Maybe you misunderstood my post (or I didn't explain myself properly), for sure Carter was, then Doughty told him to "shut the f* up".
No big deal and was obviously heat of the moment. Doughty was irate and Carter was just trying to avoid a penalty for unsportsmanlike. I just thought it was amusing.
The Following User Says Thank You to steveo For This Useful Post:
But has been in on pretty much every one of Gaborik's goals, and is generally a big part of them keeping possession in the ozone and has also be great on the d-side.
I'm not saying he hasn't been great. But I don't see him winning Conn Smythe either.
If I had to pick the Conn Smythe, I'd go with Doughty. Argubably the best defenseman in the NHL, and he has proven it in the playoffs as well. 17 points (5G-12A) in 22 games and plays almost half of the game. That's tough to do.
Burke says the Rangers are too soft to win this series.
Quote:
"People here like black-and-blue hockey and that’s what we play. If you watch the playoffs, you see that size and hostility have a premium in our league right now. We started that arms race in Anaheim when we won (the Stanley Cup) in 2007 with a big, ugly team. Now, if you’re not big and ugly, you can’t win in the (Western Conference). I think the New York Rangers are finding out the hard way that they’re not big and ugly enough. That’s our goal this summer — to increase our hostility quotient"
Of all 7 Cup winners since he stated this Beef War, only LA and Boston could be considered Black and Blue teams. I wouldn't call Chicago x2, Pittsburgh, or Detroit Black and Blue teams.
Being big and nasty helps for sure, but so does Goaltending, Norris calibre defenseman and clutch forwards. The nasty is a distant fourth in that equation
Of all 7 Cup winners since he stated this Beef War, only LA and Boston could be considered Black and Blue teams. I wouldn't call Chicago x2, Pittsburgh, or Detroit Black and Blue teams.
Being big and nasty helps for sure, but so does Goaltending, Norris calibre defenseman and clutch forwards. The nasty is a distant fourth in that equation
Bickell was a huge factor in Chicago's victory over Boston. But you are correct, a team with a solid foundation is better than a team of slow bruisers. The more well rounded Habs took out the slow as hell Bruins.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
LA also isn't that nasty. At least not in the same sense than Bruins for example. In fact the Blackhawks-Kings series was IMO remarkably clean, considering the amount of physicality and the speed of the game.
LA hits everything in site, their forecheck is amazing and they win more than half of the board battles. This, more so than being able to punch a guy in the face is what Burke means (at least to me) about getting bigger and meaner. Watch the Ranger D, the shy away from contact at every chance. No way they win playing that way.
Of all 7 Cup winners since he stated this Beef War, only LA and Boston could be considered Black and Blue teams. I wouldn't call Chicago x2, Pittsburgh, or Detroit Black and Blue teams.
Being big and nasty helps for sure, but so does Goaltending, Norris calibre defenseman and clutch forwards. The nasty is a distant fourth in that equation
Chicago isn't exactly soft, circa 2008 Detroit wasn't either. Pittsburgh is the exception, not the rule. You want a good mix of physical and skilled players (especially in the Western conference), which is why LA and Chicago are so good come playoff time.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
Chicago isn't exactly soft. Circa 2008 Detroit wasn't either. Pittsburgh is the exception, not the rule. You want a good mix of physical and skilled players (especially in the Western conference), which is why LA is so good come playoff time.
Chicago is the third smallest and average at best pugnacity. It would be tough to argue that Detroit 2008 was tougher than average.
You can't be small and soft, but you don't need to be especially physical. It helps, but it's not essential
Big teams win, its simple. The smurf infested Habs got lucky because of goalkeeping from Carey Price beating the much bigger and better Bruins.
LA is a physical group. They lean on your and play heavy in the corners and it showed in Game 1 has it went on. Having a blend of speed size and skill works best IMO, thats kind of like the Hawks are built. I don't think he means to fill the top 6 with lumbering bums, but hes talking about adding some size to the lineup so we can play in the playoffs and have success by wearing teams down with 3rd and 4th lines.
You can get away with 2 out of the 3, the Kings have Size and skill, but they do just fine with those two. If they add some speedy skaters in the off season, they'll continue to dominate.
In regards to the Flames, the only one we really have is speed, (and maybe some skill in some prospects). We still lack in skill and size, that's probably why we aren't a playoff team yet.
LA also isn't that nasty. At least not in the same sense than Bruins for example. In fact the Blackhawks-Kings series was IMO remarkably clean, considering the amount of physicality and the speed of the game.
That's confusing dirt with Size.
LA's forecheck is menacing because of the size of their entire lineup. Whoever it is coming in on the forecheck, they are big and will finish their check on you.
Boston for all the hype aren't as physical as Los Angeles is. They have some guys that really bring that aspect, but through their lineup aren't as big and as physical as LA.
A huge part of winning games is not losing them. Their size gives them an advantage in all contested pucks.
Kopitar's got great skill, but the biggest part of his game that contributes to puck possession is his size. He just doesn't lose a puck battle clean very often.
Chicago is the third smallest and average at best pugnacity. It would be tough to argue that Detroit 2008 was tougher than average.
You can't be small and soft, but you don't need to be especially physical. It helps, but it's not essential
If you're not going to have size, it sure helps having two top three picks including a first overall ala Chicago and Pittsburgh. Calgary is unlikely to have that, maybe one more chance next year at a top 3, so I think going with size and speed in the Western Conference is a must.
If we somehow get 2 1sts, one being a generation talent, and 2 2nd overalls in a span of 4 years, we should be able to forgo a little size too.
