| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest4626 |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 07:01:26
So ah I wana Know Who you guys think is the Leading player for the CS trophy... Me myself has to be Rolasonnnnnnnnnnnnn By a long shot Guy is Playing awesome in Tampa...... |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 10:17:59
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Clarification noted Slozo, thank you for that.
We have many enjoyable and debatable differences of opinion on issues and I hope to continue to do so. I will be more selective in my choice of words and appreciate you letting me know I may have crossed a line I never intended to.
As I hope you do with my posts, that being continuing to read with a 'grain of salt', erring on the side of, at times, humour, being good, bad or otherwise, I will continue to do so with yours, and look forward to our next differing of our opinions, as you are indeed correct, they are ours and not attempts to sway thoughts either direction.
Thanks again!
Appreciate those kind words, Fat Elvis.
I think I can now declare this thread done like dinner . . . more like burnt toast, actually, 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 09:23:47
Clarification noted Slozo, thank you for that.
We have many enjoyable and debatable differences of opinion on issues and I hope to continue to do so. I will be more selective in my choice of words and appreciate you letting me know I may have crossed a line I never intended to.
As I hope you do with my posts, that being continuing to read with a 'grain of salt', erring on the side of, at times, humour, being good, bad or otherwise, I will continue to do so with yours, and look forward to our next differing of our opinions, as you are indeed correct, they are ours and not attempts to sway thoughts either direction.
Thanks again! |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 05:28:56
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Wow, Happy Daddy's Day to you too Slozo!
If I hit a nerve, I would apologize if it were necessary, but I am hoping your retort has the same tongue in cheek repartee as mine intended.
If yours doesn't, and you missed that in mine, then I'm not sure an apology would matter as we would have a whole different direction to discuss. The point of posting one's opinion is to have it left open for debate when coming here I would think, otherwise it would indeed be considered, well.....pontificating, that's why it matters to me what your opinion is.
If it's my presumed inability to 'give in' to hyperbole, I think you would know by now, that isn't the case, I just try to give a differing opinion if I feel, in my opinion only, that another posters' is misinformed or misleading.
Not sure what bearing that has on the amount of hockey I watch or where I am keeping score of who is right or wrong, or even where that's of import to me. I f I am wrong, whatever that means, when giving an opinion, I think it would be next to impossible to find an example of where I would either be;
a) aware it was even a contest,
or
b) anything other than gracious replying to proof.
If using the word, pontificate offends you, I won't apologize for that as it's only a descriptor, and at times, relevant.
As I am honestly unsure as to the nature and intent of your post, please let me know, I'm good either way.
Happy Fathers Day to you too, Fat Elvis.
My reference to "not watching enough hockey" was from a comment you made in another thread (the Boychuk hit on Raymond thread) that went, "'If this is the first time you have ever seen this type of play, you don't watch enough hockey.'"
Yes, it was inserted as sarcastic reference / humour. Which sadly missed the mark, as sarcasm often does online with no facial expression to give it direction.
pontificate:
verb
1.(intransitive) To preside as a bishop, especially at mass.
2.(intransitive) To act like a pontiff; to express one’s position or opinions dogmatically and pompously as if it were absolutely correct.
3.(intransitive) To speak in a patronizing, supercilious or pompous manner, especially at length.
I assume you didn't say I was trying to be a bishop at mass, so I gather the meaning you lend to the word when describing me is #2 and #3. It is offensive, yes, and that is why I chose to post the meaning to make it clear to all.
Using the word to try and say I was preaching from on high is especially wrong, when it is after I give comments on my opinion of Thomas, and state it as so - an opinion, take it or leave it. I say that it is clear TO ME that he deliberately used the butt end of the stick on Hansen in an attempt to injure/annoy.
Now, if I was to make some kind of blanket statement that anyone who thinks Thomas didn't deliberately use the butt end of his stick doesn't watch enough hockey - then I might be pontificating. But I didn't, because frankly, it's pretty subjective when determining intent . . . and as confident as I am of my skills to do so, it would be insane to think I am right all the time.
And that's all I gotta say about that.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 14:51:51
Wow, Happy Daddy's Day to you too Slozo!
If I hit a nerve, I would apologize if it were necessary, but I am hoping your retort has the same tongue in cheek repartee as mine intended.
If yours doesn't, and you missed that in mine, then I'm not sure an apology would matter as we would have a whole different direction to discuss. The point of posting one's opinion is to have it left open for debate when coming here I would think, otherwise it would indeed be considered, well.....pontificating, that's why it matters to me what your opinion is.
If it's my presumed inability to 'give in' to hyperbole, I think you would know by now, that isn't the case, I just try to give a differing opinion if I feel, in my opinion only, that another posters' is misinformed or misleading.
Not sure what bearing that has on the amount of hockey I watch or where I am keeping score of who is right or wrong, or even where that's of import to me. I f I am wrong, whatever that means, when giving an opinion, I think it would be next to impossible to find an example of where I would either be;
a) aware it was even a contest,
or
b) anything other than gracious replying to proof.
If using the word, pontificate offends you, I won't apologize for that as it's only a descriptor, and at times, relevant.
As I am honestly unsure as to the nature and intent of your post, please let me know, I'm good either way.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 11:48:40
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Thanks for the reassessment Pasty, does that mean that perhaps yours and Slozo's initial slanderous calls for Thomas' eligibility for the Conn Smythe be taken away, may have been a wee bit hasty, there ..... er....Pasty?
Perhaps slightly knee-jerkish, maybe over the top, may have had an air of pontification to the initial review?
And that's just Slozo's post. Yours was basically a ditto.
Why would it matter to you whay our opinion is? We clearly don't watch as much hockey as you, hence, we might have different opinions - the wrong ones, of course.
I mean, it's not like smart savvy posters like yourself ever give in even slightly to some hyperbole along the way . . . no, that wouldn't be Fat Elvis' way!
Pontification indeed.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 21:56:31
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Thanks for the reassessment Pasty, does that mean that perhaps yours and Slozo's initial slanderous calls for Thomas' eligibility for the Conn Smythe be taken away, may have been a wee bit hasty, there ..... er....Pasty?
Perhaps slightly knee-jerkish, maybe over the top, may have had an air of pontification to the initial review?
And that's just Slozo's post. Yours was basically a ditto.
i never said he didn't deserve the conn smyht i was only agreeing with slozo that it was a dirty play and i have since retracted that comment,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 08:40:06
Thanks for the reassessment Pasty, does that mean that perhaps yours and Slozo's initial slanderous calls for Thomas' eligibility for the Conn Smythe be taken away, may have been a wee bit hasty, there ..... er....Pasty?
Perhaps slightly knee-jerkish, maybe over the top, may have had an air of pontification to the initial review?
And that's just Slozo's post. Yours was basically a ditto.
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 02:02:46
I take back what i said, when i had commented i had only seen it live during the game and the game never showed a replay i viewed it the first time as much worse, granted i will say this:
I am a goalie and in situations like that I often and am sure i'm not the only one will stand in way way that i can slow down a player cutting through my crease or close to it and hopfully give my player circling the net more time to make a play, i am 100 % sure this is what Thomas was doing, Now before i get jumped all over i'm not saying he was trying to get hanson in the face but In my opinion he was cutting off the shortest route to the puck carrier by standing large and sticking his stick out to take up as much room. I do it all the time and i'm sure thats what Thomas was doing or else when Hanson hits the but end he would have dropped his stick or been thrown off ballance, he was expecting someone to run into it, im sure he wasn't expectiong or tryng to get someone's face to run into his stick but like i said he was takeing up as much space as he could to prevent a player to come across his crease and attack the puck carrier
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 23:32:03
FER et al.....are you guys mad? Completely nuts? Blind? What is it? I think it's pretty freakin' obvious that Thomas saw Hansen coming. Know why? Because it became clear to me that with the way he played that series, that dude's got eyes in the back of his head!!! 
All kidding aside, i originally thought it was intentional because he seemed to move his arm out (and stick) ever so slighty as Hansen came by. You don't really see it in the slow motion bit as it's not much of a "move". But, with him not looking Hansen's way whatsoever, i'd need a better clip (the one Slozo is searching for maybe?) or something more decisive to put a lot of blame on TT. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 22:13:31
I guess there is still some interest.
Not really sure about what happened before the actual play, but I'm pretty sure Thomas was watching where Krejci was moving the puck to,(I didn't make that up, the announcer in the clip said it), instead of where Hansen was. Those same announcers even say that it looked like Hansen skated in to the stick and he was trying to draw a penalty,(again not my words, and their speculation). The clip clearly, clearly shows Thomas standing well in his crease.
It does also show Thomas not playing a more traditional type of posture as the announcers also pointed out, and they speculate he was running some interference. I just wonder if Thomas would be considered a traditional postional goalie to start with? I think not.
I find it hard to believe, that, from the clip, he did that purposely. That's my take with no emotion attached, that's just based on what the clip showed. At this point in the game Hansen had already lost composure, whereas Thomas was the picture of said composure for all 60 minutes, as the score reflects, so who to you, should get the benefit of the doubt?
Even in the clip you provided of the other incident, which he obviously involved himself him, he, to me anyways, showed what I would consider a fair amount of class when addressing that incident.
If it were me, I would have had all kinds of politically incorrect references for Burrows and his fixation with my butt end, but, I digress. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 20:23:01
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Not to stir anything more up. Just found a clip of the butt end incident for everyone's interest, if it's still of interest.
http://youtu.be/tirJwZpvnSg
Not to stir it up further, but, Thomas admits to doing it on purpose in this press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5XzYbAR67k
Your clip didn't show him looking at Hansen skating in, sizing it up, then pretending to look straight ahead.
I rest my case!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Scratch that, didn't look at the date properly - that video clip was Thomas referring to what he called a "love tap" on Burrows, after he was knocking Thomas' stick out of his hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGxcyztXeQ&feature=related
Which is not at all the clip we are talking about.
Trying to find a longer clip than the one you provided, as I clearly remember Thomas sizing up where Hansen was, etc before he stuck out the stick.
I am 100% sure he knew what he was doing, just can't find a longer clip. But I remember it. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 19:13:10
Yep, I still don't see this as a butt end. Thomas is in his net in a standard position for a goalie. Hanson skated into the end of this stick. I think Thomas would be superhuman if he hand the ability to time a butt end perfectly and aim perfectly without once looking at Hanson. Thomas' eyes never leave the puck.
Nope, no butt end there. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 16:01:05
Not to stir anything more up. Just found a clip of the butt end incident for everyone's interest, if it's still of interest.
http://youtu.be/tirJwZpvnSg |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 13:08:24
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Chin up bud, there'll be better days ahead. I look forward to my mighty Leafers meeting you in an all-Canadian final a few years from now (slozo ducks from thrown beer bottle). 
Nah, i'm from Vancouver, it's obvious i'd be throwing a molotov cocktail, not just a beer bottle.  Sorry, shouldn't really joke about a disgustingly serious incident, but i couldn't help it.
FER.....well said. What shocked me the most, was it seemed to me that there was far less after the whistle crap last night compared to the other games, more crap missed during play, admittedly more in the Canucks favour. I wasn't too surprised to see a penalty called once one team had a lead, but you knew no one was getting a PP goal to open the scoring!!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 10:22:36
I will rescind what I intended with the 'got a chuckle out of it' comment', as since I couldn't tell you which announcer said what, it isn't important.
I will stand by what I saw on the play, and it was Thomas, with his back to Hansen, maybe leaving his stick out there, that I will concede to as well, but certainly not going after the 'dirty and cheap' butt end that is being insinuated.
Certainly not to the extent that Hansen attempted to sell it as. Hansen was having one of those games, where he certainly wasn't getting the calls he should have, ie; the Chara high-stick, but his antics may be exactly why. ie; the blindside gooning of Ference after the non-call, or the gonad spear on McQuaid, later on.
Beans' has said it more than once. Live by the sword..etc
Before jumping up and down about double standards and all that, this game was left wide open by the officials and the calls and non-calls went both ways, both teams equally guilty of nonsense, IMHO. I don't mind the 'let them play' mentality, but when you have two teams that were taking as many liberties with each other as these two did, I would have been much happier, had the refs at least attempted to curb some of that crap. They didn't, and to analyze any players' play with vehemence is just kinda pointless at this point.
S'over and done. If they continue to play like this next season, either team, just imagine the season full of fun here, that will create!
Tim Thomas did deserve the Conn Smythe as was pointed out. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 10:11:05
I did forget about writing that "Thomas does not deserve it" line . . . I guess I might have had a few sips of the special juice last night, and may have gone a little overboard with my feelings.
But if sportsmanship had anything to do with any of the awards . . . crap, it'd be hard to give it to Thomas. It'd be hard to give it to anyone in this series, actually.
But yeah, on play alone, as the award is judged, Thomas certainly earned it. I think my comment from last night was that from a "sportsmanship standpoint", he doesn't deserve it.
And . . . heck, I wasn't really on your side, Alex - just happened to disagree with a lot of the pro-Boston crowd on many issues, that's all. I would have liked to have a Canadian team win it again, sure . . . for the fans, you know? We just appreciate it more than in the states, and hopefully the americans on here don't take offense, as it is a broad generalisation. But whatever, I just wanted to see the best hockey I could, and frankly, I was real disappointed about last night's hockey from a purist standpoint.
Chin up bud, there'll be better days ahead. I look forward to my mighty Leafers meeting you in an all-Canadian final a few years from now (slozo ducks from thrown beer bottle).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 09:33:03
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And cripes guys, stop equating my comments on a dirty play that Thomas made, to trying to pin some other accusation on me.
Yes, I agree Thomas should have won the Conn Smyth. He deserved that.
Yes, I thought Boston was the better team, and likely would have won even if the game had been reffed / called properly.
Yes, there were tonnes of dirty plays and non-calls for both sides.
All that, of course, has nothing to do with how I feel about Thomas giving a butt end to try and injure another player behind the play when he's up 3-0 in game 7 of the finals.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo, i know you're upset with the outcome and especially the reffing, but you did say in your post last night that Thomas didn't deserve it. THAT, is why you got the reply from me that you did regarding it not being an award for sportsmanship. I didn't notice anyone trying to accuse you of anything. Here is your post from last night....
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Thomas does not deserve it. Brutal sportsmanship with that butt end . . . and damn sneaky to make sure it happened unseen.
We know the real you now, Thomas. You are just as, if not more dirty, than any Vancouver player you can point to.
I am P'O'ed.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Read the first line!!!
Now, i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had a few pints last night and were/are still fuming about the NHL and the officials, so if you posted that in a drunken, frustrated and angry state, so be it. BUT you've changed your thoughts completely this morning!
BTW, it was fun having you on "our" side for the finals, you were like an honorary Canucks fan. However, now that you have that ridiculous Leaf logo back, you can go kiss my......j/k |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 06:55:23
I am really looking forward to the video of this play. I can't get to youtube on my work computer, so it will have to wait until later.
I didn't see this play at nasty as Slozo did, but I also admit that I was about 6 pints in by that point and may not have been seeing things and objectively as I normally do. Seeing how I am the most objective guy on this site!! |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 04:44:29
And cripes guys, stop equating my comments on a dirty play that Thomas made, to trying to pin some other accusation on me.
Yes, I agree Thomas should have won the Conn Smyth. He deserved that.
Yes, I thought Boston was the better team, and likely would have won even if the game had been reffed / called properly.
Yes, there were tonnes of dirty plays and non-calls for both sides.
All that, of course, has nothing to do with how I feel about Thomas giving a butt end to try and injure another player behind the play when he's up 3-0 in game 7 of the finals.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 04:40:13
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Slozo, Pasty....really?
That's the play I saw where the Canuck, Hansen I think it was, physically interfered with Thomas 5 seconds before when the play was live, and then skated in to Thomas' stick's butt end when he was going over to apologize? Is that the play you guys are talking about? That brutal thrusting motion that Thomas used to try and obviously gouge out the eye of Hansen? That play?
Are you sure it wasn't the play where Hansen skated in to Thomas' paint, after the whistle, and then flopped over like one of those oh' so delicious salmons out of water, that Vancouver is famous for, and, I know it's hard to believe it's a Canuck doing it but, embellished the sh*t out of a nothing play? Is that the one?
Even the announcers got a chuckle out of that play.
You guys are stretching it....really.
Must have been a different replay than what I saw . . . Healy commented on the whole thing as it went down on CBC as I watched the replay of it, and I agreed 100% with Glenn as he described it as a very sneaky, dirty play.
So what announcers are you talking about, Fat Elvis?
Either way, I thought that was pretty low class, considering the score and the situation . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 00:54:04
I'm confused by some of this, but here's my take (not that any of you care).............
Sure, it was a cheap shot, but no worse than MANY things i saw tonight and esp in this series! Even if it was called a 5 min major a game and a 50 game suspension, would it have mattered? The 'Nucks weren't scoring enough goals to win this game! Heck, if i were Thomas, i wouldnt' have worried about taking out anyone with the way i was playing!
The Conn Smythe, as far as i recall, says nothing about sportsmanship? If there were one in the '72 series, B. Clarke may just have been in the running....THAT'S what i'm saying! Don't take away from TT's epic playoff performance that basically won Boston the cup!!! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 23:14:16
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Slozo, Pasty....really?
That's the play I saw where the Canuck, Hansen I think it was, physically interfered with Thomas 5 seconds before when the play was live, and then skated in to Thomas' stick's butt end when he was going over to apologize? Is that the play you guys are talking about? That brutal thrusting motion that Thomas used to try and obviously gouge out the eye of Hansen? That play?
Are you sure it wasn't the play where Hansen skated in to Thomas' paint, after the whistle, and then flopped over like one of those oh' so delicious salmons out of water, that Vancouver is famous for, and, I know it's hard to believe it's a Canuck doing it but, embellished the sh*t out of a nothing play? Is that the one?
Even the announcers got a chuckle out of that play.
You guys are stretching it....really.
whoa whoa whoa thomas wins the conn smyth for sure all i was doign was agreeing with Slozo that it was extremly cheap on the part of Thomas, no sour grapes just agreeing that that was a very cheap shot,, and i havn't seen a replay FER but i'm pretty sure Hanson was 3 feet outside the paint..
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 23:08:16
Big second from me FER. I can't believe that some would call that a butt end when Thomas was looking the other way and there was no motion of extending his arm what so ever.
Biggest stretch of a call in history when Hanson skated right into the end of Thomas' stick.
It's a joke. It has to be. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 22:05:26
Slozo, Pasty....really?
That's the play I saw where the Canuck, Hansen I think it was, physically interfered with Thomas 5 seconds before when the play was live, and then skated in to Thomas' stick's butt end when he was going over to apologize? Is that the play you guys are talking about? That brutal thrusting motion that Thomas used to try and obviously gouge out the eye of Hansen? That play?
Are you sure it wasn't the play where Hansen skated in to Thomas' paint, after the whistle, and then flopped over like one of those oh' so delicious salmons out of water, that Vancouver is famous for, and, I know it's hard to believe it's a Canuck doing it but, embellished the sh*t out of a nothing play? Is that the one?
Even the announcers got a chuckle out of that play.
You guys are stretching it....really. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 21:36:29
Sounds like sour grapes by Slozo and Pasty!
Really - the apparent butt end was as cheap as it gets??
I would rather look to Thomas's classy comments about the series (and Luongo) instead.
Thomas is full marks for the Conn Smythe, and I wish fans could leave it at that! I don't think you will hear from any of the Canucks players (or brass) otherwise.
|
| Guest2740 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 21:16:38
Thomas likes to win silver on that ice. |
| Guest0409 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 20:12:23
THOMAS WINS CONN SMYTHE! THOMAS WINS CONN SMYTHE!
Tim Thomas is an amazing story! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 20:01:38
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Thomas does not deserve it. Brutal sportsmanship with that butt end . . . and damn sneaky to make sure it happened unseen.
We know the real you now, Thomas. You are just as, if not more dirty, than any Vancouver player you can point to.
I am P'O'ed.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
that was as cheap as they get slozo i agree
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 19:37:55
Thomas does not deserve it. Brutal sportsmanship with that butt end . . . and damn sneaky to make sure it happened unseen.
We know the real you now, Thomas. You are just as, if not more dirty, than any Vancouver player you can point to.
I am P'O'ed.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 18:01:27
the only way Thomas loses the conn smyth is if he lays a major egg in the finals after watching period number 1 i think he is a lock to win it, he s playin buissness as usual Timmy T hge we be solid to the end win or lose and he will walk away with some hardware regardless of the score
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Guest2712 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:58:38
It'll be Thomas no matter who wins tonight. Simply put he's been the most consistent player throughout the playoffs, most especially in the finals. Right now, no one else stands out as much as he does. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:45:23
After last game, it's ALL Thomas' for sure. Too little too late for Kesler or anyone else for that matter. Even a hat trick or OT goal wouldn't be enough as he hasn't put up the points necessary and hasn't had a high profile guy to shut down like he did Toews / Thornton in other rounds.
Even though it's a four round trophy and not just the finals, no Canucks player has stepped up enough to grab it, in fact Burrows is prob closer to Thomas than Kesler is, though lets face it, not many writers would ever vote for him regardless of what he did! |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 09:23:28
I agree with the most recent guest's posting. Even if Vancouver were to win and score 6 or 7 goals on Thomas, I think Thomas still wins the Conn Smythe.
But as Alex pointed our earlier, if Kesler does something special tonight (i.e. 2 or more goals, or 3 or more big points), he could tip the scales away from Thomas, but I don't see that happening. |
| Guest9215 |
Posted - 06/15/2011 : 08:11:35
This is one trophy that is not up for grabs. After tonites game you will be seeing Thomas holding the Conn Smythe trophy along with the Stanley Cup. |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 07:45:16
Think of how much more difficult this will be as a decision if Thomas loses either tonight or Wed by a lopsided score . . . with a couple of softies getting let in. Then you might as well pick from a hat - Luongo, Thomas, Kesler, Daniel Sedin, Burrows . . .
However, that's not very likely. If it's a low scoring game tonight and very close, even if the Canucks win, it'll be Thomas, IMHO. If the Bruins win and it goes to game 7, no matter what I think Thomas wins (if not for some incredible heroics by Kesler or Burrows or Daniel Sedin, perhaps).
And if the Bruins manage to win two straight, you don't have anything to think about, it's Thomas.
So, being the betting man I am, I'd give Thomas a 78% chance of winning the Conn Smyth at this time.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/13/2011 : 07:04:45
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/06/13/mendes_on_luongo/
Ian Mendes wrote a compelling bit about considerations for Luongo (should Vancouver win), and I am somewhat swayed, he makes some good points. Still think it will go to Thomas though. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 18:10:32
quote:
I'm not sure if he's a shoo-in to win it. It's ironic though that if he does, it's more to do with no Canuck stepping up thus far in the finals to make a statement.
Yeah, thats most of it - no one Canuck has dominated in any of their wins except for Luongo, but those 2 games in Boston make it hard to give it to him over an exceptional Tim Thomas.
I know its over the entire post season, but the way Thomas has kept his team in every game this round - despite being down now 3-2 - has been remarkable. Even if Luongo wins it tomorrow night with a shutout, I think Thomas is still the favourite. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 15:23:13
I'm not sure if he's a shoo-in to win it. It's ironic though that if he does, it's more to do with no Canuck stepping up thus far in the finals to make a statement. The goalies who've won it on losing teams, from what i recall, were stellar throughout the playoffs, not just the finals. I'm not saying TT played poorly in the other rounds, but he did give up 5 goals to Tampa in 4 of the 7 games!
I could still see Kesler winning it but he might need to do something special in the next game (or game 7 if necessary) to claim it! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 11:46:03
quote:
Lou has 4 shutouts 2 in the final series stole a huge game 5 to get the team back on track! I think he is worthy for consideration. Thomas has been simply better tho and reminds me a bit of when Hextall won it!!
He is worthy for consideration for sure, last night was an awesome comeback game for him and the team - the second time he's answered the bell this playoffs in pivotal games after meltdowns. Given the railroading he got after the two BOS games in the press, and given the pressure he faces all the time in this city, its quite a remarkable feat. |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 10:55:11
Lou has 4 shutouts 2 in the final series stole a huge game 5 to get the team back on track! I think he is worthy for consideration. Thomas has been simply better tho and reminds me a bit of when Hextall won it!!
Either choice is a good selection IMO. |
|
|
