viking mama Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I need to hear that! is there a link anywhere? HNIC crew after NOT realizing, during the commercial break, that they were miked live on-line being goofs. Sad post-game show ensues...with miscues, background distractions....an on-line audio-feed was dropped into the presser before the crew joined in. Sorry roland, the pre-post-game show banter is NOT included. I mis-quoted Scott Oakes tho'...the words he used in his send-off were: "I shall remain nameless, as I don't want my name associated with this whole broadcast." Ha, ha! http://www.cbc.ca/player/Sports/CBC%27s+Hockey+Night+in+Canada/ID/2463759876/ Jun 9, 2014 When Scott welcomes those of us veiwing on-line...the on-line crowd had already been listening-in for a few minutes. BTW - it isn't pre-season... or mid-season,...it's the freakin' Stanley Cup Finals! No wonder so few tune-in to the post-game show. Is this CBC's A-team? Doing their best? Everyone is so punchy. They need this series to end. The real kicker is when Kelly tells Scott to elevate (his professional game) ...to our (PJ's & Kelly's) level. Say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 well in response to this and pineapples response to this about it being disappointing that we all except this....I except this because the "OT rules" is how all of us would like to see hockey played... but the fact of the matter is players couldnt survive an 82 game season of the "OT rules" or the "playoff rules" and its not like the players themselves dont know their is a difference . thats why its important to have guys on your team that can battle through it . Its what makes NHL playoffs the best hockey on earth.the problem i have with hockey today is how the 2 referee system works...At the begging the 2 refs were supposed to work as follows ... Back ref watches away from the play for any infractions , and the near ref watches the play itself for infractions... it looks so bad when a ref 50 feet away from the play calls a penalty that took place 2 feet in front of the near ref who didnt call a penalty. Why is there no common sense from the back ref to say to himself "hey , my partner who is standing right there didnt think its a penalty , chances are its not" end of rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Not going to lie this surprised me, I thought the Kings would surely be fatigued by now but if anything they're playing their best hockey in the SCF. This Kings team is just too clutch - everyone in that team has had a few bad games and they've nearly been booted from the playoffs what, 6 times now, but have come up clutch in every one of them. Quick has been brutal at times and he comes up with his best game in a pivotal Game 3. Honestly if this series went on for too long and the Rangers got back in it with two home wins, I'd be saying its the Rangers cup to win but the Kings just took complete control. If they lost Game 3, then 4, they'd be way too tired. This Game 3 win essentially is the Cup. Would be fantastic if the Rangers pulled off a historic comeback though, great storyline, but it won't happen.i dont know about them playing their best.. first 2 games they should have lost... game 3 they got it going. some how they managed to take off game 1 and 2 and still walk away with wins . thats the mark of a good team.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amitriptyline Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Retribution's a bitch eh? I am so loving this. NYR are getting exactly what they deserve. Hopefully it continues and they get swept in 4. Losing in the SCF instead of earlier will make the loss all the more bitter and devastating. This is what they deserve for running Price against MTL. I don't believe for one second that it was an accident. It was a calculated dirty play for the sole purpose of removing Montreal's best player and giving themselves an advantage. Its nice when there's a little justice in the world once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 well in response to this and pineapples response to this about it being disappointing that we all except this.... I except this because the "OT rules" is how all of us would like to see hockey played... but the fact of the matter is players couldnt survive an 82 game season of the "OT rules" or the "playoff rules" and its not like the players themselves dont know their is a difference . thats why its important to have guys on your team that can battle through it . Its what makes NHL playoffs the best hockey on earth. the problem i have with hockey today is how the 2 referee system works...At the begging the 2 refs were supposed to work as follows ... Back ref watches away from the play for any infractions , and the near ref watches the play itself for infractions... it looks so bad when a ref 50 feet away from the play calls a penalty that took place 2 feet in front of the near ref who didnt call a penalty. Why is there no common sense from the back ref to say to himself "hey , my partner who is standing right there didnt think its a penalty , chances are its not" end of rant. That's no rant dude, that's the truth! I'm always amazed at fans complaining about "playoff" rules... can these people not discern entertainment value?? Are they transplanted NBA fans who can't understand that reffing hockey is not like calling any other sport? And that hockey, by it's very nature CAN'T be called like any other sport? I thought the original idea behind the two ref system was for one ref to follow the play and for the other to scope out all neutral zone interference, thus helping us transition out of the "Dead-puck" era. I thought that second ref was our "entertainment value" insurance policy. But no, Hockey has become a special teams battle as penalty after penalty is called. Then more and more new penalties are added every year. This game is being legislated to death. Instead of battling each other, players are whining and diving trying to get the all important special teams advantage. I miss the days when the ref had the leeway to call a game as he saw fit, he could get a feel for what was going on and act accordingly. And that's what people don't seem to understand, THAT is how hockey has traditionally been called, Not like Basketball, not like Football and there are good reasons why that has been the case. Ok, now THAT'S a rant. Oh and if anyone has a problem with anything I just said, I will happily post links to Bobby Orr supporting every point I just made, You can go argue with HIM about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I am experiencing some of the 2011 pain with NYR after the first 3 games. They are playing so well, a lot more able to to stand up to LA's physicality than I thought. I have to say though I feel AV is being out coached. I am really disappointed that Rangers haven't solved Quick. Shots on net just doesn't work with Quick and the LA D. They are a mirror image of the Tim Thomas and the Boston D of 2011 imo. The Canucks struggled with Thomas advancing out of his goal and it was only when they added the extra pass across him they had any success. I am really down at how much work the Rangers have put into this series so far and haven't got their just reward. I fear until their coaches realise that dragging Quick laterally across his crease is the only way to beat him they will continue to hit their head against a brick wall and continue to be caught on the counter attack. Looking back to 2011 I watched every night thinking that Thomas wasn't invincible but by game 7 I realised if you only shoot down the slot, he was. It's the same with Quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 An AV team not showing up in a big game? Except they are showing up. Like we showed up in 2011 but sometimes inability to solve a goalie like Quick/Thomas, does for you in the end. Rangers deserve far more than they have got out of this series so far imo. I would not on any basis say they haven't shown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 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. You see crap coach. I see hellish bad luck. You see out coached and I see deflections and bad calls. What is a series sitting at 3-0 could quite easily have been 3-0 or 2-1 for Rangers. The only place I would question AV's tactics/coaching is Rangers inability to move quick (a Quick who cheats like TT in 2011) laterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 AV's going to win the Cup. Let that sink in for a moment. No real reason for the NHL to push the Kings over the Rangers. Rangers in 7 for ratings.LOL WUT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Good question. I mean - Chris Lee, Dan O'Halloran, Tim Peel, Kelly Sutherland - just awful. I suppose if I had to pick a guy to do a game, I might go with Dave Jackson or Kevin Pollock. It's been slim pickings ever since Bill McCreary retired, IMO. I'd probably go with DJ or Devo if I had to choose....maybe Mike Leggo... As far as the series goes, it's certainly refreshing to see the AV haters back at it again. (KInd of surprised that DeNiro has joined the ranks, though. I thought you were smarter than that...) The Rags out shot the Kings by more than double last night. All three Kings' goal were the result of lucky bounces, while Quick stood on his head for them. Yet in the minds (if you can call them that) of CDC he was "outcoached" again. New York deserves a far better fate. They could easily have won game one, they should have won game two, but were screwed over by the zebras....People seem to think that there's some magic wand that a coach can wave to make his team score. You prepare the best you can, then you send your boys out there and hope they can execute. AV has done just that. This deficit is not his fault. Sometimes you don't get the bounces. BTW: Those who (for some reason unknown to me) are celebrating this impending Cup win for the Kings, I hope you all remember: "To all the fans in Canada except for Vancouver: You're welcome"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It's been pretty clear in the CBC coverage that they are going through the motions of a broadcast. I bet everyone is upset they are going to lose hockey (and their jobs). Some are dealing with it better than others. But the technical side seems to be the first to suffer. Basically once the CBC loses hockey. There will be more of our taxpayer dollars being sunk into the network. Because it was the only programming in the CBC that made money. (Newsworld might make money as well, but that's about it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Willie Mitchell on how he beat Gillis' sleep science regime: NEW YORK—In Vancouver, they had bracelets. They looked like watches, simple ones, all black except for a blue line along the wristband and the red numbers on the face. They monitored wrist movement, and therefore how much players slept, when they slept — on the bus? On the plane? — and how well. The Canucks all wore them. That helped, right? “Yeah, I couldn’t go out for a beer after the game,” says Willie Mitchell, the Los Angeles Kings defenceman who was in Vancouver when they experimented with sleep science. “They’re actually biofeedback devices on your wrist, so we sent one of the rookies back to the hotel and had his wear 25 of ’em.” http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/06/09/stanley_cup_final_kings_rangers_in_it_for_the_long_haul_arthur.html Sounds like the players might have been annoyed with Gillis' micromanagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I am experiencing some of the 2011 pain with NYR after the first 3 games. They are playing so well, a lot more able to to stand up to LA's physicality than I thought. I have to say though I feel AV is being out coached. I am really disappointed that Rangers haven't solved Quick. Shots on net just doesn't work with Quick and the LA D. They are a mirror image of the Tim Thomas and the Boston D of 2011 imo. The Canucks struggled with Thomas advancing out of his goal and it was only when they added the extra pass across him they had any success. I am really down at how much work the Rangers have put into this series so far and haven't got their just reward. I fear until their coaches realise that dragging Quick laterally across his crease is the only way to beat him they will continue to hit their head against a brick wall and continue to be caught on the counter attack. Looking back to 2011 I watched every night thinking that Thomas wasn't invincible but by game 7 I realised if you only shoot down the slot, he was. It's the same with Quick. Then when our slipperiest Canucks got themselves onto Thomas' doorstep, he was permitted to come out of his crease & given the green-light to crosscheck or interfere with his opponents, using that extra 30 lbs of equipment...and the sturdiest lumber, that no other player can deploy/get,...'cept the guy at the end of the rink inside his crease. BS that! BOS was just given every over-line op to help them succeed and counter whatever the 'Nucks would throw at them. Yet, even as the 'Nucks D & forwards were dropping like flies.....during this round...they were still held to the firmest letter of law...and then some. Aaron Rome & Daniel Sedin... say Hi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Quick is so bad. Average goalie on an amazing team. Just like Corey Crawford.this guy eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul Duke Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Lovin' this series. Didn't expect 3-0 here, but nice nontheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It's been slim pickings ever since Bill McCreary retired, IMO. I'd probably go with DJ or Devo if I had to choose....maybe Mike Leggo... As far as the series goes, it's certainly refreshing to see the AV haters back at it again. (KInd of surprised that DeNiro has joined the ranks, though. I thought you were smarter than that...) The Rags out shot the Kings by more than double last night. All three Kings' goal were the result of lucky bounces, while Quick stood on his head for them. Yet in the minds (if you can call them that) of CDC he was "outcoached" again. New York deserves a far better fate. They could easily have won game one, they should have won game two, but were screwed over by the zebras....People seem to think that there's some magic wand that a coach can wave to make his team score. You prepare the best you can, then you send your boys out there and hope they can execute. AV has done just that. This deficit is not his fault. Sometimes you don't get the bounces. BTW: Those who (for some reason unknown to me) are celebrating this impending Cup win for the Kings, I hope you all remember: "To all the fans in Canada except for Vancouver: You're welcome"..... Exactly. The Rags outshot LA 32-15 last night. Lundqvist gives up three seeing eye goals on 15 shots. Must be the result of some weak AV coaching right... But, but all the Rangers shots were from the perimeter, right? Yeah, no. Surprised we haven't heard that staple yet. Anyhow, when you outshoot the L.A. Kings two to one and hold them to 15 shots, you're making some decent "adjustments". Not much more a coach can do. Add O'Halloran to the bounces and your chances of beating a team like L.A. diminish even more. Aside from downright overpowering your opponent, which isn't an easy task with a team like the KIngs, the Rangers have actually fared very well - people should probably be surprised that they have carried the majority of the play - most were expecting a Kings walkover - aside from the scoreboard, that has not been the case in the least. Someone should ask Sutter if he thinks he's outcoaching AV. The answer would be pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I agree ^. Juvenile Joe, the taunting captain, being ever-so-humbled....was sweet-stuff to behold. Yes, watching Joe blow that lead was priceless. Torts' retort - "what has Joe ever won in this league" still applies. A lot of great teams in SJ.....and still choking. I'm pulling for the Rags in the SCF - I've always felt that AV is both a great coach and a likeable guy - I also like a lot of the Rangers players and style of play - but aside from Poughty's antics, I appreciate the Kings and don't mind seeing their success. It's nice to see a guy like Willie winning, and players like Williams, Stoll, Kopitar, Richards, Greene are hard not to appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It's been slim pickings ever since Bill McCreary retired, IMO. I'd probably go with DJ or Devo if I had to choose....maybe Mike Leggo... As far as the series goes, it's certainly refreshing to see the AV haters back at it again. (KInd of surprised that DeNiro has joined the ranks, though. I thought you were smarter than that...) The Rags out shot the Kings by more than double last night. All three Kings' goal were the result of lucky bounces, while Quick stood on his head for them. Yet in the minds (if you can call them that) of CDC he was "outcoached" again. New York deserves a far better fate. They could easily have won game one, they should have won game two, but were screwed over by the zebras....People seem to think that there's some magic wand that a coach can wave to make his team score. You prepare the best you can, then you send your boys out there and hope they can execute. AV has done just that. This deficit is not his fault. Sometimes you don't get the bounces. BTW: Those who (for some reason unknown to me) are celebrating this impending Cup win for the Kings, I hope you all remember: "To all the fans in Canada except for Vancouver: You're welcome"..... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It's been slim pickings ever since Bill McCreary retired, IMO. I'd probably go with DJ or Devo if I had to choose....maybe Mike Leggo... As far as the series goes, it's certainly refreshing to see the AV haters back at it again. (KInd of surprised that DeNiro has joined the ranks, though. I thought you were smarter than that...) The Rags out shot the Kings by more than double last night. All three Kings' goal were the result of lucky bounces, while Quick stood on his head for them. Yet in the minds (if you can call them that) of CDC he was "outcoached" again. New York deserves a far better fate. They could easily have won game one, they should have won game two, but were screwed over by the zebras....People seem to think that there's some magic wand that a coach can wave to make his team score. You prepare the best you can, then you send your boys out there and hope they can execute. AV has done just that. This deficit is not his fault. Sometimes you don't get the bounces. BTW: Those who (for some reason unknown to me) are celebrating this impending Cup win for the Kings, I hope you all remember: "To all the fans in Canada except for Vancouver: You're welcome"..... Exactly. The Rags outshot LA 32-15 last night. Lundqvist gives up three seeing eye goals on 15 shots. Must be the result of some weak AV coaching right... But, but all the Rangers shots were from the perimeter, right? Yeah, no. Surprised we haven't heard that staple yet. Anyhow, when you outshoot the L.A. Kings two to one and hold them to 15 shots, you're making some decent "adjustments". Not much more a coach can do. Add O'Halloran to the bounces and your chances of beating a team like L.A. diminish even more. Aside from downright overpowering your opponent, which isn't an easy task with a team like the KIngs, the Rangers have actually fared very well - people should probably be surprised that they have carried the majority of the play - most were expecting a Kings walkover - aside from the scoreboard, that has not been the case in the least. Someone should ask Sutter if he thinks he's outcoaching AV. The answer would be pretty interesting. My thoughts exactly. It's a shame that the majority of fans don't understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Coaches take way too much of the blame. I felt AV's time in Vancouver was over, and still think he is better suited for a veteran team than a team trying to develop prospects, but he is still a great coach who needed one year to get his team to the SCF. It is not as if his team played poorly, nor did he seem to tell his team to sit back and defend. Its just that LA constantly sends wave after wave of relentless forecheck and NYR doesn't have the personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.