Stanley Cup Finals Preview: New York vs. Los Angeles

[RaychelSnr]

It's been 20 years since the New York Rangers have been to the Stanley Cup Finals (where they beat the Vancouver Canucks in 1994), but they'll get another chance at glory as they face 2012 Stanley Cup winners the Los Angeles Kings. The Kings continue to play a firebrand style of hockey, so that's always welcome, but it will be interesting to see a relative newcomer out of the east, since New York has had the underachiever (read: choker) label for quite some time.

Read More - Stanley Cup Finals Preview: New York vs. Los Angeles

[DrJones]

The Kings play a "firebrand" style? It's "firewagon", and no they don't. The Rangers have a reputation of being chokers? Who's writing this stuff?

[Wiggy]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

The Kings play a "firebrand" style? It's "firewagon", and no they don't. The Rangers have a reputation of being chokers? Who's writing this stuff?

I'll admit I was being a bit loose with the term, but firebrand is a word, just so you know. I'm aware of firewagon hockey. I was referring to their style causing trouble for other teams (and that they can play a "big" game).

The last time I checked, the Rangers haven't won the cup in 20 years, including numerous "Did Not Qualify" seasons and plenty of quarter-final exits (and some semfinal game 7 defeats). Sounds like a team who squandered a lot of potentially good seasons in a weaker conference (hence, they sometimes "choke.")

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wiggy

I'll admit I was being a bit loose with the term, but firebrand is a word, just so you know. I'm aware of firewagon hockey. I was referring to their style causing trouble for other teams (and that they can play a "big" game).

Yeah, I know. No offence meant (I assumed this had been written by EA), but it still strikes me as odd.

Quote: Originally Posted by Wiggy

The last time I checked, the Rangers haven't won the cup in 20 years, including numerous "Did Not Qualify" seasons and plenty of quarter-final exits (and some semfinal game 7 defeats). Sounds like a team who squandered a lot of potentially good seasons in a weaker conference (hence, they sometimes "choke.")

Since winning the Cup in '94, the Rangers are 5-1 in Game 7's. I mean, I guess you could say any team that didn't win the Cup in the last 20 years is a "choker", but 2012 is the only real contender the Rangers have had since then. The Sharks, Capitals, Canucks, and Senators (plus arguably the Blues) have had several powerhouse squads in the last decade or two that lost in agonizing, horrendous fashion. They've been chokers. The Rangers have merely been middling.

[Wiggy]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

Yeah, I know. No offence meant (I assumed this had been written by EA), but it still strikes me as odd. Since winning the Cup in '94, the Rangers are 5-1 in Game 7's. I mean, I guess you could say any team that didn't win the Cup in the last 20 years is a "choker", but 2012 is the only real contender the Rangers have had since then. The Sharks, Capitals, Canucks, and Senators (plus arguably the Blues) have had several powerhouse squads in the last decade or two that lost in agonizing, horrendous fashion. They've been chokers. The Rangers have merely been middling.

None taken. I probably could've chosen better words in both cases. The first word was just what came to mind. LA plays kind of an exciting, disruptive style, but alas. They certainly aren't boring =)

As for New York, I agree that that's probably a strong word. I still think a lot of their potential has been squandered in early exits or times where they had a good late-season push. Still, I know what you're saying. They definitely aren't that in the traditional sense of the word.

[TDNY]

Players to Watch

LA: Marian Gaborik

NY: Marty St. Louis

X-Factor: Henrik Lundqvist

Prediction: Rangers in 6

[Zer0 C00lness]

L.A. Kings in 5.

[sinacosmath]

good,I know what you're saying. They definitely aren't that in the traditional sense of the word.thanks