Horton Hears a Boom

Colin Campbell is gone, but the idiocy continues. Rome shouldn’t have been suspended for his hit on Horton last night. If one thinks the Rome hit last night was dirty, then he must also think the Chara hit on Pacioretty earlier this season was dirty. There’s no way around that. Both hits were late (but we’re talking fractions of a second here), but neither was a blindside hit and neither targeted the head. According to those who analyze the replays, from release of the puck to contact, last night’s hit was 28 frames. 30 is a full second. It was delivered towards Horton’s chest leading with the shoulder (exactly the way every hockey player is taught to hit), and it was absolutely not a blindside hit so Rule 48 doesn’t apply. Was it a hard hit? Yes, absolutely. Was it malicious? Debateable. However, it wasn’t deserving of a suspension. Maybe it was worthy of a 2 minute minor for roughing or interference.

The NHL suspends now based on result rather than intent, and they even admitted it. That’s a dangerous precedent to set. They were scared not to issue a suspension for this hit since people were STILL talking about the alleged bite by Burrows. Here’s the quote from the NHL: "Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," NHL senior vice president of hockey operations Mike Murphy said in a statement Tuesday. "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck and it caused a significant injury." Now, you can see how inconsistent the NHL is. The key factors are lateness and the significance of the injury you say, Mr. Murphy? That noise you just heard are the protests of Montreal Canadiens fans wondering why Chara’s “late” hit on Pacioretty which caused “significant injury” was not worthy of a suspension as well since it meets both of the stated criteria. It’s hard to argue with them. The NHL’s dartboard system of justice is absurd. There are no standards, and from case to case it’s anybody’s guess what the NHL will decide. This is just the latest example. It seems every few weeks the NHL molds it’s “factors” to meet whatever punishment they wish to hand down. Last night’s hit reminded me a lot of some of the hits that Scott Stevens delivered during his career, concussing many players but not receiving any suspensions or even penalties. It’s amazing how much has changed.

Thoughts prior to Game 3...

I’ve felt throughout these playoffs that the Bruins are a team that is only as good as their opponent allows them to be. It’s not a team that will dazzle with offensive skill. They rely on solid, unspectacular defense and Thomas’ acrobatics in goal. This is a team whose power play for the most part has been designed around using arguably their best player (Chara) as a giant annoyance in front of the goalie. Their isn’t anything pretty about the Bruins style of play. If Thomas isn’t excellent, the Bruins have difficulty winning. Thus far in the Final, I feel as if the Bruins haven’t been particularly good or particularly bad. They’ve been only as good as the Canucks have allowed them to be. I still don’t think we have seen the Canucks best effort. For the most part, I thought they were fairly lifeless for most of Game 2. It was right off the face-off prior to their second goal that they suddenly came to life. Their power play hasn’t looked anything like it did against the Sharks, and their defensemen, particularly Bieksa, haven’t impressed me. I think we’ll see the Canucks best effort tonight in Game 3. For the Bruins to win, Thomas is going to have to steal this one.

Will the “biting” incident commentary ever cease? Milbury wouln’t shut up about it in Game 2. With Burrows scoring two goals, Lapierre taunting Bergeron with his glove, and Julien now jumping in to question the sportsmanship of the Canucks, it seems as if this is going to hang over the rest of the series. Personally, I cracked up when Laperierre offered Bergeron the chance to take a bite with a big smile on his face. One thing that has been on my mind recently is whether or not this disciplinary decision would have been different had Colin Campbell still been at the helm. I never like Campbell. I thought he did a terrible job establishing any sort of standard with his disciplinary decsisions, and I am thrilled that he is gone. The one good thing he did was step down before his son’s team started playing in the Final. In the past he recused himself when disciplinary decisions involved his son’s team. Big deal. To me, this is the equivalent of having a judge recuse himself from a criminal case involving his son and leaving his law clerk in charge. The people making the decision in Campbell’s office were still working for him! The appearance of impropriety was still there, and it never sat well with me. I think the league got this right. I’m just amazed people are giving Burrows such a hard time when it was Bergeron who shoved his fingers into Burrows’ mouth. Maybe someone will shove his fingers into Mike Milbury’ mouth so he’ll shut up about it already.

Game 3 should be great tonight. The Bruins will be desperate as they certainly want to avoid going down 0-3. We will see if they are capable of reaching another level. Thomas’ aggressiveness is still something to watch. He and his teammates are saying all the right things, but I wonder if he’s starting to question if he’s being too aggressive. I’m actually surprised that the Canucks haven’t been more vocal in their complaints. I thought for sure Thomas was going to get a penalty with approximately 11 minutes left in Game 2 when I watched him skate beyond the top of his crease, outside the blue paint, and directly into Daniel Sedin, sending him head over heels. If the refs are going to let Thomas get away with that, they’ll let him get away with anything. They need to be awfully careful about calling any goalie interference penalties on the Canucks as it appears that most of the interference is actually initiated by Thomas. I’ll take the Canucks to win 4-1 in their best offensive performance of the series.

Be Aggressive?

The goal to end Game 1 came as a result of a nifty pass, but it was Tim Thomas' aggressiveness that really caught the eye of the Canucks. In fact, the Canucks coach, Alain Vigneault, stated that the Canucks wanted clarification regarding Rule 69.4 and what is (and isn't) allowed with regard to contact with Thomas outside the goal crease after Burrows was called for a penalty in Game 1. In an AP article it was noted that:

As for Thomas's tendency to charge out of his net, the Canucks believe they can target it for goals. His challenge on Jannik Hansen left Torres with an empty net driving backdoor for the winning goal Wednesday.

"We can't take runs at him even though he's outside," Hansen said. "It's a matter of being careful. If he's out there, there should be room around him and behind him, so it's something we can take advantage of as well."

Only 11 seconds into OT Burrows took control of a nice chip off the boards and barreled in on Thomas. It was actually quite reminiscent of the rush on the goal he scored to end their series with the Blackhawks. However, this time instead of blasting a shot he faked one and had Thomas completely at his mercy. The scouting reports certainly paid off. Thomas was left flopping like a fish while Burrows went behind the net. Ironically the fact that Burrows lost control of the puck helped him. He was able to curl behind the net as the puck took a perfect bounce off the boards right back to him. Chara's size was a weakness here as he was unable to match Burrows speed and agility behind the net as Burrows regained control of the puck and deposited it into the empty net as Thomas tried in vain to scramble back to the net.

Thomas certainly won't change the way that he plays. He had a phenomenal season, and is probably the favorite to win his second Vezina trophy. Nevertheless, the Canucks seem to have found a way to use his strength against him, and at a stage when the difference between victory and defeat is extremely slim, every little edge helps. Two games now have been decided by 1 goal, and both of of those goals have come as a result of the Canucks using Thomas' aggressiveness against him.

Low Scoring Excitement

Canucks Take Game 1 On Late Torres Goal

It seemed like this was exactly what the Bruins envisioned. As last night's game went on I felt like it was inevitable the Bruins were going to score a late goal and win 1-0. This was going to be a replay of their Game 7 against the Lightning. However, to my surprise, it was the Canucks with the late goal to stun the Bruins and give the Canucks the 1-0 series lead in a very exciting Game 1.

I'm not going out on a limb in making the assertion the Canucks have much more offensive firepower than the Bruins. However, we have two Norris trophy finalists in the nets here, and they did not disappoint. I think many people who didn't watch last night's game and saw the score this morning would jump to the conclusion that it wasn't a very exciting game simply based on the fact that there wasn't a goal scored until 19 seconds were left in the game. I know I have been guilty of doing that occasionally, but there's a reason they say never to assume. This was an exciting first game to start the series. The Canucks had a great chance a mere 20 seconds in, but Thomas made the first of many great saves to prevent the Canucks from getting on an early roll. I think that those early saves by Thomas coupled with the double minor the Canucks were forced to kill off really tamed the Canucks. They came out flying, and it reminded me of Game 1 in their series against the Hawks. Had one of those early chances gone in, it might have been a very different game. The more saves Thomas made, the more cute the Canucks tried to be with their shots. The five-hole just simply wasn't there. I think the Canucks will stop trying to go five-hole as frequently. Thomas had that locked down in Game 1.

In his assessment today, Barry Melrose stated that the Bruins and their fans should be happy with the game. They did "everything but win." I respectfully disagree. This was exactly the game the Bruins needed to win. The Bruins won the series against Tampa because they were able to steal Game 2 thanks to atrocious defense and goaltending by the Lightning. It was inevitable that Thomas would steal a couple of 2-1 or 1-0 type games, and he did. However, the Lightning needed to take advantage of the high scoring games to get wins. When they scored 5 in Game 2 and still lost, I knew that would cost them, and it did. In this series, I think this was exactly the type of game the Bruins needed to win. The fact they played their type of hockey game and not only lost, but couldn't score a single goal, is not something to be excited about. That's 1 goal in the last 120 minutes of hockey for the Bruins. Their power play looked decent, but still couldn't put the puck in the net. I still think this has the potential to be a long series, but if the Canucks get an early goal in game 2, look out. For the Bruins to win Game 2, they'll need to at least equal their performance from last night. I don't think that was the Canucks best effort, and I have a hunch that Game 2 will be much more high scoring than Game 1, despite the Vezina trophy finalists in the nets.

Bitegate

Pierre McGuire loves to pick a topic during the game and pounce on it like a rabid dog. He speaks about it with such seriousness and conviciton that he sounds like he's leading troops into battle. It drives me nuts. He did it again last night when Burrows and Bergeron had their little altercation. Pierre instantly was calling for a suspension to Burrows. I can understand calling for a suspension when you see a blatant headshot or a stomp to the leg, but on a bite that wasn't even visible on camera? Come on, Pierre. Even on NHL Home Ice they were saying that biting "has no place in hockey" and that Burrows should get suspended. You know what else has no part in hockey? Shovign your disgusting fingers in someone else's mouth! That is exactly what Bergeron did. You got bit? Tough luck. If my arms were being held and someone shoved their fingers into my mouth, I would do whatever is necessary to get them removed as quickly as possible, and that includes biting. I've never been in that situation, but it might even be a natural response to bite when someone is forcing something into your mouth. I was glad to hear that Burrows would not be suspended. I watched the replay several times, and it's unclear that he bit Bergeron's finger. The only thing that is certain is that Bergeron shoved his fingers into Burrows' mouth. While we're discussing suspensions, why not at least discuss suspending Krejci for a blatant cross-check on a defenseless Hamhuis, who did not return afterwards.

Ratings

Last night's game received the highest rating for a Finals game since 1999. The real hockey fans are watching these games no matter what. However, this is an indication that maybe the sport is starting to see some fan growth as a result of the quality of the product. No Crosby, No Ovechkin, no massive market, and still a high rating.

With the Thrashers leaving Atlanta, it's easy to chalk that up to a failure of the strategy to grow hockey in non-traditional markets. It's more complicated than that. The Thrashers had decent attendence, but we'll never know how they would have done had they been more successful on the ice. Certianly the ownership group was very disliked by the Atlanta fans. I guess my worry will be that the NHL sees this rating and continues to just promote Crosby and Ovechkin to the detriment of the many other great players in the league and the quality of the game itself. Since the lockout ended, I think everyone would agree that the game is more exciting than ever. Let the game sell itself. People will realize how exciting it is when they are exposed to it. Just please don't continue to think that the only way to "grow" the game is by showing Crosby or Ovechkin (or both) every time that NBC has a game to air.