brownky

That makes Florida instantly a playoff team with Luongo in net. A line and a half, with some decent defence. But Tallon knows how to build a team. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually picks with that pick.

We want Ekblad if Garrison is gone. I'd be okay with Shinkaruk, garrison and kesler being traded for Ekblad and Reinhart (somehow). That's about the only way I'd be happy with Shink leaving.

It's not like he's Schroeder sized either. A smart player can navigate the ice, as long as his core strength is good and he plays smart, he'll do very well. We saw he has the speed and hands to actually play at that level. If he could be like a Paul Kariya type player, that's a total steal. And I think he could.

Hopefully he doesn't play for the Taiwan two points are better. No defending the 0-0 tie!

I agree. I'd actually seen a line in my head of Shinkaruk, Horvat and Kassian. Kassian should have it together by the time the other two are ready for primetime NHL action, and ho-ley-crap would that be a scary line if they gel. Power, Speed, Skill, defensive smarts and scoring mentality. Isn't that exactly what we wanted? And a couple of Sedins to keep them calm and show them how to be professionals. I don't like the idea of trading any of our immediate prospects; Shink, Horvat, Kassian, Jensen should all be sticking around. I realize you have to 'give to get' but if what we get isn't worth what we give, then it's no good.

Add Bryz to the mix. Wow. The press would never have to interview anyone else. Just have Lack, Irbe, Bryz and JM in the media room. Everybody else gets a pass. Even Tony the Raisin would be forced to chuckle at something. He wouldn't heff to be mad.

Pat White and pieces gave us Ehrhoff in a trade. If Schroeder could be flipped into Ehrhoff? By all means, sign me up.

Yup, the grapes are sour. Couldn't be happier. Not only am I happy for willie, I'm proven correct (yet again) and AV is not a cup winning coach. Double whammy. Now where's your bud rupert? At least you're still here soaking it up.

Case in point, LA were bringing the game to NYR throughout the overtimes. Defence pinching in (even Willie?!?) puck down deep with lots of pressure from wingers, NYR were playing a tenative "hope for a break" game instead of creating their own.

Sour grapes for Apples? Awwwwww. NYR were out of their depth here. Any other goalie for NYR and this was a nasty sweep. LA had a 48 shot advantage over only 5 games. And that's not counting blocks or misses, that's shots on target. And you're still thinking AV wasn't out of his league.

Shots on goal (not including blocks or missed the net) (which I assume would probably come close to doubling the counts) LAK 194 NYR 146 LA completely outplayed NYR in this series with the exception of one game where they shut them out 3-0 while taking only 15 shots. So no, this wasn't puck luck. LA won this.

I wonder if Willie is gonna sent Gillis another thank you card for not re-signing him due to his "concussion problems". Two cups for willie. Good for him.

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.