Scott Cullen posted an article predicting the first round. He has Canucks in 6, with Bouma having 3 points in the series.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-playoff-picks-...nging-1.255002
Quote:
|
It would be easy to summarily dismiss the Flames, who defied the odds to reach the postseason, despite ranking 27th in possession (43.9%) after the trade deadline, but the matchup with Vancouver isn't a bad one for them. The Canucks weren't possession world-beaters (47.4%) late in the year either, so that isn't necessarily a big advantage in this case. Where the Canucks may have an advantage is that their defence corps is healthy now and that should allow them to get favourable matchups against the Flames' top line of Johnny Gaudreau, Sean Monahan and Jiri Hudler. If the Canucks can slow them down with Chris Tanev and Alexander Edler, that will put pressure on the rest of the lineup to produce. In the Canucks' case, obviously the Sedins will be the focus, but they also diversified the attack later in the year, with Radim Vrbata giving the second line an offensive jolt.
|
More than anything, it rubs me the wrong way when writers look at match-ups purely from one side. A series is played by two teams from two viewpoints. To analyze one side and say "well, look! Edler and Tanev! They're going to stop Monahudreau! Series solved!" aggravates me. Detailed articles would analyze both sides of the series and weigh the strengths of one team against the weaknesses/strengths of the other and come up with some conclusion based on some logic. To only look from one vantage point shows (whether actual or perceived) bias towards one team. He might (won't) be right, but at least take the time to be objective.