Home | Away

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Cup crazy, part one

Hello again hockey fans!  It’s the Lawyers, Guns, and Fever Swamp edition of the 2006 NHL Playoffs.  That’s right, the internationally famous Scott Lemieux and I have teamed up to provide you with critical yet almost-immediately-disposable commentary on the first round of this year’s playoffs.  Because Lemieux is a Calgary Flames kinda guy and I live and die with the Rangers, Scott will do the prognosticatin’ for the Wild Wild West and I will cover the Eastern Establishment.  Take it away, Scott:

________

As everyone who follows it knows, trying to pick the Western Conference this year is a fool’s game—if I spot you Detroit, if you haven’t seen a hockey game all year we have about the same shot.  So this is more of a “things to look for” and “vehicle for embarrassingly erroneous predictions” exercise.  The one other note is to remind everyone that the NHL re-seeds after every round rather than the silly brackets of the NBA, which I think is crucial for Detroit.  If things shake out the way I’m predicting below, they’re in very good shape; I think they’ll only play one team that has the defense and goaltending to be a real threat, and in that context they have to be an odds-on favorite.  If they end up with San Jose/Calgary or Anaheim/San Jose, on the other hand, my gut says that one of those teams will knock them off.  With that, onto the matchups:

(1) Detroit v. (8) Edmonton.  In terms of team quality, I don’t think an Oiler win would be a truly historic upset.  I think the 30-point differential is overstated by the fact that the Northwest divison has 5 good teams while the Central only has 2; I’m not fully convinced that the Red Wings are a great team as opposed to a very, very good team in a shitty division.  And the Oilers aren’t a bad team; they have a speedy, deep group of forwards (although they lack a true star), and Pronger/ Spacek/ Bergeron/ Smith/ Staios is a lot better defense corps than your typical #8 seed, granting that Pronger is less valuable in the New NHL (™).  But when I’m looking for an upset, I look for a team that has some kind of edge that they can exploit.  Calgary’s upset of the Wings last year is the model; they compensated for their much lesser firepower by using stellar goaltending to steal two one-goal road games, and then used their physicality and forechecking to wear down the Wings’ splendid but aging defense (although can you believe Chelios?  It pains me to admit this, but even at 44 he handled the bigger Olympic ice surface a lot better than Pronger did).  I can see San Jose pulling that off too.  The Oilers, on the other hand, are the same type of team as the Red Wings, but worse at everything.  It’s hard to get an upset without better goaltending, and I’ve always thought that Dwayne Roloson’s superficially good numbers were more a product of Jacques Lemaire’s system than his own abilities (and his thoroughly mediocre performance as an Oiler doesn’t persuade me).  These will be tougher games than some people expect, but I can’t see Oilers pulling it off. RED WINGS IN 5.

(2) Dallas v. (7) Colorado.  So, I’m going to make this my upset special.  Everyone seems to think that this will be a Dallas walkover, and they probably know something I don’t.  Certainly, the Stars are a good model for the new league; good, fast, two-way forwards, very disciplined, Zubov a terrific anchor.  The Avs are a hard team to figure, have an unsettled goaltending situation, Blake has lost a step or three, and Patrick “Breeze-By” Brisebois may log significant minutes.  Still, I think the Avs can pull off an upset.  First, there’s the divisional disparity I discussed earlier.  Second, I may be dead wrong about this, but I think Turco is tremendously overrated—an .898 save percentage on a team with excellent team defense isn’t very good even under the new league, and I think Coloardo’s snipers (and there’s still a lot of talent here: Sakic, Tanguay, Burnette, Hejduk, Turgeon) will be able to beat him more often than people think.  The big wild card, of course, is Theodore.  He’s been so bad this year that one would think that the new rules and layoff have something to do with it; on the other hand, he was so good before that I can’t believe there’s still not a lot of ability there.  My guess is that he’s good enough to allow Sakic and company to win a round.  COLORADO IN 7.

(3) Calgary v. (6) Anaheim.  I’m of two minds here:

Pessimistic Scott Says: Although if you told me 3 years ago I’d be saying this about a 104-point season I would have had you committed, the Flames had a kind of disappointing season (remember, SI picked them #1 overall.) They don’t have a first-line center or left-winger (and barely have second-line ones), and consequently generate almost no even-strength offense.  Without a real playmaker to set him up, Iginla will go through some droughts, and any game he doesn’t score is a good candidate for a shutout. And Anaheim is a good team.  Under the new rules Niedermayer is as valuable as any player in the league, Selanne is back, and they have the transition game you need to compete in the two-line-pass era.  Giguere is the other goalie in the conference who’s taken his team to the finals, and if the Flames don’t out-goaltend the other team they’d be lucky to beat a decent ECHL team.  Even discounting your preference for fat, cerebral defensemen, Carlyle gives every impression of being a first-rate coach.  You should also know that Calgary has a horrible record as a front-runner: one of their Cup runs required knocking off the greatest of the Gretzky/ Messier/ Kurri/ Coffey/ Fuhr Oiler teams, and last year they managed to upset three heavy favorites, each of which was a 100-point team.  (And even in their Cup year, they needed a fluke Game 7 overtime winner to beat a Canucks team that didn’t belong on the same ice on paper.) And before last year, Sutter’s playoff record was terrible; the work ethic he instills in his team means more in the regular season than in the playoffs when everybody’s desperate.  You know they’re going to lose.

Optimistic Scott Says: There’s another side to this: the Flames almost never had their top 4 defenseman in the same lineup, had several disastrous years and no significantly better-than-expected ones from their forwards, and still won a brutally tough division.  In the playoffs you have to start with defense and goaltending, and Kiprusoff/ Regehr/ Phaneuf/ Hamrlik/ Leopold/ Warrener/ Ferrence is easily the top back 7 in the league.  There’s a lot more ability up front than is reflected in the stats; it’s not hard to see Amonte or Lomardi getting hot after a bad season like Conroy did in 03-04 (the former has been quietly a lot better in the last month).  And while Burke has done a great job rebuilding the Ducks on the fly, they’re going to be worn down in the series, and starting in Calgary it’s not going to be easy to get a lead.  The Flames’ special teams are greatly improved too; since November they’ve been outstanding.  Giguere is as good as anyone when he’s on, but Kiprusoff is more consistent.  They’re a much better playoff team than Anaheim; they’ll take them.

The Verdict:  They’re both right.  I think Calgary lives too close to the margin for me to pick them to go to the finals again; they’re too dependent on getting the right bounces in close games and in getting a reasonable number of power plays.  But I do think they’ll be able to get by Anaheim; I think the Ducks are a year away. CALGARY IN 7.

(4) Nashville v. (5) San Jose.  I would love to pick Nashville—they’re fun to watch, a lot of speed up front.  And I generally think teams on hot streaks are overrated going into the playoffs.  In this case, though, I think the CW is right.  Especially with the addition of Thornton (joining Marleau in an amazing 1-2 up the middle), the Sharks’ second-half performance is more representative of their quality.  San Jose is tougher and more skilled, a deadly combination, and while Mason might be able to do the job in goal for the Preds you wouldn’t want to bet on it.  Looking forward for San Jose, the Achilles heel may be on defense; I think Hannan is overrated, and while they have McLaren and a lot of talented youngsters, when you compare them to Detroit or Calgary or even Anaheim and combine that with an untested playoff goalie—I think they can be scored on, and depending on the matchup I can see them going out in Round 2.  They’re safe until then, though. SHARKS IN 5.

________

Thanks, Scott!  I think Hannan is overrated too.  But Thornton and Cheechoo are to be feared.  Why, I am fearing them right now!  I can see these Sharks in a conference final, myself.

All right, my turn. 

(1) Ottawa v. (8) Tampa Bay. I only saw one game in person this year: Carolina - Tampa Bay on March 27.  And I didn’t get the Centre Ice package on DishTV until two weeks ago, so I missed much of the second half of the year.  But even I can see that the Lightning offense consists of three or four players: St. Louis, Lecavalier, Richards, Prospal.  And I’m not entirely convinced that Prospal’s really an A-team talent.  You contain them, you contain Tampa Bay.  Which the Senators will surely do, having won all four regular-season meetings with the defending Stanley Cup champs.

One word about that: it is good that defending Cup champs make the playoffs and pursue their Cup defense, even against such long odds.  But I found myself kind of rooting for Atlanta to take the eighth spot, and I stopped in to watch them play Washington on April 17.  The Thrashers might be in the playoffs today if not for an abysmal night of goaltending from Mike Dunham, who’d played well recently.  So Tampa Bay it is.  But they have nothing to match—or stop—Ottawa’s awesome front line of Spezza - Heatley - Alfredsson.

Further down the line, there are three questions for the Senators: one, they’re top-heavy.  What do they have when Spezza, Heatley, and Alfredsson are on the bench?  Not a lot of offense, though Martin Havlat is back and making trouble.  Two, do they have the goaltending?  Hasek is still not comfortable enough with his groin to hit the ice, and you know Hasek doesn’t play standup style.  He needs all his tendons and ligaments, that man.  His backup, Ray Emery, is good.  But Emery has not, so far, been great.  They will need great.  Which brings me to three, the intangible “toughness” problem.  The Senators were bounced by the Leafs four times between 2000 and 2004 simply because the Leafs doled out cheap shots and waited for the Sens to wilt.  Wilt they did.  In 2003, Ottawa avoided Toronto and took the Devils to game 7 in the conference finals.  So as long as there are no Leafs in the playoffs, Ottawa has hope.  But they will need tough, too. SENATORS IN 5.

(2) Carolina v. (7) Montreal.  Carolina swept the season series, 4-0, but beware French goaltenders in April and May: Huet has a scary, league-leading .929 save percentage and the Canadiens had a nice eight-game winning streak from March 23 to April 6, with Huet in net for six of those games.  (Coach Bob Gainey might start David Aebischer anyway.  That would be a mistake.) But the Hurricanes are not the flukey finals team they were in 2002.  They can play solid, lane-clogging defense as well as free-skating, free-wheeling offense; they went 13-1 in January, beating Detroit, Nashville, and Philadelphia in one-goal games, and they’ve had themselves a couple of 6-5 and 7-5 flings against doormats from Pittsburgh and Washington.  OK, so they lost four of five to end the season.  So what?  This is a team that lost three in a row only twice all year, the last time in the waning days of 2005.  Eric Staal leads the team with 45 goals and 100 points, but they have three 30-goal scorers behind him (Justin Williams, Rod Brind’Amour, and Erik Cole, who was slammed into the boards headfirst back in early March by the Penguins’ Brooks Orpik).  I’m hoping Cole’s broken neck won’t keep the Canes out of the conference finals, but for now we’re merely calling the opening round, right?  HURRICANES IN 5.

(3) New Jersey v. (6) New York.  Scott is of two minds about his Flames.  I am of nine minds about these Rangers.

One: nobody picked them to be here, so they’ve got to think well of themselves.  Two: but they’ve known they would be here for some time now, and just one week ago they were headed for the three seed.  Now—indeed, in one awful night, as they folded against the Senators (even giving up a shorthanded goal in a 4-on-3 power play) while the Devils were storming back from a 3-0 deficit against the Canadiens and the Flyers overcame a late 1-0 deficit against the Islanders—they are third in their division.  That’s just not good for morale.  Three: but their five-game losing streak is no big deal, because they’ve been streaky all year, and now they have yet another thing to prove.  Four: a five-game losing streak at the end of the year is a big deal, when home ice is on the line and two of your losses are to the Penguins and Isles.  You look like you have nothing left in the tank.  Five: but Lundqvist is back!  Weekes is a fine goaltender, but Lundqvist can take it to the Next Level and steal a few games.  Six: but the other guy happens to be Martin Brodeur, and playing against Brodeur in the playoffs is like playing against Patrick Roy back in the day: he’ll be a bit off every tenth game, and deadly in the other nine.  Seven: but, speaking of Roy and the mid-to- late 1990s Avs, the 2006 Devils are like the 2006 Avalanche—a ghostly version of a once-great team.  Think of the 2001 Cup finals with 20 percent less talent.  If the Rangers can stop tiny snipers Gomez and Gionta, they stop the Devils offense, and then Brodeur has to stop every Rangers shot.  Eight: who cares about comparing the 2006 Devils to the 2001 Devils?  These 2006 Devils just won eleven in a row.  More than that, they started the calendar year two games below .500 and have gone 30-9-4 since.  You know, playing like they mean it or something.  Nine: but the Rangers, unlike any Rangers team since 1997, also play like they mean it.  They have (like the Sens) but one formidable scoring line, but every forward line skates hard, and there are those of us who believe that sometimes, playoff games turn on who gets to the loose pucks first, because in playoff games, every loose puck matters.

I think it will come down to this.  On paper and on ice, the Devils look like the better team.  The only way the Rangers can overcome the past week and a half, psychologically, is to remind themselves—and their opponents—that New Jersey has never beaten them in the postseason, not even in 1997 when the Devils were a vastly better team.  So I’m thinking that psyops might be the way to go.  Scotty Bowman, white courtesy phone!  Nobody messes with people’s heads like Bowman.  If the Rangers win game one, and the Devils start playing tentative hockey and thinking too much about a history many of them were not part of, the forces of good stand a chance.  Otherwise, it’s DEVILS IN 6.

(4) Buffalo v. (5) Philadelphia.  I don’t know.  I just find it hard to believe that a team with Forsberg, Gagne, Knuble, Handzus, Kapanen, Desjardins, and Nedved is a first-round loser.  Then again, the Flyers have been shaky in goal since the glory days of Ron Hextall, and they’re shaky now.  Robert Esche will start, but I betcha Antero Nittymaki will see some action before we’re through, and not under happy circumstances, either.  As for Buffalo, I don’t know.  I just find it hard to believe that a team whose top scorer had 73 points in 77 games (Afinogenov) and whose starting goalie is a rookie is a first-round winner.  But the Sabres somehow manage to spread it around: they have six 20-goal scorers (Afinogenov, Drury, Kotalik, Briere, Vanek and Dumont) as well as three more guys with 18 (Roy, Hecht, Pominville).  In other words, you have to play three lines against them, because they have three lines of their own.  I’ve always liked Drury, Hecht, and Briere, who are not merely scorers but smart scorers with good hands and alert eyes.  As a team, Buffalo was stellar from mid-November to mid-March, improving a 7-8-0 record to 44-16-5 (that’s 37-8-5 for those of you keeping track at home) before dropping eight of their next nine.  At that point it looked as if they’d peaked for the year, but lo!  they proceeded to win six of their final seven.  The only loss?  To the Flyers, on home ice, April 7. SABRES IN 6.

Scott and I promise not to revise this post if, by May 4, Detroit, Colorado, Calgary, San Jose, Ottawa, Carolina, New Jersey, and Buffalo have all been eliminated.  We will simply delete it and disavow any knowledge of its existence.

Posted by Michael on 04/20 at 04:15 PM
(31) Comments • (3) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages