GDT: Was @ Ana 7pm

[Duck Off]

I'd like to see how we do with Stewart back, and Pirri in the lineup before I make that assumption. With that said, the Caps are definitely a complete team and you'd have to be at the top of your game every game to take a series from them.

I don't see any healthy lineup where both Stewart and Pirri are in. Who do you see sitting for one of them? I see this lineup when we're healthy:

Perron-Getzlaf-Stewart/Pirri
Cogliano-Kesler-Silfverberg
McGinn-Rakell-Perry
Horcoff-Thompson-Garbutt

I guess some could think Stewart goes to the 4th line and Garbutt sits? That's a mistake IMO.

I really don't know how you can say this, when Anaheim has been playing better hockey than Washington in every metric (stats, results) for a very long time. The margin is slight, but the ducks have been a better team for months now.

For starters, you're wrong. Washington is in contention for the best regular season ever, so they've been playing better hockey for the entire season. We've had a really good streak, but I'd say Washington's track record this year is clearly better.

Washington played a slightly better game last night, but in no way does that warrant such a overwhelmingly strong conclusion based on 1 game, such as "we can't beat them in a series". They hadn't played a team like Washington before. The speed, skill, constant fore-check, the whole way they play. That was the tightest game I've seen all season, there was no room at all. In a 7 game series there would be adjustments made to counter it, and I like Anaheim's chances. If you're using this game as logic to say we can't beat Washington... well, we just beat Chicago and LA (twice), so doesn't that mean they can't hang with us in the playoffs, by your own logic? Nope... you proceed to say Chicago would beat us too. That is some really inconsistent and pessimistic reasoning.

This game means absolutely nothing to who would win the series. Not a single thing. It's a sample size of 1 game. Move on.

Like I said in that post, I made that comment a while ago. It's not based on this game alone. I said on paper, I don't see us beating Chicago or Washington in a 7 game series. Obviously a lot can change over the course of playoffs (healthy primarily, but chemistry as well). However, my point was that when both teams play their best hockey, I think Chicago and Washington will be slightly better. In no way did I say it's impossible.

And it's not pessimistic at all. Stop being so defensive. Compare the rosters. You think ours is better than Chicago's or Washington's? I see a few weaknesses that a few teams could exploit on our team. I don't see as many on their rosters'. Plus, I think Trotz and Q are better coaches than Bruce, and I'm definitely a big fan of Bruce's.

True or False? The Ducks played a very good game. IMO - True
True or False? The Caps were the better team last night. IMO - True.

Again, I'm not saying we don't have a chance. Very rarely do teams always play to the absolute best of their ability. Soft goals, other mistakes happen. The Ducks will need to make sure those two teams pay in order to win IMO.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I don't see any healthy lineup where both Stewart and Pirri are in. Who do you see sitting for one of them? I see this lineup when we're healthy:

Perron-Getzlaf-Stewart/Pirri
Cogliano-Kesler-Silfverberg
McGinn-Rakell-Perry
Horcoff-Thompson-Garbutt

I guess some could think Stewart goes to the 4th line and Garbutt sits? That's a mistake IMO.



For starters, you're wrong. Washington is in contention for the best regular season ever, so they've been playing better hockey for the entire season. We've had a really good streak, but I'd say Washington's track record this year is clearly better.



Like I said in that post, I made that comment a while ago. It's not based on this game alone. I said on paper, I don't see us beating Chicago or Washington in a 7 game series. Obviously a lot can change over the course of playoffs (healthy primarily, but chemistry as well). However, my point was that when both teams play their best hockey, I think Chicago and Washington will be slightly better. In no way did I say it's impossible.

And it's not pessimistic at all. Stop being so defensive. Compare the rosters. You think ours is better than Chicago's or Washington's? I see a few weaknesses that a few teams could exploit on our team. I don't see as many on their rosters'. Plus, I think Trotz and Q are better coaches than Bruce, and I'm definitely a big fan of Bruce's.

True or False? The Ducks played a very good game. IMO - True
True or False? The Caps were the better team last night. IMO - True.

Again, I'm not saying we don't have a chance. Very rarely do teams always play to the absolute best of their ability. Soft goals, other mistakes happen. The Ducks will need to make sure those two teams pay in order to win IMO.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we played the Kings without Gaborik and Chicago without Hossa. Take away our third best forward (Kesler)and let them play us at full strength and we would be saying the game didn't necessarily mean anything too.

 

[mytduxfan*]

The other thing to keep in mind is that we played the Kings without Gaborik and Chicago without Hossa. Take away our third best forward (Kesler)and let them play us at full strength and we would be saying the game didn't necessarily mean anything too.

Statistically speaking that's not entirely accurate. Even if you adjust their scoring totals to account for the games they've missed this year (~10), Gaborik is 5th in goals on LA with 14 and 8th in points with 27. Meanwhile, Hossa would be 5th in goals with 12 and 7th in points with 35. So really we'd only have to give up Silfverberg (6th in goals and 6th in points). I get your point, but those players don't have the same impact they used to be in their respective teams.

 

[Paul4587]

What stood out to me - Gibson was awesome, Kesler was a beast against Ovi, Fowler and Bieksa sucked and Ritchie sucked even worse.

 

[Static]

I thought Fowler was awesome other than that giveaway.

 

[Duck Off]

What stood out to me - Gibson was awesome, Kesler was a beast against Ovi, Fowler and Bieksa sucked and Ritchie sucked even worse.

Agreed except the Fowler part. He had one horrible turn over but I thought he was pretty solid.

Something I will add though is that I think it's vital that Bruce tries Despres and Fowler together again. They were solid against great lines last year. Bieksa is too mistake prone for that assignment.

 

[Getzmonster]

Agreed except the Fowler part. He had one horrible turn over but I thought he was pretty solid.

Something I will add though is that I think it's vital that Bruce tries Despres and Fowler together again. They were solid against great lines last year. Bieksa is too mistake prone for that assignment.

I agree on Fowler-Despres in theory, but the problem is that one of Bieksa, Vats, or Manson would have to play LD the rest of the way to make it work.

Fowler-Despres
Lindholm-Manson
Vats/Bieksa-Bieksa/Vats ???

 

[Sean Garrity]

I agree on Fowler-Despres in theory, but the problem is that one of Bieksa, Vats, or Manson would have to play LD the rest of the way to make it work.

Fowler-Despres
Lindholm-Manson
Vats/Bieksa-Bieksa/Vats ???

IIRC, it was Bieksa-Vatanen when Fowler went down earlier in the season. Short sample size, but that d-pairing looked capable of handling the role they were employed in, and would definitely be capable of handling a third pairing role. Perhaps BB "trusts" Despres/Stoner more than Bieksa to let Vatanen play his offensive minded game?

 

[Duck Off]

I agree on Fowler-Despres in theory, but the problem is that one of Bieksa, Vats, or Manson would have to play LD the rest of the way to make it work.

Fowler-Despres
Lindholm-Manson
Vats/Bieksa-Bieksa/Vats ???

Bruce played Vatanen on the left side with Bieksa when Fowler was hurt. I thought Bieksa played his best hockey of the season then.

 

[Getzmonster]

IIRC, it was Bieksa-Vatanen when Fowler went down earlier in the season. Short sample size, but that d-pairing looked capable of handling the role they were employed in, and would definitely be capable of handling a third pairing role. Perhaps BB "trusts" Despres/Stoner more than Bieksa to let Vatanen play his offensive minded game?

Bruce played Vatanen on the left side with Bieksa when Fowler was hurt. I thought Bieksa played his best hockey of the season then.

Bit of a brain fart on my part, I stand corrected. Count me in on wanting to see 4-24 reunited then.

Either Bruce didn't like what he saw of Vats on the left side, or he hasn't been impressed with Despres, but he seriously needs to stop leaning on Kev so much. It's going to kill us in the playoffs.

 

[Sean Garrity]

Bit of a brain fart on my part, I stand corrected. Count me in on wanting to see 4-24 reunited then.

Either Bruce didn't like what he saw of Vats on the left side, or he hasn't been impressed with Despres, but he seriously needs to stop leaning on Kev so much. It's going to kill us in the playoffs.

No worries on the brain fart, and I completely agree with the bolded. It just doesn't make sense that he doesn't reunite what was our top pairing for last season's playoffs, but he's smarter than you and I...or at least I think! It could also be that Maclean, or whoever controls the defense, prefers the current pairings, but I could be completely off base there.

 

[Getzmonster]

No worries on the brain fart, and I completely agree with the bolded. It just doesn't make sense that he doesn't reunite what was our top pairing for last season's playoffs, but he's smarter than you and I...or at least I think! It could also be that Maclean, or whoever controls the defense, prefers the current pairings, but I could be completely off base there.

Despres came back pretty rough from his concussion (understandably so), and has reportedly been fighting the flu. Hopefully he puts a decent string of games together and forces the issue.

 

[dig1]

TIL: the only team from the West that's as skilled and fast as the Capitals is Washington. They truly were a step above Anaheim.

Lol meant to say "as fast as Chicago" ..... should've been obvious