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

[Ravin]

CBC made a good point that the Kings are just a beat up team. The St. Louis and San Jose series were so rough and the Kings are hurting down the middle.

[1ke]

^^^ And because of that they just have no offense at all. Combine that with the fact every Blackhawk knew they came out flat and played like shit for 85% of game 3. Everyone was worried about missing Duncs, but with the Kings offensive struggles, it was never an issue. Coming home now, they probably shouldnt fuck around and just finish em off. Theyll need the rest considering Boston looks like theyre gonna make short work in the East.

[FirstTimer]

Kane and Hossa finally looked to be real factors last night. Toews has been a ghost.

It's still scary to me how far the Blackhawks have gotten in the playoffs with virtually no production from their two best players.

[1ke]

Jonny has been spotty. But nowhere near his best. Against Detroit, I don't think they win had it not been for him. I thought he was ok last night, particularly in the 1st.

Spot on though about how much inconsistency there has been froma couple top players while the team has pushed on. Only a good thing though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[1ke]

GG LA. Nice fight. But just overmatched as a whole.

Cup time!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[ram29jackson]

[ram29jackson]

[ram29jackson]

[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? 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?

Just wanted to check back in with the resident NHL asshat, especially since the Penguins were swept (yeah, I guess they SHOULD adopt the Leafs strategy, no?) and the Kings went out with a wimper in 5.

I was expecting the Blackhawks to make some drastic strategy and line changes after Game 4, because according to Ravin the Blackhawks were "on the brink of elimination" being up 3-1 in the series.

Its kind of weird, because on one hand Ravin thinks the teams are interchangeable (the Blackhawks are just like the Sharks and Blues), yet these same interchangeable NHL teams can only play one way (Kings can only play 'Kings style', Penguins can only play 'Pittsburgh hockey')...but even then its never a case of a more talented team beating a lesser talented team, teams win because the other team uses bad strategy (the Red Wings didn't lose to Chicago because Chicago had too much talent...they lost because Babcock used bad strategy against Chicago). There are so many lapses in logic and so many inconsistencies, that one wonders if Ravin has ever seen a hockey game before.

Aside from Richards' goal at the end of regulation in Game 5, the Kings looked lost on the ice for most of the series. Sutter's choice to have the Kings skate with the Hawks and play possession hockey while at the same time relying on Quick to bring his A game every night was a tactical blunder. The Hawks (obviously) were not the Sharks/Blues, and their ability to score in 5-on-5 situations made them a bit more dangerous to the Kings. But I think the biggest factor in the outcome of the series was the Kings' over-reliance on Quick, especially when it was clear after the first two games that he was not at the top of his game. Quick allowed more soft goals than Crawford, and the Kings didn't have the firepower to overcome those deficits.

The Kings lost the series in Game 4. They had gotten Duncan Keith suspended for the game (I use "gotten" as a term, because Carter's slash to Keith's unprotected hand was just as bad as Keith's high-stick, perhaps even moreso because Carter's actions weren't retaliatory...yet the ubiquitous Stephen Walkom watches Carter slash at Keith and didn't blow the whistle), Brookbank basically hands the Kings 1.5 goals (I blame Crawford for the other 0.5), yet the Kings still lose.