Stanley Cup Playoffs 2015

tim1_2 wrote:It's always tough to separate your heart from your brain when making picks.  I think it was reasonable to pick Ottawa to beat Montreal.  The Cup though?  Not so much.

Fans? Reasonable?

tim1_2 wrote:It's always tough to separate your heart from your brain when making picks.  I think it was reasonable to pick Ottawa to beat Montreal.  The Cup though?  Not so much.

See, that's the thing, though. I actively turned my brain off and basically let my heart make my picks. It's boring to pick a Blackhawks/Rangers final (which is what my brain would have chosen). It was much more fun this way.

I had Ottawa beating Montreal and Tampa then losing to the rags in the ECf. I thought it was reasonable at the time.

I had Nash in the finals though. That was my pool right there.

Well, that's all she wrote. Can't sit back on a lead like that. Two goals in under 2 minutes. Vermette with 2 GWG in last five games.

wprager wrote:Well, that's all she wrote.  Can't sit back on a lead like that.  Two goals in under 2 minutes.  Vermette with 2 GWG in last five games.

And this is why it's great to have depth. Teravainen and Vermette with the goals for Chicago, Killorn for TB. The game was a little defensive for my tastes...here's hoping they switch to run and gun for the rest of the series!

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:Well, that's all she wrote.  Can't sit back on a lead like that.  Two goals in under 2 minutes.  Vermette with 2 GWG in last five games.

And this is why it's great to have depth.  Teravainen and Vermette with the goals for Chicago, Killorn for TB.  The game was a little defensive for my tastes...here's hoping they switch to run and gun for the rest of the series!

Chicago had the 2nd best defense in the league. Tampa had the best offense. There's no way Chicago will want to run-and-gun. I'm afraid this is going to be a bit of a boring series as I don't think Tampa has the experience yet to impose their style on Chicago. All three goals were kinda flukey -- the Killorn one was a backhand slap out of the air on a puck behind him, facing away from the goal (bet you he only connects on that 1 in 10, and 1 in 10 of those don't go wide, and 1 in 10 of those actually beat Crawford); Vermette's goal was deflected up and went in off the crossbar; Teravainen's had the forward crossing in front of Bishop just before the puck, a split second either way and Bishop either sees it or the forward blocks it). Maybe "flukey" is not the right term, but none of those were great scoring opportunities. So I think we're in for a low-scoring affair.

you will not win a cup with Ben Bishop as your #1

Ev wrote:you will not win a cup with Ben Bishop as your #1

Nor if you let in a soft goal in OT of Game 3 vs. the Habs. Not that that's been mentioned anywhere here or ottawasun.com

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:you will not win a cup with Ben Bishop as your #1

Nor if you let in a soft goal in OT of Game 3 vs. the Habs. Not that that's been mentioned anywhere here or ottawasun.com

What if Bishop is your #1 but the other team's goalie let in a soft goal in OT of Game 3 vs. the Habs? Would the Finals end in a stalemate? You guys with your absolute statements are just asking for a paradox.

good thing bishop was pulled

Ev wrote:good thing bishop was pulled

I feel like tonight's outcome buttresses your position seen a post or two above.

Highly entertaining game. Hopefully this thing goes 7.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:good thing bishop was pulled

I feel like tonight's outcome buttresses your position seen a post or two above.

Hasn't Bishop been pulled in every series so far? Unless the injury is serious he'll be back. I missed the game except for the last 8 or so minutes. What happened, exactly? I saw the replay where the Hawks player smushed his arm up against the post but he didn't seem to react like it was his arm that got hurt. Is it possible he tried to push off to get across but with his arm being pinned against the bar he ended up straining something in the leg/groin area?

Nobody really knows what happened to Bishop. Yeah, it looked like maybe a leg/hip injury but that's all just speculation. When he took his first break, it seemed like he needed a trip to the bathroom.

tim1_2 wrote:Nobody really knows what happened to Bishop.  Yeah, it looked like maybe a leg/hip injury but that's all just speculation.  When he took his first break, it seemed like he needed a trip to the bathroom.

We wish him a speedy recovery.

Hard not to like this lightning team

tim1_2 wrote:Nobody really knows what happened to Bishop.  Yeah, it looked like maybe a leg/hip injury but that's all just speculation.  When he took his first break, it seemed like he needed a trip to the bathroom.

I hate Healy, but he was spot on, noticing how Bishop had trouble moving to his left (moving somewhat slowly, getting up after even more slowly) and no trouble at all moving to his right. Hawks took advantage of it on the second goal (hard to tell if they planned it that way but it could have been a set play in which the goalie had to move to his left and they went with it). My guess is his right groin (pain pushing off with the right leg to go across to the left).

Man, Kypreos really dislikes people who show their pain, eh? Making all kinds of judgments about Bishop *and* how his team mates treat him.

Nice W for the Bolts. Stevie Y sure has done an amazing job there.