Round Three
Posted by jtbourne on May 16, 2009 · 6 Comments
ShareThis
Alright everyone, conference finals!
Despite being down to one game a night, I’ll still be in a committed relationship with my Sharp Aquos. Here’s what I see going down in part three of Stanley’s Saga:
(2)Detroit Red Wings vs. (4) Chicago Blackhawks
I. Am. Pumped about this series. It could be a wonderful thriller - but here’s my concern:
It may not be that close.
For those of you who watch basketball, the defending camps are the Boston Celtics. This year, they’re minus KG and in general, not very good. But they keep that win-train packed with coal and cruise along nonetheless, because they’ve won before. You really do grow more comfortable in difficult situations when you’ve been through it before.
The Red Wings have the same knowledge and comfort, with the small difference that they’re really good. And well coached.
The hawks are well coached too, but man, do they seem fragile. Did anybody watch the interviews by the young guns talking about this series? These guys seemed more vulnerable than Luongo in a big game (ooooo, totally kidding Canucks fans, just thought I’d try to alienate another fan base).
The Hawks only chance to win is to get off to a great start in the series. If they fall behind, I don’t see them having the confidence to make the same bounce-back they did in the last round.
Sometimes when you know you’re up against a better team, the guys on the lesser team - when it’s just them and a buddy - will openly admit “we’re f***ed”.
Wings in five.
(4) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (6)Carolina Whalers
Dear Matt (and the rest of the Canes fan),
Granted, your team had Ron Francis, the least-celebrated great player in NHL history (I dare anyone to argue that).
Beyond him, as you know, I find your team inherently unlikeable. I started out by refusing to comment on whatever series they were involved in. But now they’re in a third one. Sigh…
If they win the cup, I vow to write a long, scintillating piece for The Hockey News on how awesome they are, scintillation not included. Any other result… and I plan to continue to drag them through the mud. I just can’t help it.
Sincerely,
jb
This series:
Sadly, the Canes are nicely tailored for playoff hockey. The good news is, they were nicely tailored for playoff hockey in 90′s.
Yes, again, I will be betting against Carolina. It’s like “The Secret” – if I just keep sending out what I want, it will come to me. Did I reference “The Secret”? Yes. That’s how desperately I want Pittsburgh to win.
Fancy-pants Malkin is gonna wake up, and Sid is going to produce less, but regardless, he’s still a constant threat.
This series goes six, with the 
Pens taking it in front of Benedict Cower (or was it Bill?), and when that happens, I won’t have to carve my name next to “Brooks was here”.
I'm a hockey player turned writer. After playing for Alaska Anchorage in the WCHA (NCAA), I carried on with an NHL tryout (New York Islanders in 2007) before spending a couple seasons in the AHL/ECHL (last year was 2008-09). My father, Bob Bourne, won four Stanley Cups with the Islanders in the '80's, as did my fiancee's dad, Clark Gillies. I'm now the web editor for theScore's hockey blog "Backhand Shelf."
When it comes to Carolina, drag away my man, drag away. Now if only the Panthers and Predators would do something news worthy for you to bash them too; I’d be even happier
Ha, you get promoted into my top ten favourite commenters.
Oh man, I’m glad you’re saying the Carolina Whalers are going to lose, because, well, they don’t exist. Guess that means the Carolina Hurricanes still have a chance.
Dude, in the Secret they say negative thoughts like those attract the exact opposite of what you actually want. So if you say “I hope the Canes shit the bed”, they will win, compared to “I want the Pens to advance”
Positive Mental Attitude my friend. Even if that book is BS, which of course it is, accentuating the positive and ignoring the negative is the only way to live.
Ha, okay, busted, I never read “The Secret”, which I’m proud is in print. I’ll assume your wife told you about it. But you’re right – glass half full. I’m all sunshines and lollipops over here m’man.
I read the first chapter and a half before I realized how ridiculous it is. It isn’t just a PMA manual (Think and Grow Rich), it actually tries to argue that the scientific Law of Attraction applies to thoughts, reasoning that thoughts are physical bodies that can be literally attracted to one another like electrons or nuclei or something. It’s really, really stupid.
And I actually picked it up at the Library on my own accord. My girl would probably walk out the door if she saw it in my possession. And rightfully so.