Jump to content

Rite of Spring 2013 (NHL Playoffs): "You have no fear of the underdog, that's why you will not survive."

CS85

By CS85
in Sports In General

Recommended Posts

dbadefense1990

dbadefense1990

Posted
Posted

On this day 20 years ago, Barry Melrose's Kings went to Toronto and stunned the Gilmour/Clark Maple Leafs in Game 7 of the Campbell Conference Final, 5-4. All this on a heroic effort by Gretzky's hat trick, after he was being criticized by newspaper outlets stating that he played like he "had a piano on his back."

Hard to believe it has been 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dbadefense1990

dbadefense1990

Posted
Posted

Tortorella has been fired.

The "healthy scratch" on Brad Richards sealed his fate. That and the fact that the Rags couldn't score if they played all their games at the Playboy Mansion.*

*fortunately, they got the half-assed Caps in Round 1 and took advantage of that, then reality set in with the Bruins

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Six

The Six

Posted
Posted

Same ol' Sharks

A 2-goal lead is nothing in hockey. I'd be shocked if the Sharks didn't get back in it soon.

The 2-goal lead is the most dangerous to have in hockey/soccer.

If you lead by 1 goal, then it's just a close game where anything can happen, and there's plenty of time for anyone to be a hero.

If you lead by 3+ goals, then it's a safe lead where a comeback would probably take too long.

If you have a 2-goal lead, when you allow the 1st goal, not only your lead is chopped in half, you lose all momentum, to where the other team can use it to grab the 2nd goal. At that point, your team is screwed.

So, instead of being up by two, you'd rather be up by one? You can't be serious.

Let's take tonight's game, for example.

I'd rather want the goal sequence to be LA-SJ-LA, rather than what actually happened, when the Kings raced to a 2-0 lead but got its lead sliced in half. If the two teams exchanged goals every other pass, then I'd take solace in knowing that both game-plans are pretty even, and that it'll take the courageousness of one player to breakthrough. But get a two-goal lead and have it trimmed, and not only does the other team get new life, but nerves start to rattle on the other bench, and that nervousness reaches the playing field. Take a look at how much work Quick had to do after the San Jose goal for proof; the Kings were rattled, San Jose saw through Sutter's defense, and they went all-out in trying to tie the game, but couldn't.

See, I'm one of those people who believes in the "broken axle" theory in sports; allow one error and the floodgates gradually, and painfully, get a team to be doomed. And one of my teams did experience such "broken axle" loss of losing exactly a 2-goal lead (MLS Cup 1996).

Actually I'd rather have the game be tied than have a 1-goal lead, cuz if it's tied and then you score then you're now in the lead. If you're already in the lead and you score than you're just still in the lead, so what? Also if it's tied you'll play harder to score so it's better for the coach that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbadefense1990

dbadefense1990

Posted
Posted

Same ol' Sharks

A 2-goal lead is nothing in hockey. I'd be shocked if the Sharks didn't get back in it soon.

The 2-goal lead is the most dangerous to have in hockey/soccer.

If you lead by 1 goal, then it's just a close game where anything can happen, and there's plenty of time for anyone to be a hero.

If you lead by 3+ goals, then it's a safe lead where a comeback would probably take too long.

If you have a 2-goal lead, when you allow the 1st goal, not only your lead is chopped in half, you lose all momentum, to where the other team can use it to grab the 2nd goal. At that point, your team is screwed.

So, instead of being up by two, you'd rather be up by one? You can't be serious.

Let's take tonight's game, for example.

I'd rather want the goal sequence to be LA-SJ-LA, rather than what actually happened, when the Kings raced to a 2-0 lead but got its lead sliced in half. If the two teams exchanged goals every other pass, then I'd take solace in knowing that both game-plans are pretty even, and that it'll take the courageousness of one player to breakthrough. But get a two-goal lead and have it trimmed, and not only does the other team get new life, but nerves start to rattle on the other bench, and that nervousness reaches the playing field. Take a look at how much work Quick had to do after the San Jose goal for proof; the Kings were rattled, San Jose saw through Sutter's defense, and they went all-out in trying to tie the game, but couldn't.

See, I'm one of those people who believes in the "broken axle" theory in sports; allow one error and the floodgates gradually, and painfully, get a team to be doomed. And one of my teams did experience such "broken axle" loss of losing exactly a 2-goal lead (MLS Cup 1996).

Actually I'd rather have the game be tied than have a 1-goal lead, cuz if it's tied and then you score then you're now in the lead. If you're already in the lead and you score than you're just still in the lead, so what? Also if it's tied you'll play harder to score so it's better for the coach that way.

Thanks...for the sarcasm.*

*in a friendly, polite gesture

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brass

Brass

Posted
Posted

This has probably been discussed, but I just noticed that the last five teams in the playoffs right now, are also the last five teams to win the Stanley Cup.

On 4/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Rollins Man said:

what the hell is ccslc?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
njmeadowlanders

njmeadowlanders

Posted
Posted

Damn.

But New York really needs to invigorate that offense somehow. It's become quite clear that they stagnated under Torts. If Torts wants to coach, he'll fine work in relatively short time. Personally, I'm hoping he returns to television instead.

I think it's a mistake. You don't fire someone unless you think you can do better. Obviously Sather et al do, but IMO, who's the favorite, Alain Vingault? Wasn't he fired for basically all the same reasons? I just don't see it. I would've given him another shot.

65caba33-7cfc-417f-ac8e-5eb8cdd12dc9_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CS85

CS85

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Shaw sliced open Filppula's Achilles' tendon with his skate. Another blow to the Wings.

Ouch! Holy crap.

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kramerica Industries

Kramerica Industries

Posted
Posted

You're not gonna find a bigger fan of Torts than myself. There's just always an apparent danger with a head coach who is a pain in the ass. Eventually, they wear thin amongst the players, and you look back at the Rangers offensive performance the past two postseasons, it's pretty abysmal.

I'm not crazy about the decision, but I think we could all kind of see it coming with the absolute chaos the Rangers showed on the ice at times this season. Special teams, especially in this Bruins series, was an absolute disaster zone, and it would be no stretch at all to say that series was lost on special teams.

I don't think Alain Vigneault would be the worst hire. I just hope that it would turn out to be a case where he was the head coach of a bunch of floppers, and is not a head coach who endorses flopping. The Rangers would quickly become unwatchable and unlikeable if that was their style.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_Admiral

The_Admiral

Posted
Posted

I have an overwhelming sense of dread about the Hawks' one-goal lead. Imagine how much worse I'd feel if they instead had a two-goal lead!

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept