So, today I wasn't able to watch the game live. I had to listen to a period in the car and later, much later, come back home to watch the rest of it. I just finished a few minutes ago.
Wow!
!
!
The Rangers are up two games to zero!
!
!
The Rangers won the game 1-0!?
!
!
!
Look, I'm a Rangers fan so I am completely and utterly thrilled this is the case. But if you told me on Wednesday morning that by Saturday evening the Rangers would be up 2-0 on the Capitals and heading back home for game three Monday night in such a good position, I would not have believed you.
Therefore, I'm stunned.
Very, very stunned.
Stunning me even more than the 2-0 series lead is the final score from today. 1-0. I heard the Callahan goal in the car, fist pumped to myself, and fully expected there to be more goals scored. And yet, apparently, there weren't.
That's kind of why I'm baffled.
That the Rangers were able to hold such an offensive team to such perimiter shots. That the Captials never seemed to look composed. That they really, even though they had 35 shots, didn't seem to put the pressure on.
What's more, I'm baffled because Wade Redden appears to be playing defense - for two games in a row now. Michal Rozsival has a pretty good playoff track record with New York, but even he looks more poised.
Guys like Callahan, with a super sharp game today and the game's only goal, don't surprise me. As the guys in broadcast said, this is been what you have been getting from Callahan since game 1. And I love Callahan for it. Marvelous player and very much deserving of getting a big game winning goal for his team.
Hank does not surprise me either. Well, that'd be a lie. He does surprise me from time to time with just how composed he is. He has an insane sense of focus. I've always admired that of him. His knowledge of the game, the way he analyzes in and out of game, what has happened, what needs to be done, and how he gets the job done. Very deserved shutout by him.
Silently - yes rather silently - Sean Avery has done good things. Antropov too. Betts and Sjostrom. Sjostrom, in fact, showed how he takes after the Callahan mold. Blocking shots, chipping away at pucks, getting injured, but coming right back. More players should be like that.
Thankfully for the Rangers, every player today seemed to have that same sense of focus, determination and sacrifice today. Chipping at loose pucks so that Washington couldn't set up. Blocking others so Hank didn't have to. Hitting a Washington player to take him off his path.
Honestly it was as if they all came together today in cohesion, the type of perfect cohesion that has eluded this team seemingly all year. They fought together, played together, and won the game together.
Even if I didn't fully expect it was possible, it was marvelous to see.
Brilliant game plan by New York. If game one was all about being opportunistic and taking momentum away from the Capitals, I'd say game two was all about the smart little hockey plays adding up and stealing confidence from the league's most dominating player.
Even if the Capitals are not playing up to their strengths or their capabilities - and I'd say they are not - the way the Rangers have stayed composed and accomplished their game plan says this team has come miles from where they were a month ago. That team would have found a way to give the confidence and momentum back to Washington.
So far, they've held themselves in check and have been very, very impressive.
Credit John Tortorella, credit Hank Lundqvist, but credit too, every other guy that has chipped in with a little play, a smart pass, a key contribution, all for the common good of the team. Hockey is a game of sacrifice, sacrificing yourself for the good of the taem. The Rangers certainly did that today.
If they were ever going to come together and play as a team - and all season long we've been waiting for it - I'm thankful we are seeing it when the pressure is greatest and the games count for something real.
Monday night at the Garden should be something to see. I truly can't wait.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Around the League: Do You Agree With Iron Mike. . .?
This is not actually going to be an opinion piece. It's just a thought starter. Whether you choose to respond or just ponder on your own, that's fine. But in the NHL it's going to be an ever burning question, it seems. And it always seems to hit its controversial peak during playoff time.
Just what is goaltender interference?
We watched a Stanley Cup get awarded after a controversial goal scored by Brett Hull in the Buffalo crease in 1999. Whether it was or was not a legitimate goal remains up for debate - although I bet we all know where Buffalo and Dallas fans respectively stand on the argument. But the end result was not. Due to the fact that it was overtime, and the next goal would either force the series to a game seven, or award the cup to the Stars, there was little time to react to much. Except madness. The goal went in, Dallas celebrated, and there was no time for anything to be corrected; whether it needed to be or not, I am not here to suggest. That's not the point.
Last night in game one after Chicago's Marty Havlat scored the game winning goal in overtime on Calgary's Miikka Kiprusoff, Chicago celebrated while Calgary was left to seethe over what they thought was goaltender interference from Andrew Ladd.
Keenan later referenced both the Hull goal in Buffalo and the fact that the referees either saw last night's goal differently or couldn't make a call in all the excitement of the victory. Agree or disagree on the call, the fact remains that it becomes near impossible - it would seem - to make a call in overtime of that nature. History would seem to show that.
And I asked just what is goaltender interference, because honestly, I am not sure what to think at this current point in the modern history of the sport.
Back in 1999, it was okay to be in the crease, as long as you didn't proceed the puck into it. After the Hull Stanley Cup winner, the next season saw goals disallowed if a player had the toe of his skate in the crease, even if it had nothing to do with the play at hand. Then it regressed into it being okay to have a toe in the crease, as long as it didn't interfere with the play.
In the years that followed, especially those post-lockout, those rules have pretty much been tossed away. It became, in my watching of this game, more of a judgement call on the parts of the referees as to whether or not the person in the crease actually interfered with the goaltenders ability to get to the puck, and if he did, whether or not it was his own fault that he collided with the goalie or that of an outside force. And that judgement call can vary from person to person.
That's a dangerous game, NHL referees trying to discern the affects of physics.
In the November Rangers/Capitals game earlier this year there was a goal of such controversy. It appeared evident on video review that Lundqvist could not make the save because he was being tied up on the other side of the crease by a Caps player. To me, that is interference. At the time I called it a perfect example of a clip that should be sent to the league and shown to all referees of what was, indeed, goalie interference. If a goalie cannot get across to make a stop because a player is preventing him from doing so AND that player entered the crease of his own free will, that is textbook interference in its most basic form.
Now very recently, like a week ago recently, we saw Markus Naslund get called for goaltender interference as he played the puck towards the front of the net attempting to score and collided with the goalie as he was doing the same. It was merely an example of two players going at a puck and in no way should have been viewed as anything more than a hockey play. Yet it was called.
I'm sure fans of every team can come up with their own examples of ways it has worked for and against their own team. Positive.
Hell, I'll seen more calls of goalie interference where no goal has resulted than I have when a goal does result this year. It is those that seem silly to harbor such attention over, and yet it does happen. But it is the ones where a goal is scored - and scored in overtime in the playoffs - that it can get tricky.
I could share my opinion on the Ladd/Kipper incident. My immediate reaction was, oh, Kipper didn't really get over on that shot from Havlat. I didn't realize why until the replay. And Ladd appeared to be competing for position with the D in front although how or who first made contact is harder to see.
Look, I think it's a hard call. I think some - I stress some - of these calls are hard. Maybe sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. BUT...
I just hope that when crunch time comes in the playoffs - in overtime - the right calls are given opportunity to be made. Whether a team is celebrating or not, whether the call is the popular one or not. For the sake of both teams and for the integrity of the game, which sometimes, walks a very fine line.
Just something to think about as we get set for some game 2s to take place this evening. Enjoy the action...
Just what is goaltender interference?
We watched a Stanley Cup get awarded after a controversial goal scored by Brett Hull in the Buffalo crease in 1999. Whether it was or was not a legitimate goal remains up for debate - although I bet we all know where Buffalo and Dallas fans respectively stand on the argument. But the end result was not. Due to the fact that it was overtime, and the next goal would either force the series to a game seven, or award the cup to the Stars, there was little time to react to much. Except madness. The goal went in, Dallas celebrated, and there was no time for anything to be corrected; whether it needed to be or not, I am not here to suggest. That's not the point.
Last night in game one after Chicago's Marty Havlat scored the game winning goal in overtime on Calgary's Miikka Kiprusoff, Chicago celebrated while Calgary was left to seethe over what they thought was goaltender interference from Andrew Ladd.
Keenan later referenced both the Hull goal in Buffalo and the fact that the referees either saw last night's goal differently or couldn't make a call in all the excitement of the victory. Agree or disagree on the call, the fact remains that it becomes near impossible - it would seem - to make a call in overtime of that nature. History would seem to show that.
And I asked just what is goaltender interference, because honestly, I am not sure what to think at this current point in the modern history of the sport.
Back in 1999, it was okay to be in the crease, as long as you didn't proceed the puck into it. After the Hull Stanley Cup winner, the next season saw goals disallowed if a player had the toe of his skate in the crease, even if it had nothing to do with the play at hand. Then it regressed into it being okay to have a toe in the crease, as long as it didn't interfere with the play.
In the years that followed, especially those post-lockout, those rules have pretty much been tossed away. It became, in my watching of this game, more of a judgement call on the parts of the referees as to whether or not the person in the crease actually interfered with the goaltenders ability to get to the puck, and if he did, whether or not it was his own fault that he collided with the goalie or that of an outside force. And that judgement call can vary from person to person.
That's a dangerous game, NHL referees trying to discern the affects of physics.
In the November Rangers/Capitals game earlier this year there was a goal of such controversy. It appeared evident on video review that Lundqvist could not make the save because he was being tied up on the other side of the crease by a Caps player. To me, that is interference. At the time I called it a perfect example of a clip that should be sent to the league and shown to all referees of what was, indeed, goalie interference. If a goalie cannot get across to make a stop because a player is preventing him from doing so AND that player entered the crease of his own free will, that is textbook interference in its most basic form.
Now very recently, like a week ago recently, we saw Markus Naslund get called for goaltender interference as he played the puck towards the front of the net attempting to score and collided with the goalie as he was doing the same. It was merely an example of two players going at a puck and in no way should have been viewed as anything more than a hockey play. Yet it was called.
I'm sure fans of every team can come up with their own examples of ways it has worked for and against their own team. Positive.
Hell, I'll seen more calls of goalie interference where no goal has resulted than I have when a goal does result this year. It is those that seem silly to harbor such attention over, and yet it does happen. But it is the ones where a goal is scored - and scored in overtime in the playoffs - that it can get tricky.
I could share my opinion on the Ladd/Kipper incident. My immediate reaction was, oh, Kipper didn't really get over on that shot from Havlat. I didn't realize why until the replay. And Ladd appeared to be competing for position with the D in front although how or who first made contact is harder to see.
Look, I think it's a hard call. I think some - I stress some - of these calls are hard. Maybe sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. BUT...
I just hope that when crunch time comes in the playoffs - in overtime - the right calls are given opportunity to be made. Whether a team is celebrating or not, whether the call is the popular one or not. For the sake of both teams and for the integrity of the game, which sometimes, walks a very fine line.
Just something to think about as we get set for some game 2s to take place this evening. Enjoy the action...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Rangers Capitalize Game One. . .
Game One is in the books and the Rangers came up with an important and tone-setting victory, 4-3, over the Capitals at Verizon Center.
It was as entertaining a playoff game as I could have hoped to see. Thundering checks, equipment flying everywhere, and goals - seven of them combined.
The Rangers goals came at key times, two on the powerplay, and the first one not long after the Capitals had scored to tie the game at one. The last, and deciding goal, by Dubinsky, took advantage of a tired Capitals team, worn out from their own powerplay in which they failed to score.
Momentum is funny. The Rangers capitalized when they needed to and stole momentum three times in the game. Once when they tied it at one. Next when they scored the two powerplay goals in the goal-filled second period. And lastly when they scored the final one to take the lead. You can even argue momentum was gained with each great save by Lundqvist, 32 on the night, and with each successful penalty kill the Rangers had.
Any way you slice it, the Rangers needed a big game to prove to themselves that they can win this.
Now, we all know they CAN win this. That doesn't mean they WILL. But they know they are CAPABLE of it. A 4-3 win against the Capitals on a night that Ovechkin had 13 shots, will help breed confidence to that fact.
The Rangers slowed Ovechkin. Again, you can't really stop him. He's going to hit, he's going to shoot, and he, on most nights, is going to score. And he certainly was a difference maker on their team tonight with his energy and drive.
But thanks to the Rangers difference makers - Hank, Callahan, Antropov, Gomez, Dubinsky, etc - it wasn't his difference that mattered in the end.
Of course, to be fair, the other difference maker in the game was Jose Theodore, letting in a few soft goals, and 4 on 21 shots on the night. He proved what many suspected, if the Rangers take the shots, the pucks will go in.
Make no mistake though, the Rangers were not perfect. It was a nice game, a game that almost stunned me a little in the fire and desire the Rangers showed to come back and play hard. But they were very undisciplined. And even though the Capitals didn't blow the Rangers out of the water tonight, giving them tons of powerplay time is never a good idea. Naslund and Girardi both took multiple penalties and that simply cannot happen going forward. Even if you kill them off, the penalty killers are worn out for their next shift and beyond.
But for tonight, let's focus on the positives of a very, very important win for New York. Goal scoring from four different players, a strong penalty kill, plenty of hitting (team combined 35 to the Caps 27), and key plays from key players at key moments.
It won't be easier on Saturday. In fact, if the Caps and Ovechkin are as angry and fired up as I'd expect them to be, the Rangers will have an even harder time of containing them. That's why this game was so important. It gave them a one nothing lead in the series - yes - but it put confidence on the Rangers side as much as it put the Capitals on their heels.
I wasn't sure which Rangers team would show up, but I'll take a few more games from them like the one I saw tonight - gladly.
**Author's Note: Each Rangers goal was pretty in it's own way. Dubinsky's was a sweet move, Gomez's was opportunistic, Naslund's was a nice shot and Antropov's, especially, made me smile. I know everytime a Ranger scores a goal like that - off an inside bar - and "knows" it's in, I remember the classic Tikkanen overtime goal versus Florida, and it's always good feeling.**
Around the League:
New Jersey beat Carolina 4-1 and Pittsburgh beat Philadelphia 4-1 in their openers. I didn't watch more than few minutes of either game, so I really have nothing to say in comment, except of course, one game does not a series make. And of course that goes for every team, every series, every time.
It was as entertaining a playoff game as I could have hoped to see. Thundering checks, equipment flying everywhere, and goals - seven of them combined.
The Rangers goals came at key times, two on the powerplay, and the first one not long after the Capitals had scored to tie the game at one. The last, and deciding goal, by Dubinsky, took advantage of a tired Capitals team, worn out from their own powerplay in which they failed to score.
Momentum is funny. The Rangers capitalized when they needed to and stole momentum three times in the game. Once when they tied it at one. Next when they scored the two powerplay goals in the goal-filled second period. And lastly when they scored the final one to take the lead. You can even argue momentum was gained with each great save by Lundqvist, 32 on the night, and with each successful penalty kill the Rangers had.
Any way you slice it, the Rangers needed a big game to prove to themselves that they can win this.
Now, we all know they CAN win this. That doesn't mean they WILL. But they know they are CAPABLE of it. A 4-3 win against the Capitals on a night that Ovechkin had 13 shots, will help breed confidence to that fact.
The Rangers slowed Ovechkin. Again, you can't really stop him. He's going to hit, he's going to shoot, and he, on most nights, is going to score. And he certainly was a difference maker on their team tonight with his energy and drive.
But thanks to the Rangers difference makers - Hank, Callahan, Antropov, Gomez, Dubinsky, etc - it wasn't his difference that mattered in the end.
Of course, to be fair, the other difference maker in the game was Jose Theodore, letting in a few soft goals, and 4 on 21 shots on the night. He proved what many suspected, if the Rangers take the shots, the pucks will go in.
Make no mistake though, the Rangers were not perfect. It was a nice game, a game that almost stunned me a little in the fire and desire the Rangers showed to come back and play hard. But they were very undisciplined. And even though the Capitals didn't blow the Rangers out of the water tonight, giving them tons of powerplay time is never a good idea. Naslund and Girardi both took multiple penalties and that simply cannot happen going forward. Even if you kill them off, the penalty killers are worn out for their next shift and beyond.
But for tonight, let's focus on the positives of a very, very important win for New York. Goal scoring from four different players, a strong penalty kill, plenty of hitting (team combined 35 to the Caps 27), and key plays from key players at key moments.
It won't be easier on Saturday. In fact, if the Caps and Ovechkin are as angry and fired up as I'd expect them to be, the Rangers will have an even harder time of containing them. That's why this game was so important. It gave them a one nothing lead in the series - yes - but it put confidence on the Rangers side as much as it put the Capitals on their heels.
I wasn't sure which Rangers team would show up, but I'll take a few more games from them like the one I saw tonight - gladly.
**Author's Note: Each Rangers goal was pretty in it's own way. Dubinsky's was a sweet move, Gomez's was opportunistic, Naslund's was a nice shot and Antropov's, especially, made me smile. I know everytime a Ranger scores a goal like that - off an inside bar - and "knows" it's in, I remember the classic Tikkanen overtime goal versus Florida, and it's always good feeling.**
Around the League:
New Jersey beat Carolina 4-1 and Pittsburgh beat Philadelphia 4-1 in their openers. I didn't watch more than few minutes of either game, so I really have nothing to say in comment, except of course, one game does not a series make. And of course that goes for every team, every series, every time.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
2009 First Round Playoff Predictions Without All the Fuss. . .
Okay, so after finding out the final matchups were set, I took out a post-it (my favorite writing tool) and wrote my predictions down. What you are getting here are my first thoughts, and I haven't changed anything based on what I may have heard or read in the last couple days, although truth be told, I've had little time for much and haven't read any "experts" picks. This is me trying to not overthink anything. Thus, no fanfare, no fuss, well, except for a little fanfare and fuss on the Rangers/Captals Matchup, of course.
Western Conference:
San Jose over Anaheim - 5
I still think this is San Jose's year to prove themselves.
Columbus over Detroit - 6
I think Columbus has as much a chance as any to knock of Detroit, especially if Steve Mason can stay hot.
Calgary over Chicago - 7
I think this is somewhat of a coin toss series, but I am going with Calgary based on their having been there before.
Vancouver over St. Louis - 5
I think St. Louis may lack the experience to do battle with a rejuvenated Canucks team and a goalie like Luongo.
Eastern Conference:
Carolina over New Jersey - 6
I think Carolina is playing as good as they have since they won the Cup and if Cam Ward can out-duel Brodeur, they have a good shot.
Boston over Montreal - 5
I think Montreal might steal a game in there, but Boston has too much going for them this year.
Philadelphia over Pittsburgh - 7
I think it'll be a close series, but I believe the longer the series goes the better the chances that Philadelphia can overcome their cross-state rivals.
Washington over Rangers - 6
I think Ovechkin and Co. will be too much for this year's Rangers to handle.
Okay, so I'll give you more than a sentence on this matchup. (But aren't you all very impressed that I kept the above predictions to just ONE sentence each? To tell you the truth, I kinda am myself!)
Rangers/Capitals:
My heart wants me to pick the Rangers to win. It really does. And if, by chance, the Rangers do win, I'll be as happy as anyone. BUT....
This team has lacked a few things from the beginning of the season.They do not score very much, although it's been better under Tortorella. Their powerplay has been horrendous from day one. They lack a group cohesiveness and a strong sense of leadership. All three things are vital to a team's playoff chances. Great teams, perhaps, can overcome their shortcomings. I'm not sure the Rangers are a great enough team to do so. If I am being honest with myself, which I am trying to be.
The Rangers win this series if they can shutdown Washington's superpower offense, plain and simple. We all know how good Ovechkin and Co are. That is not a surprise. It is not up for debate. They are just that good.
The Rangers would need a true game changer to make a difference in this series. As discussed here at NHTP about a week ago, they have a potential one in Henrik Lundqvist. If he can shut the other team down, then, yes, the Rangers can win.
But, while I'm not questioning Lundqvist's talent or determination, I am just not sure he can do this on his own.
Now he'll have Marc Staal, who automatically becomes the Rangers second most important player in this series for his previous one on one battles with the Great Ovechkin. Marc Staal, although one of the youngest on the team, may just be the most composed person on the entire Rangers roster. I do have great faith that he will do all in his power to try to slow Ovechkin. Because, again folks, you slow the league's great players, you can't stop them.
However, it is really more than just Ovechkin. I'm not sure what Staal is expected to do if he slows Ovechkin and everyone else on the Capitals runs circles around the rest of the Rangers team.
Staal and Lundqvist aside, I turn my attention to this team's leadership. And I do not want to make this an attack on the big money makers on this team. I won't. That's a regular season and an off=season debate. BUT...
While I believe Tortorella is not the type of coach to let his team roll over and play dead, he cannot play along side them. Whatever happens on ice is truly, at this point, left up to the 20 players on the game day roster. And I'm not sure they - collectively - have it in them.
Yes, Drury and Gomez have been there before. And Gomez was a good force for New York last year against New Jersey. But what if that isn't enough? There is no one player on this team that can single handedly win these games for the Rangers. (Remember, Hank can only stop the puck. He cannot help this team score). Unless someone, or preferably a few somebodies, step up and play beyond what they have in the regular season, I do not know how they can do it. Motivation is great, but they need to have something to back it up.
A team that wasn't perfect last year in New York, still had a guy like Jaromir Jagr, who in game four said, screw this, we are NOT going to lose this game today. And he came through, like legendary players do.
Washington has Ovechkin, a guy who we've seen do the same thing against our very team. The old, "climb on, guys, I'm leading us there" type mantra he lives by.
Who, really, do the Rangers have?
Callahan? Antropov? Avery? Zherdev?
Do any of these players really strike fear in the heart of Washington that they will score enough to compete with Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom, Green, etc?
Now Avery is a wild card. If he can effectively take Washington off their game, he can make a difference. But I just don't see it working like it did in the past. Avery versus Kovalchuk. Avery versus Brodeur. Avery versus Ovechkin? I just don't see how Ovechkin gets riled up by Avery like Ilya and Marty did. And even if one of their goal scorers does bite on Avery's advances, there are a half dozen more in his place.
Now that doesn't mean that Sean can't be effective and help the cause - because he most certainly can. I'm just not sure it's enough. I'm not sure any of it is enough.
The one major thing to the Rangers advantage is that Jose Theodore is not the best goalie in the playoffs. He might, in fact, be the worst. Does that make a difference in a series? - you bet it does. But it would mean more to me if the Rangers were a high-powered scoring team. Based on the fact that at many times they don't even shoot the puck, I am somewhat afraid it won't make much of a difference who the Caps have in net.
Wayne Gretzky said something about not having a chance to score any goals if you don't take the shots, or something. You know where I'm going with this. And you also know he's right.
But be sure, if the Rangers were to win, they'd have to get scoring from unlikely sources (or anyone!), and score on the powerplay. Washington is not going to give them a free path to their goalie. They are going to have to work hard for their chances. And take advantage of the ones that they get.
For the reasons above, and perhaps a few more, I just believe - in my head - that the Rangers just do not have enough to beat the Washington Capitals, who got a taste of the second season last year and want it even more this year.
If it means anything though, folks, I do hope I am wrong. I really, really hope I am wrong.
**Author's note. I think all these Eastern series are fantastic matchups and we, as fans, really lucked out. The West's I'm a little less sure about but I think there's a chance for a few doozies as well. But regardless of my predictions - and rib all you want because it's all in fun - enjoy the playoffs. One of the best times of the year!**
Western Conference:
San Jose over Anaheim - 5
I still think this is San Jose's year to prove themselves.
Columbus over Detroit - 6
I think Columbus has as much a chance as any to knock of Detroit, especially if Steve Mason can stay hot.
Calgary over Chicago - 7
I think this is somewhat of a coin toss series, but I am going with Calgary based on their having been there before.
Vancouver over St. Louis - 5
I think St. Louis may lack the experience to do battle with a rejuvenated Canucks team and a goalie like Luongo.
Eastern Conference:
Carolina over New Jersey - 6
I think Carolina is playing as good as they have since they won the Cup and if Cam Ward can out-duel Brodeur, they have a good shot.
Boston over Montreal - 5
I think Montreal might steal a game in there, but Boston has too much going for them this year.
Philadelphia over Pittsburgh - 7
I think it'll be a close series, but I believe the longer the series goes the better the chances that Philadelphia can overcome their cross-state rivals.
Washington over Rangers - 6
I think Ovechkin and Co. will be too much for this year's Rangers to handle.
Okay, so I'll give you more than a sentence on this matchup. (But aren't you all very impressed that I kept the above predictions to just ONE sentence each? To tell you the truth, I kinda am myself!)
Rangers/Capitals:
My heart wants me to pick the Rangers to win. It really does. And if, by chance, the Rangers do win, I'll be as happy as anyone. BUT....
This team has lacked a few things from the beginning of the season.They do not score very much, although it's been better under Tortorella. Their powerplay has been horrendous from day one. They lack a group cohesiveness and a strong sense of leadership. All three things are vital to a team's playoff chances. Great teams, perhaps, can overcome their shortcomings. I'm not sure the Rangers are a great enough team to do so. If I am being honest with myself, which I am trying to be.
The Rangers win this series if they can shutdown Washington's superpower offense, plain and simple. We all know how good Ovechkin and Co are. That is not a surprise. It is not up for debate. They are just that good.
The Rangers would need a true game changer to make a difference in this series. As discussed here at NHTP about a week ago, they have a potential one in Henrik Lundqvist. If he can shut the other team down, then, yes, the Rangers can win.
But, while I'm not questioning Lundqvist's talent or determination, I am just not sure he can do this on his own.
Now he'll have Marc Staal, who automatically becomes the Rangers second most important player in this series for his previous one on one battles with the Great Ovechkin. Marc Staal, although one of the youngest on the team, may just be the most composed person on the entire Rangers roster. I do have great faith that he will do all in his power to try to slow Ovechkin. Because, again folks, you slow the league's great players, you can't stop them.
However, it is really more than just Ovechkin. I'm not sure what Staal is expected to do if he slows Ovechkin and everyone else on the Capitals runs circles around the rest of the Rangers team.
Staal and Lundqvist aside, I turn my attention to this team's leadership. And I do not want to make this an attack on the big money makers on this team. I won't. That's a regular season and an off=season debate. BUT...
While I believe Tortorella is not the type of coach to let his team roll over and play dead, he cannot play along side them. Whatever happens on ice is truly, at this point, left up to the 20 players on the game day roster. And I'm not sure they - collectively - have it in them.
Yes, Drury and Gomez have been there before. And Gomez was a good force for New York last year against New Jersey. But what if that isn't enough? There is no one player on this team that can single handedly win these games for the Rangers. (Remember, Hank can only stop the puck. He cannot help this team score). Unless someone, or preferably a few somebodies, step up and play beyond what they have in the regular season, I do not know how they can do it. Motivation is great, but they need to have something to back it up.
A team that wasn't perfect last year in New York, still had a guy like Jaromir Jagr, who in game four said, screw this, we are NOT going to lose this game today. And he came through, like legendary players do.
Washington has Ovechkin, a guy who we've seen do the same thing against our very team. The old, "climb on, guys, I'm leading us there" type mantra he lives by.
Who, really, do the Rangers have?
Callahan? Antropov? Avery? Zherdev?
Do any of these players really strike fear in the heart of Washington that they will score enough to compete with Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom, Green, etc?
Now Avery is a wild card. If he can effectively take Washington off their game, he can make a difference. But I just don't see it working like it did in the past. Avery versus Kovalchuk. Avery versus Brodeur. Avery versus Ovechkin? I just don't see how Ovechkin gets riled up by Avery like Ilya and Marty did. And even if one of their goal scorers does bite on Avery's advances, there are a half dozen more in his place.
Now that doesn't mean that Sean can't be effective and help the cause - because he most certainly can. I'm just not sure it's enough. I'm not sure any of it is enough.
The one major thing to the Rangers advantage is that Jose Theodore is not the best goalie in the playoffs. He might, in fact, be the worst. Does that make a difference in a series? - you bet it does. But it would mean more to me if the Rangers were a high-powered scoring team. Based on the fact that at many times they don't even shoot the puck, I am somewhat afraid it won't make much of a difference who the Caps have in net.
Wayne Gretzky said something about not having a chance to score any goals if you don't take the shots, or something. You know where I'm going with this. And you also know he's right.
But be sure, if the Rangers were to win, they'd have to get scoring from unlikely sources (or anyone!), and score on the powerplay. Washington is not going to give them a free path to their goalie. They are going to have to work hard for their chances. And take advantage of the ones that they get.
For the reasons above, and perhaps a few more, I just believe - in my head - that the Rangers just do not have enough to beat the Washington Capitals, who got a taste of the second season last year and want it even more this year.
If it means anything though, folks, I do hope I am wrong. I really, really hope I am wrong.
**Author's note. I think all these Eastern series are fantastic matchups and we, as fans, really lucked out. The West's I'm a little less sure about but I think there's a chance for a few doozies as well. But regardless of my predictions - and rib all you want because it's all in fun - enjoy the playoffs. One of the best times of the year!**
My Regular Season Western Conference Predictions Analysis - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. . .
And now, the analysis of my regular season predictions for the Western Conference. Fair warning, I did, as expected, pretty brutally. . .
My Predictions:
1) Detroit
2) San Jose
3) Calgary
4) Dallas
5) Anaheim
6) Colorado
7) Phoenix
8) Chicago
In Reality:
San Jose
Detroit
Vancouver
Chicago
Calgary
St. Louis
Columbus
Anaheim
Pat Me On the Back...
Wild: "I like the Wild. But. . .Marian Gaborik, the Ranger killer, has not proven he can stay healthy. . .makes me think this team will not be as good as years past....A lot was up and down in Minnesota last year and they did make a rather quick exit. Not sure I'd bank on the Wild in what will be a tough race in the West this year." (I had them on a narrow miss and it was, indeed, a pretty narrow miss).
Calgary: "I don't think you can go wrong with an offense centered around I-can-do-everything-posterboy Jarome Iginla. But he can't do it himself. ...Guys like Mike Cammalleri, Craig Conroy and Daymond Langkow will really have to step up. I don't see why Calgary isn't my front-runner though, on experience and the last few years alone."
Sharks: "Add one Dan Boyle, who is looking to resurrect and be the top offensive D-man he proved he could be in Tampa, and you have a team. A plethora of young talent like Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Ryan Clowe, Milan Michalek, and Joe Pavelski, are primed for good years. This team seems poised. Not to mention anything of my favorite for Vezina this year, the man who was robbed last year, Evgeni Nabokov. Not many are better. The guy was a machine last year. Expect no different in this. I expect San Jose and Dallas to fight to the end for the division title, although I'm not sure either will knock Detroit from the top step." (If you ignore the fact that I said they were battling the Stars, and throw in Devon Settogucci in there, I had it almost right. And San Jose did knock Detroit from the top spot, so they were even better than I thought.)
Kings: "But you know what - I think they'll be better than last year, points wise at least. Playoffs, unfortunately, not a good chance at all. (71 points in 07-08, 79 points in 08-09).
Red Wings: "Really hard to imagine them not sailing right through to the playoffs, although, let it be said, Chicago played them tough last year and will be better this year and Nashville was always a tough game as well. They probably will not have as many points in what should be a more difficult division. But, really, who cares. Bottom line: Red Wings will be playoff bound." (True, they didn't top the West, they came a few points short. But they had 112 points this year, to their 115 last year).
Chicago: "Here's hoping, and it might just be a reality, the only other non-successful original six team besides the New York Rangers, will see a fast rise to glory this year.... Also, add a hopefully (seriously now!) healthy Marty Havlat, and perhaps this is the year. Again, the West is tough, perhaps tougher than last year, but if I had to pick, I'd say Chicago gets it done." (Well what shocks me more than Chicago making the playoffs as I predicted, is that Marty Havlat made it the entire regular season without major injury. I am stunned. He deserves props for this. Chicago is in a good place. I had them lower than they ended up being, but again, remember I got my head tripped up in all that Colorado and Dallas nonsense).
Predators: ". . .but I’m not sure the team that has just seemed to sneak in the last few years, will do it again this year. They will have to be better and have to generate more points in a tougher central division. And I’m not sure they do it....I am just going on a hunch that they don’t make it. If they do, I’m happy. But I’m just not sure it’s not someone else’s turn."
Neither/Nor:
Oilers: "Figure, if Dwayne Roloson can keep the group in it, if he stays, and Sheldon Souray can be the power play quarterback the Oil signed last year, maybe they do have a shot. In my mind there are four or five probable-to-definite picks for the West, and the other three spots are up for grabs. I wouldn't count the Oilers out of it, but that's really going to be anyone's guess." (Another close miss; and I'm taking credit for Roloson here, because he was a big reason this team made it as close as they were).
Ducks: "I have to assume the Ducks will be at least as good as they were last year, if not better...I still think they lack something. But this team is one of my bets to make the playoffs. And probably to be angry enough to go further than last year's quick exit. (I picked them to make the playoffs, yes, but I must admit I thought they'd be more of a shoo-in than they were, stumbling for much of the season and keeping the eighth seed on a late season rise. As for going forther in the playoffs, that it TBD, even if I don't see it happening.)
I'm Such a Moron:
Colorado: "I guess I figure it would have to be either the Wild or the Avalanche making the playoffs this year. Don't think they'd both miss it. And I just might have to go on the side of Colorado. Joe Sakic will need to stay healthy." (I can't even type it because it pains me to say, but I actually thought Peter Budaj would get the job done in nets. Yikes! As for Colorado in general, if Sakic going down didn't hurt this team in every way imaginable, losing Stastny too made it that much worse. I'm not saying they would have made the playoffs, but the Avs shouldn't have been the last place team either and I don't see how they are if those two guys are healthy.)
Canucks: "Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton, and perhaps even Minnesota will average more goals. I sadly don't see how this team makes the playoffs. Mats Sundin, the wanted savior, might not have been able to provide enough on his own to save this team." (Well, call me a moron here. I am not sure if Vancouver was going to be this good, or if Mat Sundin really DID spark some magic in the Pacific Northwest, but this team, a team with a core that has been together a while now, looked much better in the 2nd half than I would have thought. Sundin did help. And you can't bet against a team that has Roberto Luongo. At least I probably shouldn't have. Although who woulda thunk it about Alex Burrows...?)
Stars: "I am excited to see how the Stars do this year and more confident than last year that they will do well. I think Dallas will flourish this year. Marty Turco slayed some demons with his solid performance in nets during the playoffs. Brendan Morrow was a honest-to-goodness beast when it counted. Haven't seen that from him in quite some time. Brad Richards started to find his stride and will get to test his first full year for the black, green, and gold. And my favorite and yours, Sean Avery, who is already ruffling feathers all throughout the Western Conference, gets to pal up with (or against) agitator Steve Ott. Nice." (WELL, obviously nothing turned out the way for Dallas that I thought it would. The team was a wreck to start. Turco forgot what he did in the previous pring. Avery was a non-factor, although most would go on to blame him - unjustifiably - for the team's slow start on ice. Morrow ended up out for the season. Sergei Zubov played as many games for the Stars as Ilya Zubov played for the Senators (10). And Richards broke his wrist, came back, and hurt it again. This was just not the Stars year in any regard whatsoever. And it was NOT all about Sean Avery!)
Coyotes: "I really like their chances at being one of those bottom three surprise teams to squeeze into the playoffs. They almost did it last year and I was rooting for them, trust me. I think having Ilya Bryzgalov for a full year in nets might make the difference. ... Honestly, I think things are looking brighter in Phoenix and perhaps, bright enough to bring the maroon and white into the promised second season. Out of the could-be-there, these might be my favorites." (I lauded Shane Doan, Ed Jovonovski, and Peter Mueller in my paragraph on the desert dogs. Doan had a great year, but Jovo struggled badly to start and the young guys in their sophomore years like Mueller, struggled too. Bryzlgalov would have had to been much better to have helped their cause. All that said, the team did have a better start and at the All-Star break sat in the 5th seed. A late season collapse with no goal scoring, and an untimely injury to defenseman Kurt Sauer, told the tale in the end. No playoffs in Phoenix. I think you can tell that I really wanted them there when I wrote the above in October. Just imagine how much I wanted them there after my favorite player was traded to them in March!!)
Columbus: "Every year for the last few, I've picked Columbus to make the playoffs. And no matter how much I want them to (and I do) and feel they do have a chance (I do), I am not sure if it's possible for all three of the last spots in the West to be filled with teams that failed to make the dance last year. Possible - of course. Probable - probably not. ....and Steve Mason if necessary and healthy, are enough to get it done. I do hope so. Honestly for myself, and for guys like Rick Nash and Manny Malhotra, I hope they do it. I’m just not sure if this is the year to see Phoenix, Chicago, AND Columbus all knock out practical perennial playoff teams like Colorado, and Minnesota." (Well, again, if I was ever happy to be wrong, it is with this team. I had been picking Columbus, like Florida in the East, for the last three years, and finally - FINALLY - they did it. Only I didn't pick 'em. Ribb me all you want. I'm just glad they got it done!)
Blues: "Thus, I know nothing really except I can’t imagine St. Louis will be much better, and I can’t imagine this team is in line for a playoff berth in an over talented and super saturated West." (Good for the Blues for proving me wrong. With the injuries this team has had, it is a big testament to the young guys there and their few lasting veterans that they were able to come through the West. Great job)
Final Thoughts:
So, in my mind, I thought Dallas, Detroit, San Jose, Calgary, and Anaheim were the shoo-ins. I thought Colorado would be the we've-been-there-before and here-we-are-again breed. And I thought Phoenix and Chicago would jump in. Obviously Dallas was an extreme overstep, as my feelings about Montreal were in the East. People can be wrong. I most definitely can be wrong. I'm very glad that Chicago, Columbus, and St. Louis were able to make it in to get some fresh blood out there. I really am. Now, next year, if it's Phoenix replacing one of the old steady and true guys, I am all for it. And how about Nashville having a good enough year to be chasing a 3 seed instead of falling short of an 8. Just some things I'd like to see. But, no, none of this fixes my horrendous picks, although, when all was said and done, I still picked 5 out of 8 correctly.
My Predictions:
1) Detroit
2) San Jose
3) Calgary
4) Dallas
5) Anaheim
6) Colorado
7) Phoenix
8) Chicago
In Reality:
San Jose
Detroit
Vancouver
Chicago
Calgary
St. Louis
Columbus
Anaheim
Pat Me On the Back...
Wild: "I like the Wild. But. . .Marian Gaborik, the Ranger killer, has not proven he can stay healthy. . .makes me think this team will not be as good as years past....A lot was up and down in Minnesota last year and they did make a rather quick exit. Not sure I'd bank on the Wild in what will be a tough race in the West this year." (I had them on a narrow miss and it was, indeed, a pretty narrow miss).
Calgary: "I don't think you can go wrong with an offense centered around I-can-do-everything-posterboy Jarome Iginla. But he can't do it himself. ...Guys like Mike Cammalleri, Craig Conroy and Daymond Langkow will really have to step up. I don't see why Calgary isn't my front-runner though, on experience and the last few years alone."
Sharks: "Add one Dan Boyle, who is looking to resurrect and be the top offensive D-man he proved he could be in Tampa, and you have a team. A plethora of young talent like Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Ryan Clowe, Milan Michalek, and Joe Pavelski, are primed for good years. This team seems poised. Not to mention anything of my favorite for Vezina this year, the man who was robbed last year, Evgeni Nabokov. Not many are better. The guy was a machine last year. Expect no different in this. I expect San Jose and Dallas to fight to the end for the division title, although I'm not sure either will knock Detroit from the top step." (If you ignore the fact that I said they were battling the Stars, and throw in Devon Settogucci in there, I had it almost right. And San Jose did knock Detroit from the top spot, so they were even better than I thought.)
Kings: "But you know what - I think they'll be better than last year, points wise at least. Playoffs, unfortunately, not a good chance at all. (71 points in 07-08, 79 points in 08-09).
Red Wings: "Really hard to imagine them not sailing right through to the playoffs, although, let it be said, Chicago played them tough last year and will be better this year and Nashville was always a tough game as well. They probably will not have as many points in what should be a more difficult division. But, really, who cares. Bottom line: Red Wings will be playoff bound." (True, they didn't top the West, they came a few points short. But they had 112 points this year, to their 115 last year).
Chicago: "Here's hoping, and it might just be a reality, the only other non-successful original six team besides the New York Rangers, will see a fast rise to glory this year.... Also, add a hopefully (seriously now!) healthy Marty Havlat, and perhaps this is the year. Again, the West is tough, perhaps tougher than last year, but if I had to pick, I'd say Chicago gets it done." (Well what shocks me more than Chicago making the playoffs as I predicted, is that Marty Havlat made it the entire regular season without major injury. I am stunned. He deserves props for this. Chicago is in a good place. I had them lower than they ended up being, but again, remember I got my head tripped up in all that Colorado and Dallas nonsense).
Predators: ". . .but I’m not sure the team that has just seemed to sneak in the last few years, will do it again this year. They will have to be better and have to generate more points in a tougher central division. And I’m not sure they do it....I am just going on a hunch that they don’t make it. If they do, I’m happy. But I’m just not sure it’s not someone else’s turn."
Neither/Nor:
Oilers: "Figure, if Dwayne Roloson can keep the group in it, if he stays, and Sheldon Souray can be the power play quarterback the Oil signed last year, maybe they do have a shot. In my mind there are four or five probable-to-definite picks for the West, and the other three spots are up for grabs. I wouldn't count the Oilers out of it, but that's really going to be anyone's guess." (Another close miss; and I'm taking credit for Roloson here, because he was a big reason this team made it as close as they were).
Ducks: "I have to assume the Ducks will be at least as good as they were last year, if not better...I still think they lack something. But this team is one of my bets to make the playoffs. And probably to be angry enough to go further than last year's quick exit. (I picked them to make the playoffs, yes, but I must admit I thought they'd be more of a shoo-in than they were, stumbling for much of the season and keeping the eighth seed on a late season rise. As for going forther in the playoffs, that it TBD, even if I don't see it happening.)
I'm Such a Moron:
Colorado: "I guess I figure it would have to be either the Wild or the Avalanche making the playoffs this year. Don't think they'd both miss it. And I just might have to go on the side of Colorado. Joe Sakic will need to stay healthy." (I can't even type it because it pains me to say, but I actually thought Peter Budaj would get the job done in nets. Yikes! As for Colorado in general, if Sakic going down didn't hurt this team in every way imaginable, losing Stastny too made it that much worse. I'm not saying they would have made the playoffs, but the Avs shouldn't have been the last place team either and I don't see how they are if those two guys are healthy.)
Canucks: "Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton, and perhaps even Minnesota will average more goals. I sadly don't see how this team makes the playoffs. Mats Sundin, the wanted savior, might not have been able to provide enough on his own to save this team." (Well, call me a moron here. I am not sure if Vancouver was going to be this good, or if Mat Sundin really DID spark some magic in the Pacific Northwest, but this team, a team with a core that has been together a while now, looked much better in the 2nd half than I would have thought. Sundin did help. And you can't bet against a team that has Roberto Luongo. At least I probably shouldn't have. Although who woulda thunk it about Alex Burrows...?)
Stars: "I am excited to see how the Stars do this year and more confident than last year that they will do well. I think Dallas will flourish this year. Marty Turco slayed some demons with his solid performance in nets during the playoffs. Brendan Morrow was a honest-to-goodness beast when it counted. Haven't seen that from him in quite some time. Brad Richards started to find his stride and will get to test his first full year for the black, green, and gold. And my favorite and yours, Sean Avery, who is already ruffling feathers all throughout the Western Conference, gets to pal up with (or against) agitator Steve Ott. Nice." (WELL, obviously nothing turned out the way for Dallas that I thought it would. The team was a wreck to start. Turco forgot what he did in the previous pring. Avery was a non-factor, although most would go on to blame him - unjustifiably - for the team's slow start on ice. Morrow ended up out for the season. Sergei Zubov played as many games for the Stars as Ilya Zubov played for the Senators (10). And Richards broke his wrist, came back, and hurt it again. This was just not the Stars year in any regard whatsoever. And it was NOT all about Sean Avery!)
Coyotes: "I really like their chances at being one of those bottom three surprise teams to squeeze into the playoffs. They almost did it last year and I was rooting for them, trust me. I think having Ilya Bryzgalov for a full year in nets might make the difference. ... Honestly, I think things are looking brighter in Phoenix and perhaps, bright enough to bring the maroon and white into the promised second season. Out of the could-be-there, these might be my favorites." (I lauded Shane Doan, Ed Jovonovski, and Peter Mueller in my paragraph on the desert dogs. Doan had a great year, but Jovo struggled badly to start and the young guys in their sophomore years like Mueller, struggled too. Bryzlgalov would have had to been much better to have helped their cause. All that said, the team did have a better start and at the All-Star break sat in the 5th seed. A late season collapse with no goal scoring, and an untimely injury to defenseman Kurt Sauer, told the tale in the end. No playoffs in Phoenix. I think you can tell that I really wanted them there when I wrote the above in October. Just imagine how much I wanted them there after my favorite player was traded to them in March!!)
Columbus: "Every year for the last few, I've picked Columbus to make the playoffs. And no matter how much I want them to (and I do) and feel they do have a chance (I do), I am not sure if it's possible for all three of the last spots in the West to be filled with teams that failed to make the dance last year. Possible - of course. Probable - probably not. ....and Steve Mason if necessary and healthy, are enough to get it done. I do hope so. Honestly for myself, and for guys like Rick Nash and Manny Malhotra, I hope they do it. I’m just not sure if this is the year to see Phoenix, Chicago, AND Columbus all knock out practical perennial playoff teams like Colorado, and Minnesota." (Well, again, if I was ever happy to be wrong, it is with this team. I had been picking Columbus, like Florida in the East, for the last three years, and finally - FINALLY - they did it. Only I didn't pick 'em. Ribb me all you want. I'm just glad they got it done!)
Blues: "Thus, I know nothing really except I can’t imagine St. Louis will be much better, and I can’t imagine this team is in line for a playoff berth in an over talented and super saturated West." (Good for the Blues for proving me wrong. With the injuries this team has had, it is a big testament to the young guys there and their few lasting veterans that they were able to come through the West. Great job)
Final Thoughts:
So, in my mind, I thought Dallas, Detroit, San Jose, Calgary, and Anaheim were the shoo-ins. I thought Colorado would be the we've-been-there-before and here-we-are-again breed. And I thought Phoenix and Chicago would jump in. Obviously Dallas was an extreme overstep, as my feelings about Montreal were in the East. People can be wrong. I most definitely can be wrong. I'm very glad that Chicago, Columbus, and St. Louis were able to make it in to get some fresh blood out there. I really am. Now, next year, if it's Phoenix replacing one of the old steady and true guys, I am all for it. And how about Nashville having a good enough year to be chasing a 3 seed instead of falling short of an 8. Just some things I'd like to see. But, no, none of this fixes my horrendous picks, although, when all was said and done, I still picked 5 out of 8 correctly.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
My Regular Season Eastern Conference Predictions Analysis - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. . .
Back in early October, I sat down to make regular season predictions on what teams would make the playoffs. Now, here at Natural Hat Trick Productions, we take a moment to step back and reflect on the best and worst of those for the Eastern Conference:
My predictions:
1) Montreal Canadiens
2) Washington Capitals
3) Philadelphia Flyers
4) Pittsburgh Penguins
5) Boston Bruins
6) New York Rangers
7) New Jersey Devils
8) Florida Panthers
In Reality:
1) Boston Bruins
2) Washington Capitals
3) New Jersey Devils
4) Pittsburgh Penguins
5) Philadelphia Flyers
6) Carolina Hurricanes
7) New York Rangers
8) Montreal Canadiens
First of all I got 7 out of 8 teams correct, which I think deserves a brief moment of applause. Clap, cla...okay, fine, this was the easier conference to predict, I think. I had Florida taking Ottawa's spot from last year. Instead, Carolina got hot and took it instead. But Florida was the next team in waiting and, Panthers fans, if it means anything, I was pulling hard for you guys. Not, mind you, at the expense of New York, but because it would have been a great thing to see.
The Caps and Pittsburgh were the only two teams I picked correctly in terms of order. I obviously, as did so many of us around the NHL, drink the koolaid of the masses and think Montreal was going to be the #1 seed for the second year in a row. Instead, they, like the Rangers, only secured a playoff spot with two games to go.
Now, let's take a moment to smile/laugh/nod/cringe at some of my thoughts on the East going into this season. There are some doozies.
Pat Me On The Back:
Flyers: "Philly performed better than expected and I expect no different this year...If this team doesn't compete for or win the division, I will be shocked." (Devils won the division, but both Pitt and Philly were only 7 points behind. Flyers improved from 95 points last year to 99 this year).
Devils - "I think they will gain some points on last year even if only because I just do not see them taking as few points as they did from the Rangers and Islanders last year. Isles will be worse and NJ did not like being the Rangers punching bag, and that’s enough incentive right there to win more games." (2007-08 - 99pts/46 wins; 2008-09 - 106pts/51 wins).
Isles: "There might not be too much to cheer about in Isleland this season. NYI - here are you tickets to the Jonathan Tavares sweepstakes. Don't lose 'em! Many will enter, one will win." (Isles - last place in league and best chance to land top pick in this year's draft)
Penguins: "And no. Miroslav Satan may not be the answer." (Enough said).
Rangers: "Honestly this is my hardest team to predict because if I had to guess, I’d say they have both the potential to be the best team in the East and the potential to fall flat on their faces. So, to be fair, I’ll go somewhere in between. The Rangers will be a playoff team, but they will not crack the top four." (seed #7)
Capitals: "I think the Capitals are going to be better than last year and definitely win the division. They might even challenge for one of the top two spots in the East, especially since I think they'll garner a lot of points playing against the likes of Tampa and Atlanta." (From 94 points last year to 108 this year, they have the #2 seed and are tops in the South East).
Thrashers: "Hard to pick a team I feel worse for than Atlanta...There will be no hockey playoffs in Georgia this year."
Maple Leafs: "When Ryan Hollweg and Jeff Finger are two of your only acquisitions in the off-season, well, it’s going to be a long year."
Bruins: "I seriously think, whether it’s Fernandez stepping in, Tim Thomas standing pat, or Tuukka Rask stepping up, this team can make it in nets. And Marc Savard as well as Marco Sturm are poised for high point totals this season as they did last year. I feel good about Boston’s chances. I think it’ll be a good year and people will be surprised." (Ignore the fact that Sturm was out with injury and played only 19 games this year, and the rest was spot on. The Bruins had two solid goalies (and even Rask shotout the Rangers.) Savard was awesome. And the Bruins surprised a lot of people. Just not me.)
Sabres: "I hope it’s a better year for Buffalo, but I think they’ll fall just short again." (Again, just short).
I'm Such a Moron:
Rangers: "Do I think this team will score more goals than last year? Last year there weren’t many goals to speak of and a power play to embarrass even the best of us all, but, it’s hard to say that they will score less with guys like Markus Naslund and Nik Zherdev, and hopefully a re-energized Chris Drury and Scott Gomez. So I’d have to assume that unless everyone has an awful year, they will score more." (And this from the person who thought their powerplay couldn't possibly be any worse either. *I want to bury head in sand*. Sure I just went through a nice little rant on why Naslund and Zherdev were assets to the team, but Gomez and Drury? And no one, not one player! - cracked 60 points on this team.)
Hurricanes: "The team doesn’t look that different but it seems miles away from the Cup win in 2006. I just don’t know. I can’t argue with Rod Brind’Amour’s leadership or Peter Laviolette’s style or even what I assume to be a great year for Eric Staal, who has just shored up a long, new contract to remain in NC. But… I just don’t think they have enough in them to knock someone out of the East." (Obviously RBA was a non-factor in terms of statistics, but he's still their leader, Laviolette was shown the door ealier this year, and they did make the playoffs. Of course, having Cole come back to the team DID kinda make everyone feel like it was 2006 all over again. So while I was right about Staal, but they did prove me wrong big time.)
Lightning: "In short, I think Tampa will not struggle to score goals... And despite my earlier uncertainty, their goalie situation seems to be in very good hands...Do I think they’ll be better than many think – yes." (At least I didn't think they'd actually make the playoffs. Unfortunatley for all involved, Tampa did very little to entertain. Melrose was not even there long enough to entertain!)
Canadiens: "In a year where there will be many ceremonies, including a banner raising for one Patrick Roy, the team will need to be sharp to keep the fans and the city happy. And, honestly, with minimal additions – Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang and Georges Laraques– and minimal departures – Mark Streit and Michael Ryder – I don’t see why they won’t. Montreal will easily, in my opinion, win the Northeast, and contend again for a top two spot in the conference." (I suppose I meant minimal in terms of not many in terms of departures, but my gosh, did the departure of Mark Streit hurt the Habs - and me, because he's on the WRONG New York team!! Their powerplay, once a lethal force, was pedestrian this year until Schneider came here late in the season. And, not so shockingly, the Islanders was pretty good. Wonder why? Tanguay and Lang were great pickups for the Habs, but when Lang went down with injury it hurt them big time. Laraques hardly ever saw the ice. They didn't see good or consistent effort from nearly enough players this year and that is why they not only didn't even challenge Boston for the top spot in the division, they barely even made the playoffs. I was sooooooo very wrong about this team. True, I was not alone, but I couldn't have been more wrong.)
Ottawa: "I for one think Heatley will have a career year....You just can't rely on one team and one defensive pairing. Not in this league. I see them perhaps coming just short this year." (Ottawa, despite hanging on still as of two weeks ago, really didn't come "just short" so I have to put this in the moron pile even though I didn't pick them. And as for Heatley, his 39G/33A/72P/-11 were really horrible considering the fanatastic years he has had).
Neither/Nor:
Panthers: "Maybe they’ll be better, by addition through subtraction. But I feel it. If it can happen to the Tampa Rays, why not to the Florida Panthers. Playoffs in Florida? Maybe!" (This doesn't fall in either grouping. I said they'd maybe make the playoffs. Again, I still feel badly they couldn't get it done. I will hope again for them next year and every year until they do return to the second season.)
Overall, I know I did a much better job with the East than the West (maybe not surprisingly). I think in spite of all the ups and downs of a season, injuries and surprise players, picking 7 out of 8 teams that make the playoffs is a good record. I'll take it. And, too, with the three point games, not too much movement was made. If you went back a month, Florida held the last playoff spot. Carolina only ousted Florida in the last few weeks. Otherwise, my picks would have been perfect.
Also worth noting, I do get credit for the following statement:
"I think the Atlantic division will be the toughest and will have the most
representatives going to the playoffs of any in the East."
With NJ, Philly, Pitt, and New York, the Atlantic has four teams going to the playoffs. Southeast (Wash, Canes) and NorthEast (Bruins, Habs) each have two.
I realize this is not the most unique of thoughts and this has been the way, for three years now, but I have to grab credit where I can. ;)
Tomorrow, I'll try to do the West prediction analysis and before Wednesday, I'll run through some brief some playoff predictions too. Some fantastic matchups to look forward to, that's for sure!
My predictions:
1) Montreal Canadiens
2) Washington Capitals
3) Philadelphia Flyers
4) Pittsburgh Penguins
5) Boston Bruins
6) New York Rangers
7) New Jersey Devils
8) Florida Panthers
In Reality:
1) Boston Bruins
2) Washington Capitals
3) New Jersey Devils
4) Pittsburgh Penguins
5) Philadelphia Flyers
6) Carolina Hurricanes
7) New York Rangers
8) Montreal Canadiens
First of all I got 7 out of 8 teams correct, which I think deserves a brief moment of applause. Clap, cla...okay, fine, this was the easier conference to predict, I think. I had Florida taking Ottawa's spot from last year. Instead, Carolina got hot and took it instead. But Florida was the next team in waiting and, Panthers fans, if it means anything, I was pulling hard for you guys. Not, mind you, at the expense of New York, but because it would have been a great thing to see.
The Caps and Pittsburgh were the only two teams I picked correctly in terms of order. I obviously, as did so many of us around the NHL, drink the koolaid of the masses and think Montreal was going to be the #1 seed for the second year in a row. Instead, they, like the Rangers, only secured a playoff spot with two games to go.
Now, let's take a moment to smile/laugh/nod/cringe at some of my thoughts on the East going into this season. There are some doozies.
Pat Me On The Back:
Flyers: "Philly performed better than expected and I expect no different this year...If this team doesn't compete for or win the division, I will be shocked." (Devils won the division, but both Pitt and Philly were only 7 points behind. Flyers improved from 95 points last year to 99 this year).
Devils - "I think they will gain some points on last year even if only because I just do not see them taking as few points as they did from the Rangers and Islanders last year. Isles will be worse and NJ did not like being the Rangers punching bag, and that’s enough incentive right there to win more games." (2007-08 - 99pts/46 wins; 2008-09 - 106pts/51 wins).
Isles: "There might not be too much to cheer about in Isleland this season. NYI - here are you tickets to the Jonathan Tavares sweepstakes. Don't lose 'em! Many will enter, one will win." (Isles - last place in league and best chance to land top pick in this year's draft)
Penguins: "And no. Miroslav Satan may not be the answer." (Enough said).
Rangers: "Honestly this is my hardest team to predict because if I had to guess, I’d say they have both the potential to be the best team in the East and the potential to fall flat on their faces. So, to be fair, I’ll go somewhere in between. The Rangers will be a playoff team, but they will not crack the top four." (seed #7)
Capitals: "I think the Capitals are going to be better than last year and definitely win the division. They might even challenge for one of the top two spots in the East, especially since I think they'll garner a lot of points playing against the likes of Tampa and Atlanta." (From 94 points last year to 108 this year, they have the #2 seed and are tops in the South East).
Thrashers: "Hard to pick a team I feel worse for than Atlanta...There will be no hockey playoffs in Georgia this year."
Maple Leafs: "When Ryan Hollweg and Jeff Finger are two of your only acquisitions in the off-season, well, it’s going to be a long year."
Bruins: "I seriously think, whether it’s Fernandez stepping in, Tim Thomas standing pat, or Tuukka Rask stepping up, this team can make it in nets. And Marc Savard as well as Marco Sturm are poised for high point totals this season as they did last year. I feel good about Boston’s chances. I think it’ll be a good year and people will be surprised." (Ignore the fact that Sturm was out with injury and played only 19 games this year, and the rest was spot on. The Bruins had two solid goalies (and even Rask shotout the Rangers.) Savard was awesome. And the Bruins surprised a lot of people. Just not me.)
Sabres: "I hope it’s a better year for Buffalo, but I think they’ll fall just short again." (Again, just short).
I'm Such a Moron:
Rangers: "Do I think this team will score more goals than last year? Last year there weren’t many goals to speak of and a power play to embarrass even the best of us all, but, it’s hard to say that they will score less with guys like Markus Naslund and Nik Zherdev, and hopefully a re-energized Chris Drury and Scott Gomez. So I’d have to assume that unless everyone has an awful year, they will score more." (And this from the person who thought their powerplay couldn't possibly be any worse either. *I want to bury head in sand*. Sure I just went through a nice little rant on why Naslund and Zherdev were assets to the team, but Gomez and Drury? And no one, not one player! - cracked 60 points on this team.)
Hurricanes: "The team doesn’t look that different but it seems miles away from the Cup win in 2006. I just don’t know. I can’t argue with Rod Brind’Amour’s leadership or Peter Laviolette’s style or even what I assume to be a great year for Eric Staal, who has just shored up a long, new contract to remain in NC. But… I just don’t think they have enough in them to knock someone out of the East." (Obviously RBA was a non-factor in terms of statistics, but he's still their leader, Laviolette was shown the door ealier this year, and they did make the playoffs. Of course, having Cole come back to the team DID kinda make everyone feel like it was 2006 all over again. So while I was right about Staal, but they did prove me wrong big time.)
Lightning: "In short, I think Tampa will not struggle to score goals... And despite my earlier uncertainty, their goalie situation seems to be in very good hands...Do I think they’ll be better than many think – yes." (At least I didn't think they'd actually make the playoffs. Unfortunatley for all involved, Tampa did very little to entertain. Melrose was not even there long enough to entertain!)
Canadiens: "In a year where there will be many ceremonies, including a banner raising for one Patrick Roy, the team will need to be sharp to keep the fans and the city happy. And, honestly, with minimal additions – Alex Tanguay, Robert Lang and Georges Laraques– and minimal departures – Mark Streit and Michael Ryder – I don’t see why they won’t. Montreal will easily, in my opinion, win the Northeast, and contend again for a top two spot in the conference." (I suppose I meant minimal in terms of not many in terms of departures, but my gosh, did the departure of Mark Streit hurt the Habs - and me, because he's on the WRONG New York team!! Their powerplay, once a lethal force, was pedestrian this year until Schneider came here late in the season. And, not so shockingly, the Islanders was pretty good. Wonder why? Tanguay and Lang were great pickups for the Habs, but when Lang went down with injury it hurt them big time. Laraques hardly ever saw the ice. They didn't see good or consistent effort from nearly enough players this year and that is why they not only didn't even challenge Boston for the top spot in the division, they barely even made the playoffs. I was sooooooo very wrong about this team. True, I was not alone, but I couldn't have been more wrong.)
Ottawa: "I for one think Heatley will have a career year....You just can't rely on one team and one defensive pairing. Not in this league. I see them perhaps coming just short this year." (Ottawa, despite hanging on still as of two weeks ago, really didn't come "just short" so I have to put this in the moron pile even though I didn't pick them. And as for Heatley, his 39G/33A/72P/-11 were really horrible considering the fanatastic years he has had).
Neither/Nor:
Panthers: "Maybe they’ll be better, by addition through subtraction. But I feel it. If it can happen to the Tampa Rays, why not to the Florida Panthers. Playoffs in Florida? Maybe!" (This doesn't fall in either grouping. I said they'd maybe make the playoffs. Again, I still feel badly they couldn't get it done. I will hope again for them next year and every year until they do return to the second season.)
Overall, I know I did a much better job with the East than the West (maybe not surprisingly). I think in spite of all the ups and downs of a season, injuries and surprise players, picking 7 out of 8 teams that make the playoffs is a good record. I'll take it. And, too, with the three point games, not too much movement was made. If you went back a month, Florida held the last playoff spot. Carolina only ousted Florida in the last few weeks. Otherwise, my picks would have been perfect.
Also worth noting, I do get credit for the following statement:
"I think the Atlantic division will be the toughest and will have the most
representatives going to the playoffs of any in the East."
With NJ, Philly, Pitt, and New York, the Atlantic has four teams going to the playoffs. Southeast (Wash, Canes) and NorthEast (Bruins, Habs) each have two.
I realize this is not the most unique of thoughts and this has been the way, for three years now, but I have to grab credit where I can. ;)
Tomorrow, I'll try to do the West prediction analysis and before Wednesday, I'll run through some brief some playoff predictions too. Some fantastic matchups to look forward to, that's for sure!
Some Final Thoughts From Today. . .
Apologies for the lack of updates in these last few exciting days of the regular season. Honestly it's been a little tough to get time to write. I debated, and honestly the decision is mostly due to time constraints on my side, on whether to do a full Rangers regular season review now or to wrap up the entire season when it does in fact end, and my choice is the latter. I will, for today, just focus on a few key stats and some comments that have been on my mind, but it will not be one big cohesive wrap up, at least not yet.
So if it all ends up being one mish-mosh of entries after the Rangers eventually fall from the playoffs (sooner or later), then so be it. If you are reading this blog, you've probably become used to some disorganization and rambling anyway. ;) So the season in review will be an entire season in review, probably done in more than one part and probably, knowing the pattern here at NHTP, more of a review of generalities than statistics.
But in the meantime, just a few final thoughts. I think it's important the Rangers ended their season on a good note. We sadly saw coming out of the lockout how a great team - and my favorite Rangers team in a long time - stumbled into the playoffs failing to get the minimal point necessary to win the division and fell straight out of the competition in four games. So don't underestimate the importance of going into the playoffs on a good note. And the way the Rangers played today, coming back three times to tie Philadelphia before taking the lead, scoring on both the PP and the PK, and standing up to the rough stuff, was very positive in many regards.
Some other interesting stats. It was pointed out to me that the Rangers had more wins at Madison Square Garden this season (26-11-4) than any years since 1993-1994 (28-8-6). Even though there were some pretty bad years in there, I was still surprised to read that.
And big kudos to Hank on his career high 38 wins, another stat that surprised me. Mostly because the team, at long, long stretches of this season, played so badly. And because, Hank himself was so often hung out to dry. This season was not really his best numbers wise (last year his GAA and Save% were better and he had 10 shutouts, to start). But I believe the end game, the wins, is testament to him standing up through the different systems the Rangers had this year, the team on a whole, and yes, like them or not, all those boring 2-1 wins, and all those shootout wins as well. Either way, kudos to Hank. Very impressive. He may never be the best goalie in the league, but he is certainly one of the best and the one I'd most like on my team, hands down.
Now just a look at one more regular season final stat.
Goals:
Antropov - 28
Naslund - 24
Zherdev - 23
Drury - 22
Callahan - 22
Now, ignore Antropov's numbers, because in all honestly they did not all come in New York. Look at those leaders. As much as everyone got on Markus Naslud and Nikolai Zherdev at many times this season, really, stop and ask yourself where this team would be without those goals. Could they have played better all around every game, could they have stepped up their effort and not taken games off? Yes, and yes. But look at the whole team and think of how many players didn't take games off and didn't step up their efforts at all moments. There are few - perhaps three - the same three I've been alluding to all season. So ignoring those three guys (for the moment)ask yourself whether either guy was really a bad move. I think there are other guys - and oh how part of me wishes I could jump in right now and talk about them for the next hour - that deserve more criticism than these two. Also, and very important to note, it was guys like Zherdev and Naslund, both natural goal scorers, that got a lot of those important goals in late minutes of the game, to either tie the game or win the game. Want to know who helped pad those win totals for the Rangers this year besides Hank? On the offensive side, look no further than these two.
I am not defending anyone's lack of effort on this Rangers team. In fact, because of it I am perhaps a little more than surprised that I am here right now NOT typing the season in review entry and that the Rangers are, indeed, going to the playoffs. BUT - but - that doesn't mean that I can't look at the players on this team a little differently than others may have. Zherdev and Naslund were NOT the problems on this years team. Not even close!
**Sorry, I didn't mean to go there now. But if you liked the above rant, that is what you'll definitely get more of when the season finally does come to an end and there is time to reflect back on the season, on a whole.**
Let's get back on track here. Overall, regardless of all the details and drama, the Rangers did make the playoffs. They and the New Jersey Devils are the only two teams in the Eastern Conference to have made the playoffs in all four years post-lockout. That deserves big kudos right there.
And now that a brand new season - the second season - begins, I am looking forward to seeing what the team can do. It won't be easy, but I think the Washington/Rangers series will be very, very entertaining. I hope for a ton of goal scoring, and games to remember for a long time. And to see AO in the playoffs live, that should be truly amazing.
Go Rangers!
So if it all ends up being one mish-mosh of entries after the Rangers eventually fall from the playoffs (sooner or later), then so be it. If you are reading this blog, you've probably become used to some disorganization and rambling anyway. ;) So the season in review will be an entire season in review, probably done in more than one part and probably, knowing the pattern here at NHTP, more of a review of generalities than statistics.
But in the meantime, just a few final thoughts. I think it's important the Rangers ended their season on a good note. We sadly saw coming out of the lockout how a great team - and my favorite Rangers team in a long time - stumbled into the playoffs failing to get the minimal point necessary to win the division and fell straight out of the competition in four games. So don't underestimate the importance of going into the playoffs on a good note. And the way the Rangers played today, coming back three times to tie Philadelphia before taking the lead, scoring on both the PP and the PK, and standing up to the rough stuff, was very positive in many regards.
Some other interesting stats. It was pointed out to me that the Rangers had more wins at Madison Square Garden this season (26-11-4) than any years since 1993-1994 (28-8-6). Even though there were some pretty bad years in there, I was still surprised to read that.
And big kudos to Hank on his career high 38 wins, another stat that surprised me. Mostly because the team, at long, long stretches of this season, played so badly. And because, Hank himself was so often hung out to dry. This season was not really his best numbers wise (last year his GAA and Save% were better and he had 10 shutouts, to start). But I believe the end game, the wins, is testament to him standing up through the different systems the Rangers had this year, the team on a whole, and yes, like them or not, all those boring 2-1 wins, and all those shootout wins as well. Either way, kudos to Hank. Very impressive. He may never be the best goalie in the league, but he is certainly one of the best and the one I'd most like on my team, hands down.
Now just a look at one more regular season final stat.
Goals:
Antropov - 28
Naslund - 24
Zherdev - 23
Drury - 22
Callahan - 22
Now, ignore Antropov's numbers, because in all honestly they did not all come in New York. Look at those leaders. As much as everyone got on Markus Naslud and Nikolai Zherdev at many times this season, really, stop and ask yourself where this team would be without those goals. Could they have played better all around every game, could they have stepped up their effort and not taken games off? Yes, and yes. But look at the whole team and think of how many players didn't take games off and didn't step up their efforts at all moments. There are few - perhaps three - the same three I've been alluding to all season. So ignoring those three guys (for the moment)ask yourself whether either guy was really a bad move. I think there are other guys - and oh how part of me wishes I could jump in right now and talk about them for the next hour - that deserve more criticism than these two. Also, and very important to note, it was guys like Zherdev and Naslund, both natural goal scorers, that got a lot of those important goals in late minutes of the game, to either tie the game or win the game. Want to know who helped pad those win totals for the Rangers this year besides Hank? On the offensive side, look no further than these two.
I am not defending anyone's lack of effort on this Rangers team. In fact, because of it I am perhaps a little more than surprised that I am here right now NOT typing the season in review entry and that the Rangers are, indeed, going to the playoffs. BUT - but - that doesn't mean that I can't look at the players on this team a little differently than others may have. Zherdev and Naslund were NOT the problems on this years team. Not even close!
**Sorry, I didn't mean to go there now. But if you liked the above rant, that is what you'll definitely get more of when the season finally does come to an end and there is time to reflect back on the season, on a whole.**
Let's get back on track here. Overall, regardless of all the details and drama, the Rangers did make the playoffs. They and the New Jersey Devils are the only two teams in the Eastern Conference to have made the playoffs in all four years post-lockout. That deserves big kudos right there.
And now that a brand new season - the second season - begins, I am looking forward to seeing what the team can do. It won't be easy, but I think the Washington/Rangers series will be very, very entertaining. I hope for a ton of goal scoring, and games to remember for a long time. And to see AO in the playoffs live, that should be truly amazing.
Go Rangers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
