Grypho

There once was a team called the Ducks Who went to go nibble some Nucks But no why's or whether's, With rustled pinfeathers, They found themselves eating some pucks.

Once again, aflac with the spectacular GDT graphics and pregame info. What a touch.

Nucks and Ducks? There's a limerick just dying to be written here somewhere.

This game is not what I expected. All the Nucks are a factor, and Luongo's a thief and a half, but here's the strange thing. Stellar penalty kill on the Nucks' part means that Pronger and Niedermeyer are being worked harder than normal, which also means that the Sedin twins are COMPLETELY RESTED! That aspect of it means that third period does NOT look good for the Ducks.

MORRISON SCORES!! 2-0 VANCOUVER

I think you're right, that should do it. Wait...do what? I'm thinking that would be good for the Sharks. What were you thinking?

The Nucks are playing fantastically, but taking penalties. BIG mistake with the Ducks. The Nucks PK is on fire right now. A five minute for an accidental high stick that made Selanne bleed, but that 5 on 3 was killed, and now too many men on the ice against Anaheim, which nullified much of their PP against the Nucks. What a great game so far! Certainly not the yawner wake-me-when-it's-over series between the Stars and the Nucks. EDIT: The fact that Niedermeyer and/or Pronger were on all but two shifts in the first period does not bode well for the Ducks, I think. Those are going to be two exhausted forwards by the end of the second. And just as I typed that Niedermeyer took a tripping penalty against Henrik Sedin. Wow, the penalties are flying back and forth in this game!

OK I have to beat this dead horse one last time. When Hasek went down, three Wings were converging fast on Cheechoo's back, but there is no way, based on where they were at the time Hasek went down, and how Cheechoo's stick was positioned in front of the puck, that they could have even known that: a) Cheechoo still had the puck, or that b) Hasek wasn't already on the puck. They really didn't know what happened at that point, or where the puck was at the time, so there's no way that they could flatten Cheechoo in front of the net (which would have had to be a cross-check from behind from any of those players) without risking a penalty. Like you said, everything looked awful (from a Wings POV) in hindsight, but everything made sense in the moment. No errors on anyone's apart (IMO only, of course). I don't think the converging Wings or Hasek made any mistakes. It was just a good fake by Cheechoo that resulted in a decent goal.

Anaheim players are FRUSTRATED! I smell some ugliness coming up very soon. The majority here are rooting for the Ducks?! Is that true?

NASLUND SCORES!!! NUCKS UP 1-0

Yeah, I've lived here since January, and no, I don't get Center Ice here. Unfortunately, I am at the mercy of regular internet feeds (usually Sopcast and VLC player), but it's actually not that bad. I'm watching a live Hockey Night in Canada stream using Media Player. Way better than radio, and infinitely better than nothing!

Aye, I'm here, but that's no feat. It's now 10:55AM in China. Sun's out, beautiful spring day, and a good time for hockey. (of course, any time's a good time I suppose)

Before entering the playoffs, one of the things I worried about most was the ability for other teams to rattle the Sharks away from their game play with physical play that might anger or fluster Sharks players (thinking Edmonton). In a way, the two controversial hits in our series with the Preds, (the one by Hartnell against Cheechoo, and the one by Radulov against Bernier), proved, I thought, to be a turning point in Sharks discipline - almost like a vaccination. The only lingering doubt about whether this vaccination would hold was Bertuzzi, because he has been known to rattle Sharks in the past. But even that's gone now, because I think the Sharks realized early on how much discipline would factor into the playoffs - and no doubt how much it factored into the defeat of the Predators. It didn't matter that the Sharks weren't converting on their PP's; only that they had puck possession and were able to grind down and tire out the oft-penalized Preds. Despite this phenomenon, I believe that Bertuzzi knows by now -- to the point of perfect clarity -- that taking selfish penalties can cost the team in big ways. So I seriously doubt that this negative aspect of Bertuzzi's play will continue into the rest of the series, because Bertuzzi is capable of playing an extremely disciplined game. What's more, he is unbelievably skilled as a player, and a force to be reckoned with when he's on fire. I also happen to believe that Bertuzzi and Holmstrom are two of the very few answers that the Wings have to an already on-fire Thornton. So I agree with those who have said that scratching Bertuzzi would be a mistake. It made sense for the Sharks to re-scratch Mark Bell (whom I believe Wilson brought in as a possible counter to Bert), as Bell really did prove more liability than asset, and Bell (for as much as I like him) is not a Bertuzzi, who is more like a Pavelski with weight and veteran grit. Bertuzzi, IMO, could well make a huge difference in this series, especially now that (I believe) he's had a chance to see that he's not immune from the requirement for disciplined play from here on in -- which means, I think, more focus for Bertuzzi's actual game, with solid grit and hard hits to match the Sharks thrown in for good measure.

Now THAT was an amazing game. The Rangers look like the Cinderella story of the EC now. They cannot be counted out, and might very well upset the mighty Sabres. Tell me a few Buffalo fans didn't run to the store for some quick relief from a bottle of Kaopectate!

Zeke, that was great! OK, my quick variation of Hamlet's speech to the players: (Chelios or Thornton speaking, you pick which) Shoot the puck, I pray you, as I passed it to you, trippingly off the stick. But if you fan on it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the zamboni played my game. Nor do not slash, hook or spear the opposition too much with your stick, thus, by use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give the five on five smoothness. O, it offends me to the soul to see a robustious periwig-pated penalty-taker tear another skater to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the homers, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Bertuzzi. It out-Forsbergs Forsberg. Pray you avoid it. Pass on my kudos to your son, Zeke. That was great.

AMEN. I'm enjoying this series very much, and was even WHILE the Sharks were losing in Game 2. Not that it didn't give me heartburn, mind, but playoff intensity is a great thing to watch regardless. Even if the Sharks were down 3-1 in a series, I wouldn't count them out for a second. The NHL has a history of 3-1 series deficit comebacks (including the Wings: 1987 against the North Stars, and 1992 against the Leafs), so the outcome of Game 4 will NOT have decided anything with any finality whatsoever. So I agree, sit back and enjoy the entire series, right down the end. What a shame for any team's fans (and this is not meant as a guilt trip for fans, because I don't believe in them) if your team ends up winning, but you only enjoyed the parts where they actually won. That means you missed out on part of it. Think I didn't enjoy Game 2? I didn't like the outcome, but the game itself -- I thoroughly enjoyed it, the good, the bad and the ugly.

My great-grandfather was working there for several years before C&H was founded. He was soldier in the Spanish army from 1893 to 1904, and fought in the Spanish American war, and immigrated to Hawaii (Hawaii was an ally of the U.S. during that war, and was annexed by the U.S. immediately afterward, so he felt he would be safe there from Spanish retribution). My great-grandfather: I do still have people there still, but none that I know of on Maui - just Oahu, Kauai, and the Big Island. I'm sure he would have played hockey there if he could have, or at the very least he would have been a fan, but as you know, the ice was total crap in Hawaii at the time, and there were plantation bosses to please. And murf, this is a free thread as far as I'm concerned, no buzz-kill here, hijack at will, no problem.

As Enid Strict would say: "Jokes? Well...isn't that special. And just who fed you clown for breakfast? Was it......SATAN?

The Stanley Cup is given out every year, but I wouldn't call it nothing... OK, fine, the Art Ross trophy that's given to one player in the NHL every year, and the consecutive 90-assist seasons aren't all that big a deal. Could we at least make JT a sporty little Toyota? (doesn't have to be a new one, and you can pick the color)

Dan Rusanowski and Jamie "former Shark" Baker? Make no mistake, they don't pretend to be biased, objective, NHL/ESPN/whatever announcers. They are both announcers, spin-masters, and homer cheerleaders who work for the Sharks, and not for any other team. I love Rusanowski's calls, because he really can paint fast what's going on on the ice, but he's also painting it as a hard core Sharks fan (which both announcer's are) who's playing to other Sharks fans (which the majority of their audience is), so when the opposing team scores, it comes out as "andtheyscore." followed by summary of the play leading up to the goal. But when the Sharks score, it's SCOOOOOOOOOOOOORE! followed by the regaling tale of what just happened, full of excitement and color commenting. I will say this about Rusanowski and Baker -- they're known for not liking bad calls, even when they are in the Sharks' favor. In Round 1 Game 1 against the Preds, the Preds got two penalties in the very beginning that the Sharks announcers were complaining about... "Oh, now there's another one. Neither of these first calls were good. Totally unnecessary....", followed by, "Yeah, I totally agree. It looks like Nashville's taking some really bad penalties. You can bet these are going to be reviewed later on." Either way, I don't deny they're homers, or that calling the refs on bad calls makes them otherwise. They're supposed to be homers! They work for the team they're announcing for! IMO, you don't get better homers than them (although I am partial to Pittsburgh's announcer, Mike "well-shave-my-face-with-a-rusty-razor!" Lange, who seems to give the game a real old-time hockey feel. Now you've got me wanting to listen to Detroit's announcing, just to see what the difference is.

For the record, nothing in this thread as fazed or riled me in the least. RW is known for using media statements like those in press conferences to talk to his own team more than anyone else, and you can see that in the way that he praises and rebukes the team, and even specific lines and individuals, publicly. For me that's the whole perspective - or at least, what I believe is the perspective that he's trying to put out to the Sharks. The fact that the public is listening seems almost incidental in his mind, the way I read it. He's definitely not talking to the fans of the opposing team. But the idea that Wilson give zero credit to the opposition is one that simply isn't true. It's true that he'll refuse to give credit, or minimize credit at times, but that isn't an absolute at all. In his last press conference, Wilson says, "We were the best team in the league, and I think Detroit was second, but we're not a hundred percent....you know, a lot of those times you're playing against, uh, say like Chicago, or a bottom-dweller, you don't lose those games, but when you're playing against the elite teams it's a little difficult. It's a little different." Now that could easily be taken as a direct slam against Detroit, as RW marginalizes or diminishes Detroit's regular season record, by implying that the record is inflated due to victories over the so-called "bottom-dweller". But the Wilson goes on to say immediately after, "It's like, 'why doesn't Joe score five points a game?', well damn it, we're playing the Detroit Red Wings! You know, look around, look who we're playing, we're playing the top teams in the league. It's hard out there. So, uh, why aren't there fifty-five scoring chances because the teams are so good offensively? Well, we're the two best defensive teams in the Western Conference, figure it out! A good defense'll trump a good offense any day of the week." Anyway, I'm not posting to change any opinions, and it doesn't bother me if other fans hate the Sharks' coach, any more than it bothers me if Sharks fans hate him (and some do). My only concern is how well he coaches the Sharks, and how effective they are at winning as a result. The rest is a very distant second in my mind.

I remember that! This is one I've thought about a lot when watching Thornton play, even when he was with Boston. He's such an imposing presence on the ice that he draws a lot of attention to himself. His moves are telegraphed visually so much, that every netminder remains square to him at all times - despite the fact that he's a known disher! I think his options were cut down years ago in regard to taking direct shots from a stand still, and he developed a mindset along the way that says, "Hey, why should I shoot when my team mate over there has such a juicy opening? All I have to do his make the puck beat the goalie's ability to adjust accordingly and get square to him." This goes right to what I see as a defining characteristic of JT's personality as well, because he really does seem to enjoy being background support, while lifting someone else up. It's almost incidental that this launches him into the limelight even more, because I don't think that's his intent at all. Plus, Joe Thornton's favorite shots (on a shootouts especially) are low, just like his passes, as we can see as he goes tape to tape with uncanny accuracy. He doesn't seem as confident (to me at least) giving the puck any air unless he's taking a pass and has a large hole or an empty net to shoot at -- and most of those shots are while he's in motion. So it makes sense to me that he'd prefer to keep it low where his strength is, and just pass the puck and let a hot dog like Cheechoo (or Marleau) put it up top shelf and take most of the glory.

If it was an approaching player on a breakaway I would totally agree, but up close like that? Of all players, Cheechoo is not one to hesitate with. IMO, Hasek had to commit, or Cheechoo would have pulled the trigger on him. It was a coin flip for Hasek, high or low. I definitely couldn't fault him for committing. Not with the puck on Cheechoo's tape, and right there in the crease where reaction time is nil. The only thing about that goal that surprised me was Cheechoo not firing off the shot "on time". One could argue that it was a bad/risky move on his part even, given that he was absolutely swarmed by Wingers at the time.

A Yugo? Kind of a stretch in the other direction, don't you think? Not to take anything from Stevie Y, as I'm a big admirer of his, and his record speaks for itself, but Thornton did win the 2006 Art Ross Trophy. That alone put his name up there with Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, and other hockey greats (not Stevie Y, but that doesn't mean he wasn't great), but Thornton also did something that only two other two players in the history of the NHL have ever done, and that's had consecutive 90-assist seasons. Wayne Gretzky did it (12 in a row, 1980-81 through 1991-92) and Mario Lemieux also did it (1987-88 and 1988-89) . So while I don't know how (or even whether I'd want to) compare JT with SY, I'd say Thornton deserves at the very least a nice shiny Volkswagon Jetta rating in your analogy, don't you? Or a Ford Pinto, or something a little better than a Yugo.

To be fair to Hasek, he had Cheechoo's go-ahead goal nailed as well as he could, I thought. Normally it would have been a quick shot, and up close like that Hasek would have had it almost every time. Cheechoo was more patient, that's all, and not so quick to commit. He waited until after Hasek had already committed and was already down, before dragging it past his feet and dishing it upward. At that point, the fog horn hadn't gone off, and Hasek couldn't have known if he was even on top of the puck or not, so he couldn't afford to lift his leg or move either. Both were skilled maneuvers, but in this case, the shooter's patience won out, but there was no luck involved on either's part there, and no errors for anyone that I saw. Just very good play.