must be nice to be able to piss away talent like that and not miss a beat... Do you think guys from the 2013 Hawks team that have since moved on (Frolik, Stalberg...) are in that same category?
Yup. The 2010 Blackhawks were by far the best post-lockout team yet on paper... and I'd say on the ice as well.

The only advantage the 2013 squad had on them was that Toews and Kane were a few years older and a few years better. The third and fourth lines were not comparable at all.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by The Brown Knight »

Rumsfeld wrote: Yup. The 2010 Blackhawks were by far the best post-lockout team yet on paper... and I'd say on the ice as well.

The only advantage the 2013 squad had on them was that Toews and Kane were a few years older and a few years better. The third and fourth lines were not comparable at all.
But how do you explain the Hawks' utter dominance of the 2013 regular season? They were on pace for over 130+ points.

The 2010 Hawks team was a very talented team no doubt, but I think they would've been hard pressed to defeat both Boston teams (2011 an 2013), along with the Kings teams of 2012 and 2014. I think both of those LA and Boston teams would have stifled those free style Hawk teams big time. I think this would've done one or two of three things:

1) Force the Hawks to more risks/pinches to counter the stifling opposing D.........which would have then exposed a very mediocre Anti Niemmi.

2) Force the Hawks to go against their natural run-and-gun style at the time which would play right into the hands of teams like LA and Boston.

3) Hot-heads such as Burrish, Eager, etc., would have been suckered into taking more dumb penalties as a result of being frustrated.

Offensively, that 2010 Hawks team was bloody dangerous, and they had a great mix of skill, speed, and size, but there were some chinks in the armour there defensively. You look at some of those games against the Flyers and Canucks, and you'll notice that both teams were successful in having some games where they scored 4+ goals in 2-3 of those games.

It's all a moot point though. Who knows what the fuck would have happened. Just my guess though. I think these current verisons of Chicago (2013-2014) and LA (2012-2014) are a class above the rest of the league, and do deserve comparisons to those Avs/Wings teams from 2001-2002.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Legend
Posts: 4272
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Raqqa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Rumsfeld »

The Brown Knight wrote:
Rumsfeld wrote: Yup. The 2010 Blackhawks were by far the best post-lockout team yet on paper... and I'd say on the ice as well.

The only advantage the 2013 squad had on them was that Toews and Kane were a few years older and a few years better. The third and fourth lines were not comparable at all.
But how do you explain the Hawks' utter dominance of the 2013 regular season? They were on pace for over 130+ points.
Shortened season. Lots of teams go on amazing streaks for 40-50 games and can't continue that pace for 82 games.

Island Nuck already explained why they were a much deeper team and a better team statistically in the playoffs than the ones you have such a brown boner for. :D

If you're really looking for a Kings team to splooge all over you should look no further than their 2012 squad, which had the best playoff record, IIRC, in recent times.
Last edited by Rumsfeld on Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by The Brown Knight »

Rumsfeld wrote: Island Nuck already explained why they were a much deeper team and a better team statistically in the playoffs than the ones you have such a brown boner for. :D
LOL.

No Brown Hindu boners for any of those teams.

Dislike all of them equally. :P

Go Canucks Go!
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
Skintag Necklace
CC Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Skintag Necklace »

The Brown Knight wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Brian Campbell's been averaging 45 point seasons since leaving the Hawks, pretty comparable production to Duncan Keith (averaging 49 pt seasons) over the past 3 seasons, actually. Byfuglien hasn't been under 50 points (lockout adjusted) since leaving the Hawks. Not bad, no? Must be nice to be able to piss away talent like that and not miss a beat... Do you think guys from the 2013 Hawks team that have since moved on (Frolik, Stalberg...) are in that same category?
The thing with Campbell, is that he brings almost nothing else to the table other than offense. Not only that, but he comes with an extremely heavy cap hit (not that this has anything to do with our debate, but I thought I'd mention). I don't think Campbell is regarded as being one of the best defensemen in the league, and I also suspect that if the Panthers had a chance to move Campbell (given his cap hit), they would. I don't think one can call Campbell a "franchise defenseman" like you can with Keith. Keith brings far more to the table.

Byfuglien also has some very significant holes in his game. There is a reason why he didn't make Team USA this year. Byfuglien is still a good player, but he hasn't really been the same since the 2010 playoffs. Again - like Campbell, I wouldn't consider him to be a "franchise guy" despite being a pretty good player.

You're right about Frolik and Stalberg.

I don't know. It's subjectivity on my part, but I wasn't overly impressed with that 2010 Chicago team. They were great no doubt, but I saw some holes and chinks in the armour. I think the 2013 Hawks were better as a whole, and the Kings of this year defeated what was essentially that 2013 Hawks team (and this 2014 Kings team is essentially the same team that won it in 2012 and almost no team in recent history has dominated a playoff like those 2012 Kings).

You lose any credibility not recognizing what is obvious to a fan with even passing knowledge of NHL hockey. The Hawks 2009-10 roster is far and away the best team since the 04 lockout. It may be the best team in the last 15 years however the 01 Avs and the 02 Wings would be in that conversation as well.
User avatar
Skintag Necklace
CC Rookie
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Skintag Necklace »

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 wasn't even cleared to play until the end of summer . Was Mike Gillis just supposed to wait around and see how it went before aquiring another d man or two to plug the holes . Dan Hamhuis is a better player regardless. Get off the cheap whiskey from the Westbank reserve and get back to reality.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 14967
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Cornuck »

Plus he was looking for 2 or more years coming off a bad concussion. Not worth the risk at the time.

I thought he looked a lot better in the Final this year than when he played for us.
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
User avatar
The Brown Knight
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:42 am

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by The Brown Knight »

Skintag Necklace wrote:
You lose any credibility not recognizing what is obvious to a fan with even passing knowledge of NHL hockey. The Hawks 2009-10 roster is far and away the best team since the 04 lockout. It may be the best team in the last 15 years however the 01 Avs and the 02 Wings would be in that conversation as well.
Meh.

I don't think it's worth too much time pondering over. I also referenced the 2001 Avs and 2002 Wings and so voila, I gain back atleast 40% of my credibility Johnny on the spot. :P

That 2010 Hawks that won the Cup were quite similar to the 2009 Hawks team, and that 2009 Hawks team got absolutely shit-canned by the Wings in 5 games that year (and the Wings of 2009 were a shell of their 2008 team). So, perhaps that 2008 Red Wings team consisting of Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc., deserve some love as well.

That Chicago 2010 team had a lot of style, "coolness", and talent, which I think made them a loveable team by fans in the NHL. They certainly were a talented team, without question. However - during those 2 seasons of 2009 and 2010, the Hawks never really faced a truly elite team. The ONE time they did, was against the Wings in 2009, and they got shit canned in 5.

In 2010 - they played against a Nashville team that had a pop-gun offense if I recall correctly, followed by very mediocre Vancouver and San Jose teams that possessed neither a top elite defensive pairing nor a top 3 elite goalie in the league. Both Vancouver and San Jose's psychological issues come playoff time have been well documented.

In the finals, the Hawks played against a Flyers team that was kind of there by fluke (they almost got completely rag dolled by Boston until Boston's arrogance as a team set in which allowed Philly to win 4 straight). The Flyers had Pronger, but they didn't have an elite goalie and had a lot of question marks as a team.

Again - the only real "good" team that the Hawks played between 2009 and 2010 in the playoffs, was a slightly watered down version of the 2008 Cup winning Wings team and they got bitch-slapped in 5 games. Granted -Hawks were one year more mature in 2010 than 2009, but I just don't think that team as a whole was "all that."

Nashville, Vancouver, and Philadelphia all had multiple games against the Hawks in those playoffs where they scored tons of goals. Chicago's offense however, kept them afloat. Against more modern teams like LA, Boston, and the current Chicago Blackhawks, I don't think this would've been the case.
"I post the Brown Way" ~ Connor McHindu"

The Dark Indian Rises
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Post by Island Nucklehead »

Doubling down eh? Bad choice...
The Brown Knight wrote: That 2010 Hawks that won the Cup were quite similar to the 2009 Hawks team, and that 2009 Hawks team got absolutely shit-canned by the Wings in 5 games that year (and the Wings of 2009 were a shell of their 2008 team). So, perhaps that 2008 Red Wings team consisting of Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc., deserve some love as well.
You mean the 2009 Hawks team that featured Marty Havlat as its leading scorer? That had 20-year olds Kane and Toews taking them to the conference finals and losing to the defending cup champs and the highest scoring team in the league that finished 3rd overall? A team that had 4 30-goal scorers? Yeah... 3 fewer regular season points and a 1-goal game-7 loss in the cup finals sure indicates those Wings were a "shell" of their former selves. Do you believe half the shit you post?

I'll make this simple and list the players who didn't play on both 2010 and 2013 Cup teams, and you tell me which group of guys you'd rather have:

(2013) Saad, Stalberg, Leddy, Shaw, Kruger, Rozsival, Frolik, Handzus, Hayes, Carcillo, Morin, Meyers, Brookbank, Smith, Bollig, Crawford and Emery

OR

(2010) Byfuglien, Versteeg, Brouwer, Kopecky, Ladd, Sopel, Campbell, Eager, Madden, Boynton, Burish, Fraser, Hendry, Niemi and Huet.

Take your pick, I know which team I'd choose and it's not even close.
Post Reply