Ottawa vs Buffalo

The debate hasn't really existed as far as people coming out and saying that you should or shouldn't go about it one way, but the pros and cons of this decision have been talked about quite often. I'm talking about putting a forward on the point for the power play. Daniel Alfredson has been a forward, and a great one at that, throughout his whole career. However, Saturday night Ottawa hung him out to dry. Buffalo recognized his lack of experience playing "D" and attacked him, turning a harmless 1-2 shorthanded rush into a series ending goal.

Granted the reason for the goal was 3-fold. A) Alfredson not knowing how to handle a 1-1, from the defensive aspect. B) Emery playing too deep in his crease and giving the forward the room to get all the way across the crease. C) The other defensemen not helping in time, which also allowed the Buffalo forward to get to his forehand and beat Emery.

You could argue either way for putting Alfredson at the point in that situation. On one hand you need to win, being down 3-1 in the series, so you want a playmaker running the powerplay, fine. However, being down 3-1, you can not afford to lose. When you have so many quality defensmen, which Ottawa does, why would you take that risk. Obviously hine sight is 20-20, and the Sens would have been better served having a defensemen to stop any sort of counter attack, but this is not what lost the series for them. Emery played a subpar series in net, the forwards were unable to establish any sort of constant pressure. I know that Ottawa outshot Buffalo in most games, but as I've heard many times, shots on goal is the most overrated statistic in hockey. Ottawa was unable to create traffic in front of Miller, with the Sabres collapsing having 4 players in front of the net for most of the series, and doing a good job of not allowing Senators players to collect rebounds.

The mark o####ood team is how you fare in one goal games, I'm sure the Senators won their fair share of them during the season, however every game in the series was a 1-goal contest, and the Sabres looked like the team who kicked it up a notch, rather than playing conservative and not to lose, like the Senators. Point being, a Stanley Cup Contender should not go 1-4 in One goal games at any point in the season, and obviously not in the playoffs.

The style Ottawa played also wasn't very smart. I feel like a guy such as Patrick Eaves, who has a big body, and good offensive skills, should have been playing a key role. While you can't deny the offensive skills of Alfredson, Heatley, Havlat and others. You need to win one on one battles every where on the ice, not just in open ice. I feel like Eaves could have been used a lot more in the corners and he has the ability to set up these guys around the net. Unlike a guy like Chris Neal, who would be out there to "irritate" the other team, he would be able to go in the corners, but lacks the ability to create scoring chances from those situations.

Basically every aspect of Ottawa failed, and that's what needed to happen if they were to lose. I honestly feel that they were good enough to win, as long as they were clicking on one or two cylinders.

Sabres quest for Lord Stanley

The Sabre's will get solid goaltending, but after watching the Hurricanes regain their early season form in the first two rounds, and dismantle the Devils who pride themselves on playing great defensive hockey, I'm picking the Carolina(ford) (Whaler)'Canes to beat Buffalo. Miller is going to see shots from everywhere on the ice, just ask Marty Brodeur. While shots from the corner seem harmless, they can create crazy bounces, or good rebound opportunities, as a rebound off a shot from the corner ussually comes back in front of the net. The 'Canes seemed to follow the rule there is no such thing as a bad shot, and when given odd man rushes their skilled forwards will finish most of the time. This is a bad combination. However, I feel that the line with Drury and Grier will be able to generate scoring chances, and if the other lines follow suit Buffalo could make it interesting. I don't know how successful guys like Briere and Affinegenov will be. While I think they are great players, they will have to play out their element (more physical) then they are used to in order to get quality chances.

Refs

A new aspect has crept into this years playoffs. Due to the new rules, teams are getting a large number of powerplays. We saw the Devils fail to convert on four first period power plays and end up losing 4-1 yesterday. Special teams will play a huge role in this series, and I think Carolina has the advantage on the power play. 

On the side, I feel like the refs have done a good job enforcing the new rules all year, even in the playoffs. I do miss the "Old Time Hockey" playoffs, I feel like the Stanley Cup should be decided with as much 5-5 hockey as possible. However, teams were aware that they would need a solid powerplay to succeed this season, so if you didn't build a team that can score on the power play (not to beat a dead horse but see the ::cough:: ::cough:: Boston Bruins) you won't be an elite team.

I'm talking about all aspects of a franchise here, management, players, coaches, farm systems etc... and the dubious winner of this award, the Boston Bruins. Oh where do I start?

Well let's take it from the time that the NHL lockout became official almost 2 years ago now. First thing the Bruins did, release almost all of their players. On paper not a bad move, they played the salary cap card correctly and had the most cap room OF ANY TEAM heading into the next season. That was the last decent thing they did until this January when they called up Tim Thomas. But I digress, while having the most cap room they failed to sign another big name player to go along with Joe Thorton and Sergei Sampsonov. They failed to address their biggest weakness, defense. Instead opting to sign the likes of Alexi Zhamnov and other second tier players. Nothing against those guys as they are decent players and could be solid second line guys, but again they left Thorton hanging by himself on the first line. Which led to him underachieving, atleast in Boston, and again probably not his fault as he was pretty much forced to carry this team.

Now I'll get to the big trade, Thorton to San Jose. I personally think this trade made the Bruins a deeper team, although not neccesarily better. Brad Stuart has become the number one defenseman, with Nick Boynton being out for most of the season. Marco Sturm complimented the Bergeron and Boyes line well, and Wayne Primeau turned into a pretty solid addition to the checking line with P.J. Axellson. However this is where my biggest gripe with the off the ice operations comes into play. After trading a player who had the presence of a Joe Thorton, on and off the ice, you can not continue to run the same commercials showing Joe score goal after goal on TV, and almost rub salt into the wounds of Bruins fans all over. The Bruins continued to market the team as if Joe was still here, they failed to capitalize on the fact that these new players were going to be able to contribute, it was almost as if they just wanted to see how long it would take fans to realize he wasn't on the team any longer. It seems to me that while the players they aquired did end up helping the team, it was not expected by management and their production went unnoticed. Wayne Primeau for instance, scored one of the nicest goals in the NHL this year, the only way you would know that was if you watched the game, or caught the highlights the next morning. Wouldn't you want to repeatadly show something like that, maybe it will spark interest, get people thinking "wow those guys they got for Thorton can play, maybe I'll watch more, or even better maybe I'll buy tickets". Not the Bruins.

Now the Sampsonov trade. Not as shocking as Thorton, as Sampsonov has been a good offensive player deep in the zone. I do not like the way he plays. I feel like he takes too many risks with the puck in areas where you least want to turn the puck over (IE at the offensive blue line when he is parralell with his defensemen, and giving up breakaways). But, I also feel that they knew they wanted to trade him before he became a free agent, I also feel that had they traded him earlier they could have gotten a lot more for him. Nothing against Marty Reasoner (he isn't very good but a former Boston College player, so I can't hate him) and Jan Stasny (who has a lot of potential but the Bruins have had tons of "potential" over the last thirty some odd years). It's time to stop looking for potential and build a team that can win soon, or else the hundred or so Bruins fans that are left (myself included) might stop coming.

Mike O'Connell (GM) got fired. Was it his fault, in part maybe but why fire him after you've been eliminated from the playoffs (technically they weren't officially eliminated but it was imminent). Why not make a move like that while you still have time to make a run, energize the team show you are doing something to make them better (again, not neccesarily the right thing but making an effort at least).  Mike Sullivan (head coach), I am not sure how he fits into the failures of the season. On one hand I want to throw him under the bus, on the other hand you can't blame him entirely for trying to turn sub-par players into a Stanley Cup Conteder. Regardless, he will be gone next season, the brand new management will probably clean house and start over at every position.

Now there were a few bright spots, the play of Patrice Bergeron and Brad Boyes was a nice breath of fresh air, however they need help around them (just like anyone). Tim Thomas played out of his mind in practically every game.  I don't know his stats off the top of my head.  I would guess that they aren't anything to get excited about, unless you got the chance to watch him play. However, don't get too excited Bruins fans, remember Blaine Lacher and Byron Dafoe, and even Andrew Raycroft. Now don't get me wrong, I hope Tim Thomas sticks around and plays well next year but I won't be surprised if he doesn't.  Oh and don't even get me started on Hal Gill, he will get his own article.

This point pretty much sums up how poorly the Bruins are run. Ray Bourque requested to be traded to a stanley cup contender, when he finnally won the cup, instead of calling him a traitor and turning on him (IE Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, insert any former Boston Athlete who has won a title in another city) Bruins fans embraced him, and even attended a celebratory rally in Govenment Center in which he brought the Stanley Cup with him. It's gotten so bad in Boston, we just want to be able to say hey that guy used to play here.

MESSAGE TO BRUINS FRONT OFFICE: People in Boston will not be angry if you win a Championship, in fact we will be very happy, we will buy more jerseys, tickets, concessions at games whatever you want, PLEASE BRING ONE HOME. I'm sick of watching highlights of great Bruins teams from before I was born and saying wow I can't even remember the last time the Bruins were any good.