rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/29/85)
<<< 2 minutes for hurting the ice >>>
The Islander dynasty is dead having been eliminated by the Philadelphia
Flyers 1-0 in the fifth game. I hate to take anything away from the Flyers
victory (this isn't sour grapes, honest) but the game was won on a goal
that should never have been allowed - really too bad. But regardless, the
Flyers are an excellent team and should make the finals easily when they
meet the survivor of Montreal-Quebec.
What does this mean to the Islanders? Well, Arbor will now retire as he
really wanted to last year. Brian Kilrea will pilot the new Islander
era. Several minor leaguers (what ever happened to Dave Simpson?) will
get a chance to play with the following veterans almost certain to be gone:
Clark Gillies - Torrie will pawn him off for draft picks
Anders Kallur - simply gone, not much trade potential
Bob Nystrom - retirement?
Gord Lane - over-stayed his welcome
The players who definitely WON'T be gone:
Mike Bossy
Bryan Trottier
Denis Potvin
Brent Sutter
Pat Lafontaine
Patrick Flatley
Kelly Hrudey
The first three ARE the Islanders, there is no way they will be gone before
they retire. The last four are the best young players on the team. Anyone
else on the team could go or stay. And don't forget the Islanders will
have 2 first round picks (5th and 13th overall). There will definitely
be a different looking team on Long Island next year - can they be next
year's Philadelphia Flyers?
--
Rick Gillespie
rick@ucla-cs
...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
"She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/29/85)
In article <5092@ucla-cs.ARPA> Richard Gillespie <rick> writes: > >The Islander dynasty is dead having been eliminated by the Philadelphia >Flyers 1-0 in the fifth game. I hate to take anything away from the Flyers >victory (this isn't sour grapes, honest) but the game was won on a goal >that should never have been allowed - really too bad. Well, the island finally sank. What I like the Flyers is they beat the Isles with their style: great defense and goaltending. They could protect a slim one-goal lead in the 3rd and 5th game. Don't think the win is a fluke because of Sinasalo's goal. You know even if that goal wasn't count, the Islanders would still have lost a 1-0 game in overtime (no matter how long it is). They simply couldn't beat Lindbergh. Not to mention the Flyers hit the post four times. This series prove some points: 1) The dynasty has long been over. You have to keep a dynasty by an excellent team, not by magical, lucky rallies, as Rick has dreamed. 2) The Flyers are playing the hockey that brought the Isles 4 Cups: stingy defense, while the Islander has lost fire. They don't have the intensity of the past. You have to play great defense with intensity. 3) Billy Smith was, but no longer is, the best money goalie in the playoffs. A goalie is only as good as the team in front of him. 4) As I said after the Caps-Isles series, whoever survived the series would get killed by the Flyers. The Caps have a struggling offense and a "blow-lead" defense. The Isles just don't have anything left. 5) I still stick with the Oilers. If their offense is at high gear (which is apparent after the Jets series), NO defense can stop them. This Oiler team can play defense too. They also have Grant Fuhr, who is as good as Pelle Lindbergh. -- Eddy Lor ...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor lor@ucla-locus.arpa
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/30/85)
In article <5101@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Kar-Wing Lor) writes: > > Well, the island finally sank. What I like the Flyers is >they beat the Isles with their style: great defense and >goaltending. They could protect a slim one-goal lead in the >3rd and 5th game. Don't think the win is a fluke because of Sinasalo's goal. >You know even if that goal wasn't count, the Islanders would still have >lost a 1-0 game in overtime (no matter how long it is). They >simply couldn't beat Lindbergh. Not to mention the Flyers hit >the post four times. I didn't say the Flyer win was a fluke, I said it was too bad it had to be on a goal that should never have been allowed. The game would have been much different in the third period if the Flyers had not been protecting their lead. Who knows what the final score would have been? Maybe 3-0 for Philadelphia, maybe 3-0 for the Islanders. And don't forget, the posts are part of a goalie's equipment :-). The Islanders hit some posts too! >1) The dynasty has long been over. You have to keep a dynasty by > an excellent team, not by magical, lucky rallies, as Rick has > dreamed. How can you say that the dynasty has long been over? 5 consecutive appearances in the '80s, and 9 semi-final appearances in 11 years, should been pretty convincing. And the sign of a great team is one that finds a way to win even when things are not going well. I think the Islanders have shown that in the past. But now it is time to retool the machine. >3) Billy Smith was, but no longer is, the best money goalie in > the playoffs. A goalie is only as good as the team in front of him. Wait. Are you saying he is was a good goalie, or had a good team in front of him? Make up your mind. It looks like Hrudey is ready to take over though. He played 3 (maybe 4, I'm not sure) games in this year's playoffs and lost 2 when someone crashed into him in the crease. (Maybe we start to understand why Smith was so aggressive with his stick - he has to protect himself). >4) As I said after the Caps-Isles series, whoever survived the series > would get killed by the Flyers. The Caps have a struggling offense > and a "blow-lead" defense. The Isles just don't have anything > left. How right you are. And the next series will be a mercy killing of the Montreal-Quebec survivor. >5) I still stick with the Oilers. If their offense is at high gear > (which is apparent after the Jets series), NO defense can stop them. > This Oiler team can play defense too. They also have Grant Fuhr, > who is as good as Pelle Lindbergh. Is that the same "NO defense" that the Islanders used 2 years ago when the Oilers were billed as the most awesome team of all time? Good, and I mean GOOD TEAM, defense will almost always beat offense. There have been plenty of examples. The Oilers do have Fuhr, but has anyone been running at him the way the Flyers have been going after goalies this year? He has been known to get intimidated. As for Lindbergh - he is not Bernie Parent, and that will be shown before the playoffs are over. So far the Flyers have been able to climb on his back, but will he break before the end? -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/01/85)
>>1) The dynasty has long been over. You have to keep a dynasty by >> an excellent team, not by magical, lucky rallies, as Rick has >> dreamed. > >How can you say that the dynasty has long been over? 5 consecutive >appearances in the '80s, and 9 semi-final appearances in 11 years, >should been pretty convincing. The dynasty was officially over after game 3 of last year's championship series. That was quite a long time. Is this year's Islanders still part of the dynasty? Forget it! >And the sign of a great team is one >that finds a way to win even when things are not going well. >the Islanders have shown that in the past. But now it is time to >retool the machine. A truly great team simply won't have things not going well. Look at the 1976 Cincinatti Reds (7-0), 1983 Philadelphia 76ers (12-1), 1983 LA Raiders, and the 1985 Detroit Tigers (7-1), they simply breezed through the playoffs. A team that rallies from 0-3 to win 4-3, 0-2 to win 3-2 is, to its credit, a great team. But it is also lucky to have played a team that can find a way to lose. Only perennial losers like the Penguins or the Caps can do that. Have you ever seen teams like the Canadiens, the Celtics or your own Islanders blowing such leads at their prime? >>3) Billy Smith was, but no longer is, the best money goalie in >> the playoffs. A goalie is only as good as the team in front of him. > >Wait. Are you saying he is was a good goalie, or had a good team in >front of him? Make up your mind. Both. During the 4 cup years, the islanders was terrific as a team and Smith was splendid at the net. But in at least two series (last year vs Oilers, this year vs Flyers), the team has been awful, whether Smith was a good goalie is irrelevant. As somebody else in the net said, a goalie can only take a certain amount of punishment. >>5) I still stick with the Oilers. If their offense is at high gear >> (which is apparent after the Jets series), NO defense can stop them. >> This Oiler team can play defense too. They also have Grant Fuhr, >> who is as good as Pelle Lindbergh. > >Is that the same "NO defense" that the Islanders used 2 years ago when >the Oilers were billed as the most awesome team of all time? >Good, and I mean GOOD TEAM, defense will almost always beat offense. >There have been plenty of examples. No, I mean the awesome Islanders "Defense" of last year. Last year's islanders defense is not as bad and crippled as you said. They beat the Rangers, the Caps and the Canadiens (5-2, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1) basically by defense. In the first two games in the finals, they gave up only 2 goals (0-1, 6-1). In other words, they only gave up 7 goals in a string of six games before the bubble burst. Till then, they conceded 41 goals in 18 games (2.27 gaa). Is that enough evidence of good defense? Then what happened? The Oilers knocked in 7 goals in the 3rd game. Once the Oilers turned to high gear and proved that they could crack the Islander defense, there was no look back. In fact, that game was the turning point of the series and the Islanders' fate. They could not stop the blowouts in games 4 & 5. You are talking about the Oilers of '83, while I am taking about the one of '84 and a more matured one of '85. Which one is more applicable? I like the Oilers because they defy the physics of hockey: You have to win with defense. They just prove otherwise. Fortunately you said "ALMOST" in your statement "Good, and I mean good team, defense will ALMOST always beat offense." They are just a good counter example. I agree with you statement in general. But I also said NO defense will beat the '85 Oilers' offense. Notice the difference. >It looks like Hrudey is ready to >take over though. He played 3 (maybe 4, I'm not sure) games in this >year's playoffs and lost 2 when someone crashed into him in the crease. Also, it seems you are very bitter about the officiating. The dynasty is not overthrown by the officials. They simply don't take Billy Smith's acting anymore. I don't know the other incidents, but Mike Gartner's 2-OT goal against Hrudy was definitely legal. Greg Adams (Caps forward) was pushed onto Hrudy by Gord Dineen, resulting in the interference (this was obvious after looking at numerous replays.) This incident was the fault of Dineen instead of Adams, and correctly resulted in the no-calls from the officials. You can only blame your own guy. -- A diehard Cap fan and a diehard Islander hater! -- Eddy Lor ...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor lor@ucla-locus.arpa
lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (05/02/85)
> The Islander dynasty is dead having been eliminated by the Philadelphia > Flyers 1-0 in the fifth game. The Oilers laid the Islanders in the coffin in the 1984 Stanley Cup finals - this year the Flyers nailed the coffin shut. Rest in Peace. > ... (this isn't sour grapes, honest) but the game was won on a goal > that should never have been allowed - really too bad. Both this goal and the 2nd OT goal against Washington were perfectly leg- itimate goals - in both cases the interference on the Islander goaltender was caused by an Islander player. I wonder what you would be saying if Islanders had scored instead. > The players who definitely WON'T be gone: > Mike Bossy > Bryan Trottier > Denis Potvin > The first three ARE the Islanders, there is no way they will be gone before > they retire. Sure they won't be gone before they retire. However, especially in the case of Trottier, some of them may soon be pressured by management to "retire". Robert Lake (alberta!lake) University of Alberta
lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (05/02/85)
Sorry Rick, perhaps I've been too hard on you and the Islanders. Maybe I can make amends by contributing to your eulogy of the late New York Islander dynasty (we might as well do this formally): __________ / \ / REST \ / IN \ / PEACE \ / \ | The New York | | Islanders | | 1980-1985 | | killed by the | | Flyers | | April 28, 1985 | *| * * * | * ________)/\\_//(\/(/\)/\//\/|_)_______
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/05/85)
In article <469@alberta.UUCP> lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) writes: >The Oilers laid the Islanders in the coffin in the 1984 Stanley Cup >finals - this year the Flyers nailed the coffin shut. Rest in Peace. Sorry, they won't rest in peace, they will simply retool and come back. >Both this goal and the 2nd OT goal against Washington were perfectly leg- >itimate goals - in both cases the interference on the Islander goaltender >was caused by an Islander player. I wonder what you would be saying if >Islanders had scored instead. I cannot make a statement about the goal by Washington in overtime because I never saw it (not even a replay). However, I DID see the Flyer goal and there is no way in h*ll you can convince me that an Islander pushed Zezel(?) into Hrudey. He was completely untouched - the closest anyone came to him was that an Islander defenceman (Dineen?) was standing in front of the net and so the Flyer could not skate out front without running into him. This goal was a CLEAR case of interference ... and it wasn't called. > However, especially in the >case of Trottier, some of them may soon be pressured by management to >"retire". Rob may be the only person (well, maybe there are a few other loonies :-)) that thinks Trottier is finished. Want to bet on that one Rob? I say he has another 100+ point season next year! -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."