Kings 3 Canucks 2 - Game 2 Scoring Chances
The game began with a five minute lull but quickly degenerated into a thorough thrashing reminiscent of the first period of game one. By the time the game was ten minutes old the Canucks had outchanced the Kings 9-4 and this time Jonathan Quick couldn't hold Satan's minions at bay. Once the second puck was behind Jonathan Quick I began to curse myself for cozying up to this group of losers after finally being rid of the embarrassment that was the 2009-10 Edmonton Oilers. The Canucks were toying with these buffoons, getting the puck deep and either putting on the pressure or using the 2-1-2 to force the Kings into slamming the puck around the boards before they promptly stole it back - they knew exactly where it was going after all - and continuing the attack. It was going to be a long fucking night.
Except that a funny thing happened. The Kings started getting some zone pressure of their own and working the cycle, enabling secret double agent Alberts to take his second unnecessary minor penalty of the game. The Kings didn't score on the power play, but they did get some chances and headed to the dressing knowing that those last ten minutes had seen them control the play. The second began with more of the same and the Kings managed to tie the score with two goals in under a minute, including their first - and only - EV marker of the series. The first goal definitely drew a smile but when the second goal found a way past Roberto Luongo my excitement grew. By the time Anze Kopitar scored the winner in overtime, well, there was cheering and dancing and grinning ear to ear. Yes, I am emotionally invested after only two games, thank you very much. Scoring chances and further thoughts after the jump.
Scoring Chances
For those who'd like a definition: a scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score. And, of course, a big thanks to Vic Ferrari for making the whole damn thing possible with his awesome script.
As I mentioned in the opening, the Kings were outchanced 9-4 in the first ten minutes of the game which means they outchanced Vancouver 5-1 through the rest of the period and followed that up with a strong second period. The third period saw fewer official chances but it was a much more exciting third period than the first game. For example, with about four minutes to go in the third period, Drew Doughty broke up a Sedin Bros. two-on-one. Because the Sedins didn't get a shot toward the net, it doesn't get included as a scoring chance, but it sure had me worried. That's a pretty extreme example, but that kind of thing was happening quite frequently in the third period. One other oddity to note is Vancouver's scoring chance total compared to their shot total. Usually teams have significantly more shots than scoring chances, but in this case Vancouver had 25 chances on just 26 shots. CBC was made a big deal of how often Vancouver was missing the net and it's worth pointing out that on several of those misses came from good scoring areas. On to the individual chances (the individual chances have also been added to the Game One recap for those interested):
I really liked the adjustments that Terry Murray made to his lineup. I actually considered making him one of the goats of game one just for playing Ivanans. You don't play goons in the playoffs! Never, ever, ever. Needless to say, the fourth line was much better tonight and Richard Clune in particular. He only played about 6:30 but he played a physical style and even drew a penalty in the second period, which lead to the Kings' first goal. As for the first line, Justin Williams was awful in game one. I was surprised to see him out of the lineup completely but the first line was miles better with the Wayne Simmonds than they were in game one with Williams. The New Mike Grier - it is a racial comparison but it's also a style thing; there's a reason he's not the New Anson Carter (title currently belongs to Alex Burrows) - even got his first ever playoff goal to tie the game in the second and was just plain physical all night.
On the Canucks' side of things, I was less impressed with Vigneault's only move. Grabner didn't do a whole lot and the Canucks weren't any better on the PK with Pettinger sitting in the press-box. It really is helpful to have a fifth regular penalty killer in the lineup so Pettinger probably belongs. If it were up to me, Grabner and Rypien would be out while Pettinger and Hordichuk would be in.
The Sons of Light
3. Anze Kopitar - He played a great game tonight and of course scored the OT winner. For some reason Vigneault only matched Kopitar with a defensive pairing and let the forward lines run wild. The result? At EV Kopitar was 2-3 in chances against Henrik Sedin and 5-0 in chances against other centers (3-0 Kesler and 2-0 Wellwood). Vigneault should be working for that Sedin match but he isn't and Kopitar made him pay, although his EV goal did come against the Sedin line. That goal was pretty interesting because it started with Salo making a bad pinch at the L.A. blue-line. Vancouver's defenders have been very aggressive in the offensive zone in trying to maintain pressure. Salo was doing it there and didn't realize he was caught until it was too late and the Kings scored on the ensuing 3-on-1. The Canucks have often looked very good in the offensive zone when they've taken an aggressive posture, but it does open them up to high quality chances against when a pinch doesn't work.
2. Jack Johnson - Do I just feel bad for naming him a goat last time? I don't think so, I really liked his game. Now, he and Harrold were kept away from the Sedins as much as possible and they didn't exactly dominate. Still, Johnson was very respectable at EV and downright fantastic on the PP. At the beginning of the game the Kings were trying to dump-and-chase to gain the zone on the PP and it wasn't really working. Johnson recognized it and started carrying the puck over the line with speed to gain the zone with possession. He was very responsible in his selection, not forcing the play, but taking it when it became available and it was very effective. One of the rushes to gain the zone helped establish possession for the Kings on their first goal. Later in the sequence, Johnson made a nice pass out front to give Modin the open net. Then, on the game-winner, Johnson made a nice fake to open up a passing seam for Drew Doughty before passing him the puck. Doughty took advantage of the seam and Kopitar scored. Johnson didn't take on the toughs, but he's a big reason the Kings won tonight.
1. Drew Doughty - He basically played half the game. His TOI of 32:56 was more than minutes higher than any other Kings' defender. When the Sedins were on the ice at EV, it was usually Doughty and Scuderi who were there to greet them. As I mentioned above, he successfully broke up a two-on-one from the Sedins with about four minutes to go in the third and he was instrumental in the winning goal. And he did the little things, my favourite being his pass to the Canuck forward to get an intentional off-side and move the puck into the Canucks' zone. He was 3-3 in scoring chances against the Sedins and 3-2 when the Sedins were on the bench. With the series going back to L.A., I'll assume that the Sedins are going to be seeing an awful lot of Doughty.
The Sons of Darkness
3. Andrew Alberts - I'm sorry, I really am, but this guy kind of sucks. The Canucks did out-chance the Kings when he was on the ice, but three minor penalties in one game is pretty unforgivable. Even if you only give the guy who takes the penalty half of the responsibility for the GA, each penalty still works out to about -0.05 to -0.1 goal differential and -0.15 to -0.3 goal differential is pretty terrible. The fact that each of the penalties was completely deserved doesn't exactly help matters. The fact that he may have gotten more if he wasn't benched for the last half of the game (he didn't take any shifts after that third minor) is also pretty telling.
2. Sean O'Donnell - He and Matt Greene got taken to the woodshed... which is where someone caught them discussing communism and brought them to the town square to be flogged. It wasn't quite forty lashes, but eleven still hurts. Now, they got some time against the Sedins to facilitate the sheltering of Harrold and Johnson BUT (1) it's not like they were hard-matched - they weren't even the first choice - and (2) the reason Harrold and Johnson were sheltered was so that something like this wouldn't happen. Furthermore, it's not like they were saddled with difficult starting positions: O'Donnell was out there for 5 offensive zone draws and 4 defensive zone draws so, not bad at all. -9 on EV chances is really bad no matter what but when you put up a -9 against generally middling comp with middling starting positions, you've really done something special. The Kings are already playing Doughty half the game so they can't really play him any more. O'Donnell just needs to be better.
1. Canuck Fans - Seriously. A "Ref(s) you suck" chant? Twice? When the calls against you weren't even particularly poor? Alex Burrows (and/or Bruce McCurdy) has taught you well.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Again thank you for the excellent analysis. I really appreciate the hard work..
I should point out that the other very interesting analysis being done for the playoffs is over here. It’s as good an analysis as we’re going to get on referees I suspect. In addition I’m curious how well the ref analysis matches your perception of the game.
Yeah, the reffing thing is good stuff though as far as I can tell they don’t have this game up yet. That said, the worst call last night probably went against the Kings when Stoll got the puck-over-glass penalty even though his clear hit Sedin on the way out. But these things happen. The chanting just seemed way over the top considering they really did have too many players on the ice. It’s not like it was an awful call.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 18, 2010 3:14 PM MDT up reply actions
The final call was ok, it’s a bad luck/good calculation play depending on whether you ascribe motives to the opposing player. The injury just makes the perception of the call worse, not the actual call. What irked me about the call was the missed high stick call on Burrows prior to that in OT. I don’t care if ’he’s selling it a bit’ a high stick is a high stick. That needs to be called if it is a high stick, although I’m a bit hesitant to trust the Van radio to get the description right, and that’s all I have to go on.
Well, the ref saw it and called it a follow-through which means that there is no penalty on the play. Someone may disagree with that interpretation but it was a reasonable way of seeing the play. The exact same thing happened earlier in the game (or it may have been game one) when Luongo got his stick up on Kopitar on a follow-through and there was no call. They certainly didn’t miss it; they just didn’t see it the way Burrows and Canucks’ fans wanted them to and thus the “OMG Terrible!!!” reaction.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 18, 2010 8:30 PM MDT up reply actions
I also enjoy the great analysis. I agree with you that the penalty situation just shows how LA forecheck is starting to have its way with the Canucks defenders. And as Van gets into penalty trouble, Salo and Edler get tired, which exacerbates the problem. We knew this was going to be a problem, esp. with Mitchell out. Simmonds was a beast, and I thought he sold the Alberts penalty well (i.e., Canucks aren’t the only ones who embellish, but I digress).
Just out of curiosity, the too-many-men call, what do you think of Vigneault’s complaint that a player was cut and trying to get off the ice (b/c of blood), and if you have 2 refs who didn’t call a penalty, why would the linesman?
As for fans, I’ve only been in Chicago and Ottawa stadiums aside from Vancouver. as well as read various online stuff, and I fail to distinguish any overall difference in rabid hockey fan bases, with the usual mix of loud-mouthed idiots, know-it-alls, prudish family people, just-out-for-a-good-time crowd, etc etc.
Wonder if Derek Zona’s “confirmation bias” post on this blog would have something to add to such a discussion. ;-)
what do you think of Vigneault’s complaint that a player was cut and trying to get off the ice (b/c of blood), and if you have 2 refs who didn’t call a penalty, why would the linesman?
I think it’s silly. It basically amounts to, “Yeah, we broke the rules, but they’re wrong for calling it.” Dumb, dumb, dumb.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 9:33 AM MDT up reply actions
His point is actually more complicated than that: he said Bieksa was within five feet of the bench when he was hit by the puck, and that’s allowed (I’m not sure if it’s by letter of rule or custom). And that there’s actually room for extenuating circumstances to judge a penalty, and in this case, Bieksa was trying to get off b/c he was cut and isn’t allowed to continue playing. The refs judged it fine, why then did the linesman overrule the ref.
Linesmen call too many men all the time though. It’s not “over-ruling” so much as “ruling.” I definitely don’t have a problem on that end. As for the play itself, I understand that Bieksa probably wasn’t trying to play the puck and that it could easily have been let go. If there was no call, it wouldn’t have been a missed call. It was clearly borderline. That said, I can also understand why the refs saw it the way they did and the amount of complaining from Vigneault and others on a call that you can reasonably call correct is hard to take seriously. As I said before, the Kings also got a similar bogus call when Stoll took a puck-over-glass penalty even though it hit Sedin’s stick. You’ll notice that on that play Sedin is calling for a penalty to the Kings – it’s not like the Canucks are concerned with fairness. They’re certainly not the only club that wants all the calls to go their way but if I were a ref I would definitely not give the benefit of the doubt to a team that’s constantly bitching.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 12:15 PM MDT up reply actions
I think Vancouver got hosed. The convention on too-many-men penalties seems to be if the replacement touches the puck before the other guy gets off, that’s a transgression. It’s called pretty consistently that way. In this case it was the guy going off who “played” the puck. If neither guy can touch it that effectively makes the team shorthanded during the change. One guy should be legal and one not.
Bieksa did nothing wrong, it was inadvertent and he continued directly to the bench which was just a couple feet away. It was like an inadvertent hand ball in the box, which soccer refs are empowered to use discretion. Indeed hockey refs seemed to in this case. I can understand AV being PO’d by the call, doubly PO’d that the linesman in effect overruled the refs, triply PO’d that it was an enforced change caused by injury, and quadruply and quintuply pissed off that it happened in overtime and that the Kings did score the game winner as a direct result. Shitty way to lose — it has nothing on Dan Boyle’s shitty way to lose but it still kinda sucks. If I were a Canucks fan – which I hasten to add, I’m not – I wouldn’t be whining about 99% of the shit Canucks fan whine about :D, but I would be whining about that call. Cuz they got boned.
All that said, Van City was fortunate to win the first game and a split seems pretty fair at this distance.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Apr 19, 2010 6:11 PM MDT up reply actions
1. Canuck Fans – Seriously. A “Ref(s) you suck” chant? Twice? When the calls against you weren’t even particularly poor? Alex Burrows (and/or Bruce McCurdy) has taught you well.
Hey! Comparing me with Alex Burrows? That’s harsh. Tell you what, why don’t you reread all the game threads from this season and tell me how many times I was on the refs’ cases? I’d put the over/under at 10 games, and very confidently take the under. Alex Burrows? Canucks fans? It’s every fucking game.
PS: I have never participated, ever once in my life, in an “[Anyone] Sucks” chant. Never. Once. It is completely classless. Please don’t tar me with that brush.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
I get your point and I applaud you for avoiding the “[Anyone] Sucks” chant. I can’t say the same and that’s for sure (Pro wrestling!). And no, you’re not as bad as Burrows/Nucks but the over/under at ten eh? I won’t go through the whole season but there were three in the short month of April with most of the games where you didn’t complain in the thread being games you attended live. I’m not saying that you need to change, but you do tend to complain about the refs:
April 11 (Anaheim)
“There was a brutal hook on Gilbert in the defensive left corner just now that was 10x worse than the one they did call on Horcoff.”
April 3 (Coyotes)
“That’s a penalty?? Penner might as well go all Handzus on the guy and really earn those two minutes.”
“You can’t stick check any more. He just tapped the guy’s stick. Hard to imagine anything much more innocuous than that. Meanwhile, causing a season-ending injury to an Oiler will earn an opponent the same two minutes.”
“Not hard to tell which team is owned by the NHL, is it?”
April 2 (Dallas)
“What the Fuck kind of penalty is that?”
“Trash talking is a penalty now? I guess the zebras got 93 years of catching up to do then. Fuck, that is terrible.”
Ben’s response: “A questionable penalty to Stortini = BRUCESPLOSION”
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 18, 2010 3:31 PM MDT up reply actions
I guess it depends on your definition. I don’t see a comment in the flow of play as “getting on the ref’s cases”. Maybe you do. I will criticize players too as the game flows by, and the refs are no different. A ref can make a bad call and still have a good game. Same way a player can make a bad play and have a good game. Is a comment on the bad call/play getting on the guy’s case, or is it just a comment? e.g. April 11, that was one little play in the context of an entire game. It wasn’t the reason Oilers lost, it was just a missed call.
I do stand by my comment of April 3. If there is one thing that really annoyed me this year, it was the lack of sufficient penalties for injury-inducing hits. It was a common thread to several of the Oilers injuries this year, and it got real old real fast. Iginla on Souray, Handzus on Hemsky, Raymond on Smid, Boogaard on Jones, etc. If injuries happen and the refs don’t respond, I’m going to say something about it.
Btw, at one of those live games I attended, not only was I not criticizing the ref, I was applauding him. (Dan Marouelli’s last game in Edmonton.)
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Apr 18, 2010 9:40 PM MDT up reply actions
I applaud you for applauding! I think we should be able to come to some agreement here. You clearly don’t complain about the refs as much as some folks (we’ll call them Joe Average Canuck Fans) but you do complain about the refs in a more or less homerish manner more than any other writer here. Again, not necessarily a bad thing or something that should be changed, but it is the way it is.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 18, 2010 11:42 PM MDT up reply actions
This just in ...
I’m a homer
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Apr 19, 2010 5:53 PM MDT up reply actions
The Canucks irritate me. I don’t know about their fans but the Canucks themselves (and the coach) seem to have a sense of entitlement regarding penalties.
Which is funny because the Canucks “forecheck” basically consists of draping oneself over the opposing player like a warm blanket in winter, they really should be penalized for holding at least once a game.
And if I never see another Canuck F1 set up a pick at the offensive zone blueline to let the F2 gain the zone with ease, it will be too soon.
And diving, hair-pulling, etc. etc.
Every coach in the NHL thinks they have an entitlement w.r.t. penalties, it’s like a broken record listening to them. Until coaches actually start being honest about on-ice incidents and look at tape before speaking that will persist. Vancouver is no better or worse than other teams.
As an aside, your position on Vancouver is well known, and at this point you’d probably be better off confining your points to teams you can actually be rational about. This doesn’t invalidate some of your points, but it makes them too easy to dismiss out of hand and that is a bit frustrating because you do have valuable insights to add to discussion.
you’d probably be better off confining your points to teams you can actually be rational about.
You would be better off directing that advice to your fellow VAN fans. Henrik for Hart? Burrows the best goal-scoring bargain history?
Please. I think rationality regarding the Vancouver Canucks is my domain.
I agree with you rsm, on everything you say here. But I actually think that the complaining is more than a sense of entitlement. In a hockey game, there’s clearly a lot of pressure on the ref, and there’s clearly a lot of refs who’ll “even things out”. So playing things up is a way to increase the pressure in the hopes that they’ll “get the next call.” It’s now part of the game. Part of the “little things” that everyone believes is true and therefore they become true in some way.
Another example is Luongo: he clearly dives a lot, and does a crazy stuff to get the refs attention. Part of the problem is that the “book” on Luongo is that you have to get in his face, so players take liberties (whether more or less than other goalies, I don’t know, but the “book” on Luongo gets repeated a lot, so I’m guessing it’s a common sense thing for NHL players). Part of his defense against the repeated contact is to dive, so that the offensive player has to be at least a little wary that he might touch Luongo and the latter will dive. So maybe that offensive player will be a leeetle bit more careful next time around, and Luongo’s job is a bit easier. Giving the difference between a goal and a non-goal can be very little, it’s probably worth the trouble he takes. It’s hard to tell though. Yet, since pretty much everyone who’s analyzed goaltending by the numbers seems to think he’s a good one, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding Luongo’s diving, it doesn’t usually seem to actually draw penalties. I’m curious if he draws more or less interference penalties than most goalies. I think part of the “ref book” on Luongo is that he dives a lot so I’m incline to think he doesn’t get as many calls, but I’m not sure if the stats bear that out.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 9:37 AM MDT up reply actions
Yeah, I agree, I doubt he gets more calls. But I think the intended effect is actually to make players be a little more cautious before bumping him. Not because he’ll actually get the call, but because he makes a fuss. He’s got a lot of status, and the refs can’t just ignore him. (He’s definitely not the only goalie who dives and complains to refs, but he’s the one who I watch the most.)
In any case, reffing in the NHL seems to be a damn near impossible job due to the speed. There are a lot of things that I “call” as viewer one way on first view, then the replay shows things were pretty different.
He’s got a lot of status, and the refs can’t just ignore him. (He’s definitely not the only goalie who dives and complains to refs, but he’s the one who I watch the most.)
I’m pretty sure they can just ignore it. Frankly, I’m surprised he doesn’t get more diving penalties (I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have any penalties this season). And yeah, a lot of goalies flop around. Roloson sure did when he was in Edmonton. As for making players think twice about heading to the crease, the most significant guy in that regard for the Kings is Smyth and my viewing experience tells me he can’t really be discouraged.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions
I disagree. Refs can’t ignore high status players. You don’t hear it so much anymore, but a lot of fans used to complain about Syd Crosby as a whiner, and a diver. In the few games I’ve watched he definitely dives, but he also takes a heck of a lot of abuse on the ice as opponents try to get him off his game by constantly bumping him. It’s only an impression, but it seems to me that refs know this as much as they know about the diving. Part of their job is making sure that star players and probably goalies generally don’t get ridiculously abused. But, this is only an impression.
Just for the record, I didn’t say “go to the crease”, rather “be more cautious before bumping him.”
I haven’t seen Crosby dive this playoffs or last. Sometimes when he’s got the puck he’ll be forced to his knees but gets back up quickly.
Malkin is a different story. DIrty dirty cheat, that one.
Just for the record, I didn’t say "go to the crease", rather "be more cautious before bumping him."
For Ryan Smyth, it’s basically all the same thing. I like him, but he definitely takes liberties with goalies.
Refs can’t ignore high status players.
They’ve been doing a pretty good job so far! It’s easy to ignore his diving because it’s so theatrical. I agree more with the idea that they have an obligation to protect the goalies in general than that they need to protect Luongo in particular due to his status.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions
Well, we’ll agree to disagree. Btw, I can’t say if it’s the diving and chirping, but Vancouver (if I’m not wrong) has already drawn 3 goalie interference calls (not that it’s helped the goaltending!). Plus there were no doubt more than one warning given, by the fact that the penalties were called.
But yes, Smyth is one player who cannot give a rat’s ass…does he actually feel anything before he can’t walk any longer?
No problem, it’s been a really fun series to watch. I can only hope that the Kings come out strong in L.A. so that I can write another positive post-game. It sure would be nice to see them out-chance in their own rink.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 1:40 PM MDT up reply actions
The hatred...
Maybe I have been living in the U.S. for too long and have long forgot about petty intra-Canadian cities emotional, irrational rivalries. But it is pretty sad to see such petty hatred for the Canucks here.
I have lived an Socal for about ten years and have load of Canadian ex-pat friends down here. Guys from Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and all parts in between. We have all happily banded together to cheer on the Oilers, Flames and Senators in their recent runs of the last decade.
Sure we messed around with each other and joked about each others home team – they Leaf fans where especially easy targets. But every year, every time one-by-one as each Canadian team was knocked out of the playoffs we rolled over to the ones left alive and truly cheered them on.
Maybe we just needed a reason to meet up at the sports bar in force and demand they play the sound on the hockey game instead of a random mlb game, but it sure feels like we got our Canadian brothers backs before we would ever cheer against them.
Sorry guys. You are bright, passionate fans with some great analysis and comments. But the emotional hatred is really sad.
I’ll be at the game tonight at Staples Centre cheering on my boys. And be assured there will be brothers from Edmonton, Calgary, T.O. and elsewhere cheering on the boys in blue and green just as passionately as me because they realize they are Canadian.
Why should I prefer Vancouver’s team to Los Angeles’ team simply because of the city they play in? I’ve followed the careers of Smyth, Stoll and Greene a lot more closely than any of Vancouver’s players and cheered for them as well. Why are those loyalties any less valid than cheering for a team because of the city in which they play? And the Canucks aren’t even a pleasant team. They have a few players (Burrows, Kesler, Luongo currently and Cooke, Bertuzzi and others in past incarnations) that I particularly dislike so I can’t see why I should cheer for them. My dislike is likely further fueled by living in Vancouver. Maybe other teams have fans that would I would dislike just as much but I don’t experience those ones on a regular basis. Expecting me to turn around and cheer for Vancouver after enduring months gloating? To each his own, but for me that’ll be a big no.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 19, 2010 3:48 PM MDT up reply actions
Like I said, maybe I have been outside of the pettiness for too long living in the U.S. for 10 years. Maybe it is easier down here to remember you are a Canadian first and foremost. I have seen the Canadian teams shafted for too long not to get behind another Canadian city’s team once my home town team is knocked out.
Too much hate my man, it is gonna give you cancer or something if you live your life like this for too long.
Yeah, I think this is silly. I’m one of those fellows that is pulling for Phoenix and Nashville to keep their teams without feeling any less Canadian. For you, the city the team plays for is what you cheer for, and that’s cool. For me, it’s the players I grew up watching. I don’t really think one is better (or more rational) than the other. As for the hate comment… well… it’s a bit rich coming from someone with a “KINGS SUCK” avatar.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 20, 2010 12:44 PM MDT up reply actions
I just wanted to chime in with my appreciation for the articles you’re doing on this series — thanks for the great reads.
A “Ref(s) you suck” chant? Twice?
There were quite a few more rounds than that in the upper level, at least where I was sitting. Oh, and it also made an appearance in game one.
I thought the “Not So Quick” chant was a bit more clever, myself!
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Thanks. And, of course, credit where due, “Not So Quick” is pretty great.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 20, 2010 3:03 PM MDT up reply actions

by 







































