Redwing77's NHL Playoff Preview and First Round Predictions

Ok, here's where I run down my first round predictions and what I think of every NHL Playoff team.

First off, congrats to all of the teams who made it to the second season. So sorry, Dallas, thanks for playing. Perhaps Dave Tippett wasn't in fact the right answer...right? Hello? Uh... my bad.

Secondly, so sorry for the fans of the Minnesota Wild. For a while there you thought you had a chance at the postseason. Kindof like how the Timberwolves feel every opening day in the NBA. However, shortly thereafter, that feeling goes away.

Anyways, the teams and the matchups:

First, Tampa Bay vs. Pittsburgh:

Predictable I'm sure but... I don't want Pittsburgh to win. They are the media darling and everyone loves them, I guess. With Crosby out, the media, to their credit, has found that the Penguins do in fact have more than just Crosby and Malkin. They've now heaped massive amounts of praise on Marc-Andre Fleury. True to their claims, he has been rather good this year. And that's saying something considering I hold Fleury in only slightly better regard than Carey Price.

I'm going to go with my heart here and say that Tampa Bay takes it in 7. I know the media expects the Pens to win it, but... I like Tampa because they deserve it and it would be hilarious to see ESPN and NHL Network turn into apologists for Gary Bettman's team. Also, just for the record, I'd like Tampa to take the series WITH Crosby on the ice. I'd also love it if Malkin were playing too, but he's out for the season. This would eliminate the apologist claims that Crosby's absence was the key to the Lightning's success. As per form, the media is all over the Penguins' losses as due to injury to Crosby. There has never been a better team than Pittsburgh since Crosby was drafted and it is only to circumstance and injury trouble that the Penguins haven't gone undefeated in the years since Crosby came to Pittsburgh.

Next: Vancouver vs. Chicago

I want Chicago. I know Chicago is a rival of my Wings but I love the way they play and the way their team is set up. They're almost like the Anti-Red Wings in the fact that the Red Wings go for veterans and the Hawks go to youth. Toews is a monster and Kane's not bad either.

However, if it comes down to goaltending, I think Luongo (despite the choke jobs he's done in the past) will come away with the victory. Crawford has been great at times but consistency is an issue.

I predict: Chicago in 7

Rangers vs. Caps:

Ok, this is probably THE most likely upset of the first round. The Rangers are playing well and have a great goaltender. The Caps have Ovechkin and they have... did I mention Ovechkin? Their goaltending has to be the youngest trio in the playoffs... perhaps in the NHL? And inconsistency has been a real pain. If the Rangers were smart, they'd try to bog down the Caps offense and turn it into a defensive contest. If that happens, Rangers win.

Rangers in 6.

Nashville vs. Anaheim:

This is, in my opinion, the best first round matchup to be played "in the dark." Meaning, no TV coverage. Nashville is a nice story and Anaheim is boring. Yeah, they got Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf, and Bobby Ryan, but they are a one line wonder. Nashville has a goaltender. A darn good one. But that's it. I'm not sure anyone can name their first line.

Meh. I'm going to go with Keith Jones of the NHL Network and say that the Predators win their first playoff series just for kicks. They'll do it in 5.

Montreal vs. Boston

Montreal is Carey Price. Beat Price, and Les Habitants go away. Hey Bruins: Beat Price. Beat him like a rented mule. Make him throw hissy fits again. Make him shoot pucks at the opposing players during their goal celebratory hugs. And, while you're at it, do it while making Price look good enough that the Canadiens blow a ton of cash on an extension so that Price can return to the 3.00+ GAA and the .895 Save% for the remainder of his contract.

Boston in 6.

LA vs. San Jose:

Blah. I guess LA is banged up. I hear that San Jose doesn't have that great of goaltending. Niemi shines and SJ advances. I don't see them winning more than 3 games... because if they did, they'd advance.

I'm going to say Greene pulls it out in the end. LA in 7.

Buffalo vs. Philly:

Philly has goaltending issues. Buffalo has goal scoring issues. This series could be very interesting or a complete snoozefest. Philly enters with the goaltender most likely to be pulled in Game 1 for a backup in Bobobsky (I know I'm misspelling his last name). Miller might not be 100% but I'll take him in a second over any of Philly's goaltenders. Vanek needs to be hot and Stafford needs to be timely if Buffalo has a chance.

That being said, if Pronger returns, a Sabre will get injured and the Flyers will advance.

Philly in 6.

Phoenix vs. DA WINGS!!!!

The Wings are banged up. Datsyuk is back, thank god, but Zetterberg is out at least Game 1 and Franzen is colder than the arctic circle. Injury issues can be the death of the Wings because I don't trust the depth. Our depth is either too role player heavy or too old. Modano is what... 65? Howard is nice and all but he can let some doozies past him. At least he's not Wasgood (Osgood for you who don't know).

Bryzgalov is the better goaltender and I still think my wings are the better offensive talent.

I don't think the Wings will win it all this year. They're not 100% when they needed it the most. And they're not clicking as well either. I say they squeak past Phoenix and bow out again in the second round.

Detroit in 7.

Potential vs. Current Development, a RW77 Rant

Ok, I am feeling rantish today and I'm in need of some enlightenment from the reader base.

On and on throughout my online fandom, I've read post after post about fans expectations of collegiate players based upon draft status and position. I find this extremely laughable.

Here's my rant:

Draft position, or even the fact they were drafted, is only marginally relevant to the college game. It's not even all that relevant towards junior player-rostered international competition. Why?

The NHL is always trying to draft for "now" talent, but it's not all that often that there are those sitting around beyond, say, the top 5 picks overall, and that's not always the case even so. Those who are good enough for the NHL when they are drafted are usually signed by the NHL right away. There are exceptions, sure, but for the most part, they are drafted based upon potential... or what they're predicted to develop into.

With this in mind, it's amazing on how people can base whether or not a player has done well or is living up to expectations based upon when they were drafted. If they weren't drafted at all, then there is no such expectation. Talk about hypocrisy.

The most recent example is the fact that Finland hung in there with the US WJC team despite the US having more draft picks on the team. What does that have to do with anything?

Sure, the American players have a higher potential towards professional play according to NHL Scouts, but that's hardly what's being graded at the WJC. Remember, Herb Brooks had the option to put even "better" players on his 1980 Olympic team than he did, but he did not. Craig, the goaltender, IIRC, wasn't the best goaltender available to Brooks at the time. BTW, Craig didn't have an altogether stellar pro career either.

Why is draft stock held in so much higher regard towards expectation than the players' current level of development?

I'm reminded of the former Wild GM Risebrough (sp?) who talked about the potential of his team being the key to his system. Yet, year after year, the Wild sucked. Why? Because potential relates directly to the future... a future that isn't guaranteed, just predicted. Teams that want to win NOW sign players who are able to produce NOW. Much like why the Red Wings are so successful as of late. Yeah, they are older than the sky but their potential has been realized and Babcock can better assigned them into roles within the team that should bring the most success.

College Hockey deals almost exclusively in players who have not yet reached their potential. In fact, if they did before they reached DI, they're typically on the watch for being busts... (See Mike Fink, Sioux fans). Yet, if an NCAA player is drafted, especially if it is in the first round, they are expected to be absolute monsters right away. If they're not, or play differently than the expectations the fans build on them, they're usually criticized, more often or not, unfairly so.

It's one of the main challenges of being college fans. We want our players to play fantastic, win it all, etc. We bang our heads against the wall when the NHL takes notice and signs them early. But if the player takes a normal developmental curve, they're open for criticism for not being as good as a player who bolted early.

So what is it? Allow the players to play their game at the current developmental rate and criticize them according to their play or let draft status cloud our judgment and grade them according to what they should be X years down the road today?

It seems rather harsh to me.

A little Perspective on the NHL side of things

Ok, first, it's great to be on board with Goon and crew. And with that comes a "test" of our "seeing eye to eye." I want to give a little perspective on the NHL and my take on certain aspects. In other words, it's an opinion.

First: Pros and Amateur (NCAA or any other similar unpaid organized league) are night and day.

I am never one to have the same expectations between the pro teams I love (Red Wings, Devils, and a little Blackhawks...when they're not playing Detroit) and the amateur ones I love (such as the Sioux) but some of what I say would obviously contradict each other if put together.

Here's a great example: Attitude. It is a reasonable thing to believe that a pro team should win after bringing in big names and going about stating that they are going to be tough to beat. It compounds when the media buys into it. So, I have no problem feeling utter disgust towards the play of the Red Wings, injury-plagued or not. I have no such compulsion with the Sioux. They're main goal is to educate athletes and develop talent with 1a is winning. UND may have a great tradition of winning with 7 NCs and all, but I believe the greater tradition is the quality of athlete we send off to the pros be it the NHL, minors, or abroad. The world of NCAA hockey is a competitive learning environment. The victories are sweet and the defeat no less bitter, but they go off to the pros better people.

I can't claim complete superiority, but I look at the case of Jimmy Howard. He had a frustrating time at Maine. He did well, sure, but if Howard were on a team like DU or UND or perhaps BC, Minnesota or UW.... he'd've probably won it all in the NCAA but he didn't. Then got signed into an organization with depth. 3 time Stanley Cup champion Chris Osgood, world class backup Manny Legace...Uh... that's easy to crack right? Well, Legace left. In comes Hasek. No worries, spend time in Grand Rapids getting conditioned for the pros. Hasek takes 2 years. Then he goes. Oh good, now I can come in....oh wait... In comes Conklin. Now, Howard is in his first full year in the NHL and he's taken away the starting duties from Osgood. Is Maine a failure of an organization because, despite having a blue chip goaltender, they couldn't win it all? If I were a Maine fan (and I hear there are a TON of classy Maine fans about), I'd be proud of my program and proud that Howard chose Maine over BU or BC or Cornell (which is about as home town as he could have gotten being from Syracuse).

I am NOT saying that losing is ok provided that the players we recruit turn into great guys. I'm saying that we're out to win it all, sure, but if we fall short, we can fall back on the knowledge that, win the NC or not, the NHL and future aspiring NHLers know that UND's program is among the top for future pro development.