New Jersey has taken one perfect shot in this series, and it won them game 4

This is why I hate home ice. I just f***ing hate it. I know it’s irrational. Meanwhile (and contradicting what I just said) Darryl Sutter is right. This game was just like the other three games. Could have gone either way.

My eight year old was yelling at the TV, “PENNER YOU IDIOT!” I’m trying to talk to him about sportsmanship, and the fact that Penner didn’t not score from lack of effort, or out of stupidity, or just to upset him (my kid, I mean).

When the Canadiens beat the Bruins in 1979, after the Bruins were leading in the third period of game seven with 3 minutes to go, I bent my bicycle in two, throwing it into the garage. So I can’t really lecture him about Stanley Cup temper tantrums. But I will anyway. Something along the lines of, “if that was your team, and that just happened, what would you say to your teammates?”


  13 comments for “New Jersey has taken one perfect shot in this series, and it won them game 4

  1. Dan H.
    June 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

    I was yelling at Gagne.  “Don’t pass it to Lewis!” and he did.  And Lewis didn’t get a shot off.

    And NBC needs to remove Emrick like now.  He’s making mistakes every shift almost and the homerism is about horrible.

    Nice interference on Quick on the first goal too btw.  He spun Quick sideways before the first shot.

    • June 6, 2012 at 9:37 PM


      And Emrick is incompetent. If I hear “knifed” one more time I’m going to knife the TV. 

      I think I’ll be putting game 5 on the radio. 

    • Garrett79
      June 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM

      Tonight someone “quibbed” the puck into the corner. Now he is just making words up.

      And in Game 2, there were, according to Emrick, “buzz bombers” on the ice. WTF does that mean?

      • Dan H.
        June 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM

        I swear I heard him say “King crowns the puck into the corner” on Monday night.  My friend thinks it was another “knifed” but I think I heard it right.

        • USHA#17
          June 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

           Sorry, but for clarity is that “Knifed” as in “Knifed it Down”, “Knifed it In or “Knifed it to a Teammate”

          • June 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

             Well, in game three it was used as an adjective in describing a pass from Voynov to Williams – “sends a knifing pass” – so who really knows what the fuck it means. It makes a great drinking game, however.

            • June 7, 2012 at 9:28 PM

               I can see why he has a career, because he has a lively style, and that counts for a lot. But he drives me up the wall because of his serial mangling of the english language and his bad habit of exaggerating the excitement of some plays, while ignoring plays that are actually exciting.

              I’m not really a huge bob miller fan, but I have huge respect for his experience and (this applies to Emerick as well) for how hard the play-by-play job is (ask Jim Fox). I think Bob’s greatest gift is that the emotion of his voice matches the play.

              • Dan H.
                June 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM


                Let’s not forget Emrick’s butchering of Kings names every game.  Calling Nolan “Kopitar”, and my favorite was “Dwight Clark” instead of Dwight King.  I didn’t know we had an ex footballer on the team!

          • June 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

            Knifes, regathers, recoils … those are the biggest offenders, off the top of my head. If you were to generate your own Emerickisms, the key, I think, is to take a word that actually exists, and use it in a context that conjures up inappropriate images. “The Kings clear the zone and the Devils recoil.”

    • June 6, 2012 at 10:13 PM

      Every time I watch the Carter OT goal I have hear how Brodeur watched the previous shot “skitter by.”

      Yes, it’s a word, and in that case it is used correctly.  It’s the other 300 times per game that it takes on other forms I’m worried about.

  2. DougS
    June 6, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    I recall Daryl Evans mentioning the other night that home teams have actually won less than 50% of the games in this playoff tournament (I think 44% is the exact figure). No doubt, the Kings have done their part to skew this by winning all of their road games, but it’s still an interesting stat, given that the home team has material advantages in the NHL, not just the “energy” of the home crowd.

    I wonder if league-wide parity is a part of this — as the Kings have demonstrated, your seeding isn’t necessarily a reflection of your quality as a team, so it could be the case in any given series that the team playing more games on the road is actually the superior team. Does that make any sense?

    In any event, I’m disappointed by tonight’s result, but not upset. It would have been nice to go to the Convention Center tomorrow morning, glance over at Staples Center, and bask in the glow. But a sweep was always a lot to expect, and the Kings still hold the high ground.

    • sstephen17
      June 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

      My team is up 3-1 in the SCF, yet I woke up this morning depressed.  Oh how the Kings have spoiled us this playoff season.

      At the game, you could feel the electricity and anxiety of the crowd, anxious to get the Cup.  But the reality is that it is VERY hard to sweep (I believe there has only been one sweep this year and it was the Kings doing it) and the Devils are a strong team, regardless of how the series has gone so far.  I predicted the Kings in 6 but I have a good feeling they will take it on Saturday because of how well they have played on the road.

  3. USHA#17
    June 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM

    I’d say the same thing to a young up and coming hockey fanitic that I said to a neighbor who stopped in to watch his first hockey game; “Man, that was close!”

    All he could say was “I can believe how fast this game is!”. 

    When they interviewed Marty after the my neighbor asked, “how is it that the goalie is the only one with all his teeth?”

    Except that it was a loss, that was a great game last night.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.