That is all.

• Games vs. VAN: 2 GP, 1-1-0, +6/-6, 6.00 GPG, no games with fewer than five total goals.
• All other games: 7 GP, 3-1-3, +10/-7, 2.43 GPG, no games with more than three total goals.

Khabibulin for Vezina.

10/9	10/13	10/15	10/17	10/18	10/20	10/22	10/25
1-1	1-1	3-4	2-1	1-2	1-1	2-0	3-2

If your answer was, “all the games not against Vancouver were bizarrely low-scoring,” give yourself five Internet points. In their two games, the Oilers and Canucks have combined for 12 goals, which is about average for the post-lockout NHL. In the other six games, the Oilers and their opponents have combined for just 14.

Usual caveats regarding sample size apply, of course, but I thought I’d point it out anyway.

The companion ex-Oilers post can be found here.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Francois Beauchemin		Draft (3/75, ’98)	Waivers (CBJ, ’04)
Kyle Chipchura		Draft (1/18, ’04)	Trade (ANA, ’09): for 4/??? ’11
Dan Ellis		Trade (NSH, ’10): with D. Boyd for S. Kostitsyn	FA (TBL, ’10)
Saku Koivu		Draft (1/21, ’93)	FA (ANA, ’09)
Brett Festerling1		Trade (ANA, ’10): with 5/??? ’12 for M. Lapierre	Trade (ATL, ’11): for D. MacIntyre
Ron Hainsey		Draft (1/13, ’00)	Waivers (CBJ, ’05)
Mark Recchi		Trade (PHI, ’95): with 3/74 ’95 (M. Hohenberger) for E. Desjardins, G. Dionne, and J. LeClair	Trade (PHI, ’99): for D. Zubrus, 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig)
Michael Ryder		Draft (8/216, ’98)	FA (BOS, ’08)
Craig Conroy1		Draft (6/123, ’90)	Trade (STL, ’96): with P. Turgeon and R. Fitzpatrick for M. Baron, S. Corson, and 5/122 ’97 (G. Razin)
Tom Kostopoulos		FA (LAK, ’07)	FA (CAR, ’09)
Raitis Ivanans1		FA (AHL, ’04)	FA (LAK, ’06)
Alex Tanguay1		Trade (CGY, ’08): with 5/138 ’08 (M. Trunev) for 1/25 ’08 (G. Nemisz) and 2/49 ’09 (S. Elliott, COL)	FA (TBL, ’09)
Shawn Belle1		Trade (MIN, ’08): for C. Locke	FA (EDM, ’10)
Ryan O’Byrne		Draft (3/79, ’03)	Trade (COL, ’10): for M. Bournival
Mathieu Garon		Draft (2/44, ’96)	Trade (LAK, ’04): with 3/95 ’04 (P. Baier) for R. Bonk and C. Huet
Craig Rivet1		Draft (3/68, ’92)	Trade (SJS, ’07): with 5/146 ’08 (J. Demers) for J. Gorges and 1/22 ’07 (M. Pacioretty)
Mike Ribiero		Draft (2/45, ’98)	Trade (DAL, ’06): with 6/176 ’08 (M. Tassone) for J. Niinimaa and 5/142 ’07 (A. Conboy)
Stephane Robidas		Draft (7/164, ’95)	Waivers (ATL, ’02)
Doug Janik1		Trade (DAL, ’09): for S. Begin	FA (DET, ’09)
Sheldon Souray1		Trade (NJD, ’00): with J. DeWolf and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for V. Malakhov	FA (EDM, ’07)
Sergei Samsonov		FA (EDM, ’06)	Trade (CHI, ’07): for J. Cullimore and T. Salmelainen
Tomas Vokoun		Draft (9/226, ’94)	Expansion Draft (NSH, ’98)
Guillaume Latendresse		Draft (2/45, ’05)	Trade (MIN, ’09): for B. Pouliot
Jose Theodore		Draft (2/44, ’94)	Trade (COL, ’06): for D. Aebischer
Paul Mara		FA (NYR, ’09)	FA (ANA, ’10)
Steve Begin1		Waivers (BUF, ’03)	Trade (DAL, ’09): for D. Janik
Francis Bouillon1		FA (IHL, ’98)	Waivers (NSH, ’02)
		Waivers (NSH, ’02)	FA (NSH, ’09)
Sergei Kostitsyn		Draft (7/200, ’05)	Trade (NSH, ’10): for D. Boyd, D. Ellis
Dainius Zubrus		Trade (PHI, ’99): with 2/58 ’99 (M. Carkner) and 6/172 ’00 (S. Selig) for M. Recchi	Trade (WSH, ’01): with T. Linden and 2/61 ’01 (A. Holmqvist, TBL) for R. Zednik, J. Bulis, and 1/25 ’01 (A. Perezhogin)
Mark Streit1		Draft (9/262, ’04)	FA (NYI, ’08)
Ryan McDonagh		Draft (1/12, ’07)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with C. Higgins and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Matt Carkner		Draft (2/58, ’99)	FA (SJS, ’01)
Corey Locke		Draft (4/113, ’03)	Trade (MIN, ’08): for S. Belle
Michael Leighton1		Waivers (PHI, ’07)	Trade (CAR, ’07): for 7/192 ’07 (S. Kishel)
Alexei Kovalev		Trade (NYR, ’04): for J. Balej and 2/51 ’04 (B. Graham)	FA (OTT, ’09)
Matt d’Agostini		Draft (6/190, ’05)	Trade (STL, ’10): for A. Palushaj
Jaroslav Halak		Draft (9/271, ’03)	Trade (STL, ’10): for L. Eller and I. Schultz
Marc-Andre Bergeron		FA (MIN, ’09)	FA (TBL, ’11)
Brett Clark		Draft (6/154, ’96)	Expansion Draft (ATL, ’99)
Cédrick Desjardins1		FA (QMJHL, ’06)	Trade (TBL, ’10): for K. Rammo
Dominic Moore		Trade (FLA, ’10): for 2/?? ’11	FA (TBL, ’10)
Mikhail Grabovski		Draft (5/150, ’04)	Trade (TOR, ’08): for G. Pateryn and 2/32 ’10 (J. Knight, BOS)
Mike Komisarek		Draft (1/7, ’01)	FA (TOR, ’09)
Christopher Higgins		Draft (1/14, ’02)	Trade (NYR, ’09): with R. McDonagh and P. Valentenko for S. Gomez, T. Pyatt, and M. Busto
Maxim Lapierre		Draft (2/61, ’03)	Trade (ANA, ’10): for B. Festerling and 5/??? ’12

¹ Not currently on active roster.

The current distribution, as of the trade deadline:

• 3 teams have four (ANA, CGY, TBL)
• 1 teams has three (NSH)
• 11 teams have two (ATL, BOS, COL, CBJ, DAL, FLA, MIN, OTT, STL, TOR, VAN)
• 8 teams have one (DET, EDM, MTL, NJD, NYR, NYI, PHI, PIT)
• 7 teams have none (BUF, CAR, CHI, LAK, PHX, SJS, WAS)

Whereas the Oilers had a ton of teams with just one ex, the Habs have a ton of teams with two and a bunch more with none. I could be more insightful, but since this post is four months late, I’d rather just kick it out the door and put actual thought in come October.

The companion list of ex-Habs can be found here.

Player	Team	Acquired	Departed
Josh Green1		Trade (NYI, ’00): with E. Brewer for 2/35 ’00 (B. Winchester) for R. Hamrlik	Trade (NYR, ’02): for future considerations
Todd Marchant		Trade (NYR, ’94): for C. MacTavish	FA (CBJ, ’03)
Lubomir Visnovsky		Trade (LAK, ’08): for M. Greene and J. Stoll	Trade (ANA, ’10): for R. Whitney and 6/162 ’10 (B. Davidson)
Brad Winchester		Draft (2/35, ’00)	FA (DAL, ’07)
Radek Dvorak		Trade (NYR, ’03): with C. Cross for A. Carter and A. Pisa	FA (STL, ’06)
Rob Schremp		Draft (1/25, ’04)	Waivers (NYI, ’09)
Tim Thomas		FA (SM-L, ’98)	FA (IHL, ’99)
Mike Grier		Trade (STL, ’95): with C. Joseph for S. Corson2	Trade (WSH, ’02): for 2/53 ’03 (E. Tunik, NYI) and 3/94 ’03 (Z. Stortini)
Jochen Hecht		Trade (STL, ’01): with M. Reasoner and J. Horacek for D. Weight and M. Riesen	Trade (BUF, ’02): for 2/31 ’02 (J. Deslauriers) and 2/36 ’02 (J. Stoll)
Curtis Glencross		Trade (CBJ, ’08): for D. Tarnstrom	FA (CGY, ’08)
Ales Kotalik1		Trade (BUF, ’09): for 2/58 ’09 (J. Blacker, TOR)	FA (NYR, ’09)
Steve Staios		FA (ATL, ’01)	Trade (CGY, ’10): for A. Johnson and 3/?? ’11
Troy Bodie		Draft (9/278, ’03)	FA (ANA, ’08)
Erik Cole		Trade (CAR, ’08): for J. Pitkanen	Trade (CAR, ’09): with 5/131 ’09 (M. Kennedy) for P. O’Sullivan and 2/58 ’09 (J. Blacker, TOR)
Joni Pitkanen		Trade (PHI, ’07): with G. Sanderson and 3/82 (C. Abney) for J. Lupul and J. Smith	Trade (CAR, ’08): for E. Cole
Fernando Pisani		Draft (8/195, ’96)	FA (CHI, ’10)
Shawn Belle1		FA (MTL, ’10)	Trade (COL, ’11): for K. Montgomery
Mathieu Garon		FA (LAK, ’07)	Trade (PIT, ’09): for D. Sabourin, R. Stone, and 4/??? ’11
Jan Hejda		Trade (BUF, ’06) for 7/187 ’07 (N. Eno)	FA (CBJ, ’07)
Ethan Moreau1		Trade (CHI, ’99): with D. Cleary, C. Kilger, and C. Laflamme for B. Mironov, D. McAmmond, and J. Elofsson	Waivers (CBJ, ’10)
Toby Petersen		FA (PIT, ’04)	FA (DAL, ’07)
Jeff Woywitka		Trade (PHI, ’03): with 1/25 ’04 (R. Schremp) and 3/81 ’05 (D. Syvret) for M. Comrie	Trade (STL, ’05): with E. Brewer and D. Lynch for C. Pronger
Daniel Cleary		Trade (CHI, ’99): with C. Kilger, E. Moreau, and C. Laflamme for B. Mironov, D. McAmmond, and J. Elofsson	FA (PHX, ’03)
Steve MacIntyre		Waivers (FLA, ’08)	Waivers (FLA, ’09)
Marty Reasoner		Trade (STL, ’01): with J. Hecht and J. Horacek for D. Weight and M. Riesen	Trade (BOS, ’06): with Y. Stastny and 2/50 ’06 (M. Lucic) for S. Samsonov
		FA (BOS, ’06)	FA (ATL, ’08)
Sergei Samsonov		Trade (BOS, ’06): for M. Reasoner, Y. Stastny, 2/50 ’06 (M. Lucic)	FA (MTL, ’06)
Matt Greene		Draft (2/44, ’02)	Trade (LAK, ’08): with J. Stoll for L. Visnovsky
Dustin Penner		RFA (ANA, ’07): for 1/12 ’08 (T. Myers, BUF), 2/43 ’08 (J. Schultz), and 3/73 ’08 (K. Petrov, NYI)	Trade (LAK, ’11): for C. Teubert, 1/?? ’11, and conditional pick (3/?? ’12, becomes 2/?? ’12 if LA wins Cup)
Ryan Smyth		Draft (1/6, ’94)	Trade (NYI, ’07): for R. O’Marra, R. Nilsson, and 1/15 ’07 (A. Plante)
Jarret Stoll		Draft (2/36, ’02)	Trade (LAK, ’08): with M. Greene for L. Visnovsky
Kyle Brodziak		Draft (7/214, ’03)	Trade (MIN, ’09): with 6/161 ’09 (D. Kuemper) for 4/99 ’09 (K. Bigos) and 5/133 ’09 (O. Roy)
Patrick O’Sullivan1		Trade (CAR, ’09): with 2/58 ’09 (J. Blacker, TOR) for E. Cole and 5/131 ’09 (M. Kennedy)	Trade (PHX, ’10): for J. Vandermeer
Roman Hamrlik		Trade (TBL, ’97): with P. Comrie for B. Marchment, S. Kelly, and J. Bonsignore	Trade (NYI, ’00): for E. Brewer, J. Green, and 2/35 ’00 (B. Winchester)
Jaroslav Spacek		Trade (CHI, ’06): for T. Salmelainen	FA (BUF, ’06)
Matthew Lombardi1		Draft (7/215, ’00)	Draft (CGY, 3/90, ’02)
Tim Sestito		FA (ECHL, ’06)	Trade (NJD, ’09): for a conditional pick (??)
Doug Weight		Trade (NYR, ’93): for E. Tikkanen	Trade (STL, ’01): with M. Riesen for M. Reasoner, J. Hecht, and J. Horacek
Ryan Potulny1		Trade (PHI, ’08): for D. Syvret	FA (CHI, ’10)
Chris Pronger		Trade (STL, ’05): for E. Brewer, D. Lynch, and J. Woywitka	Trade (ANA, ’06): for J. Lupul, L. Smid, 1/30 ’07 (N. Ross, PHX), 1/22 ’08 (J. Eberle), and 2/53 ’08 (T. Hamonic, NYI)
Danny Syvret1		Draft (3/81, ’05)	Trade (PHI, ’08): for R. Potulny
Ray Whitney		FA (SJS, ’97)	Waivers (FLA, ’97)
Mike Comrie1		Draft (3/91, ’99)	Trade (PHI, ’03): for J. Woywitka, 1/25 ’04 (R. Schremp), and 3/81 ’05 (D. Syvret)
		FA (OTT, ’09)	FA (PIT, ’10)
Ty Conklin		FA (NCAA, ’01)	FA (CBJ, ’06)
Marc-Andre Bergeron		FA (QMHJL, ’01)	Trade (NYI, ’07): with 3/73 ’08 (K. Petrov) for D. Grebeshkov
Eric Brewer		Trade (NYI, ’00): with J. Green for 2/35 ’00 (B. Winchester) for R. Hamrlik	Trade (STL, ’05): with D. Lynch and J. Woywitka for C. Pronger
Marc-Antoine Pouliot1		Draft (1/22, ’03)	FA (TBL, ’10)
Dwayne Roloson		Trade (MIN, ’06): for 1/17 ’06 (T. Lewis, LAK) and 3/67 ’07 (S. Machacek, ‘ATL)	FA (NYI, ’09)
Mathieu Roy1		Draft (7/215, ’03)	FA (CBJ, ’09)
Joffrey Lupul		Trade (ANA, ’06): with L. Smid, 1/30 ’07 (N. Ross, PHX), 1/22 ’08 (J. Eberle), and 2/53 ’08 (T. Hamonic, NYI) for C. Pronger	Trade (PHI, ’07): with J. Smith for J. Pitkanen, G. Sanderson, and 3/82 ’09 (C. Abney)
Raffi Torres		Trade (NYI, ’03): with B. Isbister for J. Niinimaa and 2/53 ’03 (E. Tunik)	Trade (CBJ, ’08): for G. Brule
Jason Arnott		Draft (1/7, ’93)	Trade (NJD, ’98): with B. Muir for V. Zelepukin and B. Guerin
Jason Chimera		Draft (5/121, ’97)	Trade (PHX, ’04): with 3/80 ’04 (B. Ryan, NYR) for 2/57 ’04 (G. Paukovich) and 4/112 ’04 (L. Reddox)
Tom Poti		Draft (3/59, ’96)	Trade (NYR, ’02): with R. Murray for M. York and 4/106 ’02 (I. Koltsov)

¹ Not currently on active roster.

² RFA compensation in lieu of 1/14 ’96 (M. Reasoner) and 1/15 ’97 (M. Zultek, LAK)

The current distribution, as of the trade deadline:

• 1 team has five (TBL)
• 2 teams have four (ANA, LAK)
• 4 teams have three (CAR, CGY, CBJ, WAS)
• 7 teams have two (ATL, BUF, DAL, FLA, MIN, MTL, PHI)
• 14 teams have one (BOS, CHI, COL, DET, EDM, NSH, NJD, NYI, OTT, PHX, PIT, STL, TOR, VAN)
• 2 teams have none (NYR, SJS)

Only two teams finished the season with no ex-Oilers: the Rangers and Sharks. Most teams had one, while one team had five (!). Still no idea if this means anything, or if I’m just doing this for my own amusement. We may never know at this point.

Well, I’ll confess to a bit of embarrassment. I really thought Thomas looked vulnerable after the Tampa series, but he got his shit together and earned that Conn Smythe Trophy. Then again, one could also reasonably say that Vancouver laid an egg as much as Thomas et al. shut them down. Injuries were a factor, to be sure: Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler, at least, were playing on one leg, while Dan Hamhuis, Mikael Samuelsson, and in Game 7, Mason Raymond, were all badly hurt enough to miss the Finals. But injuries are always a factor, for both teams: Marc Savard (remember him?) and Nathan Horton were both MIA with concussions for all and most of the Finals, respectively. In the end, part of the blame obviously has to go to Luongo, who sieved it up in the three Boston games, and was okay but not good enough last night when he needed to be at his best. But on the other hand, he was brilliant in Games 1, 2, and 5; he had no goal support throughout the series. He needed to allow 0 or fewer goals in five of the seven games to win, and in Game 6, both Canucks goals came in garbage time, well after Luongo had finished for the evening. Luongo wasn’t good enough, but neither were the players in front of him. This is a team loss, and any insinuation that this automatically makes Luongo not a Big Game Goalie, and that this was a career-defining moment, defining him as a Loser, is all absurd. He’s played in big games before and won, he’s bounced back from shit games before with brilliant performances, and this loss only defines his career if he never makes it back.

But enough about the losers; credit must be given to the champions where it’s due. Thomas, as noted, was brilliant, giving up just eight goals in seven games, which must be some kind of record, made the most saves in Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup Finals history, finished with a stats line of 1.98/.940, and pitched four shutouts, two of them in the Finals (the two SO stats, funny enough, mirror those of Luongo). Chara and Seidenberg did their job in shutting down the Sedins’ cycle game. Methuselah Recchi went out in style, with seven points in the Final series. Brad Marchand came out of nowhere to be a Luongo-wrecking machine, scoring five goals in the Bruins’ four victories and setting a team rookie record with 11 post-season goals. David Krejci led the NHL in playoff goals (12) and points (23). They overcame 2-0 playoff series deficits for the first two times in their 86-season history in Montreal and Vancouver, winning both series in seven games. After putting forth one of the biggest choke jobs in the history of professional sport last year, the Bruins bounced back and proved themselves worthy contenders. Congratulations to the better team.

As for our little contest here, well, as I noted before, Hoop won again, with Gerard placing second, Matt (the only one to nail the Final series) third, and me fourth. Congratulations etc., I hate you all, see you next year.

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-3	4-1	4-2	4-2	4-1
4-3	4-3	4-2	4-2	4-3
2-0	2-0	1-1	1-1	W-L
2	0	6	6	GO
1	2	0	0	PS
8-6	11-3	8-6	10-4	W-L
29	23	34	33	GO
6	4	1	1	PS

I can’t win now, but my record of six perfect predictions is safe, at least. On to the main event.

(1) Vancouver vs. (7) Boston

Playoff History: Unsurprisingly, none.

Finals History: The storied Bruins franchise has a long history of success, with a steady stream of Finals appearances from their inception in the 1920s to the late 1950s. After a few years of futility, the entrance of Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito ushered in the Big Bad Bruins era, which extended past the departure of both superstars as Don Cherry’s “Lunchpail Gang” took over. The Bourque-Neely Bruins were a consistent contender for a few years in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and made a couple of Finals appearances, but were also eliminated twice by the future-champion Penguins and once by the eventual runners-up, the Canadiens. Despite making the dance seventeen times, though, the Bruins have only won the Cup five times, the last in 1972. Most remarkably, they’ve lost all seven Finals played against the Canadiens, by a combined W-L record of 7-26; good thing they haven’t been able to meet in the Finals since the NHL changed the playoff format in 1981. The B’s have also lost their last five consecutive Finals, going 5-20 in those series.

1927	1929	1930	1939	1941	1943	1946	1953	1957
0-2	2-0	0-2	4-1	4-0	0-4	1-4	1-4	1-4
1958	1970	1972	1974	1977	1978	1988	1990
2-4	4-0	4-2	2-4	0-4	2-4	0-4	1-4

The Canucks’ 40-year history is fraught with bad hockey (and sometimes good hockey torpedoed by bad goaltending), bad uniforms, and bad luck. Missing Gil Perrault? Getting stuck as Alberta’s perpetual punching bag in the ’80s? The Flying V? Dan Cloutier? Ouch. They’ve managed a couple of Finals appearances, both of them on Cinderella runs, but have yet to bring home the prize. This year represents a departure, in that they’re a legitimate contender and favourite for the first time ever.

1982	1994
0-4	3-4

Season Series: Boston won the only meeting of the season, 3-1 on an empty-netter.

Doogie Says: You know, the more I read and think about this series, the more I realize that this series will go exactly as long as Tim Thomas forces it to. Vancouver has superior forward depth, especially if Manny Malhotra can take on even part of his former role (one wonders what difference a healthy Marc Savard would make here: could his loss be a Stanley Cup-costing injury?), superior defensive depth (and indeed, superior defencemen outside of Chara, though injuries are always a concern), superior special teams, superior shot differential, superior just about everything. So the key to me will be, how many games can Tim Thomas steal? During the Tampa series, and indeed during parts of the Montreal series, he’s looked fairly shaky, but when he’s had to shut the door, he’s been brilliant. I don’t for a second think that he’ll be able to steal four games, but one? Certainly. Two? Very possibly. He’ll also have a couple of games where he gets deked so far out of position by the Sedin line that, to borrow a joke from Ryan Lambert of Yahoo!, he’ll be watching the goal from the neutral zone. But the longer Thomas can stem the tide, the more hope the Bruins have, and the more chance that a funny hop can change the course of the series. In the end, though, I think Vancouver is just too good of a team, and have been all year, and I believe they’ll be able to close it out at home, in spite of whatever heroics this year’s probable Vezina winner has in store. Vancouver in five; Ryan Kesler for MVP.

Hoop Says: As much as I try to find a way that the Bruins could beat the Canucks, short of Tim Thomas playing the series of his life I can’t find anything that makes sense. The Canucks are deeper than the Bruins up front and on defense. Sure you have to give the edge to the Bruins in net but it just won’t be enough. Also history is working in the Canucks favor. Whenever a Canadian city hosts an Olympics the following year that city wins the Stanley Cup. Won’t be different this year. Vancouver in five; Ryan Kesler for MVP.

Matt Says: Boston in seven.

Gerard Says: Boston in six; Ryan Kesler for MVP.

	1	3	1	0	1	2	0	3
	0	2	8	4	0	5	4	4

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-2	4-2	4-2	4-1	4-2
4-3	4-3	4-2	4-1	4-3
4-2	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-0
4-2	4-3	4-2	4-2	4-0
2-2	2-2	2-2	3-1	W-L
12	12	10	11	GO
2	1	1	0	PS
6-6	9-3	7-5	9-3	W-L
27	23	28	27	GO
5	2	1	1	PS

One, either I get a series perfectly or not at all: five of my six correct predictions were bang on the money. Two, I’ve pretty much nailed the West (a brain-fart in DET-PHX away from being perfect) and have no clue about the East (1-5, the only winner being the WSH-NYR gimme). So given that, take what I say about the West as gospel, and what I say about the East as utter nonsense.

You will also notice that Matt’s picks are once again late. Never trust a Campbell. [Edit: They're there now.]

Clarence Campbell Conference Finals

(1) Vancouver vs. (2) San Jose

Playoff History: None.

Season Series: 3-1 Vancouver. Each team had one SOW, while Vancouver’s other two wins were 6-1 (back when the Sharks were struggling) and 4-3.

Doogie Says: This is the series where I expected Vancouver to most keenly miss Manny Malhotra (note that I’m excluding the possibility of his return in the playoffs, despite recent activities). A third-line centre doesn’t seem like a lot, but given that he took a copious amount of minutes against top lines, penalty-kill shifts, and defensive-zone faceoffs, that ripple effect down the lineup is huge. Ryan Kesler is more than capable of filling the role with Maxim Lapierre (?!) providing support, but neither Chicago nor Nashville is as deep as San Jose, who can roll three capable lines. That could spell trouble for the Lapierre line, as whomever they wind up against is probably going to be a lot better than them. Round Two’s storyline for Vancouver was whether Ryan Kesler would resume his regular-season form. Truthfully, he’d played very well, but hadn’t been able to put the puck in the back of the net, and sure enough, with only one good line to deal with on the Preds, he was able to pile on and seize the playoff scoring lead. This round, it’s about whether the Sedins can start lighting it up again. Again, they’ve played very well, but just haven’t gotten the breaks. That could very well change against San Jose, given how volatile their goaltending has been in the playoffs.

As for San Jose, as noted, this is the best team Vancouver’s faced in the playoffs. They got taken to the limit by Detroit despite being up 3-0, but given how absurdly close the scores were (seven one-goal games, excluding EN), and how the balance of play seemed to constantly shift, with both teams taking and giving up big leads and switching between dominator and dominatee, and each team winning one they probably didn’t “deserve” (Games 3 and 5), it was a very well-matched series, and the order of the wins probably shouldn’t be read into too terribly much. Thornton and Marleau traditionally have been excoriated for “gutless” playoff performances, but aside from the fact that I’ve never generally bought that — I’ll always remember people ripping Joe Thornton for a subpar performance in 2004 while playing through cracked ribs — they’ve been putting up points (especially Thornton) and moving the puck in the right direction despite getting a lot of starts in the defensive zone against the other team’s top players. In watching the games, you can even see Joe Thornton backchecking, something I’m frankly not too familiar with. Ryan Kesler and the Hamhuis-Bieksa pairing are gonna have their hands full with that line. Meanwhile, the Wellwood line’s been solid in sheltered circumstances, as has Logan Couture (though his Game 7 goal, where he picked off a Henrik Zetterberg pass and roofed it in one smooth motion, was the stuff of legend). Dany Heatley, meanwhile? Invisible and terrible. His underlying stats are bad, and in watching about half of the last series, I almost forgot he was even on the team for large stretches. The Sharks have even gotten some pretty solid offence from the blueline, particularly from Dan Boyle, who’s had a great playoff so far. If the Canucks are going to stop the Sharks’ forward corps, they’re going to have to rely on their superior depth on defence: Sami Salo and Keith Ballard is a better third pairing than Jason Demers and Marc-Edouard Vlasic, which makes life a lot easier for Alain Vigneault in deciding the matchups.

So all of this blithering having occurred, where do I stand? Well, the Canucks have had better outshooting numbers at five-on-five (they had the stronger opponent in Round 1 and the lesser opponent in Round 2; I’m not sure how much of that washes out), better goaltending (Niemi: 3.01/.906; Luongo: 2.25/.917), and in all likelihood better possession numbers (which I’d be able to show if timeonice.com was working). While their scoring hasn’t been as consistent and even as San Jose’s, I feel like over the course of seven games, being just slightly better often enough will give them the victory. Vancouver in seven.

Hoop Says: I don’t know if it could have worked out much better for the Canucks in this match-up. San Jose got taken to the limit and were quite fortunate to get a win over the Wings in 7 games, but it came at a cost as Ryan Clowe is clearly hurting and won’t have a ton of time to recover. Vancouver has been home and cooled for a few days now and is getting healthier with the exception of Manny Malholtra who the Canucks are going to dearly miss.

This series is one where you almost have to give the check mark to the Canucks in all three of goaltending, defense, and offense. I suspect the Sedin twins will finally break out this series as San Jose doesn’t really have the nasty shutdown defense that causes them trouble. Both teams will also be grateful that they don’t have to leave their time zone in this series which should help their travel schedules and make things easier for whoever comes out of this series.

I have a sneaking suspicion this one won’t be that close. Vancouver in five.

Matt Says: San Jose in six.

Gerard Says: San Jose in six.

	3	7	3	4	3	4
	2	3	4	2	2	1

Prince of Wales Conference Finals

(3) Boston vs. (5) Tampa Bay

Playoff History: None.

Season Series: 3-1 Boston. Three of the games were close (though all decided in regulation), with a fourth being a pre-Roloson 8-1 blowout by the Bruins.

Doogie Says: I’ve indicated already that I don’t really know what the fuck I’m talking about in the Eastern conference, so I’ll keep this considerably more brief. I indicated back in Round 1 that if the Bolts could get the goaltending from Roli that the Oilers got in ’06, that they were a good enough team to make a deep run. I didn’t buy it in Round 2, and took the Caps; big mistake. That being said, I’m still not sure what to make of them in Round 3. They have the best shooting and save percentage in the playoffs, and are getting murdered by shots, after putting up a strong positive shot differential and losing on the back of poor goaltending and inconsistent scoring during the regular season. I really want to jump on the Lightning bandwagon, but I just can’t do it. Seeing everything turned on its ear like that just makes me itchy. Plus, Sean Bergenheim is pulling a Fernando Pisani, and you never know when the clock’s gonna strike midnight on a run like that. The main thing that has me even considering Tampa is the fact that Patrice Bergeron is out with a “mild” concussion. In theory, he’s supposed to be back early in the series, but in practice, he has a history of severe concussions, and that always makes me feel like it’s somewhat of a dice-roll. As with Buffalo-Philly in Round 1, I’m sort of banking on how long an injury’s gonna last. If Bergeron is gone for the series, that’s a huge hole at centre for the Bruins to fill, and Chris Kelly and Brad Marchand ain’t gonna cut it. If he’s back early, probably no need to worry. Last time, I was right on the extent of the injury, but (essentially) wrong about Buffalo’s inability to hold on to a large lead. This time, let’s hope that Boston’s more sustainable absurdly-good goaltending (Tim Thomas has done this before recently, and has been doing it all season) and the possible resurrection of Milan Lucic (and their power play) can keep them in the series long enough for their best two-way player to make his return. Boston in seven.

Hoop Says: This one could be a lot of fun or it could be a tough series to watch loaded with defensive play. I choose to pick the first option for this one! Both teams have been resting up so neither side has an advantage in that regard. Boston killed a lot of Demons in their sweep of the Flyers, while the Lightning are proving how good they are in their total destruction of the Capitals in the second round. Both sides have to be feeling good going into the series.

I’m actually having a tough time handicapping the series but I will give Boston a slight edge in net, and a big edge on the defensive side as Chara will be a huge factor for the Bruins chances. Up front Tampa Bay clearly has more firepower than Boston, it will just come down to how well they can fight through the Bruins much stronger team defense.

It’s going to be a tough and long series! Boston in seven.

Matt Says: Boston in six.

Gerard Says: Boston in six.

	2	6	2	3	3	4	1	4
	5	5	0	5	1	5	0	3

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-3	4-1	4-2	4-2	4-3
4-1	4-1	4-1	4-0	4-2
4-2	4-2	4-2	4-3	4-0
4-2	4-3	4-3	4-2	4-2
4-1	4-2	4-2	4-3	4-1
4-3	4-3	4-1	4-1	4-3
4-2	4-1	4-2	4-2	4-3
4-2	4-3	4-2	4-2	4-3
4-4	7-1	5-3	6-2	W-L
15	11	18	16	GO
3	1	0	1	PS

Somehow, I picked three series perfectly and only got four right altogether. One of those was a total brain cramp (Really? Phoenix?), but the rest were such total crapshoots. Two were one-goal games, one in OT. Ah, well, enough of the excuses. Time to make up ground in round two. Somehow.

Clarence Campbell Conference Semifinals

(1) Vancouver vs. (5) Nashville

Playoff History: None. Nashville continues to add variety to their meagre playoff resume.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, all in regulation. No game had more that four total goals scored, nor a margin of victory greater than three.

Doogie Says: One of the more curious factoids to come out of the first round is the fact that the Predators finished second in goals per game (3.67), behind only Detroit (4.50). Yes, the same Predators who scored just 2.60 goals per game during the regular season, tied with Toronto and Montreal at 8^th-worst in the League. Now, you could believe that the bottom end of Nashville’s roster has suddenly morphed into actual scoring depth, or you could believe that Anaheim was running on 1.5 NHL-calibre defencemen (Lubo had a busted shoulder and was, by his own admission, at about 50%) and got what they deserved. I’m going with the latter. As for Vancouver, even with two no-shows, they outplayed the Blackhawks, who got an outstanding performance from young Corey Crawford, especially in Games 6 and 7. I’m not personally inclined to believe that the Blackhawks got into their heads, so much as they got cocky, let their foot off the gas for a couple of games, then had to scramble to get back in it, and very nearly got smote by the hockey gods for their hubris. Whether they’ve learned their lesson is a matter for debate — their post-G7 quotes were all about how they kicked Chicago’s ass for five of those games and should’ve ended the series sooner, which could be taken as either arrogance or an acknowledgment that they let it get away in Games 4 and 5 — but I’m inclined to believe that that little bit of adversity might have gotten their heads screwed back on right. (Anecdotally, last year’s WHL-leading Calgary Hitmen went down 1-3 to Moose Jaw before storming back to win the series in seven, and go all the way to the Memorial Cup semi-final. Make of that what you will.) Plus, if you’d rather go with advanced stats, they murdered the Blackhawks in even-strength, score-tied possession, which is generally a good strategy in trying to win hockey games. Pekka Rinne, while he has been on and off this playoff so far, is capable of stealing a couple of games here, but the Canucks are still too deep to be too concerned about here. Whomever they get out of the Sharks-Wings series is going to give them trouble, no doubt, but the Preds just aren’t there yet. Vancouver in six.

Hoop Says: That was the biggest goal that Alex Burrows has ever scored in game seven since his days with the Montreal Red Light (look it up). With his goal, the Canucks barely escaped with their lives. The Nashville Predators also managed to break on through to the other side thanks in large part to Jordan Tootoo and his emergence as a playoff performer. The Canucks have some serious questions in net with Roberto Luongo despite his gutty performance in Game 7 and I have to give the Preds and Pekka Rinne the edge in net. Up front and on the blue line it’s tough for anyone to match up with Vancouver. I really think Nashville is going to catch the Canucks off guard in Game 1 and possibly steal that game, but in the end Vancouver has the depth that Nashville won’t be able to handle. Vancouver in six.

Matt Says: If they can do this, maybe I’ll start believe its their year. Vancouver in six.

Gerard Says: Nashville in five.

	1	1	3	4	3	2	4
	0	2	2	2	4	1	2

(2) San Jose vs. (3) Detroit

Playoff History: These two teams have met twice since the lockout, splitting the two series. Before that, we have the legendary ’94 upset by the Sharks, and Detroit’s revenge the following year en route to the Cup Finals.

1994 CQF	1995 CSF	2007 CSF	2010 CSF
4-3	4-0	4-2	4-1

Season Series: San Jose won 3-1, all in regulation. Only one game was decided by less than two goals.

Doogie Says: In looking back at Detroit’s late-season results, it turns out their spring swoon lines up rather neatly with Pavel Datsyuk’s seven-game injury: during that stretch, they went 1-3-3, including a 10-3 shellacking by the St. Louis Blues. After he returned, they finished the year 2-2, with losses against surging Carolina and better-than-they-looked Chicago. So maybe I shouldn’t have written them off in the first round. Yes, I’m covering my ass a little because they swept my pick in that series, but it also turns out that in making that pick, I violated my own rule of not reading too much into late-season streaks one way or the other. And now that they have Zetterberg back, they’re looking very strong again. San Jose had a surprising amount of trouble with LA in their first-round series: while they outchanced the Kings pretty badly on the whole, when the score was tied, anyway, possession was about even, which is kind of interesting in a small-sample sort of way. Antti Niemi had all kinds of trouble in that last series, and while his Round 1 stats (3.99/.863) are obviously not indicative of his true talent, it remains a valid question whether he can right the ship before the Wings have made him look bad a couple of times and Niittymaki (0.66/0.967 in 91.5 minutes of relief time) gets the net for good. All that being said, I think Niemi can make the turnaround, and with San Jose being one of the top outshooting teams in the League, both regular season and playoffs, and Jimmy Howard being merely adequate, it adds up to San Jose in seven.

Hoop Says: Ho hum, just another Detroit and San Jose match up. The Wings made short work of Phoenix in four straight, while the San Jose Sharks barely hung on to avoid being shocked by the LA Kings. Starting in net, these teams match up evenly: Howard and Niemi are pretty much a wash. Up front, San Jose can come at you in waves and have more depth than even the Wings do. On the back end, Detroit has the edge. Anyone with Nicklas Lidstrom always has an edge on the blue line! I’ve waffled a couple times on this series and want to lean towards the Sharks but I just don’t trust that team. I’ll take the Wings in a bit of an upset. Detroit in seven.

Matt Says: Deep down, I want to say the Sharks, but it’ll be a fight. Detroit in six.

Gerard Says: San Jose in five.

	2	2	4	3	3	1	3	4
	1	1	3	4	4	3	2	3

Prince of Wales Conference Semifinals

(1) Washington vs. (5) Tampa Bay

Playoff History: They’ve played once before, back when Jagr was still a Cap, and the nucleus of the Cup-winning team was still growing together.

2003 CQF
4-2

Season Series: 4-2 Washington, with one of their wins coming in OT. Both of Tampa’s wins were Roloson shutouts, shortly after his arrival, while Washington’s three non-SO wins came by a combined goal differential of +12.

Doogie Says: Yes, Dwayne Roloson has an absurdly high save percentage through Round 1, and yes, hot goalies can get you far in the playoffs. On the other hand…man, that Pens offence is pretty popgun without Crosby and Malkin, isn’t it? I mean, 1/35 on the man advantage? Really? Now, the Caps may be without Mike Green for a while — I don’t know if he’s over blocking that snapshot with his melon yet — they did just fine without him down the stretch, and more importantly, the stars are finally buying into Boudreau’s system. Ovechkin is, according to his coach, playing the most complete hockey of his career right now. Semin is scoring in the playoffs. Jason Arnott, Stanley Cup Champion (™), seems to have the attention and respect of the room and is helping reinforce the message. And so on. The Caps have the star power and offence the Pens lacked, and I can’t help but feel like the Bolts are time bomb, and that at some point they’re going to play the way we know they can, and get shelled 7-0, and all will be right with the world. Roli may steal a game or two, but the clock’s gotta strike midnight for this bunch soon. Washington in six.

Hoop Says: The Capitals finally got some stable goaltending and were able to dispatch the Rangers in short order, while the Tampa Bay Lightning barely got by the Penguins in seven. I’m going to give the edge to the Lightning in net, but that is it in this series. While the Penguins were missing Crosby and Malkin, the Capitals look to be in good shape and Tampa will have all they can handle across the board. I don’t see a scenario where Tampa wins unless the Caps’ goaltending collapses, which I don’t think happens yet. Washington in five.

Matt Says: I believe in lightning striking twice (see what I did there?). Tampa Bay in five.

Gerard Says: Tampa Bay in six.

	2	2	3	3	0
	4	3	4	5	4

(2) Philadelphia vs. (3) Boston

Playoff History: Ah ha ha ha ha ha…oh, man. Spending upwards of seven games talking about how the Broons screwed the pooch last year is a pretty solid consolation prize for three overtime losses.

1974 SCF	1976 SF	1977 SF	1978 SF	2010 CSF
4-2	4-1	4-0	4-1	4-3

Season Series: 3-0-1 Boston. Philly’s only win came in OT.

Doogie Says: I’m sorry, I have no rational analysis here. Fuck Boston in their stupid faces. I don’t care if the Lazy Susan of Sieves is manning the crease for the Flyers (though Boucher’s actually been pretty good on the whole — 2.10/.934 in 285.5 minutes). Pronger’s back, the Bruins got rolled by the Habs at even strength, and I want to see a frown under Tim Thomas’s stupid 70s-detective moustache. Philadelphia in six. Suck on it, Broons.

Hoop Says: Two of the better first round series happened with the Flyers getting by Buffalo in seven, while the Bruins got a Nathan Horton Game 7 OT winner to beat the Canadiens in quite possible the best first round series ever. In net, there is no question that the Bruins have the edge with Tim (yes I still have a goalie crush on him) Thomas ahead of anyone the Flyers throw between the pipes. Up front, Philly has a clear edge in talent; on the back end, it is very close. A key could be how healthy Chris Pronger is, because you know the Bruin forwards are going to be taking runs at him every chance they get. Zdeno Chara will be a rock for the Bruins as well, so call it a wash. I’m not sure how the Bruins are going to score enough, but I think they will just squeak through. Boston in seven.

Matt Says: Why did my two Eastern favourites have to come up against each other? Umm…ahh…Philadelphia in six.

Gerard Says: Boston in six.

	3	2	1	1	0
	7	3	5	5	4

Editor’s Note: Matt’s picks are going up late, because he’s screwing the pooch really busy at work. So I present the other three, and will edit his in whenever he gets around to giving them to me. [Ed: And now they're up.]

Editor’s Note #2: Picks may be late, considering Round #2 starts tomorrow and I have a presentation to prepare for on Friday morning. I may write postmortems for all the series on the weekend or something, or I may get distracted by a shiney.

Clarence Campbell Conference Quarterfinals

(1) Vancouver vs. (8) Chicago

Playoff History: Pretty one-sided, all told. The Hawks and Canucks have met each of the last two years in the playoffs, and both times, the Hawks have come out the victors.

1982 CF	1995 CSF	2009 CSF	2010 CSF
4-1	4-0	4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Canucks were ousted by the Blackhawks for the second year in a row, and this time, the ‘Hawks went on to win it all, defeating Philly in six for the Stanley Cup.

Season Series: Tied at two. Interesting note: Turco played three of the four games for Chicago, winning one in the SO and losing the other two.

Doogie Says: There’s a real temptation here to call for the upset, based on recent history, and yes, the fact that Turco’s kind of bad suggests that maybe Vancouver’s wins weren’t entirely earned, and yes, the Canucks and Blackhawks actually had pretty similar possession numbers through the regular season, I can’t shake the feeling that this is Vancouver’s year. Consider the fact that they were down an average of 1.5 top-six D all year, but still ripped it up by counting numbers and were near the top of the League in underlying stats. Sure, they had arguably the weakest division in hockey to beat up on, but they also put up a strong record against the rest of the League (18-4-2 vs. Northwest, 11-5-2 vs. East, 25-10-2 vs. Central/Pacific). On the other hand, while Chicago is weaker overall than they were last year, they do still have the championship core, and were hurt rather significantly by Marty Turco’s abject awfulness (3.02/.897): if he’s even average, they’re division champions, so by no means will the Canucks be crushing them like some have predicted. Still, as much as I’d like to believe that Chelsea Dagger will be serenading Roberto Luongo in his nightmares for another year, I doubt the Canucks are so mentally fragile that history alone will get them down if they lose the first game or something. If they lose, it’ll be because the Blackhawks were the better team, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case this year, though no matter what, it’ll be a dandy. Vancouver in seven.

Hoop Says: God I hate the Canucks! Almost as much as I hate that stupid Chelsea Dagger song in Chicago. Lets be blunt Vancouver is better than Chicago everywhere on the ice except perhaps with the captains. Chicago lost all their depth this off season must importantly some large fellow named Byfuglien to Atlanta. Without the big man to cause Roberto Luongo a continuous nightmare I don’t see the Hawks doing much of anything. Vancouver in five.

Matt Says: Chicago in six. Maybe it’ll be third time lucky for Vancouver, but still going with the Hawks.

Gerard Says: Chicago in six. [Ed: You will note that once again, Gerard has provided no explanation for his picks. Is it because he has no justification, and just pulled stuff out of thin air, or because he likes appearing off the cuff, 'cause that's how he rolls? Only he may know for sure. Only I may actually care.]

	2	4	3	2	0	3	2	4
	0	3	2	7	5	4	1	3

(2) San Jose vs. (7) Los Angeles

Playoff History: None in the modern incarnation of the Sharks, but if you take the Sharks to be the continuation of the Seals/Barons franchise — and I do — then we have one meeting, all the way back in the summer spring of ’69.

1969 QF
4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Sharks went all the way to the conference finals before getting swept by Chicago in a series that was closer than the result would indicate. The Kings got their first taste of playoff hockey in nearly a decade, and nearly upset the Canucks before ultimately falling in six.

Season Series: Tied at three. Three of the games were decided by three or more goals, and the other three were all one-goal affairs (two went to LA, both in the SO).

Doogie Says: I don’t actually have much to say about this series. I figure LA’s pretty well boned, what with no Kopitar, Williams fresh off injury, and Doughty struggling. Sure, I could try to cast aspersions on the suddenness of San Jose’s rise up the standings, but then again, I never believed they were that bad in the first place. Let’s just call it “regression to the mean,” say San Jose in five, and move on, because I have six more of these bloody things to write.

Hoop Says: What a great series this was going to be until Anze Kopitar went down with his broken ankle for the Kings. San Jose is rolling at the right time, and even though I think the Kings have the edge in goal between Quick and Niemi I don’t think the Kings can match up anywhere else right now. San Jose in five.

Matt Says: San Jose in five. Standard fare it appears…

Gerard Says: San Jose in four.

	3	0	6	6	1	4	4
	2	4	5	3	3	3	2

(3) Detroit vs. (6) Phoenix

Playoff History: Same as last year, except with one more column in the table. The Jets/Coyotes still haven’t beaten the Red Wings (or anyone other than the Flames) in the playoffs, and for the second time in a row, face the possibility of ending their time in a city with a loss to Detroit.

1996 CQF	1998 CQF	2010 CQF
4-2	4-2	4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Red Wings ousted the Coyotes in a tightly-contested seven-game series, then promptly got booted by San Jose in five.

Season Series: Tied at two, with both of Detroit’s wins coming in OT and one of Phoenix’s two wins coming in the shootout. The remaining game was decided by an empty-netter. So, you know, close.

Doogie Says: The peril of using regular-season stats to predict the playoffs is that sometimes they’re not reflective of the current reality. I talked about this a little with the Canucks-Blackhawks series, and this is another example. Consider how close the season series was, and how close the last playoff series was, and then consider the fact that Shane Doan missed most of that playoff series, while Henrik Zetterberg will miss an indeterminate amount of this one. The Wings are another year older and have been beat up all year; at a certain point, something has to give, and Ilya Bryzgalov is a good enough goalie to withstand getting outshot pretty heavily, as all of Detroit’s opponents tend to be. While there’d be a certain historical symmetry if they were to go out to Detroit then get moved back to Winnipeg, I think this is finally the Coyotes’ time to break the Curse of Dale Hawerchuk and win their first playoff series in 24 years. Phoenix in six.

Hoop Says: Detroit is deeper than Phoenix. Detroit has more playoff experience than Phoenix. Detroit may have home ice advantage in all seven games over Phoenix in this series. So this should be easy right? Oh hell no! Phoenix has two things. The best coach in the league in Dave Tippett and they have an all world goaltender in Ilya Bryzgalov. I think Coach Tippett will have a game plan but Bryzgalov will have to have the series of his life for the Coyotes to win. Detroit in six.

Matt Says: Detroit in six. It’s Detroit.

Gerard Says: Detroit in seven.

	4	4	4	6	4
	2	3	2	3	0

(4) Anaheim vs. (5) Nashville

Playoff History: None. The Ducks are just the fourth unique playoff opponent in Predators history.

Previously On…Survivor: The Ducks missed the dance last year, but the year before, upset the Sharks in round one and nearly ousted the Wings in round two before falling in seven. The Preds, as they are wont to do, lost in six in the first round, though they were arguably one short-handed goal away from putting Chicago on the ropes.

Season Series: Nashville won 3-1, all games in regulation.

Doogie Says: History would suggest that picking either Nashville or Phoenix to win a first-round series is foolish, and here I am, picking both. My reasoning here is pretty simple: Anaheim’s not very good. Their depth is weak, they have the worst outshooting numbers in the playoff pool, and until they put the wood to the Sharks in the final week of the year, they were the only minus team in the playoffs…and yet they have home-ice advantage. I thought this team’s D was bad going into the season, and even with Visnovsky and Lydman having strong years, that remains true. They were bailed out early by Jonas Hiller’s Vezina-calibre season and late by Corey Perry’s vintage Wayne Gretzky impersonation and Teemu Selanne’s vintage Teemu Selanne impersonation. Sure, Nashville’s boring and has no one you’ve heard of other than Shea Weber, who’s a favourite to win the Norris this year, but they’re solid and well-coached and have a Vezina-calibre goalie who hasn’t spent the past two months having dizzy spells. Against someone other than the Detroits or Chicagos of the world, that’s probably enough. Time to throw the catfish and get your party on, Music City. You’re goin’ to Round Two. Nashville in six.

Hoop Says: I will be watching every minute of this series that I possibly can! This series will be a knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out, all out war! Anaheim has the better top end scoring. The Predators have better depth up front. Nashville has the best defense pair. Anaheim’s D may be a little deeper. It comes down to Pekka Rinne vs whoever Anaheim throws into the net as they have a bunch of solid goaltenders. I think this is finally the year though. Nashville in seven.

Matt Says: Anaheim in seven. I may be completely wrong here (and the others’ picks certainly seem to indicate so), but can’t the Ducks continue to be mighty?

Gerard Says: Nashville in six.

	1	5	3	6	3	2	2
	4	3	4	3	4	4	4

Prince of Wales Conference Quarterfinals

(1) Washington vs. (8) NY Rangers

Playoff History: An old Patrick Division rivalry, though because Washington was kind of crap until the late ’80s, it didn’t have the traction some other combinations did.

1986 DF	1990 DF	1991 DSF	1994 CSF	2009 CQF
4-2	4-1	4-2	4-1	4-3

Previously On…Survivor: The Caps were stunned by Jaro Halak’s Montreal Canadiens in a seven-game upset, hocking up a 3-1 series lead in the process. The Rangers’ last playoff appearance was two years ago, when they hocked up a 3-1 series lead to these very Washington Capitals. Oh, symmetry.

Season Series: The Rangers won the last three meetings in a row, two in regulation and another in the shootout. The most recent match was a 6-0 drubbing of the Caps on February 25.

Doogie Says: I know a lot of people have looked at the season series, seen the scorelines, and called for the upset, but I think you have to discount that stuff, here. Never mind the fact that it’s only four games, anyway: when two of them are blowouts, and thus outliers, you might as well forget the whole thing and focus on what else you’ve got. That being: a Rangers team without one of their best forwards, which barely held on in the final week, versus a Capitals team that’s made real improvements defensively, even in the absence of Dennis Wideman, and seems to be taking a number of cues from Stanley Cup champion Jason Arnott, who came in at the deadline. King Henrik is always capable of stealing a series — though I wouldn’t dismiss the Caps’ young goalies, either — but otherwise, I don’t think the Rangers have the horses for this matchup. Washington in five.

Hoop Says: You are going to have a really tough time convincing me that the New York Rangers can match up anywhere on the ice with the Capitals other than between the pipes. I do think Henrik Lundqvist can steal a game or two in this series but he won’t be able to hold off the Caps long enough. I expect Ovechkin to have a huge series here. Washington in six.

Matt Says: Rangers in six. The Caps are still a big playoff question mark for me. Going with Gerard on this one.

Gerard Says: Rangers in seven.

	2	2	2	4	3	4
	1	0	3	3	1	1

(2) Philadelphia vs. (7) Buffalo

Playoff History: The Flyers and Sabres have one of the more storied rivalries amongst post-1967 teams, one which started out a little one-sided before the Sabres took three of the last four meetings, including the only one since the lockout.

1975 SCF	1978 QF	1995 CQF	1997 CSF	1998 CQF	2000 CQF	2001 CQF	2006 CQF
4-2	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-2

Previously On…Survivor: The Flyers snuck in on the last day, very nearly the last game of the entire NHL schedule, and went all the way to the Finals before falling to the Blackhawks in six. The Sabres won their division last year, but were ousted by Tim Thomas and the Boston Bruins in the first round in six games.

Season Series: Tied at two, with the Flyers getting the edge in points thanks to an OTL in their most recent meeting just a few days ago.

Doogie Says: I’ve been dreading this series, because I really have no idea which way to go, and it’s entirely due to our old friend, Chris Pronger. Since he went down, his Flyers have played like hot garbage, barely able to keep pace against bad teams, never mind the decent ones. On the other hand, if Pronger can come back early enough in the series, I’m not sure I’d want to be Buffalo. Speaking of Buffalo, their main advantage is probably goaltending: while Miller’s come back to Earth a bit this year, Enroth has played well during Miller’s recent injury, and their goaltending is probably more reliable than Philly’s, anyway. Buffalo can score enough to get by, though Philly’s one of the highest-scoring teams in the League, even with their recent swoon. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it’s all about Pronger: if he’s gone long enough, the Flyers may wind up in a hole they can’t dig themselves out of; if he comes back early, then even the ghost of Taro Tsujimoto won’t save the Sabres. Split the difference, say Buffalo in seven, and pray.

Hoop Says: I really, really, really want to pick the Sabres to win this series but I can’t. Philly is just too deep and Chris Pronger will be back sooner rather than later and that makes the biggest difference in this series. Buffalo is going to put up a heck of a fight but it just won’t be enough. Philadelphia in seven.

Matt Says: Philadelphia in five. Completely off the cuff…

Gerard Says: Philadelphia in five.

	0	5	4	0	3	5	5	4
	1	4	2	1	4	4	2	3

(3) Boston vs. (6) Montreal

Playoff History: Welcome, friends, to the 87^th annual 33^rd meeting between the Boston Bruins and Montreal Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Not sure there’s anything more I can say here that I didn’t say in 2008, 2009, or even 2010 when it looked like it was gonna happen again.

1929 SF	1930 SCF	1931 SF	1943 SF	1946 SCF	1947 SF	1952 SF	1953 SCF
3-0	2-0	3-2	4-1	4-1	4-1	4-3	4-1
1954 SF	1955 SF	1957 SCF	1958 SCF	1968 QF	1969 SF	1971 QF	1977 SCF
4-0	4-1	4-1	4-2	4-0	4-2	4-3	4-0
1978 SCF	1979 SF	1984 DSF	1985 DSF	1986 DSF	1987 DSF	1988 DSF	1989 DF
4-2	4-3	3-0	3-2	3-0	4-0	4-1	4-1
1990 DF	1991 DF	1992 DF	1994 CQF	2002 CQF	2004 CQF	2008 CQF	2009 CQF
4-1	4-3	4-0	4-3	4-2	4-3	4-3	4-0

Previously On…Survivor: The Bruins held a 3-0 series lead in their second-round series against Philly, but gave it all back and became just the third team in NHL history to lose a series while up by three. Because of that, they lost the chance to face Montreal for the third straight year, this time in the conference finals; instead, Montreal went out meekly against the Flyers in that round, losing in just five games.

Season Series: The Habs won it 4-2. It’s worth pointing out that both of Boston’s wins were weird outliers — the 8-6 Tribute to the 80s and the 7-0 post-Pacioretty letdown — but at the same time, the Bruins nearly shut out the Habs on January 8 before they came back in the last five minutes to win in OT. So it’s been weird and either more or less even than it looks.

Doogie Says: The Bruins are, to put it mildly, a high-event team, both taking and giving up the second-most shots at even strength in the NHL this year. They were able to outscore the living crap out of teams in large part because of Tim Thomas’s NHL-record 0.938 SV% this year, and while normally, the stats guys are all over unsustainably high SV% values, it seems to me that Thomas has done this two or three times now, so maybe he’s really just that good. Regardless, the one team he’s historically had trouble against is Montreal, and that’s what I’m banking on pretty heavily: one weird, lopsided shutout isn’t enough to convince me that those daemons have been vanquished at this point, and with Carey Price now playing like the 5^th-overall selection in 2005, the goaltending matchup is going to be pretty compelling. The advanced stats actually like Montreal quite a bit, even with Markov and Gorges gone for half the season, though this is the time of year where a blood-and-guts guy like Gorges comes in really handy (Subban has made his presence felt enough on the PP, anyway, to make up for the offensive component of Markov’s loss, at least). I don’t think Montreal goes as far as they did last year, simply because I think Price is going to wear out at some point soon, but the homer in me is hoping that he holds out long enough to polish off da Broons once again. Montreal in six.

Hoop Says: I don’t think I have picked a Canadiens series correct since 1989 so Montreal fans should be thrilled with my pick. I just don’t see how the Canadiens are going to be able to push their way through the Bruins to get enough quality chances on Tim Thomas who just put up the best save percentage for a season ever. Chara will be a monster. This is easy. Boston in five.

Matt Says: Boston in six. As much as I’d like to see the Canadiens go somewhere, I still am siding with Boston.

Gerard Says: Boston in six.

	0	1	4	5	2	1	4	4
	2	3	2	4	1	2	3	3

(4) Pittsburgh vs. (5) Tampa Bay

Playoff History: None. These two teams have never really been even decent at the same time, never mind good, so there was never much chance of a playoff matchup.

Previously On…Survivor: The defending-champion Pens were the other team eliminated by Halak in seven in the second round. The Bolts, meanwhile, haven’t made the playoffs since ’07, when they were bounced by the Devils in the opening round in six games.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, though it’s worth noting that the Pens won big in both their victories (5-1 and 8-1) and lost small in their two defeats (5-3 and 2-1).

Doogie Says: You know, I was all ready to write off Tampa as another weak Eastern team outplaying its talent on the back of shitty opposition. But then I looked at the outshooting and possession stats, as best as I could figure out how, anyway, and it turns out they’re actually a pretty solid club with the misfortune of mostly-terrible goaltending. Before Roli showed up, team save percentage was deep into the 80s, which is no way to win hockey games; now, they at least have a guy putting up average numbers, which is a step in the right direction. In that sense, they remind me a little of the ’06 Oilers: great underlying numbers, horrifying goaltending, so they finish lower than you might expect. Still, I don’t know that it’s advisable to predict in favour of the Bolts based on the idea that Roli could recapture the magic, because what if he doesn’t, and continues to play to more-or-less regular-season form? What if Marc-Andre Fleury gets hot, too/instead? What if Roli goes down? What about the remarkable inconsistency he’s shown at times this year, alternating between shutout and blowout? There are too many questions about the most important position out there for me to commit to the Lightning train at this point, especially since the advanced stats still like the Pens, even without Crosby or Malkin. Let me say it here now, though: if Roli gets hot again, I’m not sure I’d bet against the Bolts making their second Cup Final. Pittsburgh in six.

Hoop Says: I’ve had a lot of trouble deciding who I think is going to win this series. This looks like it could be a great match-up and a fantastic series. Offensively the Bolts have the edge until some guy named Sid decides to return which could be soon if he’s needed. The Penguins have a far superior defense, and I think the Penguins have a slight edge in net and that to me is the deciding factor. Pittsburgh in seven.

Matt Says: Tampa Bay in six. Yeah, Tampa in six.

Gerard Says: Tampa Bay in six.

	3	1	3	3	2	2	0	3
	0	5	2	2	8	4	1	4