Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks Thread!!!!!!

[Drew Doughty]

it still shouldn't count. "incidental contact" isn't allowed either.

 

It's allowed all the time.

 

no it isn't

 

Okay, think that if you will, but it's true. Contact with the goalie happens all the time and is usually allowed. That's especially true when the puck is bouncing around in front of him and everybody is hacking at it.

 

there's a pretty large difference between hacking at a rebound and forcing yourself to the net and being pushed into the goalie. goals are called back all the time for "incidental contact" and i thought it was more than that last night.

[kujay]

^Having only seen the play once, I thought it should have been disallowed and Buff should have gotten a minor for goalie interference. He wasn't pushed.

 

But that's the way it goes.

[kujay]

If there was any doubt, it can be put to rest. Rick Morrissey is an idiot.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/2242002,CST-SPT-morrissey06.article

 

Yes, Rick, in a series that has tilted in favor of the Hawks far more than the 2-1 lead indicates, let's give the Canucks a reason to get fired up.

[UMFan83]

Patrick Kane was the lucky recipient of the scorer's largesse, at first — but clearly the puck entered the net on a one-yard run with plenty of help from the offensive line, with Byfuglien leading the blocking.

 

 

Or as they say under the twisted logic of the NHL's Toronto office: “Good goal!”

 

It was a sketchy play, but get over it. You lost by 3 goals, but 90% of the vancouver paper's article is about this one goal.

[UMFan83]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351585/BUFFY_medium.jpg

 

LOL

[Soul]

It's really great how much Buff gets under their skin.

 

For large parts of the season it seems he barely shows up. Then it's the Vancouver series and BAM -- Buff is a primary factor.

[E.J.]

Patrick Kane was the lucky recipient of the scorer's largesse, at first — but clearly the puck entered the net on a one-yard run with plenty of help from the offensive line, with Byfuglien leading the blocking.

 

 

Or as they say under the twisted logic of the NHL's Toronto office: “Good goal!”

 

It was a sketchy play, but get over it. You lost by 3 goals, but 90% of the vancouver paper's article is about this one goal.

 

Not to mention it was the last goal that came in the last 6 minutes of the game when Vancouver was already down 2 goals. It was meaningless.

[jersey cubs fan]

Patrick Kane was the lucky recipient of the scorer's largesse, at first — but clearly the puck entered the net on a one-yard run with plenty of help from the offensive line, with Byfuglien leading the blocking.

 

 

Or as they say under the twisted logic of the NHL's Toronto office: “Good goal!”

 

It was a sketchy play, but get over it. You lost by 3 goals, but 90% of the vancouver paper's article is about this one goal.

 

Not to mention it was the last goal that came in the last 6 minutes of the game when Vancouver was already down 2 goals. It was meaningless.

 

I wouldn't call it meaningless, it was the nail in the coffin on what was still a winnable game at the time.

[Soul]

At 4-2 I was about ready to turn off the game and declare it a win in the name of an extra 20-30 minutes of sleep.

 

Then that goal happened, and it was just the icing on the cake. I didn't stick around for the refs decision. Maybe it wasn't meaningless, but it wasn't worth watching whether it would be scored a goal or not, IMHO.

 

For Canucks fans to fixate on that goal is pretty silly. They lost the game before that.

[kujay]

Sassone notes this and I've seen it a few other places -- vows from the Canucks to get into Niemi's kitchen.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/4012

 

I heard some talk on NHL Radio yesterday (my new favorite station, by the way) that Game 3 was close to devolving into a riot at times. I didn't really see that, but if there is no regard for the keepers on either end and this game gets out of hand (which is to say if the Hawks open up a big lead late), I could see a line brawl happening. Let's just hope Burish and Eager are out there when it happens.

 

Can't wait for this one. Sucks it's not until 8:30, though I guess it will allow for a few hours of after-work drinking. That's what I need to do though, watch this one with a buzz. Will already be nervous enough.

[kujay]

Luongo wants me to like him with this Slap Shot-esque quote. From a Vancouver Sun piece today:

 

Goalie Roberto Luongo said discipline is more important than settling scores.

 

“It's not about sticking up for yourselves, it's about winning the series. That hurts more than anything else we could do to them, or they could do to us,” he said. “If we've got to take a punch in the face to do it, so be it.”

 

He said he has not personally considered creating a no-fly zone around his crease by swinging his stick like a scythe, a la oldtimers Billy Smith or Ron Hextall.

 

“I don't want to be in the box, either,” said Luongo. “Then I'd really feel shame.”

[RedFlash]

Sassone notes this and I've seen it a few other places -- vows from the Canucks to get into Niemi's kitchen.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/4012

 

I heard some talk on NHL Radio yesterday (my new favorite station, by the way) that Game 3 was close to devolving into a riot at times. I didn't really see that, but if there is no regard for the keepers on either end and this game gets out of hand (which is to say if the Hawks open up a big lead late), I could see a line brawl happening. Let's just hope Burish and Eager are out there when it happens.

 

Can't wait for this one. Sucks it's not until 8:30, though I guess it will allow for a few hours of after-work drinking. That's what I need to do though, watch this one with a buzz. Will already be nervous enough.

 

Canucks are desparate aren't they? Let the Canucks play a different game then they are used to, as long as the Hawks stay within themselves they should take a 3-1 lead after tonight.

[kujay]

Canucks are desparate aren't they? Let the Canucks play a different game then they are used to, as long as the Hawks stay within themselves they should take a 3-1 lead after tonight.

 

Well, I think it's in every team's game plan to crowd the net. It's just a matter of focusing on it and showing the willingness to take the beating in there. So I don't think it will be them playing a "different" game. So far the sisters and Burrows and the rest of their very-easy-to-hate team just haven't been willing to do what they need to do.

 

Assuming they finally do show that effort, which they probably will (because as you said, they will be desperate), it's on the defense to play nasty in the crease.

[Magnetic Curses]

the canucks don't have anyone as big and skilled and expendable as buff, though.

 

i can see buff taking a stick to the face or something, though. just seems like something that might happen.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Stannis

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Seabrook is much, much better at clearing the front of the net than anyone Vancouver has.

[Soul]

We can drop this game and still have home ice advantage (for all that it's worth, but still).

 

I think the Canucks are much more desperate than we are, and whatever they might say about keeping their cool, I fully expect them to be in freak out mode tonight.

[kujay]

We can drop this game and still have home ice advantage (for all that it's worth, but still).

 

I think the Canucks are much more desperate than we are, and whatever they might say about keeping their cool, I fully expect them to be in freak out mode tonight.

 

Yeah, and playing in front of that home crowd could hurt them. Especially if they get down a goal or two early. They will be squeezing the sawdust, er, aluminum, out of those sticks.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's definitely a must win for Vancouver, and I would expect them to be at the top of their game.

[jersey cubs fan]

although Niemi is probably due for a shutout pretty soon.

[UMFan83]

I'll be really happy if we win tonight, but not too disapointed if we lose. Vancouver is too good of a team to be disapointed about splitting 2 games up there. If this was the last round and we were up 2-1, I'd set myself up for disapointment if we lost.

 

In my opinion, the Canucks win tonight but the Hawks take game 5. Originally I think in the back of my mind I had Canucks in 7, and while I won't deny that this is still a possible result, I think I'll change it to Hawks in 6. I reserve the right to change it again if the Canucks dominate tonight. So basically don't even bother listening to my predictions.

[bukie]

I'll be really happy if we win tonight, but not too disapointed if we lose. Vancouver is too good of a team to be disapointed about splitting 2 games up there. If this was the last round and we were up 2-1, I'd set myself up for disapointment if we lost.

 

In my opinion, the Canucks win tonight but the Hawks take game 5. Originally I think in the back of my mind I had Canucks in 7, and while I won't deny that this is still a possible result, I think I'll change it to Hawks in 6. I reserve the right to change it again if the Canucks dominate tonight. So basically don't even bother listening to my predictions.

Well, it won't be Canucks in 4 or 5, at least.

[Banedon]

I still like the Hawks tonight because I think the Canucks are mentally a mess at this point. All of the articles talk about them changing how they play, which I don't think is a good thing for them. They won game 1 because they made the Hawks play their game, not because they tried to play the Hawks game.

 

If they try to play the "Hawks style" of play, I think the Hawks win it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you guys are overanalyzing things. Two similarly talented teams will go out and play a hockey game, and the team that gets bounces and breaks will win. Same as always.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think you guys are overanalyzing things. Two similarly talented teams will go out and play a hockey game, and the team that gets bounces and breaks will win. Same as always.

 

If that were true then no team ever outplays an opponent.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you guys are overanalyzing things. Two similarly talented teams will go out and play a hockey game, and the team that gets bounces and breaks will win. Same as always.

 

If that were true then no team ever outplays an opponent.

 

Sure they do. But that doesn't mean they'll win. Vancouver outplayed the Blackhawks for game 2 and most of game 3, in my estimation.

 

I know I'm overstating it by saying "always," but lucky has a far higher impact in any given hockey game than skill, unless one team is just hopelessly better than the other.