The Ditch part deux

Bruins in 7. Rask Conn Smythe.

 

2013 STANLEY CUP FINAL
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 8 p.m. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC, RDS
SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 2013 8 p.m. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBCSN, CBC, RDS
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2013 8 p.m. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBCSN, CBC, RDS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013 8 p.m. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBC, CBC, RDS
*SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2013 8 p.m. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC, RDS
*MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 8 p.m. CHICAGO AT BOSTON NBC, CBC, RDS
*WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013 8 p.m. BOSTON AT CHICAGO NBC, CBC, RDS

 

Waiting till Wednesday for the Finals to start sucks...but Im sure their are some banged up players who might be happy about it. I have a feeling this is going to be a really good series between these two teams...gunna be some fun, for sure.

 

Rask already has 3 games giving up more than 3. Krecji should be their number for Conn Smythe. Of course it will probably be a goalie because the Azzwipes spend way too much time talking about the goalies instead of where their shots are, what happens to the rebounds, why the goalie doesn't have to worry about one side or the other, etc. This has always bugged me, especially in Boston's system. Thomas' 2011 was inflated but still exceptional. Rask is playing excellent, but I think that's much easier for a goalie when they aren't under seige for half a period.

Can we say Quick is not a god now. He had a great 2012, but he pretty much sucked this postseason. Had his fingerprint on a bunch of losses. Gave up 3 really bad goals and 2 unleaded bad goals this series, through away a game against SJ, and tried to throw two others away with bad decisions. Sure, some were because he was trying to make a play...but that's part of the position. Quick should get hammered, elite, Conn-Smythe types are allowed to be bad for a postseason too.

Does anybody really believe Crawford, Rask, or Quick are as good as their GAA and save % indicate. They're all up big on their career numbers. Will somebody in the media throw the bullshizer flag?

 

Now more of this guy:

 

Claude a couple years ago, wonder if he still has it:

 

Chara drinks what Frank drinks:

 

Will he be the anti-Thornton?

 

well done sir +1

 

Well, I think Chicago is going to win the series Matty. I think skating and passing will be the difference and I think Chicago has an edge there because of home ice. I expect Chicago to split the first 2 and end up down 2-1. I think they will be frustrated by Boston's play in the neutral zone and back after so many days off and it will be a few games before they will be able to draw Bruins to cheat out of position to cut off passes and zone entries and exits.

Boston will have more problems generating offensive in transition on Chicago than Pittsburgh. They'll have to spend more time below the goalline to get chances, and I think they are very well suited to do that against Chicago. Chicago forwards are much more interested than Pit when it comes to backchecking and Boston dmen will have a more difficult time exiting the zone. Chicago has to complete passes while taking the big hits like they did against LA. Not sure how much more of that they're ready for. I'm not going to be shocked if we see Hamilton and/or Brookbank this series at some point. Both improve a weak area on the other team.

If Chicago can't get Boston to lose a little positional discipline, I don't think Chicago can win.

2 very good defensive teams. Excellent pks going and horrific pps. I think Boston can gamble on running the Hawks and taking some bad penalties too, especially if they get the lead. Word of caution, DON'T cheapshot Keith.

I favor Chicago mostly because of 1 factor. The Bruins are one of the ugliest teams in the league. You can't stop fabulous.

 

that's a VERY detailed prediction, Bob... you most certainly have NOT tapped into Tom's brain. of course he will probably say the exact same thing... in a couple of weeks.

 

ok, one more...

 

i guess it doesn't matter who the GM in Dallas is. maybe they should just change their name to the "Suckers".

 

I expected better from Jim Nill, very suprised at that