Is 2 goals or 3 goals "the most dangerous lead in hockey"?

[Kcoyote3]

I've always remembered it as a 2 goal lead is the most dangerous lead, but Doc just mentioned during the Boston vs. Toronto game that 3 goals is the most dangerous lead. This isn't the first time he's mentioned it either, I've heard it in other games from him.

So what do you remember about this? 2 goals or 3 goals?

Should be clear about this, this isn't what you actually think is the most dangerous lead, but what you remember about the phrasing or what people say most commonly.

Click to read more...

 

[Hynh]

It's whenever you relax and stop playing.

 

[Kcoyote3]

It's whenever you relax and stop playing.

Yes but which do you think is the one people think of as the most dangerous lead?

 

[Canucks1096]

2 goals

 

[Bring Bak Damphousse]

2 goals is the most dangerous lead in hockey.

 

[Braunbaer]

It's 1 goal.

 

[ijuka]

That's nonsense.

The most dangerous lead is a 1 goal lead.

 

[ESH]

I would much rather have a 2 or 3 goal lead than a 1 goal lead

 

[Chef de Cuisine]

2

 

[Montecristo]

It’s 5

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Two goals becomes one very quickly.

Three is safer as it requires a brutal meltdown to lose.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

Literally it's one goal.
The old saying is two goals.
Doc just doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I've always remembered it as a 2 goal lead is the most dangerous lead, but Doc just mentioned during the Boston vs. Toronto game that 3 goals is the most dangerous lead. This isn't the first time he's mentioned it either, I've heard it in other games from him.

So what do you remember about this? 2 goals or 3 goals?

Should be clear about this, this isn't what you actually think is the most dangerous lead, but what you remember about the phrasing or what people say most commonly.

Absolutely. I think this is what happened in the Toronto and Boston game tonight. The score ended up not being close, but it was clear once the Bruins got a 3 goal lead, they took the foot off the gas pedal. And that made the game look closer on the shot clock, when in reality it was the Bruins letting up. I hate the 3 goal lead. But it is what it is. Better than being down 3 I guess.

 

[El Travo]

1 goal is where the leading team is still alert and may still be pushing the play. A goal against doesn't effect morale as much as it is a close game.

2 goals is where a bit of complacency can kick in and teams may sit back. A goal against may start the "oh shit" mentality but all the momentum is in the opposing teams favour.

3 goals and up can actually be dangerous in the literal sense of the word. The losing team may get a little bit angsty and start taking liberties.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Literally it's one goal.
The old saying is two goals.
Doc just doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is what I expected.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

I've always remembered it as a 2 goal lead is the most dangerous lead, but Doc just mentioned during the Boston vs. Toronto game that 3 goals is the most dangerous lead. This isn't the first time he's mentioned it either, I've heard it in other games from him.

So what do you remember about this? 2 goals or 3 goals?

Should be clear about this, this isn't what you actually think is the most dangerous lead, but what you remember about the phrasing or what people say most commonly.

Since when did a respectable hockey analyst say it is the dangerous lead in hockey? There is no such thing as "dangerous lead." It is just a lead. There is no need to brainwash us.

 

[colchar]

Three is safer as it requires a brutal meltdown to lose.

Um no, it doesn't. A team chipping away at that lead and eventually winning does not equal a 'brutal meltdown'. Being up five and losing? Sure.

 

[colchar]

Since when did a respectable hockey analyst say it is the dangerous lead in hockey? There is no such thing as "dangerous lead." It is just a lead. There is no need to brainwash us.

Brainwash?

It is a colloquialism, ffs.

And to the OP, I always remember hearing it as a three goal lead being the most dangerous.

 

[heretik27]

It's 3 if you have Pavelec in net.

 

[Philadelphia Ducks]

1

 

[Alwalys]

It's 2 because you are tempted to let up and if the other team gets the 1 then they have all the momentum. 1 goal you're still on your toes and 3 is pretty safe.
3 is an error that a lot of broadcasters have made for some reason.

 

[WTFetus]

ITT: The majority of people not reading the OP. He's talking about "phrasing", not what is actually the most dangerous.

The phrase has been 3 for as long as I could remember.

 

[Nico Hischier]

The answer is 3

 

[jiboy]

I heard way more often 2 goals being the most dangerous lead.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Thank you everyone that thinks critically and doesn't take seriously stupid cliches. It's a 1 goal lead. That's the lead that gets blown the most. Maybe it's a 2 goal lead or a 3 goal lead if you want to take into account how sad you are when you blow the lead in addition to how often it gets blown. But if we're talking about actually losing games it's the 1 goal lead.