After Round 3, our only perfect picker is Matt, the guy who went ohfer just one round earlier.
| Doogie | Hoop | Matt | Gerard | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| 4-2 | 4-2 | 4-2 | 4-3 | 4-1 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| 4-2 | 4-2 | 4-3 | 4-3 | 4-0 |
| 1-1 | 1-1 | 2-0 | 1-1 | W-L |
| 7 | 7 | 4 | 7 | GO |
| 7-7 | 10-4 | 6-8 | 7-7 | W-L |
| 35 | 27 | 35 | 35 | GO |
Thankfully, we no longer have Montreal around to gum up the works yet again. This time, it’s just two teams, and hopefully a pretty straightforward selection. Fair warning: Hoop and I wrote novels. The important bits, as always, are in bold.
So of course, the first game where most of the ‘Hawks play like the ‘Hawks, and I miss it. Ah, well. Wednesday!
Stanley Cup Finals
(3) Chicago vs. (18) Philadelphia
Playoff History: The only previous meeting between the ‘Hawks and the Flyers came in the first round of the 1971 playoffs, when Chicago polished off the nascent Broad Street Bullies in four straight en route to their fourth Finals appearance in 11 years.
| 1971 QF |
|---|
![]() |
| 4-0 |
Stanley Cup History: The ‘Hawks have not exactly led a charmed life, winning just three Stanley Cups, the fewest of any Original Six team, and none since 1961, the longest active drought. They were also tied with the Rangers for the fewest Final series appearances by an Original Six team prior to this year, at ten. In fact, since making five appearances in 13 years during the Hull-Mikita-Esposito era (1961-73), the ‘Hawks had only been back to the Finals once, and that year, they ran into a buzzsaw.
| 1931 | 1934 | 1938 | 1944 | 1961 | 1962 | 1965 | 1971 | 1973 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| 2-3 | 3-1 | 3-1 | 0-4 | 4-2 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 2-4 | 0-4 |
Since the Broad Street Bullies’ reign of terror was silenced spectacularly by the Montreal Canadiens in 1976, the Flyers have become perennial Stanley Cup bridesmaids: they’ve now lost five consecutive Final series, and won only six games in the process, half of which came in the 1987 classic against Edmonton.
| 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1980 | 1985 | 1987 | 1997 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| 4-2 | 4-2 | 0-4 | 2-4 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 0-4 |
Season Series: The only meeting of the year between the ‘Hawks and Flyers came on March 13, a 3-2 win for the Flyers. Scott Hartnell tied the game with just over two minutes to play, then Chris Pronger scored the winner with just three seconds to go. Michael Leighton made 39 saves — and scored an assist — in the victory.
Doogie Says: The minute the Canadiens eliminated the Penguins in round two, I knew that the Stanley Cup champion was going to come from the West and that it probably wasn’t going to be even close, simply because the East, as a whole, is a shitty conference, and of all the teams there, the only ones that could hope to compete with a Western club had all been polished off by the underdogs. Washington, New Jersey, and Buffalo were all gone early, and with Pittsburgh following soon after, it was down to Montreal, Boston, and Philly, all of whom had made the playoffs in the last week, and none of whom exactly screamed contender.
I do fear that I may have underestimated the Flyers a bit. Certainly, I should’ve seen them coming last round, knowing how many games the Habs had played, and how the Flyers play, and how they’d underachieved due to goaltending injuries throughout the regular season. (I maintain that Ray Emery playing through an abdominal tear directly resulted in the firing of John Stevens back in December.) While they looked dead in the water in round two, with injuries to three important players in Gagne, Carter, and Laperriere, they outlasted the Bruins and staged that epic comeback, thanks in part to Simon Gagne making his dramatic comeback, and Michael Leighton stepping in flawlessly for injured Brian Boucher. Controlling the passive Habs four games out of five proved all too easy after that, especially with Laperriere and Carter making their way back in Game 4.
Yet ultimately, that’s precisely why I can’t lend too much credence to the Flyers as Finalists. Not to denigrate any of their accomplishments, but really, who did they beat? A New Jersey team they’d owned all year (5-1 in the regular season, 4-1 in the playoffs), an offensively inept Bruins team that lost what little it had when Krejci went down to injury, and a passive Canadiens squad that controlled the play exactly one game out of five. Colour me unimpressed. Furthermore, in that one game they did steal, the Habs showed us precisely how you beat the Flyers: move through the neutral zone with speed, dump and chase, forecheck aggressively, force the Philly defence to take penalties. Guess what the ‘Hawks are really good at?
Chicago’s had the much tougher road — Nashville is harder than anyone the Flyers faced, save maybe New Jersey, and it got meaner from there — and in the process of getting here, they’ve had their captain best the franchise record for single-season playoff points streak (13) and tie the franchise record for any playoff points streak, and tied an NHL record with seven consecutive road wins. They have superior skill at just about every position, save maybe goal, and as these playoffs have proven, you don’t need a great goalie to win it all, just good enough. They’ll test Michael Leighton (and Brian Boucher, should he make an appearance) far more than any of New Jersey, Boston, or Montreal did on a far more consistent basis. They’re just the better team all around, and I’ve seen nothing in any of the countering predictions to date that’s swayed me in the slightest. Philly can ride Leighton to victory in a single game, just like they did in the regular-season meeting mentioned above, but the bottom line is, Chicago is simply too much for anyone to handle. ‘Hawks win it in five, ending the longest active Stanley Cup drought and second-longest in NHL history, at 49 years.
Hoop Says: Let’s start in goal for both teams and it’s not exactly what you would call an elite goaltender match up with Antti Niemi for the Blackhawks and Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher for the Flyers. (Yes, I suspect we will see both Flyers goalies in the final) Niemi has been solid throughout the playoffs for the Hawks but never spectacular in my opinion. Leighton just came off what had to be the easiest three shut out performance in a series in the history of the sport. Needless to say I am not convinced at all in the Flyers goaltending as much as I am impressed by the Flyers defense corps. Advantage Hawks
Moving on to the defense for both teams, and this is a great match up! The Hawks’ top pair of Keith and Seabrook will have the task of shutting down the Richards line, while the pair of Chris Pronger and whatever stiff they throw out with him for the next shift [ed: Matt Carle at EV, Kimmo Timmonen on the PP] will be against the Toews line. It may be a bit of a cold hearted way to look at it, but from what I have seen it is true. Pronger is the Conn Smythe nominee for the Flyers with no hesitation in my mind, and he will see a lot of the Hawks’ nominee, Jonathan Toews. The Hawks can easily go five deep on the blue line while I think Pronger will have to play 45 minutes a night to give the Flyers a chance. Advantage Hawks
Moving up front, the Flyers’ Mike Richards has been great all post season for Philly. Philadelphia has also gotten some great play out of Claude Giroux, and Simon Gagne does pose enough of a threat that the Hawks’ D will have their hands full. Now you look at the Hawks and these guys are three lines deep and also have a solid fourth line. I am curious how the Flyers will try and handle Dustin Byfuglien in front of their net. The Sharks’ theory of “leave him alone” certainly did not work. I suspect that by the time this series is over, Byfuglien and Pronger will have a good hate for each other going. I just can’t see how the Flyers’ D will be able to hold up to the depth of skill Chicago brings to the table. Advantage Hawks
Now let’s take a look at the intangibles, starting with home ice advantage. Both teams have tough barns to play in and both should be rocking the entire playoffs. Listen to how noisy it gets in Philly when they play the Kate Smith rendition of God Bless America. The lid may come off that building! The Hawks’ home crowd is nothing to sneeze at either. When that horn goes and they play the stupid (yes, I said it) Chelsea Dagger song after a goal and I think there will be a few. The Madhouse on Madison will be exactly that. But the Flyers could have destiny on their side being the first team to come back from 3-0 down in 35 years to win a series. However, Mike Richards touched the Prince of Wales trophy so that gets wiped out with that curse [ed: Even though Crosby touched it last year?]. That being said, there is some magic in Philadelphia right now. Advantage Flyers
To wrap it up, I just can’t see a way the Flyers can win this series short of a few Hawks getting injured, or I am incorrect about the Flyers goaltending and they pull off another miracle. I also look at who the Flyers beat in New Jersey, Boston, and Montreal and none of those teams are even close to what Chicago will bring to the table. If Chicago can avoid over confidence then they should roll in this series. The funny thing is I would not be shocked to see Philadelphia win game 1 for that reason and for that reason alone I can’t pick a sweep. Your Stanley Cup Champions for 2009-2010 are…
The Chicago Blackhawks in 5 games
I will take Jonathan Toews as the Conn Smythe winner.
Matt Says: This is a tough one…I’m going to say six games. My gut reaction was the Hawks, simply because, contrary to my pick here (What was I thinking? Brainwashed by my ‘Nucklehead roommate, I guess.), they’ve always been a team I cheered for and enjoyed watching play. But, they’re also overall a smaller team, especially against a team like Philly. And as Doogie mentioned, Philly is getting healthier. Leighton is on a roll, and no matter how poorly the Canadiens played, three shutouts in five games, something is going right…
I have a gut feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m going to go with my initial gut reaction, and say Hawks in six. Let’s see if I can go from 0 and 4, to 2 and 0, and back to 0 and 1.
Gerard Says: Hawks in 5 due to my confusing predictions of the last round.
- Conklin is not in the Conference Finals/Finals for the first time since the lockout. He always loses (sometimes actively making his team lose) and has the Conklin Curse.
- Hossa has shared the last two (losing) teams with Conklin and as such is either a victim of the Conklin Curse or has caught it himself.
- Loser of the Winter Classic who beat the winner of the Winter Classic to continue.
- The winner of the Winter Classic has lost the Stanley Cup Finals in the last two years.
- The winner of this year’s Winter Classic lost to the Flyers (the losers of this year’s Classic) in a loss so epic one may as well call it a transference of Winter Classic powers. [Ed: Or put more succinctly, the visitor in the Winter Classic has made the Finals every year so far -- and lost every year so far.]
- Philly has stupid Pronger face and haven’t had a goaltender to get behind since Hextall.
- Byfuglien is really fun to say phonetically, and will likely be a word Leighton is reading over and over while in net.
Chicago will win in 5. And if they don’t, I’m blaming it on the Conklin Curse.
Though I do look forward to Byfuglien knocking out Pronger’s teeth.
![]() |
6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
![]() |
5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |















3-2 Philly after one. Tough luck, that one going in off Hjalmarsson’s face. The other two, less so. Bit shaky at times from both teams.
Real sloppy game, but they don’t ask how, they ask how many.
Speaking of, according to CBC’s infographic, this was the highest-scoring Finals game since the Penguins defeated the Blackhawks 6-5 in the fourth and final game of the ’92 Finals.
Chicago played as bad as they could and still won. Leighton is a fraud and the Hawks win game 2 by a 6-2 score.
I’m not sure that I’d say Leighton is a fraud, but he was pretty damned terrible on Saturday, and his results have been paid for at least in part by the competence of his defence/incompetence of his opponents.
I will agree, though, that Philly needed to win this game. They scored five goals on a tenative, sloppy Blackhawks team. Problem is, they were just as tenative and sloppy at different points and gave up an unconverted touchdown. I’m not sure when their next opportunity comes, because I can’t believe that Chicago will be that terrible (excepting the Sharp line) terribly often.
Leighton gave up a terrible goal for the game winner. And Philly has out played Chicago twice and are down 2-0 for it.
Niemi is starting to look like Grant Fuhr of the 80′s in my mind.
He went down too early, but he was also screened on a great release. I can’t entirely fault him for that.
Still can’t figure this series out.
Fortunately, we don’t need to if Chicago wins on Wednesday.
And here I was worried about me falling back to ohfer…
Matt, who perfectly predicted the Finals.
Well I missed on the number of games but I got the Conn Smythe winner right
Can’t find it but I think I am damned consistent.
Did I not go 11-4 last year as well? Though last year I got the Conn Smythe wrong lol
Yeah, you and Doogie both went 11-4 last time around.
Matt
To be fair, the Conn Smythe was kind of a gimme. It was either Toews or Keith, and I wouldn’t have put money on Keith.
I’ll post final results sometime later, when my memory stick is at a computer that can process Office 2007 documents (silly me).