226-253 -3683
2U VAN -110
2U VAN U5.5 +102
1.5U NAS +1.5 -193
1.5U VEG -1.5 +229
1U BUF -110
.5U OTT O6 -138
.5U WAS -1.5 +281
.5U WIN -1.5 +267
.5U COL -1.5 +114
.5U BOS TT O2.5 -138
.5U ANA -1.5 +134
.5U ANA O6.5 -118
226-253 -3683
2U VAN -110
2U VAN U5.5 +102
1.5U NAS +1.5 -193
1.5U VEG -1.5 +229
1U BUF -110
.5U OTT O6 -138
.5U WAS -1.5 +281
.5U WIN -1.5 +267
.5U COL -1.5 +114
.5U BOS TT O2.5 -138
.5U ANA -1.5 +134
.5U ANA O6.5 -118
226-253 -3683
2U VAN -110
2U VAN U5.5 +102
1.5U NAS +1.5 -193
1.5U VEG -1.5 +229
1U BUF -110
.5U OTT O6 -138
.5U WAS -1.5 +281
.5U WIN -1.5 +267
.5U COL -1.5 +114
.5U BOS TT O2.5 -138
.5U ANA -1.5 +134
.5U ANA O6.5 -118
Why Vegas Puck Line? Was leaning Mild on that one, but could see Vegas ML at home, PL seems a bridge too far. Just curious - BOL tonight. ![]()
Why Vegas Puck Line? Was leaning Mild on that one, but could see Vegas ML at home, PL seems a bridge too far. Just curious - BOL tonight. ![]()
@dyamarik
First, nothing I say should matter too much as I am ice cold.
Outside of the numbers (metrics) I look at I like the way they just looked.
The way they played Saturday against Colorado would indicate maybe they have righted their form considering they looked great against SJ the game before.
Besides Eichel ill and Theodore being out they showed great depth as well.
MINN lost their last two to NAS as a home favorite and to COL as a home dog.
So, I am thinking this could be a momentum play for them.
BUT if you have a better read -- THEN you are probably correct.
![]()
@dyamarik
First, nothing I say should matter too much as I am ice cold.
Outside of the numbers (metrics) I look at I like the way they just looked.
The way they played Saturday against Colorado would indicate maybe they have righted their form considering they looked great against SJ the game before.
Besides Eichel ill and Theodore being out they showed great depth as well.
MINN lost their last two to NAS as a home favorite and to COL as a home dog.
So, I am thinking this could be a momentum play for them.
BUT if you have a better read -- THEN you are probably correct.
![]()
