All things 2014 Playoffs

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Lucky pricks

The lucky pricks have held 2 or 3 goal leads in each game.   Maybe it's Boston that are the lucky pricks for pulling out as in in game 2.  So much for the predictions that they'll lose for in a row.

Seriously, Boston could easily be down 0-3.

and Montreal could be down 1-2 really.

It's 2-1. Ifs and buts are cheap

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Lucky pricks

The lucky pricks have held 2 or 3 goal leads in each game.   Maybe it's Boston that are the lucky pricks for pulling out as in in game 2.  So much for the predictions that they'll lose for in a row.

Seriously, Boston could easily be down 0-3.

and Montreal could be down 1-2 really.

It's 2-1. Ifs and buts are cheap

You're sounding foolish right now. One team has come out and was ahead 2-0, 3-1 and 3-0. Which do you think is a more likely "could"? The Bruins are *lucky* they are not down 0-3 because they were good enough to take advantage of the chances they had when they were down 1-3, but the reality that they are fortunate to not be down 0-3 is very much a fact. You'd figure after surviving being down 1-4 themselves in the third that the Habs would know better than to ease up and try to hold a lead (especially about the best 3rd period team). Well now they know first-hand.

Well the Bruins have had multiple chances that either hit the post or stopped by an incredible Carey Price, so them coming back in the 3rd period is not even close to being luck, it's just them finally capitalizing on their chances.
The Bruins have dominated, by a wide margin, the first 2 games.

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Lucky pricks

The lucky pricks have held 2 or 3 goal leads in each game.   Maybe it's Boston that are the lucky pricks for pulling out as in in game 2.  So much for the predictions that they'll lose for in a row.

Seriously, Boston could easily be down 0-3.

and Montreal could be down 1-2 really.

It's 2-1. Ifs and buts are cheap

You're sounding foolish right now.  One team has come out and was ahead 2-0, 3-1 and 3-0.  Which do you think is a more likely "could"?  The Bruins are *lucky* they are not down 0-3 because they were good enough to take advantage of the chances they had when they were down 1-3, but the reality that they are fortunate to not be down 0-3 is very much a fact.  You'd figure after surviving being down 1-4 themselves in the third that the Habs would know better than to ease up and try to hold a lead (especially about the best 3rd period team).  Well now they know first-hand.

The first game went to OT. By that definition, either team could have won.

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Lucky pricks

The lucky pricks have held 2 or 3 goal leads in each game.   Maybe it's Boston that are the lucky pricks for pulling out as in in game 2.  So much for the predictions that they'll lose for in a row.

Seriously, Boston could easily be down 0-3.

and Montreal could be down 1-2 really.

It's 2-1. Ifs and buts are cheap

You're sounding foolish right now.  One team has come out and was ahead 2-0, 3-1 and 3-0.  Which do you think is a more likely "could"?  The Bruins are *lucky* they are not down 0-3 because they were good enough to take advantage of the chances they had when they were down 1-3, but the reality that they are fortunate to not be down 0-3 is very much a fact.  You'd figure after surviving being down 1-4 themselves in the third that the Habs would know better than to ease up and try to hold a lead (especially about the best 3rd period team).  Well now they know first-hand.

The first game went to OT. By that definition, either team could have won.

They had a 2-0 lead and then a 3-2 lead. Boston scored with under 2 to go to tie it up. If they had gone on to win that game most people without a bias would say they were lucky or fortunate to win.

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Lucky pricks

The lucky pricks have held 2 or 3 goal leads in each game.   Maybe it's Boston that are the lucky pricks for pulling out as in in game 2.  So much for the predictions that they'll lose for in a row.

Seriously, Boston could easily be down 0-3.

and Montreal could be down 1-2 really.

It's 2-1. Ifs and buts are cheap

You're sounding foolish right now.  One team has come out and was ahead 2-0, 3-1 and 3-0.  Which do you think is a more likely "could"?  The Bruins are *lucky* they are not down 0-3 because they were good enough to take advantage of the chances they had when they were down 1-3, but the reality that they are fortunate to not be down 0-3 is very much a fact.  You'd figure after surviving being down 1-4 themselves in the third that the Habs would know better than to ease up and try to hold a lead (especially about the best 3rd period team).  Well now they know first-hand.

The first game went to OT. By that definition, either team could have won.

They had a 2-0 lead and then a 3-2 lead.  Boston scored with under 2 to go to tie it up.  If they had gone on to win that game most people without a bias would say they were lucky or fortunate to win.

That's not true, most people said boston was the better team by far in game 1.

Yeah, Prags, to argue that Boston wasn't the better team for the first two games is silly.

That said, it doesn't matter, because they haven't capitalized on their chances. They gotta win tonight.

Big game for the Bruins tonight. Huge. If the Habs go up 3-1... will be hard to come back from that.

Kings looking to go 3-0 tonight at home vs the Ducks.

GO HOCKEY GO!!!

Let's go Bs.

lets go LA!

Let's go Bs and LA - not that I care much who wins that series.

I'd like to see the Ducks make a series of it....the Ducks are actually pretty entertaining to watch...not sure why everyone wants LA to win?

I wasn't sure if Rangers fans were actually booing Nash or not until they mentioned it this morning. Like...wow...what are they gonna do with that contract?

tim1_2 wrote:I'd like to see the Ducks make a series of it....the Ducks are actually pretty entertaining to watch...not sure why everyone wants LA to win?

I dunno...for Dung and giggles? I don't really care either to be honest. I want Anaheim to panic and make a dumb trade for Spezza though.

That was pretty crazy to hear about... boo'd him every time he touched the puck. Wow.

Rags fans don't tolerate Dung, and Nash has crammed a lot of Dung down their throats this post season. I do feel a little sorry for the Rags. They looked pretty good in the first round, and just look exhausted now.

shabbs wrote:That was pretty crazy to hear about... boo'd him every time he touched the puck. Wow.

It was LOUD too. It was no joke at all. At first all I could think of was that they were saying 'Lou' - as in Martin St.Louis, but that seemed like a reach. This morning pretty much everyone confirms it was Nash and Richards seemed to be quite upset that they were doing it.

I've defended Nash before - and he did try to assert himself last night - but you get paid 8 million dollars, you NEED to do something. St.Louis as well, just puttering around aimlessly while the team gets beaten soundly.

If the Rags ate half that contract, would you want Nash here? Or even if they ate 30% of the contact?

I don't see what they're gonna do with him to be honest. A line of Zibanejad, Nash and Ryan sounds sexy, but this version of Nash blows.