Stanley Cup Finals: Boston Bruins (A2) vs. St. Louis Blues (C3)

[Buffalo Rick]

13 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Sorry i disagree....this guy will have something to say about that...

 

We'll see

[BlueAero]

30 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

I saw this live back then.  I watched the entire series.  And even though it was a sweep, the Blues played them tough every game. This goal from memory was in OT of game 4, the Cup winner by Orr.  Jacque Plante in goal.  Red Berenson and the Plaguer brothers were on that Blues team.  Barclay was the best and I believe he is now deceased.  His brother ii around and watching every game. Cheering for the current Blues team.  This Blues team is in with far better chance, though Vegas odds are fat and that is fine with me.  These Bruins have no Orr or Esposito.  These Blues have Teresenko and Schwartz.  To me the best two forwards easily in this series.  Pietrangelo and Parayko are better than anyone Boston has

 

I know you're not doing this but everyone who hates the Blues is dragging this old picture out of mothballs in an effort to somehow prove something....like, we have the ability to take color photos now?  Its relevance on the current circumstances is zero.

 

The Blues made the SC finals their first three years of existence, 1967-68, '68-'69 (both against Montreal) and '69-70 (Boston).  They battled hard but were easily swept 4-0 in all three series.  At the time, the league was divided into an Eastern and Western Conference just like now with the old original six in the east and the original six expansion teams (St. Louis Blues, Minnesota North Stars, Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, LA Kings and Oakland Seals).  These were true expansion teams, not instant contenders like Vegas is and probably Seattle will be.  Most of the teams sucked to be honest and the Blues were the best of a bad lot for the first three years.  There's literally no comparison with what we have now.  If people want to bring Bobby Orr into the argument, have at it.  I hear that he ain't suiting up and won't be a factor.  

[ruxpin]

3 hours ago, BlueAero said:

 

I know you're not doing this but everyone who hates the Blues is dragging this old picture out of mothballs in an effort to somehow prove something....like, we have the ability to take color photos now?  Its relevance on the current circumstances is zero.

 

The Blues made the SC finals their first three years of existence, 1967-68, '68-'69 (both against Montreal) and '69-70 (Boston).  They battled hard but were easily swept 4-0 in all three series.  At the time, the league was divided into an Eastern and Western Conference just like now with the old original six in the east and the original six expansion teams (St. Louis Blues, Minnesota North Stars, Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, LA Kings and Oakland Seals).  These were true expansion teams, not instant contenders like Vegas is and probably Seattle will be.  Most of the teams sucked to be honest and the Blues were the best of a bad lot for the first three years.  There's literally no comparison with what we have now.  If people want to bring Bobby Orr into the argument, have at it.  I hear that he ain't suiting up and won't be a factor.  

I agree it's not relevant to this team. 

 

I've said sweep and I've said Blues since before the playoffs started. 

 

But @HockeyJunkie will tell you, every other year I've held the Blues' history against them.  I've bet against them in every single series they've been in and, on net, have done quite well. 

 

Not because of anything that happened in the season the picture references. But because the past couple decades, and especially in the Armstrong Era, the front office has had a bad habit of not getting out of the way and, as a result, killing the team's chances. 

 

A lot of bizarre deadline deals, primarily. Or goofy coaching decisions. 

 

This year looked different to me. We discussed Biddington.  But what caused me to think "this year is different" was the avoidance of any bizarre deadline move this year. Armstrong finally allowed his team's chemistry to stay intact.  No bringing in another goalie or trading away a 2C or whatever other bizarre nonsense he's done to his team in the past. 

 

I think a lot of people are still on the recent history of the Blues and, therefore, not in "believe" mode.  Some may simply think the Bruins are a better team, and there's definitely sober argument to that. 

 

But some have picked against the Blues every round based on recent history, and I think they've missed the huge "failure ingredient" absent this year. 

 

They could still lose. Maybe the Bruins are better. Maybe there's a bad call or the bounces just go the wrong way.   But this isn't the overly-tinkered Blues of the last decade. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by ruxpin

[OccamsRazor]

3 hours ago, BlueAero said:

dark-horse x-factor

 

Bruins have one too his name is Matt Grzelcyk this kid is a very good two way defensemen who isn't very big but he will be a solid contributor to the blueline and he will help take a load off the top D pairs of the Bruins.

[ruxpin]

24 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Bruins have one too his name is Matt Grzelcyk this kid is a very good two way defensemen who isn't very big but he will be a solid contributor to the blueline and he will help take a load off the top D pairs of the Bruins.

 

Good solid kid and two really nice solid seasons the last two years.   He and Moore (but Grzelcyk, in particular) have been able to eat up a good chunk of ice time for a 3rd pair.  Nothing flashy, but a really solid under the radar guy who could probably be a second pair elsewhere, except maybe, like you said, isn't very big.  The size thing doesn't have to be a dealbreaker anymore, though.

Edited May 24, 2019 by ruxpin

[OccamsRazor]

19 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Good solid kid and two really nice solid seasons the last two years.   He and Moore (but Grzelcyk, in particular) have been able to eat up a good chunk of ice time for a 3rd pair.  Nothing flashy, but a really solid under the radar guy who could probably be a second pair elsewhere, except maybe, like you said, isn't very big.  The size thing doesn't have to be a dealbreaker anymore, though.

 

And he plays on their 2nd powerplay unit the opposite point from McAvoy too and has been productive he reminds me of a more defensively sound Krug his teammate.

[Tomdog]

I’m trying to find radio coverage for the series as I will be on the road. 

I have both teams in the finals for our family pool with Boston winning. 

Watching St. Louis has me questioning my pick. 

Big.  balanced offense/defense. 

Balanced scoreing. 

Finally a dependable goalie. 

Boston similar. More proven goalie. 

 

Gonna be a great series. 

[Special guest speaker]

I think alot will have to do with if Bennington can keep the ice flowing in his veins, if he plays the way he has been, I think the Blues in six but Rask is on fire also, I think it's going to be a low scoring series , I don't think (imo) there will be any blowout games and I predict at least 2-3 ot games at least... Definitely going to be a goaltending battle... Let's go Blues!!! 

[Buffalo Rick]

19 hours ago, BlueAero said:

 

I know you're not doing this but everyone who hates the Blues is dragging this old picture out of mothballs in an effort to somehow prove something....like, we have the ability to take color photos now?  Its relevance on the current circumstances is zero.

 

The Blues made the SC finals their first three years of existence, 1967-68, '68-'69 (both against Montreal) and '69-70 (Boston).  They battled hard but were easily swept 4-0 in all three series.  At the time, the league was divided into an Eastern and Western Conference just like now with the old original six in the east and the original six expansion teams (St. Louis Blues, Minnesota North Stars, Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, LA Kings and Oakland Seals).  These were true expansion teams, not instant contenders like Vegas is and probably Seattle will be.  Most of the teams sucked to be honest and the Blues were the best of a bad lot for the first three years.  There's literally no comparison with what we have now.  If people want to bring Bobby Orr into the argument, have at it.  I hear that he ain't suiting up and won't be a factor.  

I thought maybe him and Bob Plaguer would come out for first puck drop?  They should mention the late great Dan Kelly too

[BlueAero]

10 hours ago, Special guest speaker said:

I think alot will have to do with if Bennington can keep the ice flowing in his veins, if he plays the way he has been, I think the Blues in six but Rask is on fire also, I think it's going to be a low scoring series , I don't think (imo) there will be any blowout games and I predict at least 2-3 ot games at least... Definitely going to be a goaltending battle... Let's go Blues!!! 

 

I would be blown away if Binnington melts down in the finals.  He's been rock-solid when the team plays well in front of him.  None but a very few number of goals allowed the entire playoffs have been his fault, most of them being of the high-danger variety like odd-man rushes and power plays. 

 

If the D plays the way they did in locking down San Jose I would almost guarantee that Binnington will be very strong in net for us.  Will he be as good as Rask?  Not sure....Rask has been other-worldly but I do believe that if Boston wins the series, it won't be due to any weakness on Binnington's behalf.

[Alexandron]

14 hours ago, Special guest speaker said:

I think alot will have to do with if Bennington can keep the ice flowing in his veins, if he plays the way he has been, I think the Blues in six but Rask is on fire also, I think it's going to be a low scoring series , I don't think (imo) there will be any blowout games and I predict at least 2-3 ot games at least... Definitely going to be a goaltending battle... Let's go Blues!!! 

I really would like Blues to win(put their win in 7 games), because I would like to see a new Stanley Cup winner. Blues never won a Stanley Cup in their kind of long history and really merit that title with their talented young goaltender.  Agree, it is mainly will be a battle between Binnington and Rask. The most toughest one will be the winner. I realize that Boston is more experienced hard team to play against, but still wish the best to Blues.

[BlueAero]

3 hours ago, Alexandron said:

I really would like Blues to win(put their win in 7 games), because I would like to see a new Stanley Cup winner. Blues never won a Stanley Cup in their kind of long history and really merit that title with their talented young goaltender.  Agree, it is mainly will be a battle between Binnington and Rask. The most toughest one will be the winner. I realize that Boston is more experienced hard team to play against, but still wish the best to Blues.

 

It may sound a bit corny but I believe the players on both teams feel an obligation to best represent the players in their own conference and, most of all, their own division.  The Central Division is historically one of the toughest if not THE  toughest in the league and I'm proud to know that the Blues are representing great teams like the Wild as they continue their pursuit of the Cup.  

 

Living in Houston, I got to watch a lot of really great future Wild players come through town with the Aeros of the AHL on their way up to the big show like Zucker, Granlund, Kuemper, Brodin, Scandella, Coyle, Harding, Haula....it was awesome seeing these guys develop.  What a shame it is that there is absolutely NO pro hockey whatsoever in the nation's 4th largest city.  When will we once again see hockey in Houston?  More directly, when will we see an NHL franchise here?

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, BlueAero said:

The Central Division is historically one of the toughest if not THE  toughest in the league

I've honestly never thought that and am not sure how that assertion is made. 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

I've honestly never thought that and am not sure how that assertion is made. 

 

Me either. Sorry...not once.

[BlueAero]

3 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I've honestly never thought that and am not sure how that assertion is made. 

 

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Me either. Sorry...not once.

 

Well, it appears that you are both in luck!  If it were any other year I would probably concede that such a statement would likely be based more on my own regional bias than on factual evidence but this season such a claim can actually be quantified. 

 

At the end of the 2018/19 season, the top three teams in the Central Division were separated by but a single point (100-99-99), the closest race of any of the six divisions.  Additionally,  both conference wild card playoff slots were filled by teams from the Central Division.  It is therefore inarguable that no other division in the NHL had a closer, more competitive race with more teams qualifying for the playoffs.  So, by these criteria, an actual data-driven conclusion can subsequently be drawn that, this year at least, the Central Division was indeed the toughest in the league.

 

 

[ruxpin]

35 minutes ago, BlueAero said:

 

 

Well, it appears that you are both in luck!  If it were any other year I would probably concede that such a statement would likely be based more on my own regional bias than on factual evidence but this season such a claim can actually be quantified. 

 

At the end of the 2018/19 season, the top three teams in the Central Division were separated by but a single point (100-99-99), the closest race of any of the six divisions.  Additionally,  both conference wild card playoff slots were filled by teams from the Central Division.  It is therefore inarguable that no other division in the NHL had a closer, more competitive race with more teams qualifying for the playoffs.  So, by these criteria, an actual data-driven conclusion can subsequently be drawn that, this year at least, the Central Division was indeed the toughest in the league.

 

 

Well, okay, but you did say "historically." 

 

The Central clearly had some strong teams this year.  Actually, I would argue that if the Blues had had a decent goalie out of the gate and played as built (and arguably someone not named Yeo behind the bench), the central would have had a champ rivaling the Atlantic in points. 

 

As for "historically," I don't think you were saying anything particularly outlandish.  I've seen that asserted elsewhere. I just don't agree with it.  As currently constituted, "historically" really doesn't go back that far (six years including this one).  The Met has actually won the last three Cups (a streak that will obviously end). I don't think I'd base a "strongest" argument based on that, though. But the Met has been strong.  

 

I think going back to the previous alignment, you've had strong Chicago teams and Detroit teams. And the Blues were at least a tough out in the regular season.  Dallas, Nashville and the (perennially boring) Wild, too. 

 

Long post to say I don't think your claim was absurd or anything.  I just think...I just disagree about putting the "historically" on it. 

 

This year? Yeah, I think that the conventional wisdom going into the year was that the central would be a beast to play in. It didn't disappoint, as far as I'm concerned. 

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, BlueAero said:

At the end of the 2018/19 season, the top three teams in the Central Division were separated by but a single point (100-99-99), the closest race of any of the six divisions.

 

Sorry but this doesn't prove this in any way i think more like an anomaly is all.

 

Sure it's good to see teams like the Stars and Avs become relatent again i will say and well the Preds sure are the perennial underachievers no more than the Blues are. 

 

I just don't agree by any means...it's like saying hockey junkie is finally right now we should listen to him...uh....no thank you.

[BlueAero]

11 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Well, okay, but you did say "historically."

 

 

Yes...and I meant it, too.  Don't just take my opinion into account, either.  Consider some of these offerings from the media over the past decade:

 

USA Today Says Central Division is NHL's Toughest in 2018

 

Debate Whether Metropolitan or Central is NHL's Best Division

 

"The Central Division has been the best division in the NHL in recent history"

 

6 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Sorry but this doesn't prove this in any way i think more like an anomaly is all.

1

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to "prove" anything.  I'm simply providing exemplary data to back up my opinion.  It doesn't appear to be an anomaly either....as indicated by similar observations made by members of the press corps in the links provided above.

 

Of course, regional bias plays a big role in my opinion.  This is a very common trait amongst NHL fans I believe.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

Lastly, I'm thinking this sidebar discussion, while interesting, is actually way off-topic.  If y'all want to take issue with my opinion about the Central Division, I am fine with that and we can agree to disagree.  You both seem like good, intelligent guys who can disagree with others without becoming uncivil so I am appreciative of your participation.  After all, differing opinions is what this forum is supposed to be about.  
 

Edited May 26, 2019 by BlueAero
Grammar edit

[BlueAero]

This could be a big story one way or the other.  I have confidence in Gunnarson as a defensive fill-in for Dunn but, offensively, there's no comparison.  It would be awesome if he can play tomorrow.

 

Dunn MIght Play in Game #1

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, BlueAero said:

 

Yes...and I meant it, too.  Don't just take my opinion into account, either.  Consider some of these offerings from the media over the past decade:

 

USA Today Says Central Division is NHL's Toughest in 2018

 

Debate Whether Metropolitan or Central is NHL's Best Division

 

"The Central Division has been the best division in the NHL in recent history"

 

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to "prove" anything.  I'm simply providing exemplary data to back up my opinion.  It doesn't appear to be an anomaly either....as indicated by similar observations made by members of the press corps in the links provided above.

 

Of course, regional bias plays a big role in my opinion.  This is a very common trait amongst NHL fans I believe.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

Lastly, I'm thinking this sidebar discussion, while interesting, is actually way off-topic.  If y'all want to take issue with my opinion about the Central Division, I am fine with that and we can agree to disagree.  You both seem like good, intelligent guys who can disagree with others without becoming uncivil so I am appreciative of your participation.  After all, differing opinions is what this forum is supposed to be about.  
 

 

I'm totally fine agreeing to disagree.

[Buffalo Rick]

On 5/25/2019 at 10:07 AM, BlueAero said:

 

I would be blown away if Binnington melts down in the finals.  He's been rock-solid when the team plays well in front of him.  None but a very few number of goals allowed the entire playoffs have been his fault, most of them being of the high-danger variety like odd-man rushes and power plays. 

 

If the D plays the way they did in locking down San Jose I would almost guarantee that Binnington will be very strong in net for us.  Will he be as good as Rask?  Not sure....Rask has been other-worldly but I do believe that if Boston wins the series, it won't be due to any weakness on Binnington's behalf.

The Blues will take them out in game 1 and win this series. Worry not pal.  We have this

[OccamsRazor]

I think it will be the unfortunate luck of the Columbus Blue Jackets...

 

...3 times in a row to lose to the Stanley Cup champs.

 

Sadly noone can say they didn't try this year it just didn't go there way.

 

And in no way shape or form am I a Bruin fan or a Blues hater.

 

Just call it like I see it.

[Alexandron]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I'm totally fine agreeing to disagree.

Let’s make an agreement from our disagreement . Let’s put this way – Central Division from the Western Conference is so far a tougher Division than the Pacific Division. For years that Division is the smallest (7 teams) one, but multiple times that Central Division is providing 5 playoffs spots to a Stanley Cup. Maybe I am wrong , but it seems for me for years Metropolitan Division is a tougher Division than the other one from the Eastern Conference. In general, for me, Eastern Conference this year was much more attractive and stronger than the Western Conference. But the winning finalist will be just one or from the Eastern Conference or from the Western Conference. At the end we will find, which Conference was better and lucky this strange 2018-2019 season.

 

So far I am already surprised that on this(72 replies) topic we have more than 1,700 views. An interest for the final outcome is too high. 

 

[Alexandron]

16 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

I think going back to the previous alignment, you've had strong Chicago teams and Detroit teams. And the Blues were at least a tough out in the regular season.  Dallas, Nashville and the (perennially boring) Wild, too. 

 

As a Wild fan I would like to say regarding the perennially boring Wild too. It sounds kind of slightly diminishing for me. We were involved into the last 6 out of 7 playoffs seasons and sometimes we played not boring at all and had a nice drive during the games too, especially through the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons. 2018-2019 season - maybe it was mostly boring, but definitely destructing because of our results.

[Alexandron]

On 5/24/2019 at 10:13 AM, ruxpin said:

 

This year looked different to me. We discussed Biddington.  But what caused me to think "this year is different" was the avoidance of any bizarre deadline move this year. Armstrong finally allowed his team's chemistry to stay intact.  No bringing in another goalie or trading away a 2C or whatever other bizarre nonsense he's done to his team in the past. 

 

I think a lot of people are still on the recent history of the Blues and, therefore, not in "believe" mode.  Some may simply think the Bruins are a better team, and there's definitely sober argument to that. 

 

But some have picked against the Blues every round based on recent history, and I think they've missed the huge "failure ingredient" absent this year. 

 

They could still lose. Maybe the Bruins are better. Maybe there's a bad call or the bounces just go the wrong way.   But this isn't the overly-tinkered Blues of the last decade. 

Completely agree about this opinion regarding Blues. I have same strategy for years - do not change team's chemistry during the trading winter time, because it is a too short period (about 2 months or even less) for building a new one before the crucial end of the season. I still believe, if the Wild will not made a multiple trades in February this year than we will be in playoffs this season.  In my opinion, better to make most trading during the summer time and build a new chemistry since.