HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Crawford didnt cost us this series

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2012, 10:39 AM
  #26
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Give the Hawks Schneider/Luongo, Quick, Halak/Elliott, Smith, Rinne, and the Hawks win this in 5. Even with Niemi I think there's a good chance they win in 5 or 6. Crawford is the worst goalie in the western conference.

So, with any of those goalies, we would have scored more?

Morrison would have magically been able to lift his shot last night if Quick was 190 feet behind him?

Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:41 AM
  #27
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
Umm... how about acquiring a good goalie? Or at least one that isn't among the bottom 3 or 4 starters in the NHL? That certainly increases your chances of having a hot goalie, doesn't it? That wasn't hard to figure out!

The long and short of it - is you probably aren't going to score 3 goals a game against a white hot goalie. The guy had given up 2 goals in his final 5 games of the season. Some of you aren't being realistic. The Hawks had little to no chance in this series unless Crawford played extremely well...which he didn't do.

Then you go home. Again, we are not a tight-d, close game kind of team. But so many of you are saying that we should have been able to win using that as our game plan.

By the playoffs, you are what you are. If you get to the playoffs and don't execute your game plan, you go home.

That wasn't hard to figure out!

Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:45 AM
  #28
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 16,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
So, with any of those goalies, we would have scored more?

Morrison would have magically been able to lift his shot last night if Quick was 190 feet behind him?
Maybe. The Hawks were in OT in three games. Crawford game them absolutely no chance in two of those losses. Two of those goals were completely unacceptable. One from the goal line, the 2nd one wasn't even a shot.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:50 AM
  #29
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Could have had Crawford and Smith. Bowman elected to sign Emery instead.
Anyone could have had Smith. He was waived because he stunk.

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:52 AM
  #30
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99 steps View Post
Anyone could have had Smith. He was waived because he stunk.
Does he stink now? Because he just had the season I predicted he would have based on his talent and getting over the concussion. And I am not a scout. Even if you look back to what Maloney said when he signed him, he thought Smith would have a great year. And he was right.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:53 AM
  #31
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Give the Hawks Schneider/Luongo, Quick, Halak/Elliott, Smith, Rinne, and the Hawks win this in 5. Even with Niemi I think there's a good chance they win in 5 or 6. Crawford is the worst goalie in the western conference.
What?





Stop posting for a while.

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:54 AM
  #32
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Does he stink now? Because he just had the season I predicted he would have based on his talent and getting over the concussion. And I am not a scout. Even if you look back to what Maloney said when he signed him, he thought Smith would have a great year. And he was right.
No, but you blaming Bowman for not signing Smith is silly.

99 steps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:56 AM
  #33
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
Then you go home. Again, we are not a tight-d, close game kind of team. But so many of you are saying that we should have been able to win using that as our game plan.

By the playoffs, you are what you are. If you get to the playoffs and don't execute your game plan, you go home.

That wasn't hard to figure out!
Great - your answer to running in to a hot goalie is to quit and go home

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:58 AM
  #34
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
No single player on the hawks is to blame, Crawford included. The team as a whole needs to take the blame. The top 6 for not beign able to puck the put in the net enough. The D for being soft and unable to prevent point shots and be physical along the boards. Crawford for giving up soft goals.

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:59 AM
  #35
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
Great - your answer to running in to a hot goalie is to quit and go home

And your answer is to recreate who we are - retroactively.


I never said quit, I said execute your game plan or go home. We didn't execute. We're home now.

That's how playoffs work. In every sport. Always have and always will.

Catching lightning in a bottle is not a game plan.

Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 10:59 AM
  #36
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99 steps View Post
No, but you blaming Bowman for not signing Smith is silly.
Well, it didn't have to be Smith, could have been someone else, a trade, etc. But he has so much faith in Crawford and Emery as a tandem that the thought would never even creap into his mind. I do blame him for that. Bowman seems very, very stubborn when he thinks he's right.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:01 AM
  #37
InTOEWSweTrust
Free Morin
 
InTOEWSweTrust's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 989
vCash: 500
when you have 6 games in a series and all but 1 game you give up 3 goals or more, your goalie isn't doing you any favors....

You cant pin it all on him but you do have to pin a lot of it.

it goes one of 2 ways, your goalie needs to bail you out time to time, or we need Defense like we had in 2010, thats the only way you win with Crawford

InTOEWSweTrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:10 AM
  #38
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
And your answer is to recreate who we are - retroactively.


I never said quit, I said execute your game plan or go home. We didn't execute. We're home now.

That's how playoffs work. In every sport. Always have and always will.

Catching lightning in a bottle is not a game plan.
I think your'e misnterpreting me saying we need a hot goalie. When I referred to Quick and Schnieder being hot- these guys aren't playing above their normal abilities. They are always this good....or usually are. The Kings and Canucks can reasonably rely on these guys playing at a very high level.

Smith playing this way isn't lightning in a bottle, He gave up 2 goals in his last 5 regular season games and is a Vezina candidate. We don't need lightning in a bottle. We need a better goaltender.

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:12 AM
  #39
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,591
vCash: 50
I'll give him a tad of blame but the Hawks were gonna be shutout last night no matter what.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:13 AM
  #40
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99 steps View Post
What?





Stop posting for a while.
Since we are talking about the playoffs and I posted all playoff goalies I figured it was understood I meant western conference playoffs.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:13 AM
  #41
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
So, with any of those goalies, we would have scored more?

Morrison would have magically been able to lift his shot last night if Quick was 190 feet behind him?
They wouldn't have needed to score more. They lost 3 games by 1 goal.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:25 AM
  #42
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Sorry --you can't get away with this..the STATS DO NOT LIE:


1. RELATIVE PERFORMANCEin playoffs:

CRAWFORD .890 save %

vs. SMITH .950
vs. QUICK .950
vs. RINNE .940



2. ELEVATION for playoffs vs. "NORMAL" (reg. season)

CRAWFORD .903 ("normal") so a regression in playoffs 0f - .013
SMITH .930 ("normal") so ELEVATION in playofs of + .020
QUICK .928 ("normal") so ELEVATION in playoffs of + .022
RINNE ,922("normal") so ELEVATION inplayoffs to + .018



SO you see that not only are these goalies "normall' way superior BUT in the playoffs they vastly ELEVATED (so far) their PERFORMANCES while CRAWFORD was worse than even his MEDIOCRE "normal" ....


Suppose Crawford had elevated from his worse level of "normal" to a similar +.020 IMPROVEMENT of performance in the playoffs....that would mean a .923 save percentage over 6GP....WE STILL would have lost in game 6 (can't beat a shut-out)_ --but .923 x 159 shots faced is only allowing 12.243 goals ---almost 5 goals LESS than the 17 he allowed--if this was spread out over the 6 games mAYBE we win 2 more games because they were so close except for the last one..

WE KNOW CRAWFORD wilnever be as goodas even the "normal" for Smith,Quick or Rinne--but had he ELEVATED his game by about the same level as they did in IMPROVING over "normal" -we might be talking a different outcome in the series...

DESPITE all this ---to say we can win with mediocre goaltending is one thing -to sday we expect to win with EITHER a .903 or a .890 save % is SO RIDICULOUS as to be laughed off this board..


Sure you can blame our "stars" for lack of producing offense,blame the PP,blame the PK ,blame the d-corp---but we ALL KNOW that in playoffs USUALLY you can ride hot goalies (elevating over"normal") a long way to series victories--there are exceptions where you can win a Cup with goalies just about "normal" but i do not know of many Cups with goalies REGRESSING from normal by a significant amount ...
We won a Cup with Niemi who drpooed only slightly from his 'normal" (.912 to .910 in playoffs) -but if he was as mediocre as Crawgord's "normal" (.903) --or if he stunk at the .890 level as Crawford "performed" this year in playoffs facing so few shots (only 26.5 per game) --then we TOO would NO WAY win that CUP in 2009/10...

THE point is: BOTH .903 and .890 are CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLY MEDIOCRE (at best) and P-POOR (at worst)....no matter how you analyze it -WE CANNOT WIN with goaltending this poor.


On the other hand FEW NHL TEAMS IF ANY can win against .940-.950 goaltending performances....ask us,as VAN, ask SJ ---NO CHANCE against such "hot" --exceptionally elevated hot goalies...

It would be a wonderful test to see IF PHI facing REAL GOALIES like SMITH,QUICK or RINNE could score like they did at will on PITT...IF SMITH,QUICK or RINNE (and lest I forget BRIAN ELLIOTT who also ELEVATED from .940 "normal" to .950
so far in playoffs) -if all these stelar goalie performers maintained their gaudy levels of play vs. PHI --then PHI too has no chance to win...

YOU do a .940-.950 and the opponent has to get 66-77 shots on goal per game just to get 4 goals a game ..SO IF you blame lack of offense -if the hawks face really hot goaltending of a .940-.950 calibre -what team in the NHL is going to average 66-77 shots on goal per game --it just IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN..


SUPERIOR vs. MEDIOCRE TO POOR GOALTENDING IS THE KEY "DIFFERENCE_MAKING ELEMENT" so far in at least the WC playoffs ...every first series winning goalies is in the .940-.950 range and ALL of them have ELEVATED over their "NORMAL" (superb aleardy) level from the reg .season.. CRAWFORD is so far behind this as to be laughable if it were not so painful .....BUT had he ELEVATED by a similar betterment over his normal by about +.020 better save% THEN even if we still lost we could not criticize his performance...TO SAY you don't blame him or seem satisfied with his efforts (his stat results) -is SO WRONG that i can hardly believe it.

WE cAN "blame" our lack of offense --but that also DISCREDITS the efforts and the ELEVATION of performance of SMITH (and of the other 3 series winnig goalies in the West as they similarly STYMIED the potent offenses of VAN,DET and SJ)....sometimes "blaming" your offense vs. hotter than hot opposing goalies is I think way off line..CREDIT must go where CREDIT is due---THEIR GOALIES came up STELLAR---the losing team goaltending either P-poor (Crawford +Howard +LUONGOat just .890) not good enough (Niemi at just .910) or equally Stellar (Schneider at .960 but he only played in 3 of the 5 games ).

THE point is --you save at .890 --you will lose ....if you play at .960 and still lose--THEN I'll concede throwing most of the blame on the lack of offense..

The point is--IF you face a.940-.950 "HOT" goalie --then your guy had better be similarly HOT or at least improved as much over his "normal" than they improved over their "normal" ..otherwise no chance..

hawksfan50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:25 AM
  #43
tdfxman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 163
vCash: 500
To the OP, I think the 2 OT games goes against your premise.

With that said, last night did he have a shot at 1st goal, nope.

2nd goal, great shot that we wish we could make. If we did, we could have scored.

3rd goal, tap in.
4th goal, onetime from the middle of the slot elevated.

I mean if we make those 4 shots we score 4 times.
27 was in front and we don't "stress" anyone. Crawford is out there and no one is "bothering" F's in front of our net. we are on our rear end getting jacked and it is stressful in there. In front of the hawk net it is a day spa almost.

I say he was closer to costing us since he blew 2 games with shots that were all on him. we win one of those 2 games and we prob win the series.

We didn't make good shots since it was tough to get off a good shot. #19's OT shot was a rare time in a good location with time. Good shots go in. Look at that Ott guy, top corner in OT.

I tivoed the game, just for Tippett, and I slow mo'ed each shot we made for the 1st 2 periods and I thought the best shot was Hayes from Kruger. Smith pushed out and moved a little to his right and the shot just hits him. wow he just got enough. I don't know how many smith moved to that were going to space. Morrison had 3 feet along the ice, he hit his ankle.

Crawford seemed to have to deal with better shots. I don't think we have a G we can't win with. We have a system and Dmen that aren't going to get it done.
The west is being won by the best D teams. Period.

We should be playing to limit the other teams chances and count on our skill to score on a higher % of a few scoring chances.

We seemed to panic all series when we went to shoot. They didn't.

tdfxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:33 AM
  #44
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
They wouldn't have needed to score more. They lost 3 games by 1 goal.
By definition, by who we are, we needed to score more.

We knew going in that our goaltending was average at best. We knew that we weren't a gritty team. We knew that our power play was woeful. We knew that our defense was prone to turnovers. We knew that our defense did a poor job of coverage in our zone. We knew that our PK was passive. We knew that as a team, we weren't good at blocking shots. Finally, we knew that if someone wanted to stand in front of our net and screen, we'd do nothing about it.

So why is it a surprise that ALL of these things came back to bite us? How can anyone, knowing our SEASON-LONG deficiencies, think that they were magically going to correct themselves and that we'd win a tight, defensive series? Or that a goalie, ANY goalie, would be able to overcome all of that?

Phoenix could have had more goals with some of the horrendous turnovers that we had.

Again, you can't make us into a defensive team because hindsight shows that the series went that way.


The main reason that we lost this series is because we didn't score enough. If we were getting 4 or 5 a game and still losing, you could blame it on goaltending and defense. We scored 2 per game.

Phoenix executed their plan. We didn't. Series over.


Last edited by Gurth: 04-24-2012 at 12:10 PM.
Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:33 AM
  #45
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
aS to our offensive fail on the PP being more to blame than Crawford's .890 mediocereto p-poor goaltending --we shall see if NASHVILLE"S superior PP can prove the PHX-SMITH combo a mirage ..SIMILARLY if the PHX rope-a-dope wait for the turnovers and PP chances and take advantage approach can solve RINNE ---if either goalie cracks then we shall know more truths:

1. IF the NASH PP has success on Smith --THEN we can "blame" our poor PP for SMITH's excessive sccess against us and less credit to him!


2. IF the PHX rope-a-dope also sucks in NASH to play the PHX style game and PHX beats Rinne on few chances--then we will blame our team D and Crawford LESS and credit PHX efficiency of shooting more...

hawksfan50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:37 AM
  #46
InTOEWSweTrust
Free Morin
 
InTOEWSweTrust's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
aS to our offensive fail on the PP being more to blame than Crawford's .890 mediocereto p-poor goaltending --we shall see if NASHVILLE"S superior PP can prove the PHX-SMITH combo a mirage ..SIMILARLY if the PHX rope-a-dope wait for the turnovers and PP chances and take advantage approach can solve RINNE ---if either goalie cracks then we shall know more truths:

1. IF the NASH PP has success on Smith --THEN we can "blame" our poor PP for SMITH's excessive sccess against us and less credit to him!


2. IF the PHX rope-a-dope also sucks in NASH to play the PHX style game and PHX beats Rinne on few chances--then we will blame our team D and Crawford LESS and credit PHX efficiency of shooting more...
The only thing your going to SEE is Nashville completely dismantle a bad team... in 4 or 5 games

InTOEWSweTrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 11:49 AM
  #47
Gurth
Registered User
 
Gurth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Madison
Country: United States
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
THE point is --you save at .890 --you will lose ....if you play at .960 and still lose--THEN I'll concede throwing most of the blame on the lack of offense..

The point is--IF you face a.940-.950 "HOT" goalie --then your guy had better be similarly HOT or at least improved as much over his "normal" than they improved over their "normal" ..otherwise no chance..
I applaud your effort.

Save % is a great starting point for evaluating a goalie's performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account all of the variables that go into where a shot puck ends up.

Can you honestly say that Smith wasn't helped a ton in his percentage by the Hawks hitting him with shots? I could have a .960 save % if you hit me in the gut with most of your shots or shot the puck into my leg pad when the upper two thirds of the net is wide open or if you shoot 1 out of every 3 shots from high in the zone with no traffic in front of me.

Now, I'm not saying that Smith didn't have a great series, he did. He made some amazing saves. He also had a lot of help from his mates and from us failing to execute. Smith could have given up a few goals last night that he didn't see or was out of position for, but they didn't go in, so he looks beast.

Of the 4 goals last night, how many were Crawford's fault? None. First one, he didn't see because we sat back on the PK. The top shelfer, he or any goalie only stops if the forward shoots it into the glove. The other two were uncovered, NHL level talent, right in the slot.

That's the problem with save % as the only indicator. It doesn't take into account the eye test.

If a shot is tipped in front of the net because a d doesn't cover, is it the goalie's fault? If a pass is made from behind the net to a player that should be covered by a wing and Bickell stands there with his thumb up his butt and watches the player make a great top-shelf shot, is it the goalie's fault. In either case, no, but it goes into their save percentage, doesn't it?

Gurth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 12:11 PM
  #48
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurth View Post
I applaud your effort.

Save % is a great starting point for evaluating a goalie's performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account all of the variables that go into where a shot puck ends up.

Can you honestly say that Smith wasn't helped a ton in his percentage by the Hawks hitting him with shots? I could have a .960 save % if you hit me in the gut with most of your shots or shot the puck into my leg pad when the upper two thirds of the net is wide open or if you shoot 1 out of every 3 shots from high in the zone with no traffic in front of me.

Now, I'm not saying that Smith didn't have a great series, he did. He made some amazing saves. He also had a lot of help from his mates and from us failing to execute. Smith could have given up a few goals last night that he didn't see or was out of position for, but they didn't go in, so he looks beast.

Of the 4 goals last night, how many were Crawford's fault? None. First one, he didn't see because we sat back on the PK. The top shelfer, he or any goalie only stops if the forward shoots it into the glove. The other two were uncovered, NHL level talent, right in the slot.

That's the problem with save % as the only indicator. It doesn't take into account the eye test.

If a shot is tipped in front of the net because a d doesn't cover, is it the goalie's fault? If a pass is made from behind the net to a player that should be covered by a wing and Bickell stands there with his thumb up his butt and watches the player make a great top-shelf shot, is it the goalie's fault. In either case, no, but it goes into their save percentage, doesn't it?
So YOU are discrediting SMITH as nothing and it is only our shooters fault...I guess if we faced Rinne ornd Quick or Elliott the way they have played goal YOU would say exactly the same thing--they are nothing-it is only our shooters fault! I guess they say the same thing in SJ and VAN and DET --the lack of offense has nothing to do with the opposing goalie making point blank great saves ,seeing shots through screens (as our goalie apparently cannot) and being in the zone with mental FOCUS as our goalie was not (eg. those sotie goals he gave to Boedkker in those 2 OT's ) ---sure it is NEVER the great play of the oppsing goalie only our losy shooters,the SJ lousy shooters,the Van lousy shooters--yep Smith.Quick,Rinne,and Elliott are all nothing... GET REAL!

hawksfan50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 12:19 PM
  #49
MadhouseOnMadison
Man crush on Amonte
 
MadhouseOnMadison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Since we are talking about the playoffs and I posted all playoff goalies I figured it was understood I meant western conference playoffs.
Kind of funny though since those pictures just help prove your point. Two pictures of the worst goalies in the league and they also happen to be two of the worst teams in the league. Coincidence? No. We need a goalie.

MadhouseOnMadison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2012, 12:33 PM
  #50
BobbyJet
HFB Partner
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Thereís no way you can blame Crawford alone Ö but letís face it. Those 2 OT goals were not just soft. They were brutally soft that any peewee goalie with his head in the game would stop. This has been the pattern all season with Crawford. Good in the first, not bad in the second and awful when the intensity turns up in the 3rd.
Smith stole this series, plain and simple and we all knew going in that no matter how far we got, this could easily happen .... and that it was very unlikely that Crawford would outplay any goalie we met. Well we were right, and we didnít go very far. With weak goaltending all season it should come as no surprise really. That said, Coyotes was the one team I figured we'd beat but below average goaltending seldom works in playoff hockey.

Rinne vs Smith could prove interesting but I think Coyotes will get smoked and at best Smith may keep it respectable.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.