Vanflyer

That's what she said!

And thus why he should be between the pipes if ready. Seriously, is that an easy out then? I don't see mason as a non gamer and thought all season he is a gamer. If its getting a teammates back and juicing it up, fine. If its I am scared.....oh never mind.

What drives me nuts is the 5-on-3 where the team is looking for the "pretty" passing / highlight play. I will yell shoot then.

Man are you a complete moron. The Colorado got that team for three reasons: 1) Marcel Aubut was a complete ass when it came to running a professional hockey organization. 2) see one above. 3) See one above and then add into it, he wanted to get some money before losing more of his shirt (I would say balls, but he had none!). Aubut cried poor (not enough revenue, blah blah blah). So he bailed. I will 100% agree that the cup should have been Quebecs with the players on the ice. But the divisions changed. blah blah blah. The reality is that Aubut was always in it for himself. Its his money, so who cares. What irks me about your post is to say you hated Colorado's fans. Its a crude and ignorant statement. Maybe you think hockey did not exist pre-Avalanche, but it did and does. I played for Colorado College pre Avs. Go to a CC-DU hockey game, of DU gophers or......I could list so much great hockey pre avs (including the Colorado Flames). Idiot.

Sorry, my vernacular / encyclopedia brain is not as expanse as yours. I neither have the will / or desire to go through all the annals of hockey foredoom. I merely cited the few that came to my head- that I watched, that came to my mind. There are many more I missed, but WTF, you must be father time or have too much time on your hands to have watched every effing series played. by the way, the last time I checked, the Flyers have dominated Buffalo to an astounding 7 wins - 3 losses in the playoffs. Maybe you should be eating some grouper.

Nice of you to post that. Nice piece for both teams.

Interesting point re: Hextall. He was in the back seat Lombardi as well. I will have to think about this. I don't think Hextall left the Kings necessarily for a GM post. He truthfully probably could have gotten one. I think he is one of the boys, that for whatever reason, the culture of the Flyers drew him back (for ill or good again).

I think you and I are on the same page (as with several others). .250 - .750m too much, sure. A year long on the tooth in the length sure. Just be careful saying "several million". I think it is better to break it down to yearly. The newbies will see several million and think "wow, they screwed the pooch on that deal". When in reality the pooch may- or may not have been screwed by 1.25m - 4M in totality over the length of the contract. That does not even take into consideration escalating costs and all that stuff. In the end, the Flyers perhaps overpaid by 5-10%. Its not a crushing blow. I know the pundits will come out and say "stupid as stupid does" and all that stuff, but we needed a medium level guy that can stay at home when need be and push the puck out crisply and play 20+ minutes a night. Is he the best we could have gotten, maybe not. Is he the worse we could have gotten, definitely not.

The apologists will say he has been an angel for the last 3 years. Enough is enough. This is coming from the guy that thought Seabrooks hit was fine. If Seabrook gets 3, Cooke gets 20- mostly because of history.

It was just a hockey play.......pffft.

Colorado-Wings (insert any playoff year, but the ones with Crawford - Bowman at the helm were classics) Habs - Flyers (80's, forget year, but the series with the pre-game brawl and Hextall clubbing Chelios at the end of the series for taking out Propp). Flyers - Oilers 87- David v. Goliath. Hextall Conne Smythe of the tournament. Flyers - Tampa- Forget what year, but it was a blood bath. Lindros was a monster.

It depends on how you look at it. The NHL should not be in the business of managing NHL teams (it is a direct conflict). However, Betteman and NHL have done EXACTLY that with Pitts and Phoenix.

Didn't they try it with the Atlanta Flames years ago who became the Colorado Rockies (I think WHL days)?

I just expected a tighter scoring affair. I knew Sharks were deep this year, but also knew that despite continued offensive woes by the kings, they still played very well defensively.

I am the dunce on this one. Glad I did not take Quick as my goalie.

I didn't get to see the third either. I agree with everything you said. I think the ice was tilted in NY favor for significant stretches of the first and second. Also, the penalty parade has to stop. Luckilly the embellishment antics that NYR were displaying, caught up to them. I was a bit annoyed that the Flyers did not come out hitting like they did in the first period of the first game. They can not run and gun with NYR. A big issue for me is faceoffs. Couturier, Schenn and VLC all have to get much better The three of the combined are in the mid 30% and you are not going to win hockey games losing puck possession 65% of the time. I am hoping that line matchups on home ice can help this a bit. Re Giroux, I am starting to wonder if he is not hurt. He played some lack luster games down the stretch as well. Got to get the shots against significantly down. The NYR are averaging 35 shots a game. That does not include the 22 blocked shots that the flyers are making a game. You are not going to win many hockey games allowing that many against / attempts- I dont care who your goalie is.

90% of my post was not directed at you, just I choose to expound on your post. What Kronwall does is usually 10 times worse in regards to interference / charging. It used to be that you have a 3 second rule / 3 step rule on hitting an opposing player after the player played the puck. Not an official rule, but an unwritten rule. It really is not relevant.

Good points. It just pisses me off. Not the game I fell in love with many years ago.

Sorry, but since I was a pee wee hockey player, there were two basic fundamentals to playing the game: Keep you head up and your stick on the ice. I am just completely floored at how many people think that was a cheap shot and not a hockey play. Not that matter much, but Backes is FAR from an angel and would have made the exact same hit given the opportunity. I feel like I am arguing the Lindros - Stevens hit all over again, but from the opposite side. The difference in this is that there was ZERO flying elbow / forearm shiver. It was a shoulder. Backes is the same height as Seabrook. Shame on him for not knowing he was in a playoff game and looking at his skates coming from behind his net with the puck. I take / make that hit every day of the week. I don't direct this to you personally, but for all that thinks this is a bad hit, go watch baseball (sorry TFG), table tennis or any other sport that is non-contact.

So true! Imagine if they got Callahan as well!! I think Nash is extremely talented, but CBJ won that trade. I also agree with the size, speed, toughness and work ethic. I have the utmost respect for John Davidson. Too bad it took so long for Columbus to get a quality hockey executive in place.

My top three would be (not necessarily in any order): 1) Detroit- Their knack for scouting and drafting is bar none. Their ownership is elite (unlike NY Islanders). The coach is (imo) the best in the league. Add into that they have some really good players and you can't go wrong. 2) Colorado Avalanche- While a basement bunny for a couple of years, they are a rising team with incredibly skilled players. A good coach (an ass as an individual, but a good coach none-the-less) and an excellent GM. 3) Philly Flyers- Similar to detroit, they have committed ownership, history and a passionate fan base. Their teams are always competitive. 4) Honrable mention- Columbus. The they are a new team (relatively) to the league and after years of mis-management, have finally turned the corner. Their President / GM is highly knowledgeable, there coach fits the youth of the team well and they play a style that is enjoyable to watch.

I don't know know. Its so easy to look at in slow motion. But at full speed, what are the options? I think it was totally pre-meditated that Seabrook wanted to crush Backes and read the play the whole way. Once he committed to that thought and given the timing, I think there was very little intent to go for the head and because he did want to nail Backes, not much chance of pealing away. For me, it just can't go both ways (seabrook should not have hit him v. Backes should be responsible for his own protection). On this play, its Backes fault. He knew Seabrook was coming (all the way from the blue line) and did nothing to protect himself. This is not flying elbow headhunting kind of stuff. This is a guy that put a shoulder flush to a players front. Had Backes been accountable for his own safety and picked up his head, the hit could have and probably would have been just as lethal.

I am with Ruxpin on this. It is interesting to see the distress in your post as a Hawks fan. For me, I think Chi could have won both games- and their fate certainly deserved at least one win. The missed high stick call against Chi was atrocious to me. If that gets called (correctly), we may not even be discussing the merits of the Seabrook hit.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the head is off limits (particularly on that play) and then say the speed of the game, it will happen etc. The bigger issue really for me is and has been for a while, is that players are no longer protecting themselves. While I applaud the league for trying to take out flagrant head shots and reduce concussed players (or otherwise serious injuries), the way they manage it these days lets players off the hook for being accountable to protect themselves. There was no malicious intent here (other then to make a hockey play). Backes effd up the play (or the ice whatever) when he lost control of the puck. Its HIS responsibility to know where he is on the ice AND what the opposition is doing. He did not do that. He had his head down / bent over because he was fishing for the puck. The milliseconds between him losing the handle of the puck and the hit is his responsibility. I don't want to see any player get hurt, but he put himself in a completely vulnerable situation. No suspension warranted at all in my mind and I thought the major and misconduct was a joke.

For me (and while not playing NHL or Pro level, I did play at a high level) there are two parts to this: 1) Seabrook read the play all the way and intentionally went after Backes. I don't think he was head hunting, but he definitely wanted to extract a toll on Backes. 2) Backes was completely at fault for not seeing / looking at the play (ie Seabrook pinching and flying in from the point) AND not being responsible to protect himself in no mans land coming out from behind the net with the puck. He fumbled the puck. Truthfully, had he not fumbled the puck and had his head down, the hit could have been just as equally devastating. The only difference is that he would have given himself a chance to avoid / protect himself. Regarding the speed- it is a bang bang play- but Seabrook did want to crush him (not saying hurt him). This is just my opinion. Its playoff hockey and that always means a war of attrition. It was a clean hockey play for me.