WCF: #1 Chicago Blackhawks vs #5 Los Angeles Kings (CHI wins 4-1)

[Ravin]

Senser is just being a faggot. Like what do you want, me to break out the white board, show video evidence, and break down every single factor? You asked why the Kings don't send Cleary/Franzen type players at Crawford. I gave you the answer why. This isn't some question of the universe answer, this is simple. It isn't the Kings style. I even told you why they don't and who they are. They cycle the puck and use their speed, they are a puck possession team, and have so many players capable of putting the puck in, they don't crash the net.

That is the legit answer. You probably don't understand it at all, so us going more in depth with you isn't going to get you anywhere. You can't just say "this team did it, every team should" because not every team is built the same way fuck nuts. You would think with half a brain you would understand that much.

I ignored the rest of your shit, because you are the same faggot we get every playoff, just a different user name who comes in here, tries to tell us we know shit about hockey, yet knows fuck all themselves. You even said yourself you hardly seen the Kings play, so how can you even say what they should do when you don't even know their style of play?

[The Buddha]

I would think the Kings going away from their style would probably hurt them more then trying to play puck possession with the Hawks. Stick with what got you there.

[Senser81]

You asked why the Kings don't send Cleary/Franzen type players at Crawford. I gave you the answer why.

That was one of three questions I asked. I guess I should be happy that you tried to answer one of the three questions with essentially "They don't do it because they don't really want to do it". Again, great stuff. And again, I find it odd that LA is willing to play puck possession with the Blackhawks. Seems to be a recipe for failure.

You've also yet to explain this gem of yours...

This series has to go 7. LA by far has had the best playoff match ups all season. I have switched my pick to Kings in 7 now.

[Senser81]

You probably don't understand it at all, so us going more in depth with you isn't going to get you anywhere. You can't just say "this team did it, every team should" because not every team is built the same way fuck nuts. You would think with half a brain you would understand that much.

Wow, that goes against what I "learned" a couple days ago from another NHL Forum stalwart/floozie, wr50l....

The only difference between Chicago and St Louis/San Jose is that the Blackhawks have been able to score enough goals to handle the Kings' opportunism.

I thought all NHL teams were essentially the same...the difference is that the good teams score enough goals to win, while the bad teams don't.

You're a joke. This forum is a joke. I've noticed that most of the retarded postings in here (i.e. yours and wr50ls) happen after your "team" loses a playoff game...just too much anger and stupidity to get any info here.

[Fappin Raptor]

You're a joke. This forum is a joke. I've noticed that most of the retarded postings in here (i.e. yours and wr50ls) happen after your "team" loses a playoff game...just too much anger and stupidity to get any info here.

Again, that's your first mistake. To look for information on this site is dumb. This is the worst site on the Internet.

[Ravin]

Simply means LA has played the better teams all playoffs. First St. Louis, which was an epic series, and then San Jose in another great series. Now this with Chicago. They have had the toughest road (again).

You ask why LA doesn't change their style to be more like Detroit, and the simple answer is because they don't have to because their style works. They won the cup playing that way last year, and now have already knocked off two very good teams, and working on the Hawks. Major difference this year is they are not winning on the road, which shows in every series. Why would you change something that isn't broken? They know very well what they are doing and home to win with the team they have. You can't go to panic when you are down two games, knowing full well you don't play at home. Sutter's reactions are perfect. He know's what his team can do, they just need to do it. They are the defending champions for a reason, and what got them the cup and to this stage in the game was playing LA kings hockey. You don't throw that out just to play Detroit hockey and hope it works and you win a game.

[Senser81]

Simply means LA has played the better teams all playoffs. First St. Louis, which was an epic series, and then San Jose in another great series. Now this with Chicago. They have had the toughest road (again).

So your selection of LA over Chicago is based on the toughness of LA's playoff opposition, which in your analysis included Chicago. Great logic. Boston will beat Pittsburgh because Boston has faced tougher opponents in the playoffs...like Pittsburgh. I guess Chicago is to blame for not being able to play against themselves in the Western Conference Finals.

You ask why LA doesn't change their style to be more like Detroit, and the simple answer is because they don't have to because their style works.

Not on the road.

Why would you change something that isn't broken?

Because they don't win away from home?

They know very well what they are doing and home to win with the team they have.

But only 3 games are in LA(?) Don't hockey teams employ different strategies when they are at home and on the road? Sorry, I'm just a hockey newb.

You can't go to panic when you are down two games, knowing full well you don't play at home.

Never mentioned anything about panic. Never mentioned that the only reason is for the strategy was the Kings being down 2-0 in the series. Good to know that in other sports, its called "Strategy", but in hockey, its called "Panic". Also, if you know only 3 games in the series are in LA, wouldn't it be short-sighted to simply rely on this home-ice advantage?

Sutter's reactions are perfect. He know's what his team can do, they just need to do it. They are the defending champions for a reason, and what got them the cup and to this stage in the game was playing LA kings hockey.

More "expert" analysis on your part. The Kings just need to do it...they are defending champs for a reason...they need to play LA Kings hockey...

I think I could get better analysis from am sports radio callers. You are truly the worst.

[Ravin]

Ok, since you are so hockey smart, and will provide me expert analysis, why didn't Detroit change their style? Sure it won them 3 big games against the Hawks, but it didn't close out the series. You would think after losing two straight they would change it up right? Because LA should give up their style of play after losing two games, so surely Detroit should have after it didn't work and they were on the brink of elimination right?

Please explain to me why Detroit kept the same "strategy" for three games straight and lost the series. And this is the same strategy you want the defending cup champions to use?

You really suck at trolling the hockey forum.

[Senser81]

Ok, since you are so hockey smart, and will provide me expert analysis,

Never claimed to be hockey smart. In fact, its the opposite. I come here to read the expert analysis of others, not to give my own.

why didn't Detroit change their style? Sure it won them 3 big games against the Hawks, but it didn't close out the series.

Already talked about this once. Please stop. So the strategy Babcock used was ineffective because his team didn't win the series? I know I've asked you this five times now...but do you actually watch hockey games? Just wondering.

You would think after losing two straight they would change it up right? Because LA should give up their style of play after losing two games, so surely Detroit should have after it didn't work and they were on the brink of elimination right?

LOL to the nth degree. Red Wings strategy proved to be effective against Chicago. They still almost won the series in 6 or 7. I thought when Detroit was up 3-1 in the series, Chicago was the team on the brink of elimination, not Detroit? Do you have a brain?! I don't know how that is similar to LA's first two games against Chicago, where LA's road strategy proved to be ineffective, with Quick getting pulled in one of the games. So you have a strategy proven to work with Detroit, LA doesn't implement any of Detroit's strategy and loses the first two games...and your response is that Detroit was the team faulty strategy??? HUH???!!!

[Ravin]

So you have a strategy proven to work with Detroit, LA doesn't implement any of Detroit's strategy and loses the first two games...and your response is that Detroit was the team faulty strategy??? HUH???!!!

So LA's strategy won them a cup last year, got them by St. Louis and San Jose, yet for game 1 of the series they should say "fuck how we play, Detroit's strategy got them a 3-1 series lead. They lost, but still, fuck our style!" HUH???!!!

Never claimed to be hockey smart.

You got something right.

[Senser81]

So LA's strategy won them a cup last year, got them by St. Louis and San Jose, yet for game 1 of the series they should say "fuck how we play, Detroit's strategy got them a 3-1 series lead. They lost, but still, fuck our style!" HUH???!!!

I'm still speechless from your continued assertion that Detroit's strategy against Chicago was ineffective, and that Detroit was on the brink of elimination after going up 3-1 in the series and thus should have changed their "ineffective" strategy. Possibly the most moronic sports-related statement I've ever read on this forum. Seriously.

[Ravin]

It was ineffective, they didn't win the series. What really needs to be said more? No one gives a fuck if you score 50 goals in a series if you can't win it. What do you not understand about that? The fact you can't read is what is moronic. Wings took a 3-1 lead. Hey the strategy works. Then goes on to loose three games straight and get eliminated. So the Hawks adapted to what was going on and won. And you wonder why LA doesn't adopted that strategy? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a team who plays that way all the time (Detroit) just got eliminated, and the LA Kings, being the defending champs and all, probably have a slightly good idea of how to win the Cup since they did it last year.

You are basically arguing a stupid point. I guess Pittsburgh should adopt the Leafs strategy against the Bruins right?

[Senser81]

It was ineffective, they didn't win the series. What really needs to be said more? No one gives a fuck if you score 50 goals in a series if you can't win it. What do you not understand about that?

Makes sense. Because in hockey, there is simply one singular "strategy". So if Detroit scored 50 goals against Chicago by putting someone in front of Crawford, but Howard had a terrible series and the Red Wings lost the series, we would conclude that Detroit's strategy of putting someone in front of Crawford was ineffective.

The fact you can't read is what is moronic. Wings took a 3-1 lead. Hey the strategy works. Then goes on to loose three games straight and get eliminated. So the Hawks adapted to what was going on and won. And you wonder why LA doesn't adapt that strategy?

Yeah, everyone was expecting the #7 seed Red Wings to defeat one of the greatest regular season teams in NHL history. The fact that Detroit lost in 7 is obviously because of poor strategy by Babcock.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a team who plays that way all the time (Detroit) just got eliminated, and the LA Kings, being the defending champs and all, probably have a slightly good idea of how to win the Cup since they did it last year.

So Detroit played that way all the time during the season? They didn't do anything different in the playoffs?

I guess we keep working back to the same question over and over...do you actually watch hockey games??? Its like I watch games, ask questions, and the answers I get are like calls to sports radio shows. Beyond retarded.

[Senser81]

You are basically arguing a stupid point. I guess Pittsburgh should adopt the Leafs strategy against the Bruins right?

No, Pittsburgh's reactions are perfect. They know what this team can do, they just need to do it. They were champions for a reason, and what got them the cup and to this stage in the game was playing Pittsburgh Penguins hockey.

[PP]

Kings are toast. they showed no desperation at all.