My team (Kings) is likely going to the playoffs, but they need to step it up a bit if they want to stay in the hunt.
2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	Recommended Videos
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	X
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs ThreadWith only a couple weeks left in the season, I feel it's time to start up a thread about the Playoffs. How's your team going to do? Will they even make it in? Who's going to win the Cup? Talk about it here.
 
 My team (Kings) is likely going to the playoffs, but they need to step it up a bit if they want to stay in the hunt.My Teams:
 NCAA FB-Oregon Ducks
 NCAA BB-Gonzaga Bulldogs
 NBA-Portland Trail Blazers
 NFL-Carolina Panthers
 MLB-San Francisco Giants
 NHL-Los Angeles Kings
 Won't change this signature until Oregon wins a national championship (started 3/10/10)
 Tags: None
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 I'd like to say the Pens will repeat this year, but they haven't been able to beat Jersey (0-6) or Washington (0-4) this year. Unless they somehow avoid both teams (probably highly unlikely), it is going to be very tough for them to get back to the Cup and close the Igloo with a bang. The West looks wide open at this point with possibly 7 of 8 playoff teams having 100+ points.Steelers : IX, X, XIII, XIV, XL, XLIII
 Penguins : 1990/91, 1991/92, 2008/09, 20015/16, 2016/17
 Pirates : 1909, 1925, 1960, 1971, 1979
 Panthers (FB): 1915, 1916, 1918, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1976
 Panthers (MBB): 1927/28, 1929/30Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 I think this year is probably the hardest to predict.
 All of the top teams have major question marks.
 And the 3-8 seeds all have flaws too.
 
 In the East my favorites are Pittsburgh and New Jersey. Washington is a lot of fun to watch but defense and goaltending still win Cups and that's the Caps weakest points.
 Pittsburgh is a hard working team with enough scoring, but I worry they might still be tired from the last 2 seasons.
 And New Jersey is always strong but will 'playoff-choke Marty 'show up again? If he does, I can see the Devils losing in the first round.
 But the East is wide open. Anyone can win it.
 
 In the West, Chicago is definitely a favorite but like Washington, they're goaltending is suspect. However, I think their D will stay strong and Niemi is good enough to get them all the way.
 SJ? Depends on whether they decide to play with balls. If they do, they could win it. Then again, if Nabby continues to choke, they could be first round victims.
 Detroit will be competitive but you never know with rookie goalies. And this team has played more games in the last 3 seasons than any other. I have to believe that's going to catch up with them at some point.
 The one team in the West that scares me is Phoenix. They have nothing to lose, play super boring (but effective) defense and have a rockstar for a goalie.
 
 Both conferences are up in the air.
 But if I had to bet on it, I'd say Chicago-Pittsburgh with Chicago winning in 6.Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 spot on for the caps and pens points..
 Washington is a lot of fun to watch but defense and goaltending still win Cups and that's the Caps weakest points.
 
 Pittsburgh is a hard working team with enough scoring, but I worry they might still be tired from the last 2 seasons.
 
 Both conferences are up in the air.
 
 But if I had to bet on it, I'd say Chicago-Pittsburgh with Chicago winning in 6.
 
 pens have had a long last 3 years and even 4 years back when making the playoffs for first time in a long time. when will they run out of gas?
 
 if the pens made it back to the finals, that would be great. to play the hawks to close down the igloo. man, it would be great if they could win it on home ice.. just once!! highly unlikely though..Twitch
 twitch.tv/Fiddy14
 YouTube
 http://www.youtube.com/@Fiddy14
 X
 https://x.com/Fiddy14_
 
 Favorite Teams
 Pittsburgh Penguins
 New York Mets
 Cleveland Cavaliers
 Cleveland Browns
 Notre Dame Fightin Irish
 Liverpool FCComment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 Everyone talks about how the Caps don't have enough defense to win a Cup, but seem to forget that the Penguins have given up more goals than Washington.
 
 The only two teams that concern me in the East are the Penguins (history, strange officiating trend that has had them with a PP advantage or tie in every game against us for the last two years) and the Devils (because they give us a real hard time). The rest of the teams I think DC could beat in a series, though the Sens have really had our number this year.Last edited by tyler289; 04-09-2010, 05:23 PM.Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 Ah, the good ol' "Defense wins championships" cliche, which is why of course the Saints had no shot at winning the Super Bowl this year. Let's take a look at the Stanley Cup finalists from the last 5 seasons (winner in bold).
 
 2009
 
 Pittsburgh - Offensive rank: 6th, Defensive rank: 18th
 Detroit - Off: 1st, Def: 19th
 
 2008
 
 Detroit - Off: 3rd, Def: 1st
 Pittsburgh - Off: 7th, Def: 8th
 
 2007
 
 Anaheim - Off: 6th, Def: 7th
 Ottawa - Off: 2nd, Def: 10th
 
 2006
 
 Carolina - Off: 3rd, Def: 18th
 Edmonton - Off: 13th, Def: 13th
 
 2004
 
 Tampa Bay - Off: 3rd, Def: 10th
 Calgary - Off: 19th, Def: 3rd
 
 I count one team that relied on defence and goaltending to reach the finals. And they lost.
 
 In the last 30 years, I'd say there are 2 teams that won Cups primarily on the strength of defence/goaltending ('86 Habs, '03 Devils) and 2 others that you can make a good case for ('95 Devils, '99 Stars). Off the top of my head, I can think of 9-10 teams who won with an all-out attack. Not that defence and goaltending aren't important, but can you win a Cup as an offence-first team? Of course.Last edited by DrJones; 04-09-2010, 06:12 PM.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 What was their defensive stats in the playoffs?Ah, the good ol' "Defense wins championships" cliche, which is why of course the Saints had no shot at winning the Super Bowl this year. Let's take a look at the Stanley Cup finalists from the last 5 seasons (winner in bold).
 
 2009
 
 Pittsburgh - Offensive rank: 6th, Defensive rank: 18th
 Detroit - Off: 1st, Def: 19th
 
 2008
 
 Detroit - Off: 3rd, Def: 1st
 Pittsburgh - Off: 7th, Def: 8th
 
 2007
 
 Anaheim - Off: 6th, Def: 7th
 Ottawa - Off: 2nd, Def: 10th
 
 2006
 
 Carolina - Off: 3rd, Def: 18th
 Edmonton - Off: 13th, Def: 13th
 
 2004
 
 Tampa Bay - Off: 3rd, Def: 10th
 Calgary - Off: 19th, Def: 3rd
 
 I count one team that relied on defence and goaltending to reach the finals. And they lost.
 
 In the last 30 years, I'd say there are 2 teams that won Cups primarily on the strength of defence/goaltending ('86 Habs, '03 Devils) and 2 others that you can make a good case for ('95 Devils, '99 Stars). Off the top of my head, I can think of 9-10 teams who won with an all-out attack. Not that defence and goaltending aren't important, but can you win a Cup as an offence-first team? Of course.
 With injuries, fatigue, etc., sometimes teams don't look close to how they should in the regular season.
 The Wings are a great example of that from last year. We blew defensively in the regular season, but in the playoffs we had great defensive numbers. Same with Pittsburgh.
 
 Playoffs Goals-Against-Average:
 2009 - Det (2nd), Pit (5th)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2007 - Ana (3rd), Ott (6th)
 2006 - Car (3rd), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (4th)
 
 Looks like defense can win a lot of games in the playoffs. Not one of the Cup winners was below top 5 in the postseason and 4 out of the last 5 have been in the top 3.
 
 Washington and Chicago both have great defensive numbers this year, but that doesn't always translate well in the playoffs.
 We'll see again this year. I highly doubt we'll ever see a Cup winner who is in the bottom half of the 16 playoff teams in terms of GAA.Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 So the regular season isn't instructive with how teams perform in the playoffs? Than why would anyone say that Washington can't win because of their poor regular season defence?What was their defensive stats in the playoffs?
 With injuries, fatigue, etc., sometimes teams don't look close to how they should in the regular season.
 The Wings are a great example of that from last year. We blew defensively in the regular season, but in the playoffs we had great defensive numbers. Same with Pittsburgh.
 
 Do you have the offensive ranks as well? Typically teams that win in short series are going to have good offensive and defensive numbers.Playoffs Goals-Against-Average:
 2009 - Det (2nd), Pit (5th)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2007 - Ana (3rd), Ott (6th)
 2006 - Car (3rd), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (4th)
 
 Looks like defense can win a lot of games in the playoffs. Not one of the Cup winners was below top 5 in the postseason and 4 out of the last 5 have been in the top 3.
 
 I'm sure the first part is a typo, since the Caps have rotten defensive numbers, that's why this topic came up in the first place.
 
 And as you've proven, BAD defensive numbers don't necessarily translate well in the playoffs either. Defence is more about working hard. Offence is more about talent. It's easier for poor defensive teams to improve their defensive play than it is for poor offensive teams to score more goals. Work ethic tends to balance out in the playoffs (it's easier to outwork teams during the slog of the 82-game regular season than it is when a lot is on the line), therefore more talented teams will generally win.
 
 I agree. Just as I highly doubt we'll ever see a Cup winner who is in the bottom half of the 16 playoff teams in terms of goals scored per game. But if your argument is that regular season numbers don't correlate to postseason numbers, why would anyone doubt the Caps on the basis of their regular season numbers?Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 I'm not terribly afraid of Phoenix. Teams that win in the regular season through superior work ethic as opposed to talent often find it difficult to win in the playoffs because their intensity meter is already cranked to 10, I'm not sure if they can reach another level.
 
 Yes, it's necessary for all playoff teams to be able to win their share of 2-1 OT games. But you also need to be able to win your share of 6-2 games as well. I think the Coyotes' margin of error is too slim to win more than a round.
 
 Don't get me wrong, Phoenix is a great story, and I stand to win a fair amount of cash if they win the Cup, so they'll have my support when they're not playing the Canucks. But I don't think they'll be able to score enough to do much damage, much like Tippett's Dallas teams of '04, '06, and '07.
 
 "But what about Dallas getting to the Conference Final in '08?" you may ask. D'you know what was different about that Stars team, as opposed to the previous 3 seasons? They were a lot better OFFENSIVELY, ranking 2nd in the West in goals scored.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 I hear what you're saying Dr.Jones, but I remember the Ducks going to the Cup finals in 03 and they were routinely outshot, outchanced and even outscored in most series but still managed to get 3 periods away from winning the Cup.
 
 As far as Offensive number in the last few years playoffs:
 
 2009 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (4th)
 2007 - Ana (4th), Ott (2nd)
 2006 - Car (5th), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (3rd)
 2003 - NJ (3rd), Ana (11th)
 
 
 Playoffs Goals-Against-Average:
 2009 - Det (2nd), Pit (5th)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2007 - Ana (3rd), Ott (6th)
 2006 - Car (3rd), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (4th)
 2003 - NJ (1st), Ana (3rd)
 
 So those numbers show you still need good offense, but I'd argue that most teams strive for a better defense.
 
 Regarding regular season points not always telling the story, you need to look at how the teams performed as well.
 Detroit for instance. Last year their defense stunk because of fatigue and injury. But everyone knew they could turn it around in the postseason. Why? Because they proved it the last 2 playoffs.
 With teams like Washington, we've never seen them play tight defense. Last year they finished 7th overall. That's not bad out of 16 teams. But they also got the Rangers in the first round and everyone knows they had hard time scoring. In the 2nd round, they allowed quite a few on Pittsburgh including an embarassing performance in game 7.
 
 I guess my point is this, in this era every player and coach will take defense over offense in the playoffs. And most of the time, a great defense usually trumps a great offense.
 Offense can win you a few games here or there, but if you're bad in your own end, it catches up to you in the spring.
 And for that reason, I don't know if Washington's offense will be able to make up for it's lack of defense over the course of 4 rounds.
 
 In a lot of ways the Caps remind me of the early 90's Wings. Lots of offense but suspect defense and goalies.
 Bowman came in, shipped out guys like Paul Coffey and got Mike Vernon, instituted a tight, sound defense and was able to win 3 Cups.
 Prior to this, we got embarrassed with 1st round exits against the Leafs and Sharks despite having incredible offensive firepower. Our offense was negated by the defense of Toronto and SJ.
 
 Which reminds me, **** you Nik Borchevsky!Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 Defense wins championships, it's a cliche, but most of the time it's true.
 
 As for the Playoffs, we have to likely face Vancouver, and that won't be easy. We haven't been to the playoffs since 2001, so it's kind of just good to be there. I'm more scared of seeing the Coyotes, Red Wings, or the Sharks if we end up beating the Nucks.My Teams:
 NCAA FB-Oregon Ducks
 NCAA BB-Gonzaga Bulldogs
 NBA-Portland Trail Blazers
 NFL-Carolina Panthers
 MLB-San Francisco Giants
 NHL-Los Angeles Kings
 Won't change this signature until Oregon wins a national championship (started 3/10/10)
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 Sure. But you're going back 7 years. Why is the Anaheim '03 example more valid than the Carolina '06 example?
 
 Coaches strive for better defence, sure. That's because defence can be taught, offence can't.As far as Offensive number in the last few years playoffs:
 
 2009 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (4th)
 2007 - Ana (4th), Ott (2nd)
 2006 - Car (5th), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (3rd)
 2003 - NJ (3rd), Ana (11th)
 
 
 Playoffs Goals-Against-Average:
 2009 - Det (2nd), Pit (5th)
 2008 - Det (1st), Pit (2nd)
 2007 - Ana (3rd), Ott (6th)
 2006 - Car (3rd), Edm (6th)
 2004 - TB (2nd), Cgy (4th)
 2003 - NJ (1st), Ana (3rd)
 
 So those numbers show you still need good offense, but I'd argue that most teams strive for a better defense.
 
 Regarding regular season points not always telling the story, you need to look at how the teams performed as well.
 Detroit for instance. Last year their defense stunk because of fatigue and injury. But everyone knew they could turn it around in the postseason. Why? Because they proved it the last 2 playoffs.
 
 So Detroit ranked 19th defensively in 2009 because of injuries to who, exactly? Their lineup from last year looks pretty healthy to me.
 
 I know how they played last year. The year before they won the Cup, Carolina missed the playoffs.With teams like Washington, we've never seen them play tight defense. Last year they finished 7th overall. That's not bad out of 16 teams. But they also got the Rangers in the first round and everyone knows they had hard time scoring. In the 2nd round, they allowed quite a few on Pittsburgh including an embarassing performance in game 7.
 
 I don't believe this. Otherwise, we'd be seeing New Jersey and Minnesota succeed consistently in the playoffs, and we don't.
 
 And I could say the exact opposite, that defence can win you a few games here or there, but if you can't score consistently, it catches up to you in the spring. It's borne out in the stats. Teams that fare poorly offensively during the regular season don't do well in the playoffs, either.
 
 You're right in that Detroit played better defence in their Cup-winning years than in the early 90s. But their offence was still elite. In '97, '98, '02, and '08, Detroit ranked 6th, 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd in offence.In a lot of ways the Caps remind me of the early 90's Wings. Lots of offense but suspect defense and goalies.
 Bowman came in, shipped out guys like Paul Coffey and got Mike Vernon, instituted a tight, sound defense and was able to win 3 Cups.
 Prior to this, we got embarrassed with 1st round exits against the Leafs and Sharks despite having incredible offensive firepower. Our offense was negated by the defense of Toronto and SJ.
 
 I'm not disputing that defence and goaltending is important. I just don't believe that they're MORE important than offence. Poor defensive teams can be fixed through coaching, poor offensive teams need an influx of talent. As you illustrated with the '09 Red Wings and Penguins, teams can successfully tighten up defensively in the postseason after poor defensive regular seasons. But teams that don't score in the regular season...they don't score in the playoffs either.
 
 Let's take a look at the current 09/10 standings:
 
 Most goals scored: Washington, Chicago, Vancouver, San Jose, Pittsburgh.
 Fewest goals allowed: New Jersey, Boston, Phoenix, Calgary, Buffalo.
 
 What group is most likely to include this year's Cup champ?
 
 EDIT: Anyway, I'm tired of hijacking the thread, so I'll drop it.Last edited by DrJones; 04-10-2010, 04:41 AM.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Re: 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread
 
 I think in the East, it's PIT, then WSH, then everyone else.NHL - Philadelphia Flyers
 NFL - Buffalo Bills
 MLB - Cincinnati Reds
 
 Originally posted by Money99And how does one levy a check that will result in only a slight concussion? Do they set their shoulder-pads to 'stun'?Comment

 
		
	 
		
	 
		
	 
		
	 I agree Hank with your predictions.  It will fun too watch all the games.
  I agree Hank with your predictions.  It will fun too watch all the games.
							
						 
		
	 
	
Comment