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

[Butterscup1679666578]

i think he means he said it himself after it was 0-2

[Hall7810]

Game 1: Sat (May 29), 7 p.m., at Blackhawks, NBC

Game 2: Mon (May 31), 7 p.m., at Blackhawks, NBC

Game 3: Wed (Jun 2), 7 p.m., at Philadelphia, Versus

Game 4: Fri (Jun 4), 7 p.m. at Philadelphia, Versus

*Game 5: Sun (Jun 6), 7 p.m., at Blackhawks, NBC

*Game 6: Wed (Jun 9), 7 p.m. at Philadelphia, NBC

*Game 7: Fri (Jun 11), 7 p.m., at Blackhawks, NBC

 

Times are all CDT

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hall7810

[kujay]

Pretty surprised there are no weekend afternoon games.

 

I'll be on an airplane during game 3, but otherwise this looks pretty good.

[bcl412]

If they go for the sweep I would have to go somewhere for game 4. I don't want to miss them hoist the cup if it should happen.

[Guest]

Interesting...I'll be in Vegas for games 4 & 5.

[gflore34]

nah, the hawks didn't dominate san jose. the only gamethe hawks significantly outplayed them was game 2. the other 3 games could have easily gone either way.

 

really, with a few more saves from nabakov and a few fewer from niemi, the sharks could realistically be up 3-1 in the series right now

 

 

I know we've been burned as Cub fans and maybe it's hard to wrap our minds around our team being the better team but, one can slice it a million ways. And it'll lead to the same conclusion the Hawks are the best team in the NHL. They bested the Sharks, they'll beat the Flyers as well, no matter how many ways we try to manifest the Flyers as something more than they are.

[Z38Cubs]

Hawks in 5 please. I'm getting married June 4th, the night of game 4, and I don't want to miss a celebration.

[17 Seconds]

nah, the hawks didn't dominate san jose. the only gamethe hawks significantly outplayed them was game 2. the other 3 games could have easily gone either way.

 

really, with a few more saves from nabakov and a few fewer from niemi, the sharks could realistically be up 3-1 in the series right now

 

 

I know we've been burned as Cub fans and maybe it's hard to wrap our minds around our team being the better team but, one can slice it a million ways. And it'll lead to the same conclusion the Hawks are the best team in the NHL. They bested the Sharks, they'll beat the Flyers as well, no matter how many ways we try to manifest the Flyers as something more than they are.

 

oh i know, i'm not arguing any of that. i'm just saying it's really unfair to san jose to say we dominated them. they could have easily won 3 of the 4 games.

 

but yeah, the hawks are definitely showing they are the class of the NHL this year

[Exile on Waveland]

Also surprised the weekend games aren't afternoon games. Also thrilled five out of seven games would be on NBC (I don't have Versus).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Not that a Hawks fan should know, but I think last year was the first afternoon games ever for the Final. Usually they are all 7 p.m. central no matter what.

[17 Seconds]

Pretty surprised there are no weekend afternoon games.

 

i'm glad. night games in the postseason always feel a lot bigger and more climactic to me.

[Banedon]

Hawks in 5 please. I'm getting married June 4th, the night of game 4, and I don't want to miss a celebration.

 

Poor planning, good sir!

[TruffleShuffle]

but odds are good the Blackhawks would be the best team the Flyers have played through the whole playoffs.

 

i don't think you need to put odds on that. the hawks are far and away better than the devils, bruins and habs, probably the best team in the entire league by a pretty good margin. i suppose we will find that out in the next couple of weeks.

 

i hope your team loses, but that is only because my team is involved. i congratulate the hawks on a great season and hope that you all get to experience your team winning the cup... just not this time around :-)

[RedFlash]

really, with a few more saves from nabakov and a few fewer from niemi, the sharks could realistically be up 3-1 in the series right now

 

If a pig had wings.............

 

Nabakov, I thought played as well as any goalie could have played against a hard charging team like the Hawks. So I don't know if I would say "a few more saves from nabakov" would have made a difference, but you know what would have made a difference? If Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley didn't play like butts and play to the talent level. Had they played to their talent, the WCF would be still going on.

[Guest]

Hawks in 5 please. I'm getting married June 4th, the night of game 4, and I don't want to miss a celebration.

 

Always want the winning team to celebrate at home anyway.

[17 Seconds]

If a pig had wings.............

 

Nabakov, I thought played as well as any goalie could have played against a hard charging team like the Hawks.

 

i hate to go with the "you must not have watched the games" line, but did you? nobody who watched all 4 games can honestly say that he played as well as he could have

 

So I don't know if I would say "a few more saves from nabakov" would have made a difference

 

what if he doesn't give up the soft byfuglien goal in game 1?

 

what if he stops the bolland breakaway in game 3?

 

what if he doesn't score on himself in game 4 to get the hawks back into it?

 

all 3 of those games ended up being won by a single goa l(the empty netter in game 4 wouldn't have happened). so yes, the series was that close, even if you can't admit it for some reason. the blackhawks could EASILY be down 3-1 right now. i'm not saying this to take away from the blackhawks at all. san jose is a great team and sweeping them by dominaing them all 4 games was unrealistic.

 

"There are a lot of people who are going to say it was a one-way series," defenseman Dan Boyle said. "Anyone who knows anything about hockey knows that three of those four games could certainly have gone our way."

 

boyle is right, and most unbiased hawks fans would agree

[Banedon]

Sharks eulogy.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Eulogy-Remembering-the-2009-10-San-Jose-Sharks?urn=nhl,243341

 

Not as good as others have been if you ask me.

[RedFlash]

If a pig had wings.............

 

Nabakov, I thought played as well as any goalie could have played against a hard charging team like the Hawks.

 

i hate to go with the "you must not have watched the games" line, but did you? nobody who watched all 4 games can honestly say that he played as well as he could have

 

So I don't know if I would say "a few more saves from nabakov" would have made a difference

 

what if he doesn't give up the soft byfuglien goal in game 1?

 

what if he stops the bolland breakaway in game 3?

 

what if he doesn't score on himself in game 4 to get the hawks back into it?

 

all 3 of those games ended up being won by a single goa l(the empty netter in game 4 wouldn't have happened). so yes, the series was that close, even if you can't admit it for some reason. the blackhawks could EASILY be down 3-1 right now. i'm not saying this to take away from the blackhawks at all. san jose is a great team and sweeping them by dominaing them all 4 games was unrealistic.

 

"There are a lot of people who are going to say it was a one-way series," defenseman Dan Boyle said. "Anyone who knows anything about hockey knows that three of those four games could certainly have gone our way."

 

boyle is right, and most unbiased hawks fans would agree

 

But Nabakov wasn't the major reason why the Sharks lost, tho, dex. Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley playin like their heads are up their butts were far more devasting then Nabakov. If anybody on the Sharks could have helped Patrick Marleau then the Sharks would still be playing. So basically it was Marleau .v. the Blackhawks, seeing as Marleau scored, I believe, 5 out the Sharks 7 goals. I am a believer that a goalie is only as good as the team that is put in front of him, and the Sharks were clearly talented, but the 2nd best team in the series.

 

Yes, I realize a break here or there and the Sharks are still in it, but come on man, sports is often about luck and momentum. But what Boyle said has some truth in it, no doubt, but it sounds like the Sharks version of, "had Alex Gonzalez turned that double play in the 8th inning," or "had Alou not thrown a hissy fit," etc, etc He may not have meant to say it how it was said, but there is a little whining in what he said. But as Hawks fans, we know how a sweep can be often look as one team dominating another team. (cue the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals)

 

Bottomline is, Niemi was freaking awesome in the series (something like .949 save percentage, and 1.67 GAA). Luck notwithstanding, the Hawks may not have dominated the Sharks, but Niemi personally did. So defend the Sharks if you want, dex, but the Hawks showed and proved why they were as good as they were all season, and finishing with a just a point behind the Sharks for the reg. season.

[17 Seconds]

why do you keep acting like i'm insulting the blackhawks or something? you're talking about a bunch of stuff i never even brought up. all i said was that it's not accurate to say we dominated them. 3 of the 4 games were pretty evenly played.

 

Now i'm interested to hear how you spin this and act like I'm saying the Hawks didn't deserve to win and that the Sharks are better. Seriously, any time anybody says anything about this team other than that they're awesome, you get all offended and act like we're trashing the team.

Edited May 25, 2010 by 17 Seconds

[Soul]

I don't see why we need to play the "what if" game. Nabokov wasn't as good as Niemi. So what? That's sports.

 

What -- your conference championship isn't legit unless you went against Patrick Roy in his prime to get it? Come on, stop please.

[17 Seconds]

Who is playing the "what if" game?

 

We're not talking about who deserved the win. I'm talking about the statement that the hawks "dominated" the Sharks, which just isn't true.

 

See how RedFlash makes the argument into something it's not? I point out that we outplayed them but didn't "dominate" the series (as if there's some shame in that or something), and he pretends I'm saying the Hawks didn't deserve to win or that we got lucky.

 

The Hawks deserved to win. They were the better team. They did not dominate the series.

 

 

What -- your conference championship isn't legit unless you went against Patrick Roy in his prime to get it? Come on, stop please.

 

I want to know where anybody said anything remotely close to this.

[Soul]

Understood. I'd just like to not go in that direction. As for the Hawks dominating: I'm not sure it matters. To me, the Sharks are a very good team. Just beating them is enough.

[17 Seconds]

I know. I never said it wasn't. It was a very convincing series against a great team. They absolutely earned it. RedFlash just likes making it seem like I'm insulting the team when I'm not.

[TruffleShuffle]

2010 NHL Stanley Cup Finals Series Odds:

Philadelphia Flyers +200

Chicago Blackhawks -260

 

seems about right to me.

[UMFan83]

I see stuff like Buff's OT goal in game 3 being proof that the Sharks are just a little bit worse than the Hawks. I'm not saying the Hawks are incapable of mental lapses, but Heatley was out of position defensively a lot this series, and it bit him in the butt that time and gave the Hawks the game. You can play what ifs both ways (for example, what if Hossa had knocked in the puck on an open net opportunity in game 3...overtime probably doesn't happen), but the bottom line is the Hawks won because they did the little things better, made less mistakes and caught probably 1-2 more breaks than the Sharks did.

 

I agree that a few things hear and there and it's easily 3-1 Sharks. Of course you can say that about most series that aren't Atlanta-Orlando. The Hawks got swept in the 92 finals, but were only outscored by 5 total goals. The Wings lost to the Sharks in 5 last round but outscored the Sharks for the series. The White Sox swept the Astros in the World Series but only outscored the Astros by 6 (2 one run games, and another that went 14 innings). It really felt like a hard fought series that we somehow swept.