Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sobchack. Show Sobchack's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    The Kings won the Cup because they were focused, locked in, and did not let doubt enter into their game.


    The Bs lost to he Habs because they LET the Habs out skate them to pucks and get to them physically.  The Bs went up 3-2 and then fell to pieces.  They allowed themselves to get derailed psychologically.   The talent was there.


    The Kings would have wiped the ice of the Habs.  End of story.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    Regardless of the B's defensive breakdowns,it was goalscoring that let them down vs the Scabs.If the B's 1st & 2nd line players even get a goal each,they are moving on to play the Rags.I believe that the B's would beat the Rags,but from what i saw of the Kings,it would have been hard to beat them,they were destined.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    I agree with Shupe, the Kings top players, who are top players at their position rose ot the occasion.




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hanrahan1. Show Hanrahan1's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    A mix of injuries,bad luck and a sense of entitlement is what brought the Bs down this year. That and what seems to be a missing piece in the line up. Just don't ask me what that missing piece is because I couldn't tell you. But they are definitely missing something.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    I didn't read any responses, so if this is a repeat...deal with it.

    The Kings forwards scored like they were supposed to score and the defense played well.  

    The Kings didn't have any total scoresheet busts (looking at you 46 and 63) and they didn't have 4 of 6 defensemen with little to no experience.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    I agree with Shupe, the Kings top players, who are top players at their position rose ot the occasion.






    Maybe the Bruins top players would've risen to the occasion as well if they would've gotten a lucky break in game seven vs Montreal.  They've done it before.  In 2011 vs Montreal and 2013 vs Toronto, they looked terrible.  Then, some lucky breaks, a Horton turn around and slap it from 50 feet away in OT goes in.  A miracle three goals in ten minutes to tie the Leafs and an OT win.  After those two series, they looked a lot better.  They went on to a Stanley Cup and two minutes away from a game seven for a shot at another one.

    The Kings sort of went through that in the first round this year, well, the first half of the first round anyway.  They looked horrible the first three games vs the Sharks.  In game four, facing elimination, they allowed seventeen shots in the first period.  After that, they rose to the occasion as you say.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    I dont think it is.  Take chara out of the mix.  Still comfy?

    now take keith out. I still like their top 4. 

    Take mcdonaugh. Still have staal girardi. 

    Take Doughty.  Muzzin, mitchell, martinez, voynov.  

    I like the Bruins defense so dont get me wrong here.  But since 2011 i have been begging for a top guy to help the aging Chara.  I still think that needs to be addressed. 

    And i agree our fwd depth isnt nearly good enough.  




     I think if you take the #1 D out of any lineup it causes serious discomfort. Without Doughty the Kings don't get past SJ or Chi for that matter. Take out Keith and the Hawks probably don't win the cup last year or the conference finals this seaosn. Take out McDonough or Girardi and I don't think the Rags get passed the first round. Yes, the B's do rely on Chara but he is far from alone back there if the rest of the D is, in fact healthy, and that is a big if. Just my opinion though

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    I didn't read any responses, so if this is a repeat...deal with it.

    The Kings forwards scored like they were supposed to score and the defense played well.  

    The Kings didn't have any total scoresheet busts (looking at you 46 and 63) and they didn't have 4 of 6 defensemen with little to no experience.

     



    And that's it.

    Boy did Jeff Carter have a monster series, not sure what his totals were, but he was an offensive threat every shift it seemed.




     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lex44. Show Lex44's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to Sobchack's comment:

    The Kings won the Cup because they were focused, locked in, and did not let doubt enter into their game.

     

    The Bs lost to he Habs because they LET the Habs out skate them to pucks and get to them physically.  The Bs went up 3-2 and then fell to pieces.  They allowed themselves to get derailed psychologically.   The talent was there.

     

    The Kings would have wiped the ice of the Habs.  End of story.



    I wasn't shocked the Habs outskated us but was surprised how they pushed the B's around. Other than Lucic and maybe Iggy who do the B's have up front as a physical player. Not Bergie, Smith, march, Soder, and certainly not Loui. Now it looks like Thort out the door. I see a lot of black eyes coming up for Campbell this year.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    I dont think it is.  Take chara out of the mix.  Still comfy?

    now take keith out. I still like their top 4. 

    Take mcdonaugh. Still have staal girardi. 

    Take Doughty.  Muzzin, mitchell, martinez, voynov.  

    I like the Bruins defense so dont get me wrong here.  But since 2011 i have been begging for a top guy to help the aging Chara.  I still think that needs to be addressed. 

    And i agree our fwd depth isnt nearly good enough.  




     I think if you take the #1 D out of any lineup it causes serious discomfort. Without Doughty the Kings don't get past SJ or Chi for that matter. Take out Keith and the Hawks probably don't win the cup last year or the conference finals this seaosn. Take out McDonough or Girardi and I don't think the Rags get passed the first round. Yes, the B's do rely on Chara but he is far from alone back there if the rest of the D is, in fact healthy, and that is a big if. Just my opinion though

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    the difference here is the age factor....  although a fitness freak, Z-Man's human and his body is starting to show signs of wear & tear....

    i agree with Shupe, Z-Man needs help....  

    i think PC's noticed that too in the last two playoffs....

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lex44. Show Lex44's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    I dont think it is.  Take chara out of the mix.  Still comfy?

    now take keith out. I still like their top 4. 

    Take mcdonaugh. Still have staal girardi. 

    Take Doughty.  Muzzin, mitchell, martinez, voynov.  

    I like the Bruins defense so dont get me wrong here.  But since 2011 i have been begging for a top guy to help the aging Chara.  I still think that needs to be addressed. 

    And i agree our fwd depth isnt nearly good enough.  




     I think if you take the #1 D out of any lineup it causes serious discomfort. Without Doughty the Kings don't get past SJ or Chi for that matter. Take out Keith and the Hawks probably don't win the cup last year or the conference finals this seaosn. Take out McDonough or Girardi and I don't think the Rags get passed the first round. Yes, the B's do rely on Chara but he is far from alone back there if the rest of the D is, in fact healthy, and that is a big if. Just my opinion though

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    the difference here is the age factor....  although a fitness freak, Z-Man's human and his body is starting to show signs of wear & tear....

    i agree with Shupe, Z-Man needs help....  

    i think PC's noticed that too in the last two playoffs....

     



    Yes they better get Z some help. They can't continue in playoffs of popping him out on the ice every time another teams 1st line comes out. He'll never make the 4 rounds. How would he have fared in the 4th round against the Kings attack? He ran out of gas last year against Chicago and look exhausted at end of series against Habs. Now maybe it was injuries but I thought Dougie played a hell of a series and helped cover Z's average series.  Of course except that blunder of missing Subban coming out of box..

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from chipnchase. Show chipnchase's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to dannycater's comment:



     




    To me, the Kings won its 2nd Cup in 3 years and the B's have won just one (I laugh at that only because now 2011 feels a long time ago) in last 4 years not because of talent differences, and not because one has a better goalie, and not because the B's don't have all the tools. I think it's because the B's players in 2014's playoffs resembled v. the Canadiens the old B's playoff teams---they lost their confidence, swagger. This term used a lot--holding, squeezing the sticks too hard--and is an example to an extent is what good teams do often in sports--choke. The 2011-13 teams played hockey and the 12/13 teams lost at least with the B's playing mostly B's Hockey. The Kings, for their faults and the fact they should never have even been in a position to win a Cup down 3-0 v. the Sharks, continue to play fast and furious hockey. They don't "squeeze their sticks," and they are playing always at a frenetic pace it seems. Did hitting posts spooke the spoked B's? Maybe it had something to do with how the Habs series played out a bit, but I just didn't feel like the team's top players were inspired or played with any sense of urgency. Instead it seemed like they were acting as if making a tape to tape pass was a chemistry exam. The team was completely different in the last 3 months of the regular season. They had swagger, they played B's hockey, they were primed to compete for the Cup. The confidence level was through the roof. What happened to that? I don't know. I saw this happen to the 07 Patriots and I'm seeing it now with the B's. You start seeing how other teams are cracking "the system" or taking the B's "out of their game." I think it's more about the B's not showing confidence in their own abilities, and that's called pressure, and it's called choking. The B's 2013-14 team choked. Maybe they lose to the Hawks or Kings in the finals, but give me the '12-13 B's, Seguin, Jagr and just missing here and not getting breaks, but at least playing like a B's team that wanted it. The B's 13-14 team wanted to golf by game 7 v. the Habs. I'm sorry, I love this team, but they forgot what '10-11 thru '13-14 regular season was all about. B's Hockey. I hope they change the mojo, but if I ever see a team underachieve like they did v. Habs again, I will be sick over it. 




     





    I agree with everything here, good post danny.  The Bruins looked like a tiger cub trying to figure out how to handle it's first kill.  The instincts were there but the execution wasn't.  The killer for me was Game 1 - they outplayed the Habs and lost which seemed to really derail their confidence while at the same time giving the Habs all the confidence in the world.  


     


     


    As far as the "choke" reference, I agree that's what it was.  When PC shipped Seguin out of town we all said we'll reserve judgement until the playoffs.  Well it didn't work out too good this year.  But they still have the pieces to make a few more runs.  Hopefully the B's can join the Hawks and Kings and add their 2nd ring in recent history next season.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    And that's it.

    Boy did Jeff Carter have a monster series, not sure what his totals were, but he was an offensive threat every shift it seemed.



    When he is healthy, he wasn't always in the lineup when Philly needed him.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    Danny, I think you're right.

    The 2013-14 were very much like the 2009-10 Bruins. Very similar, especially at playoff time.

    Also, both teams lost a game 7 at home; both were without Dennis Seidenberg.

    Now, can the 2014-15 proceed to the Cup like their 2009-2010 counterparts? It's possible.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hanrahan1. Show Hanrahan1's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    With the promised tweaking the Bs have the coming season to prove themselves and win that cup. If they don't do that PC will blow things up.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to deebz's comment:

    I am a Bruins fan (from Boston) living on the West Coast. So I watch quite a few Kings game. To me the Kings are a humble hard working team with a good goalie. They are experienced and most of all they have moxie. They fight to the finish no matter what. They play fast and hard and can turn it up a notch when they need to..and they shoot the puck..!  They certainly didnt win by playing stellar defense throughout the playoffs. 

     

    The Bruins will all of the talent they had this year just didn't bring it when they needed to. Sort of played with a high and mighty attitude. Also, they were young in key spots this year. Namely on defense. To many ill advised penalties at key times in the Montreal series..

     

    If you notice the Kings best players were a model of consistency throughout the playoffs. Time and time again they came up big when they needed to.  

    I thought the same thing why not us..well, it could have been if they came to play..we were so close to winning it against the Blackhawks and we didn't close..that was tough to swallow..

    Should be right back in the thick of things next year!

     

     

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    To me, the Kings won its 2nd Cup in 3 years and the B's have won just one (I laugh at that only because now 2011 feels a long time ago) in last 4 years not because of talent differences, and not because one has a better goalie, and not because the B's don't have all the tools. I think it's because the B's players in 2014's playoffs resembled v. the Canadiens the old B's playoff teams---they lost their confidence, swagger. This term used a lot--holding, squeezing the sticks too hard--and is an example to an extent is what good teams do often in sports--choke. The 2011-13 teams played hockey and the 12/13 teams lost at least with the B's playing mostly B's Hockey. The Kings, for their faults and the fact they should never have even been in a position to win a Cup down 3-0 v. the Sharks, continue to play fast and furious hockey. They don't "squeeze their sticks," and they are playing always at a frenetic pace it seems. Did hitting posts spooke the spoked B's? Maybe it had something to do with how the Habs series played out a bit, but I just didn't feel like the team's top players were inspired or played with any sense of urgency. Instead it seemed like they were acting as if making a tape to tape pass was a chemistry exam. The team was completely different in the last 3 months of the regular season. They had swagger, they played B's hockey, they were primed to compete for the Cup. The confidence level was through the roof. What happened to that? I don't know. I saw this happen to the 07 Patriots and I'm seeing it now with the B's. You start seeing how other teams are cracking "the system" or taking the B's "out of their game." I think it's more about the B's not showing confidence in their own abilities, and that's called pressure, and it's called choking. The B's 2013-14 team choked. Maybe they lose to the Hawks or Kings in the finals, but give me the '12-13 B's, Seguin, Jagr and just missing here and not getting breaks, but at least playing like a B's team that wanted it. The B's 13-14 team wanted to golf by game 7 v. the Habs. I'm sorry, I love this team, but they forgot what '10-11 thru '13-14 regular season was all about. B's Hockey. I hope they change the mojo, but if I ever see a team underachieve like they did v. Habs again, I will be sick over it. 






    Well put

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    The kings best players are young and in their prime or about to enter it.  If you compare every position LA wins just about everyone.  They have 4 very deep lines.  The best player in the world in Doughty and the best goalie in the world.  Throw in a coach who the players love and can mix things perfectly and they are pretty darn awesome.  Adding Gabby was a perfect move that gave them a huge edge.  

    I can see LA in the finals again next year.  



    Also well put; great posts here

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    shuper, and I can just as easily see the Kings lose in the first round. They are not as good as you think, but they are the hardest working team of any out there, and they refuse to lose--Quick and Rask are not that different in talent, and the Rangers cut it to 3-2 if not for Voynov's incredible stick block of Nash's open net. That's a goal, and it's 3-2 series.




    Ranger fans were upset with calls in Games 2 and 5; lets say those calls weren't made, and the Rangers won those gamesas a resyult; Due to their incredible resiliency, I still think the Kings would have won the remaining games; it doesn't take a whiz IMO to figure that out.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:


    The thing so scary about the Kings is that everyone on that team is physical and they are fast and huge.   I agree the Bruins pushback would be greater but their depth when lined up against LA just isnt there.  I wouldnt give the Bruins one edge in any department at the moment.  The older players on LA are clutch.  The core is dominant and the new blood are skilled and fast.  Pretty impressive




    I like this Shupe more than the Canadiens ball washer Shupe.



    No.  If you hated the Kings then you'd say the same things.  Haha.  Do the habs dive?  Yes.  Do the habs get more calls? I dont think more then any other team...if it were 10-1 every game then yes....if its a few extra calls then so be it.   I think it caught up to them vs the Rangers similar to how the bone headed bruins penalties cost the Bruins.  

    Its funny everyone hated PK and all his antics in years past.  It wasnt as bad this year.  He wasnt the focal pt. 

    do i like some of the habs players?  Yes, as a hockey fan i see PK as being a player who is gonna be a dominant player for yrs to come...price is a stud...gallagher drives me nuts but plays hard..

    back when i was younger i used to cringe at losing to the habs.  But tomorrows a new day and there is always next year.  The positive in the habs winning this year is that next year the rivalry should be better.  I like being underdogs.  I love good hockey.  

    Cheers



    Their 3rd string goalie isn't bad either

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     The best player in the world in Doughty    



    I'm going to go out on a limb here ( not really ).................and say you'd have a hard time finding one person who'd agree with this.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to Hanrahan1's comment:

    With the promised tweaking the Bs have the coming season to prove themselves and win that cup. If they don't do that PC will blow things up.



    To management and ownership...winning a Cup is merely a bonus.  You can "not' build a team guaranteed to win it all.  I chuckle at all this LA talk.  Nobody had them on the radar halfway through the first round.  Yes, they're a good team, but this year, they were incredibly lucky, just like all Cup winners are.  3 OT wins in a best of 7 final defies the law of averages, as does an 0-3 comeback, and a ton of game 7 wins.  Despite this great strength everybody's all of a sudden screaming about...every team they played in the playoffs... gave them fits.  The Rangers could have easily been in a dead heat with them at this point, and I'm not that overwhelmed by the Rangers.  The Bruins weren't blown away by LA in the regular season either.

    And Gaborik.....he's been thrown around like stale bread.  Did he merely do what he usually does, which is light up once in a while, or supplant Crosby as the games premiere forward.  Seems pretty clear to me...it's the first one.

    Congrats to LA.  The won.  They earned it.  Doesn't mean they're the new standard though...just means they won.

    When looking at the whole picture, it's easy to see who the good teams are, and how one team walks away with the trophy.  The grind of the regular season proves who the better teams are.  Usually, the winner of any playoff series plays to...or above their statistics, and they have some luck.

    What makes the Bruin post mortem so incredibly easy, is the fact they sucked in virtually every measurable category against Montreal.  They played way below their average.  Miles below.  Their PP was bad.  The PK was bad.  Team defense was off.  Goaltending was off.  5 on 5 scoring was off.  All scoring was off.  Their best players were average.  A disciplined team played undisciplined.  It goes on and on.  These are measurable points of reference, not generic rhetoric.  Certainly Montreal deserves some credit for that, but to assume they had the power to cripple so many Bruin strengths is absurd.  It's very obvious the Bruins had a big part in doing themselves in.

    That's part of sport.  Slumps happen.  The experts realize this.  The novices assume players got old all of a sudden, or slow...or they forever lost their ability to play, which in turn should suggest they all get traded.

    PC's main responsibility is to maximize profit for his employer.  Without a strong team, that won't happen in Boston.  He's got one now, and he knows he should have one for several more years if he doesn't get too half-cocked.  He won't be blowing anything up, unless making the playoffs becomes an issue.  With where the B's sit in the league hierarchy, change has a better chance of hurting, than helping.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     The best player in the world in Doughty    



    I'm going to go out on a limb here ( not really ).................and say you'd have a hard time finding one person who'd agree with this.



    Im not sure whos better at the moment.  Toews?   Maybe yeah. Crosby?  Yeah possibly.  All i know is that from 2010 on all the biggest stages he has 2 gold medals and 2 cups while being a dominant player.  The bigger the game the better he is.   Plus he plays more ice then any fwd.  

    if i was starting a team tomorrow hes my first pick....if im playing one game for all the marbles hes my first pick.  And the topper is he is just on the edge of entering in his prime.  Scary.  

    But i agree...most would take a fwd.  not me.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Hanrahan1's comment:

    With the promised tweaking the Bs have the coming season to prove themselves and win that cup. If they don't do that PC will blow things up.



    To management and ownership...winning a Cup is merely a bonus.  You can "not' build a team guaranteed to win it all.  I chuckle at all this LA talk.  Nobody had them on the radar halfway through the first round.  Yes, they're a good team, but this year, they were incredibly lucky, just like all Cup winners are.  3 OT wins in a best of 7 final defies the law of averages, as does an 0-3 comeback, and a ton of game 7 wins.  Despite this great strength everybody's all of a sudden screaming about...every team they played in the playoffs... gave them fits.  The Rangers could have easily been in a dead heat with them at this point, and I'm not that overwhelmed by the Rangers.  The Bruins weren't blown away by LA in the regular season either.

    And Gaborik.....he's been thrown around like stale bread.  Did he merely do what he usually does, which is light up once in a while, or supplant Crosby as the games premiere forward.  Seems pretty clear to me...it's the first one.

    Congrats to LA.  The won.  They earned it.  Doesn't mean they're the new standard though...just means they won.

    When looking at the whole picture, it's easy to see who the good teams are, and how one team walks away with the trophy.  The grind of the regular season proves who the better teams are.  Usually, the winner of any playoff series plays to...or above their statistics, and they have some luck.

    What makes the Bruin post mortem so incredibly easy, is the fact they sucked in virtually every measurable category against Montreal.  They played way below their average.  Miles below.  Their PP was bad.  The PK was bad.  Team defense was off.  Goaltending was off.  5 on 5 scoring was off.  All scoring was off.  Their best players were average.  A disciplined team played undisciplined.  It goes on and on.  These are measurable points of reference, not generic rhetoric.  Certainly Montreal deserves some credit for that, but to assume they had the power to cripple so many Bruin strengths is absurd.  It's very obvious the Bruins had a big part in doing themselves in.

    That's part of sport.  Slumps happen.  The experts realize this.  The novices assume players got old all of a sudden, or slow...or they forever lost their ability to play, which in turn should suggest they all get traded.

    PC's main responsibility is to maximize profit for his employer.  Without a strong team, that won't happen in Boston.  He's got one now, and he knows he should have one for several more years if he doesn't get too half-cocked.  He won't be blowing anything up, unless making the playoffs becomes an issue.  With where the B's sit in the league hierarchy, change has a better chance of hurting, than helping.



    Excellent post Steve. I agree with nearly all of it. Buuuut I have a couple of small disagreements. PC's main responsibility is to assemble the best team possible and all the things that lead to that (drafting, most notably). If he does his job well it leads to max profits as a result. I would say the profit as a priority is more Cam's job along with the ownership.

    Also, I guess it depends on your definition of "blowing it up". If that means more than a minor tweak or two then PC is probably looking to blow it up. Moving Marchand, Boychuk and Bartkowski (and a pick or 2) to bring in a top 6 forward who is an upgrade from Marchand and a impact d-man (Kesler and Edler?), for example. In order to make your roster just slightly better PC would have done something that may not qualify as blowing it up but is way more than a tweak. But, add letting Thornton and Caron go and not resigning Iginla to this scenario and you've turned over a significant part of your roster. Is that blowing it up? Again, I don't think I'd use that term but other posters have used such scenarios as "bowing it up".

    I agree that the team just had a bad series and that in and of itself shouldn't require PC go nuts. They could bring back the same crew and win it all next year. I just posted a thread on Vegas picking the B's and Chicago as the co-favorites for 2015. But every team has flaws and room for improvement and PC will try to address that regardless of the most recent result.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:

      The best player in the world in Doughty  


    I'm going to go out on a limb here ( not really ).................and say you'd have a hard time finding one person who'd agree with this.


    Im not sure whos better at the moment.  Toews?   Maybe yeah. Crosby?  Yeah possibly.  

    Scary. 




There's the key to the question "at this moment". I'd have to go with Toews but not by much right now.

Scary good.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:


    In response to shuperman's comment:


     The best player in the world in Doughty    




    I'm going to go out on a limb here ( not really ).................and say you'd have a hard time finding one person who'd agree with this.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    best d-man bar none....  even he won't win the Norris.... 

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share