Second Round Playoff Roundtable
April 30, 2008
Filed under: General NHL, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins, Canadiens, Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Sharks, Stanley Cup
Click here for more NHL playoff previews.
After just one night off, it’s time to kick the NHL playoffs back into gear again with the start of the second round. The first round had a little something for everyone: Regional rivalries, four-game sweeps, plenty of OT and three Game Sevens. Not a bad showing if you asked me.
But the second round is looking just as compelling. In the East, we’ve got a pair of Original Six squads (New York and Montreal) taking on two of the more successful expansion franchises (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia). Out West we’ve got the renewal of the most intense rivalry of the 1990s (Avs/Red Wings) while the consensus pick to win it all — San Jose — gets to battle a team that’s experienced plenty of recent playoff disappointment in Dallas.
With that, it’s time to consult our distinguished panel.
Eric McErlain: Ok, let’s begin out in the West, where our first series is a renewal of hockey’s fiercest feud of the 1990s — Red Wings/Avs.
You’ll excuse me if everything old looks new again. No, Claude Lemieux isn’t around any longer, but Darren McCarty, Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby, Chris Osgood and Nick Lidstrom still are. On the Colorado side, it used to be that Joe Sakic was the only greybeard left to remember the old battles, but now Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg have returned to the fold.
In goal, it looks like the Avs have the edge with Theodore in net, as he seems to have regained the form that won him a Vezina and a Hart in Montreal. Then again, Chris Osgood was no slouch this year, and he’s got a Stanley Cup ring from 1998 to prove it. Does he still have the magic?
Earl Sleek: Well, in the first round I stated I was a large believer in the lower seeds, and it seemed like a good call–collectively they went 13-12. This round, however, I think I’m on the other side of the fence.
The Wings will be on a mission this round, and I don’t know how well the Avalanche can withstand a properly motivated Red Wings squad. Though there will be a lot of “renewed rivalry” hype, I don’t think this series will be that evenly matched.
John “J.P.” Press: I like Detroit here, and pretty swift, too. Yes, the Avs have a relatively healthy Forsberg (at last check), Foote, etc. But Detroit’s system flat-out works. The Wings swept the season series and shut Colorado out in three of the four games (all post-New Year’s, by the way). Colorado might win a game or two, but they ain’t winning four.
James Mirtle: Theodore’s the wild card here. He was their best player in the first round, and he’ll have to be against a much more potent offensive team.
Foote and Sauer will have their hands full trying to shutdown Zetterberg, too. The Red Wings aren’t as deep in terms of secondary scoring as their past Cup-winning teams, but that might not matter.
I think it’ll be a long, terrific series if Theodore comes to play.
Kevin Schultz: I think this series going to be better than most people anticipate. Sure, the Red Wings are a much better team on paper, but I think we learned from their series against the Predators that they’re not going to rollover people. In fact, parity is a trend all across the NHL. Six of the eight first round series went 6 or 7 games. It is just me or aren’t there usually more blowouts in the first round? I agree that Theodore will be a huge factor in this one, but even if he falters a bit it’s not going to be all that easy. I like the Avs a lot more than I liked the Predators (who really just rode Ellis for a lot of that series) and I think this series could easily go six or seven, in fact it probably should. I think the same can be said for the other three series. Look for this to be another close round.
Bruce Ciskie: There’s no way Colorado can keep up with Detroit for 60 minutes a game. However, if the officials are as inconsistent as they’ve been so far (it’s as if they’re not even trying very hard to be consistent, which drives me nuts and is a rant for a different day), Colorado can obstruct their way to a shot. They need to get Sakic and Forsberg loose from Rafalski and Lidstrom, and that’s not happening as long as Detroit is playing at home.
(Actually, there’s no guarantee that Mike Babcock will even worry too much about matchups. Kronwall and Stuart played competently enough against Nashville to make me think they can handle an occasional assignment against just about anyone.)
Theodore gives his team a chance, but no superior a shot than Dan Ellis gave Nashville. And Theodore is more prone to let in that horrific center-ice goal that Lidstrom picked up in Game Six.
Eric McErlain: Which brings us to San Jose-Dallas. Before the begin of the season, I think everyone id’s two problems with Dallas — scoring punch and physicality. For the most part, our Western Conference Roundtable last time completely wrote them off. Is there something we’re missing about this team, or perhaps we just overrated Anaheim, especially in light of all the personnel losses from last season?
Earl Sleek: I think Anaheim was overrated, or at least in the matchup specifically to the Stars. The Ducks’ main problem in the first-round series was that basically, any time Dallas took a lead, it was pretty much game over. The Ducks wouldn’t produce shots, while surrendering even more chances than they’d when the game was tied. Dallas certainly deserves credit for a lot of that, but it’s not like they were doing it to a team that had a lot of offense anyway. I think the Sharks are a different squad entirely who showed plenty of ability to rally from game deficits, and I think there are several areas San Jose can exploit that Anaheim could not.
I think the Sharks take this series, and I don’t think there will even be a Game Seven this time. The main thing the Sharks have to worry about is their capability to shut out the second round (they have lost the last two postseasons in the second round despite leading the series 2-1 both times). Still, I think having those disappointments in previous years (plus a pretty serious scare in Round One) makes the Sharks less likely to melt down in Round Two this year.
(Curiously, our panel had nothing else to say about this series.)
Eric McErlain: Ok, on to Philly-Mtl. Both teams are coming off brutal seven game series. The Philly power play is unreal, but Montreal’s is even better. Philly seems to be at their best when they’re forecheck is working ideal, and I suspect they’ve a tad of an edge when it comes to physical play, both up front and on the blue line. And while Martin Biron came up big in Game Seven against the Caps, he proved vulnerable the rest of the series. Carey Price is just better.
Kevin Schultz: Not to be lame, but I agree with almost everything you stated. Although I do have to add one more thing… If the Habs win this series, will it be the end of Montreal as we know it? The celebration would be epic (and
probably really destructive).
And while Price is certainly the superior goalie, I’m curious to see how he responds to the pressure as this thing goes along. The longer the Habs are in this, the more it is going to come down upon him. It’s been 15 years and there’s no doubt the fans want this bad (who wouldn’t?). I know he’s been in large spots before, but he has yet to face second round/conference final/finals pressure at this level. I’ll certainly give him the benefit of doubt, but I think it’s something to watch.
Patrick Lackey: I think this is a pretty poor draw for the Habs, honestly, for lots of the reasons you mentioned. They don’t match up terribly well with the Flyers physicality and Philly has the firepower to at least hang with them on the offensive side of things. Price is certainly better than Biron, but he was pretty inconsistent against Boston and I think his age and inexperience could certainly be a factor. Of all the top seeds that got stretched out in the first round (which we’ll classify as Montreal, Detroit, and San Jose), I thought the Canadiens inability to put Boston away was the most telling, just because they shouldn’t have had a problem with them. I don’t think that bodes terribly well for their future, but I suppose last night taught us that momentum is pretty meaningless in these playoffs.
John “J.P.” Press: My advice to Montreal? Shoot high-glove. But I’m going to go with Philly in this one. They’re meaner, and starting to remind me a tiny of last year’s Ducks (with the exception of between the pipes).
Bruce Ciskie: After watching Price turn into a human sieve a couple times against Boston, I’m not sure this goaltending matchup is a slam-dunk. Biron had his moments of sievetacular play against Washington, but the advantage of facing the Habs is that they don’t have an Ovechkin-like striker (Kovalev is as close as they get).
Philadelphia’s physical advantages will overcome Montreal’s speed, at least at times (especially if the officiating allows them to). The Canadiens can’t play impatient hockey. They need to be sound defensively and pounce when Philadelphia gives them chances.
I think Montreal wins this series, but they’re going to have problems dealing with Philly’s strength and energy.
Eric McErlain: Which brings us to what might be the biggest matchup of the 2nd round: Rangers-Penguins.
Pat Lackey: Ah, I’m completely unable to be impartial at the moment with this series, but I’ll give you my thoughts anyways. As a Pens fan, I’m terrified of the Rangers, but I’m not sure why. It’s honestly not Fleury, I think he’ll be more than fine. He’s been great since coming back from his ankle injury and seems to be getting superior each time. I suppose it’s just because I don’t know how this team is going to respond to an honest-to-goodness playoff challenge. They were great against Ottawa, but Ottawa folded each time the Pens turned up the heat. My gut says their over the playoff loss last year, but it’s just hard to tell with a team lead by such young guys. Honestly, I just graduated from college a year ago and am thoroughly alarmed that this team’s hopes rest almost entirely on players my age or younger.
James Mirtle: I’ll say this much: Despite the fact he’s the only goaltender ever to be nominated for the Vezina in each of his first three seasons, Lundqvist continues to be underestimated. He’s terrific — and I think he’ll be the difference in this series
Tom Renney also has the Rangers playing great defence this season.
Comments
Got something to say?
