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 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.