brownky

Holy crap, he's *still* smiling. Well, in that way only Daryl Sutter can smile. His mouth muscles aren't really worked out enough so it looks wonky. Congrats LA. Suck it, NYR. You got yours illegitimately handed to you 20 years ago.

I just looked at the total shots for the series: LAK 194 NYR 146 This is just SOG, no block or misses included. The right team won this. NYR was held in this by Lundy. Spiffy.

Woooo! Great play by the kings! Daryl Sutter actually smiled.

This is getting downright humorous. You still haven't addressed any of my (apparently very valid) criticisms of his:Lack of Flexibility, lack of adaptability or misuse of assets. You write off my entire opinion as 'invalid' simply because you disagree with it, all the while attacking me instead. And what success is he having? Down 3-0 in the Stanley Cup final and having a team that looks defeated. Despite the run on price to knock MTL out (who should be here), they look awfully average. Sounds to me like you've run out of argument and are instead trying to save some face. Working out for you really well.

So you agree, starting Luongo was a stupid decision and he should have started Schneider. At least we're making progress. Now as I said, I said before the game to start Schneider, because Luongo looked shaky. Which flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but he's not there to "please the rest of the world", he's there to win the Stanley Cup. Sometimes that means making the hard or sometimes outlandish decision -like play Burrows with the SEDINS? Are you MAD? That was one of those good decisions he did make. A bit outlandish, but why not? But those decisions are high risk... will it pay off... or not? Something Vigneault was far too stubborn to do the vast majority of the time. His stubbornness and complete lack of adaptability is why he's a bad coach at the NHL level. I'll fully admit his systems seem to be technically sound - but when the system breaks down or another coach can adapt their team to beat that system (ala Boston, or Chicago), he seems to be at a total loss to what to do. Just "try harder" at what isn't working. *That* is why he's no good at the NHL level. It was his knock in Montreal, would have been his knock in Vancouver if he didn't have two top-5 goalies at his disposal, and will eventually be his knock in New York once Lundquist's play falters.

You keep clutching onto this 1GAA argument which is so irrelevant. If I were a goaltender who faced one shot, but let it in because I was over chatting with the ice girls though played 60 minutes, I still have a 1GAA. GAA is a team score. Goalies have a huge part in it sure, but nowhere near the importance you place on it. What matters is quality of chances, and how they look making those saves. Luongo made some saves in Game 2, absolutely, but he did not look good doing it, he looked tired. And that came out in 3. A great coach recognizes that, and makes the bold move and doesn't give a shit about being cruicified. Takes the chance to win the game, instead of that play to tie crap that he's still doing now. The Rangers had LA in games one AND two, but when they had that lead, they let off, coast, drop back and "close it out". The 'safe' play - how many third period leads were blown here in AV's time? As a result, LA's up 3-0. If Schneider starts game 3 and even if they lose, even I don't crucify him. Because it would have been the right move. I hated 90% of the moves he made as a coach, but he did make a couple good ones. Throw enough at a wall, etc. But, you're doing an exceptional job at deflecting away from the topic at hand and attacking me instead. It really shows the (lack of) strength in your argument! Carry on!

No, you had no answer for it. But great try. And "Wins" are important, but how was he looking during those? You don't seem to disagree he was shaky, and had been ridden hard during the run. He WAS tired, and it showed in game 3. I even called for Schneider to start game 3 during the run. It's in my post history somewhere, so far from hindsight. Feel free to go all the way back to find it if you care enough to. And as for the ling juggling, they slot one guy with two. Not a completely jumbled mess for an entire period, then a new jumbled mess. And if you've noticed, it's usually the same guy with the other two on the 'warming' cycle. Same with Quenneville. AV jumbled his lines like crazy when they were winning, and then rode cold lines hard when they were losing in a frantic hope they'd warm up and do something. It made zero sense. And when it counted, they got shown out the door. Just as they are now.

When you have two cracks at winning it, you most certainly should. Especially when the wrong goalie started game 3. Schneider is basically "from" (Marblehead is a half hour away) there, he'd be so fired up playing in front of family, plus the chance to be integral to the cup win, the Bruins wouldn't expect it, and Luongo gets a much needed rest. If it fails, well, back to Lu for game 4 who still got his rest to close it out. He was looking a little shaky in game two at times, so a good coach recognizes that, and does the bold move for the next game. He's a crap coach because of total asset misuse. The constant line juggling makes gelling with linemates virtually impossible, so the whole "cohesive unit" that LA is playing like can't happen. He doesn't do the bold move, he rarely used timeouts effectively and generally had no tactical plan for the other coach changing theirs. Q in Chicago munched him tactically in 2010, Julien beat him once they were figured in 2011, Sutter smoked him (again) in 2012 and even Mac in SJ got the sweep (rightly costing him his job) in 2013. He's completely out of his depth as an NHL head coach at the top tier level. When the rags have an "average" goalie to go with in the future, watch how good he is. If he doesn't have an elite tender to ride for 65-70 games a season, he's awful average instead of making his team better.

I see a crap coach who is a crap coach. If he wasn't handed an elite goaltender to steal every game for him, he'd be on the bottom tier, if even coaching in the NHL. To go from Lu, Schnider to Lundquist is outstandingly lucky, and he's been on their coattails the entire time. If he were a great coach, he would have got the job done any one of the times he had a shot in Vancouver. Instead, every time there's always "lucky bounces" or "missed calls" that go against him or the team. Why rely on a lucky bounce? If he were a great coach, he wouldn't be down 3-0 to the Kings in the cup final.

That's because he's a crap coach, and easy for a good one to "coach against". His decisions are predictable when on home ice, and he doesn't play the team he wants, he watches the other team play theirs. Sutter has years of practice doing just that to him. And he's getting schooled, yet again.

Disagree. He was barely a coach, if the players were running the show as everybody praises him for doing. He had a top 5 goaltender to ride and a hell of a team put in front of him. When there was coaching to be done, he failed at it. Yes, he was the problem. Once again, he's been handed a top 5 goaltender to ride and a hell of a team in front of him. NYR's fall will mirror this one, only much, much faster as their core aren't mid 20s when he got them.

I'll C/P what I just posted above. One of the most adaptable coaches I've ever seen from season to season; I mean one year Paul Kariya was their top player (JP Dumont as #2) and they still managed 272 goals as a team scored, en route to a 110 point season. The year before that was 259 with Kariya and Sullivan He had ONE guy who was a 'scorer'. ONE GUY. Still managed 272 team goals. An Aging Paul Kariya. Wooo. He's had exactly bupkiss to work with the past few years. Give the man scorers he lets them score.

Everybody heckles him for 'boring hockey' but I don't understand why. It's like they've never seen them play when he actually had players at his disposal. One of the most adaptable coaches I've ever seen from season to season; I mean one year Paul Kariya was their top player (JP Dumont as #2) and they still managed 272 goals as a team scored, en route to a 110 point season. The year before that was 259 with Kariya and Sullivan. Yeah. Talent. Give the man a chance to coach scorers, he can get it done. Best coach available in my not so humble opinion.

Tyson Baille. Not sure if he's second or third round material, but he's another one of those semi- Andreychuk types; not the absolute best in any situation, but reliable in all situations. Rockets certainly relied on him when the game was on the line, and were rewarded for it. I think he's a bit under the radar as well, due to how much talent their first line is stacked with. Might be available.

Go Jackets :D

Here's the cool (and a bit nostalgic) bit. If(When!) the Canucks win the cup, and he's the prez, he still gets to be a part of that with his name etched on the cup... as a Canuck. So lets find the GM that can make that happen.

Wow, this is turning into a rout. Where was this a month ago?

I think that's a stupid decision. I'd ride them as is until they stop performing. That line has tied, and given the team the lead... why on earth would you want to break it up?

As long as he isn't buried, he'll be fine. I think playing with booth is actually good for him. Booth has been working a lot harder as of late, and his speed and worth ethic as well as using his body is good for Kassian to play off of. The space generated a couple of shifts ago was notable, just for the two of them. A clean One-T from the work down low.

I think for #9 you mean Horvat Unless you think Hunter is worth two firsts haha.

If Kesler is the third line centre (where I maintain he should be, as the best third line centre in the league) then I agree with you. But as an offensive player, he's better suited for wing. He doesn't have the natural playmaking ability for an offensive centre. Take Joe Thornton for example; he's a natural playmaker, he makes the players on his wings better. Kesler does not do that. There are other examples around, but that's the most obvious one. Hell, even Henrik I suppose for one closer to home; natural playmaker, makes his wingers better.

I was going to say to that "I'd much rather be in the 10% who doesn't" lol. Defensive wingers are a massive asset. Especially ones who can use their speed in the transition. Having a guy who could take a puck away from the hash marks and wheel up the boards, drawing the defenders wide, potentially leaving the high slot open for the centre to sneak in for a pass or a rebound... It's not as effective with the centre leading that charge. Superstars can pull it off (Crosby, Stamkos and ilk) but "very good" does not a superstar make.

Power Play goals do not count towards +/- for players on the ice.

No but seriously. The last time somebody was as wrong as Clutch, Neville Chamberlian was waving a piece of paper saying "There will be peace for our time!"

The referees in this game are really, really awful. On both sides. It's so ugly.