Ah, The Stanley Cup Play-Offs

[joekicker 53]

Not looking good for your "inevitability" there Joe.

 

Full credit to Chicago, for coming out swinging, and Philly simply wasn't ready. That's the first game Chicago actually won, as opposed to fluking out. Sure shortens the odds, and that's a fact. Doesn't matter HOW you win, even the fourth one.

 

The thing is that at this level there's really not that much difference between the teams, and two or three breaks lasting a total of 10 seconds is all you need. Chicago had a HELL of a lot more than that and made the most of it. You remember Philly came from three games down and 3-0 down in the first period against Boston. I couldn't figure out Philadelphia getting away from its offensive strength of going behind the net, though. Very weird. I predict you'll see more of that on Wednesday.

 

Pronger was absolutely pwned! They went right at him.

 

All that said and credit given, Philly missed two open-net goals and some other chances. Them's the breaks, Hawks win.

 

.

[bigdelta 46]

Not looking good for your "inevitability" there Joe. Chicago made some adjustments and shut down Pronger in game 5, and Dustin Byfuglien (hockey has the best names ) put two in the back of the net.

 

The mojo is swinging back and forth in this series. Which way will it swing in game 6?

It'll swing back to Flyers at home.I thought they had a chance at 4-2,but when BHawks scored,it was over at that point.

Sadly,Chicago in 7.

Let's Go,Fly-ers.

[JohnnyK 28]

Flyers were outplayed and outcoached. Joel Q was smart breaking up his big line. Pronger can't play against every line, the Buffster started to throw his weight around and Chicago unlocked their speed making Pronger skate and get tired. Only Doug Harvey could do 30 mins EVERY night.

Johnnyk dee jai today - both his teams won: Hawks and Celts!

[VicVegas 70]

Somewhere, Stan Mikita is knocking back a cold one.

 

The Blackhawks didn't want their Cup-less streak to reach 50, so they beat the Flyers in game 6 in Philly and hoisted their first Stanley Cup in 49 years.

 

Someone needs to pencil in "2010".

 

 

Not a classic, but still a pretty good series.

[spike 236]

Somewhere, Stan Mikita is knocking back a cold one.

 

The Blackhawks didn't want their Cup-less streak to reach 50, so they beat the Flyers in game 6 in Philly and hoisted their first Stanley Cup in 49 years.

 

Someone needs to pencil in "2010".

 

 

Not a classic, but still a pretty good series.

 

did you see the goal Vic?...Kane of the Blackhawks was the only person in the building that knew he knocked it in...as no light went on and no official declared it a goal...Kane skated to the other end of the rink celebrating by himself until his teammates got word from the Blackhawk video guy that indeed it was a goal...the fans in Philadelphia are the worst of all time...booing the ensuing celebration and trophy presentation....replays showed what a tough angle shot it was...a truly great game ending goal.

Edited June 10, 2010 by spike

[JohnnyK 28]

Shit, the Flyers scared me there. OT anything can happen, samesame Game 7 and I didn;t want to see either.

Not a great great series but lots of good action and entertainment and some real good matchup tussles.

I'm happy the young Hawks won because I like the way they play and they sucked up Hartnell's goal.

And full marks to the Flyers for guts.

Good thread here guys. Thanks to some real fans for good comments and thanks to Vic for starting it.

See ya next year!

[VicVegas 70]

Just watched the highlights. Kane's goal was a little soft, I think it just surprised Leighton. No one was expecting a shot there. I don't blame Leighton, just an aggressive play by Kane.

 

Great example of how coaching can change a series. When they shook up the lines after game 4 it got the Hawks out of their funk.

 

Flyers deserve a lot of credit. They had an amazing run in the play-offs.

 

They're partying hard on Rush Street tonight.

[joekicker 53]

Not a classic, but still a pretty good series. clap1

 

Precisely my thought. Some entertainment. And a coaching lesson. Totally deserved by an inventive Chicago coach. But 12 hours later, and I'm trying to remember any highlights save the very last, weirdly soft goal.

 

.

[spike 236]

soft goal?...that's a new term for me...is there also a soft home run?...or a soft touchdown?...a soft birdie or eagle?...amazing things you can learn on a monger forum.

[VicVegas 70]

soft goal?...that's a new term for me...

 

It wasn't exactly a bolt of lightning. Leighton should have stopped it. Like I said above, the element of surprise is what made that goal.

 

In Leighton's defense I believe that was his first home loss of the season. Came at sort of a bad time, but he still had a great post season for a number two goalie.

[bigdelta 46]

soft goal?...that's a new term for me...is there also a soft home run?...or a soft touchdown?...a soft birdie or eagle?...amazing things you can learn on a monger forum.

You really don't understand sports if you haven't heard that term.

 

It was a good series.The game is so much faster than the early 70s when I started watching and the players,as a whole,are more talented.

Edited June 10, 2010 by LTGTR

[spike 236]

It wasn't exactly a bolt of lightning. Leighton should have stopped it. Like I said above, the element of surprise is what made that goal.

 

In Leighton's defense I believe that was his first home loss of the season. Came at sort of a bad time, but he still had a great post season for a number two goalie.

 

but he didn't stop it...the shot was from an incredibly tough angle...as there was just a fraction of the net available to put the puck in...and that's what he did...I would say it was a great goal.

[spike 236]

You really don't understand sports if you haven't heard that term.

 

I guess I don't understand sports...and will bow to your greatness OLD wise sage.

 

I imagine Patrick Kane and the fans of the Blackhawks would differ with your opinion of his "soft" goal which won the Stanley Cup

[JohnnyK 28]

To me a "soft goal" is off a shot that should be a routine save, not off a rocket that just flat out flies by the goalie. It was a softie in my opinion but they all count.

I'd say there are "soft" home runs in baseball. Routine fly balls that make it to the first row of seats or just over a close fence. Roger Maris' 61st was a line drive into about the 5th row behind about a 310 ft. fence. Not taking anything away from him, he had to overcome insane pressure and media hatred because he passed the Babe and he didn't suck up to the media. They all count.

[spike 236]

To me a "soft goal" is off a shot that should be a routine save, not off a rocket that just flat out flies by the goalie. It was a softie in my opinion but they all count.

 

 

 

the shot by Kane was from an impossible angle and smacked with such speed that Kane was the only person in the arena that knew the puck went in the net..."soft"?...you guys don't know how to appreciate a truly great Stanley Cup goal and moment.

 

there are no "soft" goals in the NHL...and to say this you denigrate the achievement....and I never heard of a "soft" home run either...you guys have coined some new vernacular...never once have I ever heard a NHL player or announcer refer to a "soft" goal or a MLB player or announcer refer to a "soft" home run...please provide a link to same.

Edited June 10, 2010 by spike

[JohnnyK 28]

Announcers don't use the term because they try not to criticize and I agree I've never heard the term "soft" for a home run but they do exist. Not every ball is crushed. For crushed see Mantle, Mickey.

I grew up with hockey in Montreal in the 50s and 60s and seen 000s of games and plenty of soft goals. Leighton should have had it. No one is denigrating Kane, Leighton whiffed on it. What would you call a 50-foot floater, then? I'd call it a soft goal.

It was not a truly great Stanley Cup goal at all. Try Rocket Richard's 1952 masterpiece against da Broons.

 

Big goals were all he was about, and there was none bigger than the one he scored against the Boston Bruins in the seventh game of their 1952 semifinal. Early in the second period of this pivotal game at the Forum, Richard was knocked out in a collision with Bruins forward Leo Labine. Six stitches were needed to close an ugly gash over his eye. The team's medical staff felt he was through for the night, but after spending the rest of the period and most of the third in the clinic, there he was, sitting alongside linemate Elmer Lach.

 

The score, Lach told him, was 1-1. Four minutes remained in regulation time when Richard returned to the ice. Defenseman Butch Bouchard started the play that would become, to some people, the Rocket's greatest goal. Richard took the pass deep in the Canadiens' zone, skated the length of the ice, carried one Bruin on his back part of the way then wheeled around defenseman Bill Quackenbush, swept in on goaltender Sugar Jim Henry and scored.

- Red Fisher, reporter (covered the Canadiens for over 50 years).

Edited June 10, 2010 by JohnnyK

[joekicker 53]

I'd say there are "soft" home runs in baseball. Routine fly balls that make it to the first row of seats or just over a close fence.

 

McGwire's record setter that cleared the fence by about three inches in what? 270 feet or something like that?

 

spike, here you go, lot of reading here, 203,000 hits it says.

 

.

Edited June 11, 2010 by joekicker

[brotherbuzz 3,206]

there are no "soft" goals in the NHL...

There are and I've heard/seen the San Jose players, radio/TV crews and Mercury News reporters all use the term.

 

and to say this you denigrate the achievement....

Perspective my friend and I certainly respect yours. For me, when the opposing team wobbles one past Evgeni Nabokov and he should have made the save, that is a soft goal. I watched Owen Nolan score a one hopper from just over the blue-line that the goalie should have gotten and that too was a soft goal.

 

England's two goals against Japan were as soft as they get.

[spike 236]

well...I disagree with all y'all...a shot that was smacked so fast that not a single soul in the stadium saw it...except the player who smacked it...was anything but "soft"...and, at a impossible angle......to win the Stanley cup in OT... a great goal.

 

Blackhawk hating Philadelphia fans....enjoy yer off season...

Edited June 11, 2010 by spike

[MeGoDanceNow 4,281]

Well, congratulations to the Blackhawks. I'm always happy when an Original Six team wins Lord Stanley's drinking mug, and they've been waiting for a long time. Maybe it'll be the Habs' turn next year.

[VicVegas 70]

I think if you look at the replay you'll see Leighton gave up the corner a little too soon. I think he expected Kane to take the puck behind the net, so he shifted to his left a little too soon and Kane slipped it in under his legs. I agree it was a tough angle, but Leighton missed the play.

 

Then again the Flyers wouldn't have made it as far as they did without Leighton.