rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/17/85)
<<< he shoots, he SCORES >>>
Well, the Islanders showed all the doomsayers a thing or two in
tonight's game. They beat the Capitals 2-1 with great goaltending
and good checking. Don't let the number of shots on goal mislead
you, a lot of the Capital shots were from the perimeter, and there
weren't a lot of rebounds. Now to beat the Flyers - shouldn't be
too hard. It's too bad Washington and the Islanders had to meet so
soon - a 5 game series is a crime.
--
Rick Gillespie
rick@ucla-cs
...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
"She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/17/85)
I forgot to mention in the previous article that the Islanders are now
the first (and only, the Sabres *choked*) team to lose the first two
games of a best of 5 series and then win the last 3.
--
Rick Gillespie
rick@ucla-cs
...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
"She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (04/22/85)
I, quite frankly, think the Islanders were lucky to get past Washington in the 5th game. The number of shots on goal is not misleading - the Islanders were completely (with the exception of 10 minutes in the 2nd period) outplayed by Washington. Smith was the main reason for them winning the game. The Capitals came very close to tying the game in the third period - many of their really good opportunities came as a direct result of their speed over the Islanders. The 1984-85 Islanders are SLOW compared to teams like the Flyers and Oilers, and (past) playoff experience only goes so far against youth and speed. The longer the playoffs go, the harder it will be for the Islanders compared to other teams. There's a limit to the amount of punishment Smith can take (remember what happened to the Islanders in the finals last year). I find your predictions for the eventual Stanley Cup winner to be quite amusing. On the one hand, you predict, based on their playoff experience, the Islanders will knock off the #1 Flyers en route to winning the Stanley Cup, while in the same article you have the Oilers (who are the defending Stanley Cup champions and two-year-in-a-row Stanley Cup finalists) getting knocked out in the semi-finals by a team which barely finished about .500. Playoff experience? Seems to me these predictions are being based totally on team loyalties (I know you dislike the Oilers as much as I dislike the Islanders) and wishful thinking. Even if the Islanders get into the finals, I wish them luck (with their speed) controlling Gretzky, Coffey, Kurri, Messier, Anderson, and Napier. Myself, I still stand by my prediction: Flyers in '85 (although my heart is saying 'GO OILERS!!'). Robert Lake (alberta!lake) University of Alberta
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/26/85)
In article <459@alberta.UUCP> lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) writes (about my predictions for the series winners in the playoffs): > ... >I find your predictions for the eventual Stanley Cup winner to be quite >amusing. On the one hand, you predict, based on their playoff experience, >the Islanders will knock off the #1 Flyers en route to winning the Stanley >Cup, while in the same article you have the Oilers (who are the defending >Stanley Cup champions and two-year-in-a-row Stanley Cup finalists) getting >knocked out in the semi-finals by a team which barely finished about .500. >Playoff experience? Seems to me these predictions are being based totally >on team loyalties (I know you dislike the Oilers as much as I dislike the >Islanders) and wishful thinking. Of course my predictions are colored by my favorite teams, but with a little logic thrown in. The Islanders are not a bunch of crotchety old men who can barely walk - there are 6 rookies on the team right now, although they don't always get to play a lot (and one is hurt but should be back soon (like the next series :-))). Yes they have been playing badly, I never did like this "turn it on for the playoffs" stuff. But Philadelphia has been making them play badly - I've already expressed my admiration for the job they have been doing. But I look at it this way - the Flyers are playing as well as they can (if not better), and quite frankly the Islanders haven't played very well. If I were the Flyer coach (after last night's 6-2 Isle win) I wouldn't let any of my players read the newspapers - they might start to believe the Islanders can win when they really want to. As for Chicago vs the Oilers. Hands up anyone who believes the Hawks are really a .500 team? Ok, put your hand down Rob. This team had a ton of injuries this year (they were missing the entire left side for quite a while), and were saddled with a coach they didn't want to win for (no flames about how pros shouldn't do that - look what a coach can do in Philadelphia). The Hawks are a young (in many cases), tough, fast (there you go Rob) team with a lot of talent. If they can't give Edmonton a tough time (assuming they don't get hit with the tradional pre-Oiler injury jinx) then who will? And when the Chicago Stadium gets rockin' to that pipe organ - WATCH OUT! > >Even if the Islanders get into the finals, I wish them luck (with their >speed) controlling Gretzky, Coffey, Kurri, Messier, Anderson, and Napier. > Assuming the Oilers actually make it :-). >Myself, I still stand by my prediction: Flyers in '85 (although my heart >is saying 'GO OILERS!!'). > Robert Lake (alberta!lake) If the Flyers win the Cup this year then Keenan should be cannonized! That is one hell of a coaching job to do, and he has already done a great one! -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (04/29/85)
> Of course my predictions are colored by my favorite teams, but with a > little logic thrown in. ... I agree, a LITTLE logic was thrown in (but only a little). (:-)) > ... The Islanders are not a bunch of crotchety > old men who can barely walk - there are 6 rookies on the team right I can't attest to their walking ability, but their skating ability lately has left much to be desired. > ... But I look at it this > way - the Flyers are playing as well as they can (if not better), and > quite frankly the Islanders haven't played very well. I maintain the reason for this is that they are being outskated by the Flyers. Now that the Islanders have been eliminated, I would think it is time for a general house-cleaning to occur with them, as they aren't going to improve as long as they've got most of their veterans. I know it is difficult to dissassemble a former dynasty, but I think the Islander management will have to look very closely at the likes of Gillies, Nystrom, Persson, Bourne, Kallur, Potvin, and yes, even Trottier (oops, did I just name the entire team? (:-)). The way I see it, either you have a former dynasty, or you have a Stanley Cup competitor. Maybe if they got rid of Potvin and Smith I might begin to like the team again. > As for Chicago vs the Oilers. Hands up anyone who believes the Hawks > are really a .500 team? Ok, put your hand down Rob. This team had a Thanks, my hand was getting quite tired. I watched the game last night and I can't see the Oilers having any problems against a team that can blow a 4-0 lead AT HOME (!!!). And this is with all their regular players active. Sorry Rick, I agree injuries did hurt them a lot, but they still aren't playing hockey worth much more than the approximate .500 record they displayed during the regular season. If they manage to get past Minnesota (which is not at all certain right now) I think the Oilers will sweep the series against them. > ... (assuming they don't get hit with the tradional pre-Oiler injury > jinx) Pre-Oiler injury jinx? Granted the Jets were missing Hawerchuk, but who were the Kings missing? Robert Lake (alberta!lake) University of Alberta