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

[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? :dd:

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. :dd:

 

[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? :dd:

 

[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? :dd:

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.

 

[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? :dd:

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.