Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Stanley Cup Thread. Vegas vs Florida


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I know they beat you ... and he beat you ... but I don't see how anyone can dislike that tkakakakchuck or whatever his name is. Dude is a baller and straight hockey bad ass. That scrum at the end was wild.

He is a goon plain and simple and that was my opinion before our series with them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida finally fell back to reality, the team that dropped the first 3 games to Boston came back 

We were just too thrown off our game to beat them , Vegas wasn't impressed and rolled them, its what we could have done 

Congrats to Vegas on the Cup win, can't wait to start it all over again next season 

Edited by Day1PanthersFan
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toldozer said:

Vegas worked them.  How could we not score against florida

Because we were mostly relying on 4th liners and AHLers to score for us due to injuries... We also didn't do the little things like get traffic in front of the net, deflections, etc. while shooting breakaways and one-timers right into Bob's chest or glove.

We were better than Florida, but we weren't beating Vegas with our injuries (not even sure we could if we were fully healthy). Vegas is built like us but is just a lot better than us at what we do. I'm not sure how they have stayed under the cap with all of the talented forwards they have, but good job by their front office.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vegas adapted to their opponents. Let's not forget they were the 4th best team in the league behind Boston, Carolina and NJ. But nobody, including me, paid much attention because they're out west, where games don't start until 10PM EST.

Anyway, as I said, Vegas adapted. Florida thought they could come out and punch them in the mouth and get away with it. Ask Matthew Tkachuk, Gudas, Bennett and Paul Maurice how that worked out for them. Vegas played just as heavy when they needed to and managed to stay out of the box and keep their focus on the goal. Meanwhile, Cheap-shot Tkachuk was racking up more PIM than ice time, and Florida forgot about the end-game and thought they could win by playing physical. When it came time for Florida to actually play some skill hockey, it was too late, and they didn't have the horses, skill set or determination of the 2022-2023 Stanley Cup Champs.

Congrats to Vegas.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harbingers said:

Oof. I’d be curious to see the Vegas injury report. 

As the saying goes, "You f*** with the bull, you'll get the horns."

I said in my earlier post, Vegas in game 1 was like, "You guys sure you want to play this way? 'Cuz, if you do, we'll be more than happy to oblige."

Florida tapped out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...