Personally my favorite playoffs of the 4 major sports. I wouldn't worry about the hawks recent struggles. Feel like it's a combination of crawford being hurt and the hawks taking their foot off the gas because they continually have long seasons.
Hawks get Keith back tonight. People are freaking out here but they outplayed St. Louis for 65 minutes the other night. I hate the blues, dirty team with a scumbag coach.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 15, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
Hawks get Keith back tonight. People are freaking out here but they outplayed St. Louis for 65 minutes the other night. I hate the blues, dirty team with a scumbag coach.
The Hawks didn't take advantage of their multiple power play opportunities and once you get into overtime a garbage goal can easily (and did) happen. Hawks need to get out to an early lead and take game 2 tonight.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 15, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
Hawks get Keith back tonight. People are freaking out here but they outplayed St. Louis for 65 minutes the other night. I hate the blues, dirty team with a scumbag coach.
As I watched the game, I thought there is no way St. Louis can score a goal tonight. Turns out I was right. Chi had to score it for them.
Wow, I was out so I didn't really have a close view of the offside but man what a game. Shawzy doing shawzy things.
I'm happy about the result, but replay is certainly making the game worse
Quote from: MUsoxfan on April 15, 2016, 10:22:18 PM
I'm happy about the result, but replay is certainly making the game worse
What did Hitchcock challenge?
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 15, 2016, 11:13:20 PM
What did Hitchcock challenge?
The offsides no-goal. AFTER it was already ruled on by Toronto
Didn't get a chance to see the game live but both reviewed calls seem easy and correct. As to the supposed interference, how 'bout the Blues defenseman actually clear Shaw out? He has every right to be there banging away at the puck.
Hawks!
Quote from: jsglow on April 16, 2016, 08:14:06 AM
Didn't get a chance to see the game live but both reviewed calls seem easy and correct. As to the supposed interference, how 'bout the Blues defenseman actually clear Shaw out? He has every right to be there banging away at the puck.
Hawks!
My friend and I were talking about that. If anything it shoulda been a cross check on Shattenkirk.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 16, 2016, 01:11:51 PM
My friend and I were talking about that. If anything it shoulda been a cross check on Shattenkirk.
Both Shaw and Seabrook were crosschecked. It was pretty blatant too
How Hitchcock has a job blows my mind
Hawks in trouble
Because they let the Blues draw them into a physical series.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 20, 2016, 08:20:53 AM
Because they let the Blues draw them into a physical series.
Their PK has been atrocious and they've made some very uncharacteristic mistakes. The dumb penalties are one thing, but bad passes in their own zone and not clearing out live pucks have hurt them. And Brian Elliott is playing out of his mind, dude is seeing EVERYTHING.
PK is awful. Though if I had to choose to be down 3-1 to one team, it's the blues.
Shaw suspended for slur
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15281995/blackhawks-forward-andrew-shaw-suspended-one-game-anti-gay-slur
My son and I were watching the game, and did some lip reading when he was in the Sin Bin.....I definitely saw the "puck you" about 5 times, but didn't catch the rest. I'll have to see a replay.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 03:51:38 PM
Shaw suspended for slur
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15281995/blackhawks-forward-andrew-shaw-suspended-one-game-anti-gay-slur
My son and I were watching the game, and did some lip reading when he was in the Sin Bin.....I definitely saw the "puck you" about 5 times, but didn't catch the rest. I'll have to see a replay.
Its pretty blatant. I won't link it here, but you can see it pretty clearly on Deadspin. I like Shaw, he's a great energy guy and does a lot of really great off the ice things, but thats not a good look and something that can't be defended.
I thought it was pretty obvious watching it live, you see that stuff pretty regularly in the NHL.
Quote from: JWags85 on April 20, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
Its pretty blatant. I won't link it here, but you can see it pretty clearly on Deadspin. I like Shaw, he's a great energy guy and does a lot of really great off the ice things, but thats not a good look and something that can't be defended.
Just went to Deadspin, yeah looks pretty obvious on that replay. For some reason I don't recall seeing that. I remember he grabbed the water bottle holder, threw it down, dropped a few f-bombs, but I don't recall him smacking the glass with his stick and then unleashing that tirade.
Quote from: PTM on April 17, 2016, 07:41:07 AM
How Hitchcock has a job blows my mind
Beating the defending champs in the playoffs doesn't hurt.
Quote from: Coleman on April 20, 2016, 06:29:56 PM
Beating the defending champs in the playoffs doesn't hurt.
Who they finished higher than and would mark the first time they weren't upset in the first round of the playoffs in 4 years. They are the Georgetown of the NHL.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 03:51:38 PM
Shaw suspended for slur
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15281995/blackhawks-forward-andrew-shaw-suspended-one-game-anti-gay-slur
My son and I were watching the game, and did some lip reading when he was in the Sin Bin.....I definitely saw the "puck you" about 5 times, but didn't catch the rest. I'll have to see a replay.
If the NHL wanted to suspend him for his actions leaving the ice, giving the double bird to the officials (twice!) and the slur, I'm fine with that. It's deserved. However, to claim that the suspension was primarily a result of using a slur that happened to be caught on camera is a very slippery slope. I'd guess that he wasn't the only one shouting offensive slurs during that melee. Is the league going to go back and review all incidents and fights to see whether or not any players said horrible, hateful, offensive things? Perhaps it only sets the precedent that you can say them as long as you don't get caught...or it could be lazy reporting by ESPN (for the sake of the headline) and he actually was suspended for the whole hissy fit, not just the slur.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 21, 2016, 08:29:14 AM
If the NHL wanted to suspend him for his actions leaving the ice, giving the double bird to the officials (twice!) and the slur, I'm fine with that. It's deserved. However, to claim that the suspension was primarily a result of using a slur that happened to be caught on camera is a very slippery slope. I'd guess that he wasn't the only one shouting offensive slurs during that melee. Is the league going to go back and review all incidents and fights to see whether or not any players said horrible, hateful, offensive things? Perhaps it only sets the precedent that you can say them as long as you don't get caught...or it could be lazy reporting by ESPN (for the sake of the headline) and he actually was suspended for the whole hissy fit, not just the slur.
Nope. He was suspended for the slur and fined for flipping double birds at the officials. The suspension was completely appropriate and deserved.
The league, and other leagues, have gone back and reviewed incidents when such allegations have been made and issued suspensions and/or fines as a result (see: Rajon Rondo, Kobe Bryant, Joakim Noah, Chris Simon, John Terry). This is hardly a precedent-setting move by the NHL here.
Shaw came out looking like a total jerk.
Obvious cross-check right in front of the ref. Goes berserk with double-flip of the bird in the middle of the arena. That not being enough, he couldn't resist the slur.
Cost his team any chance of winning that game and hurts their chances tonight.
Maybe they'll rally using "win one for the douchebag" inspiration.
Separate topic but is there anyone else that dislikes the current NHL playoff set up? Hawks finish tied for 3rd in points in the conference yet have to face the team with the 2nd most points in the Blues (who also would have a reason to dislike the set up, current series lead aside).
This opinion is not in response to the Hawks being down 3 - 1. I've disliked it since its inception. Aside from the top two seeds for winning your division, I think the rest of the playoffs should be seeded by conference based on total points.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 21, 2016, 04:34:23 PM
Separate topic but is there anyone else that dislikes the current NHL playoff set up? Hawks finish tied for 3rd in points in the conference yet have to face the team with the 2nd most points in the Blues (who also would have a reason to dislike the set up, current series lead aside).
This opinion is not in response to the Hawks being down 3 - 1. I've disliked it since its inception. Aside from the top two seeds for winning your division, I think the rest of the playoffs should be seeded by conference based on total points.
I agree. Honestly who even needs divisions? Just have 2 conferences, play your entire conference equally. Seed the teams straight up 1-8.
Gutty win last night. Out-skated for all but two minutes of the overtime periods and yet they survive. After seeing Elliott whine to the officials about non-existent interference on Kane's winner, I hope he is rattled and absolutely porous tomorrow night.
The other thing that made me happy was Pat Foley calling out (on the local broadcast) the stupidity of these 8:30 weeknight starts. Hopefully someone in the front office is listening. It was bad enough staying up past midnight for triple overtime games in the last few years -- now the first OT ends at 12:30.
Edit: Just saw on the Tribune's page that NBCSN cut him off. Figures.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/ct-pat-foley-late-start-rant-20160422-column.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/ct-pat-foley-late-start-rant-20160422-column.html)
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on April 22, 2016, 02:44:24 PM
Gutty win last night. Out-skated for all but two minutes of the overtime periods and yet they survive. After seeing Elliott whine to the officials about non-existent interference on Kane's winner, I hope he is rattled and absolutely porous tomorrow night.
The other thing that made me happy was Pat Foley calling out (on the local broadcast) the stupidity of these 8:30 weeknight starts. Hopefully someone in the front office is listening. It was bad enough staying up past midnight for triple overtime games in the last few years -- now the first OT ends at 12:30.
TV. It puts money in their pockets.
If the NHL wants NBC's money, it will acquiesce to whatever start times NBC wants.
It does ... and it will.
Which makes the NHL like pretty much every other sports entity, as TV is the tail that walks the dog and has been for many years now.
As for the Hawks, very good win. Nice goal by Kane. The U.C. should be rockin' tonight.
Hockey Monkey!
Back to the Xcel tomorrow after Mikko comes through in OT.
Milbury's response to Foley was great.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/mike-milbury-trashes-blackhawks--pat-foley-for--late-start--rant--video-064416289.html
End of the day, this is about exposure, TV money, etc. Mr. Foley should understand that.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
Milbury's response to Foley was great.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/mike-milbury-trashes-blackhawks--pat-foley-for--late-start--rant--video-064416289.html
End of the day, this is about exposure, TV money, etc. Mr. Foley should understand that.
Milbury is a chucklehead who was a terrible GM and is a terrible commentator. It was an arrogant patronizing backhand to anyone who dares question his employer.
And its not an 8PM start, puck drop with the 830 start is usually about 845, so almost an hour later. Pat Foley also has allegiance to the Hawks and their fans, not the big money cats up at NBC, so what does he care. Its terrible for most fans watching the game.
Quote from: JWags85 on April 23, 2016, 12:30:16 PM
Milbury is a chucklehead who was a terrible GM and is a terrible commentator. It was an arrogant patronizing backhand to anyone who dares question his employer.
And its not an 8PM start, puck drop with the 830 start is usually about 845, so almost an hour later. Pat Foley also has allegiance to the Hawks and their fans, not the big money cats up at NBC, so what does he care. Its terrible for most fans watching the game.
Those of us on the west coast, disagree. Blackhawks President also disagrees. This is the playoffs, not a game against Calgary on a Thursday night in January. The games start later, to appease a national audience.
Chicos, any thoughts on the Sharks/Kings series since you're out in that direction? I'm used to the Sharks being a regular season team and obviously they had struggled to exercise their Kings demon until last night. But from what I saw in this series (granted, only 5 games) they seem like they are more built for playoff hockey.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
Those of us on the west coast, disagree. Blackhawks President also disagrees. This is the playoffs, not a game against Calgary on a Thursday night in January. The games start later, to appease a national audience.
McDonough is not going to complain to Bettman, that makes no sense. So I throw that out. And again, Pat Foley is Hawks affiliated, thus he's hear the opinions of fans and players of that organization. That's what he's addressing, not people in LA. I'd also imagine he's going to hear a more accurate opinion from players than
Bettman.
And I bet if you asked a hockey fan on the east coast, they'd rather flip between 2 games than stay up till 130AM to watch. But again, given your professional background, I understand your bias.
Quote from: MuEagle1090 on April 23, 2016, 01:33:23 PM
Chicos, any thoughts on the Sharks/Kings series since you're out in that direction? I'm used to the Sharks being a regular season team and obviously they had struggled to exercise their Kings demon until last night. But from what I saw in this series (granted, only 5 games) they seem like they are more built for playoff hockey.
My son is the Kings fan, I'm the Ducks fan. Sharks looked good. They have the #3 power play in the league, and they received good goal keeping during the series. I was surprised they took the Kings that easily. Praying my Ducks can get it today, because we have been undisciplined and outplayed for much of this series, need to get on top of the Preds today.
Quote from: JWags85 on April 23, 2016, 04:30:03 PM
McDonough is not going to complain to Bettman, that makes no sense. So I throw that out. And again, Pat Foley is Hawks affiliated, thus he's hear the opinions of fans and players of that organization. That's what he's addressing, not people in LA. I'd also imagine he's going to hear a more accurate opinion from players than
Bettman.
And I bet if you asked a hockey fan on the east coast, they'd rather flip between 2 games than stay up till 130AM to watch. But again, given your professional background, I understand your bias.
I'm not disputing your opinion or his, but I don't think they are rational. This is playoff hockey and with that comes realities. Just like MLB has to go through the same thing, or the NBA. Foley should remember for much of his career the Blackhawks sucked balls and he would have been thrilled just to be on tv in the playoffs. I think that was part of Milbury's response, this isn't rocket science. Foley can hate on it all he wants. So can the players, they have a league to sell, fans to nuture and try to get into the fold. Foley is thinking like a regionalist, not a nationalist. This is a big country with a lot of time zones.
No pressure Monday, St. Louis.
You want OUR Stanley Cup? Better bring your A game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2016, 04:43:22 PM
I'm not disputing your opinion or his, but I don't think they are rational. This is playoff hockey and with that comes realities. Just like MLB has to go through the same thing, or the NBA. Foley should remember for much of his career the Blackhawks sucked balls and he would have been thrilled just to be on tv in the playoffs. I think that was part of Milbury's response, this isn't rocket science. Foley can hate on it all he wants. So can the players, they have a league to sell, fans to nuture and try to get into the fold. Foley is thinking like a regionalist, not a nationalist. This is a big country with a lot of time zones.
I can say with near certainty, Foley's comments were directly from Hawks brass, McDonough was just making nice for the league to see publicly, but I have zero doubt Rocky had no problem with those comments. Also, the Hawks have been pretty good most of Foley's career. Those 80's and early 90's teams consistently made the playoffs and went deep (including '92 Finals).
St. Louis doing St. Louis things.
can't wait for the 7th game. Hawks just seem to dig deep when they are challenged.
how do they keep adding horses when losing guys to free agency every year
that crowd was incredible. my bro-in-law was at the game and his ears are still shot this a.m. the hawks, even when they went down 3-1, were not going to disappoint
I'm not going to predict anything but if the Hawks make a deep playoff run (or even win the Cup), last night's second period will be an important inflection point. Playoff hockey at it finest.
Quote from: MUDish on April 23, 2016, 10:21:36 PM
I can say with near certainty, Foley's comments were directly from Hawks brass, McDonough was just making nice for the league to see publicly, but I have zero doubt Rocky had no problem with those comments. Also, the Hawks have been pretty good most of Foley's career. Those 80's and early 90's teams consistently made the playoffs and went deep (including '92 Finals).
I was talking about the 90's through ought years where they missed the playoffs 9 of 10 years, the one year they made it lost in the first round.
As for the comments, maybe McDonough was making nice, but if he was principled and it mattered that much, he should have said "Gary, we get it, but we're not happy about it". That isn't what he said.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2016, 10:40:04 AM
I was talking about the 90's through ought years where they missed the playoffs 9 of 10 years, the one year they made it lost in the first round.
As for the comments, maybe McDonough was making nice, but if he was principled and it mattered that much, he should have said "Gary, we get it, but we're not happy about it". That isn't what he said.
Love Pat Foley and absolutely hate Milbury, but I agree that the start times are a necessary evil that us CDT folks have to just deal with.
Foley knew he was on the national broadcast and was out of line to bitch on air (which, by the way, is all McDonough supposedly said to Bettman). Milbury proved to be the sniveling toadie that he is by towing the NBC line.
I was more upset with Roenick -- he needs to stick up for his guy, not fist bump the Milsbury Doughboy.
Not a good start
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 25, 2016, 08:14:07 PM
Not a good start
The intensity of the 2nd is bananas
That sucked. I'm not even mad, just disappointed, I think the worst part is that Brouwer got the GWG. Oh well, go Bolts, go Islanders.
I do think the NHL needs to change the playoff seeding to more of a straight 1-8. Obviously you eventually have to beat the good teams to advance, but Blackhawks v. Blues should not have been a first round series. Those were two of the best teams in the league (I do think the Blues are/were the better team), and now one is out. Same could be said of the Kings, Panthers, Rangers (respectively anyway)...Obviously seeds don't always hold, but current system just seems to water down the later rounds.
Got outplayed last night. Congratulations to the Blues. They earned it. Had Crow not been unbelievable it wouldn't have been a one goal margin.
Quote from: jsglow on April 26, 2016, 08:23:43 AM
Got outplayed last night. Congratulations to the Blues. They earned it. Had Crow not been unbelievable it wouldn't have been a one goal margin.
Agreed. Just beat by a better team. That second period was coconuts.
I think they will be ok next year relative to their trouble scoring outside the top line. Panrin, Teravainen, etc. are still quite young, so I suspect they will be able to offer more through the entire season next year. They have GOT TO find way to add some depth at defenseman though. It almost cost them last year, and it did cost them this year.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 26, 2016, 08:32:48 AM
Agreed. Just beat by a better team. That second period was coconuts.
I think they will be ok next year relative to their trouble scoring outside the top line. Panrin, Teravainen, etc. are still quite young, so I suspect they will be able to offer more through the entire season next year. They have GOT TO find way to add some depth at defenseman though. It almost cost them last year, and it did cost them this year.
Agree with all your points. Will add one. Playing until the 4th of July has a way of taking a little from your legs the next year. A little tweak and they're still a championship team.
http://www.letsgohawks.net/2016/06/20/report-teravainens-work-ethic-led-to-trade/
ok, not about playoffs, but re: NHL-their 31st team-las vegas
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/16429478/nhl-officially-approves-las-vegas-31st-franchise
question? why 31 teams? i know they may be considering putting a team back in quebec, but otherwise, you mean toi tell me that all the other 30 teams are doing really well? why not just muscle one the teams from a poorly performing market and relocate them to vegas? right off hand, i'm not familiar enough with the league as a whole and which team that might be-just wondering
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 22, 2016, 10:30:00 PM
ok, not about playoffs, but re: NHL-their 31st team-las vegas
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/16429478/nhl-officially-approves-las-vegas-31st-franchise
question? why 31 teams? i know they may be considering putting a team back in quebec, but otherwise, you mean toi tell me that all the other 30 teams are doing really well? why not just muscle one the teams from a poorly performing market and relocate them to vegas? right off hand, i'm not familiar enough with the league as a whole and which team that might be-just wondering
Florida Panthers come to mind as a relocation candidate. But I think they will move to 32 teams soon. And probably Quebec.
Quote from: Coleman on June 22, 2016, 10:31:32 PM
Florida Panthers come to mind as a relocation candidate. But I think they will move to 32 teams soon. And probably Quebec.
Quebec City is the ideal landing spot for a relocation.
Putting a team in Vegas makes new fans of hockey, even more so when you give them a brand new team that's just for them. Putting a team in Quebec City, new team or relocated team, makes absolutely zero new fans of hockey.
Quote from: Coleman on June 22, 2016, 10:31:32 PM
Florida Panthers come to mind as a relocation candidate. But I think they will move to 32 teams soon. And probably Quebec.
And Arizona & Carolina
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on June 22, 2016, 10:43:41 PM
Quebec City is the ideal landing spot for a relocation.
Putting a team in Vegas makes new fans of hockey, even more so when you give them a brand new team that's just for them. Putting a team in Quebec City, new team or relocated team, makes absolutely zero new fans of hockey.
The biggest relocation candidates happen to be in the places where they have tried "making new fans of hockey." That pretty much signifies that the effort has been mixed at best.
The biggest problem with Quebec is the weak Canadian dollar and that its a meager television market.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 23, 2016, 09:49:11 AM
The biggest relocation candidates happen to be in the places where they have tried "making new fans of hockey." That pretty much signifies that the effort has been mixed at best.
The biggest problem with Quebec is the weak Canadian dollar and that its a meager television market.
Thats gonna be the trouble with QC. Rabid fanbase to be sure, and a beautiful new arena, but a market that is very small. I forgot the comparable US market, but its one that wouldn't appeal if that was what was being proposed.
Quote from: JWags85 on June 23, 2016, 09:54:36 AM
Thats gonna be the trouble with QC. Rabid fanbase to be sure, and a beautiful new arena, but a market that is very small. I forgot the comparable US market, but its one that wouldn't appeal if that was what was being proposed.
Quebec City is about 55% the size of the Milwaukee market. (Las Vegas is smaller than Milwaukee too. But they won't have competition from the NBA.)
Quote from: JWags85 on June 23, 2016, 09:54:36 AM
Thats gonna be the trouble with QC. Rabid fanbase to be sure, and a beautiful new arena, but a market that is very small. I forgot the comparable US market, but its one that wouldn't appeal if that was what was being proposed.
Quebec City itself is about the size of Milwaukee. However, the metro is pretty small. the city is 80% of the metro population...its about the size of the Omaha metro.
But comparing to US metros is apples to oranges. Canada is hockey crazy. It doesn't compete with other sports the way that US markets do.
Quote from: Coleman on June 23, 2016, 10:00:14 AM
Quebec City itself is a decent size city, about the size of Seattle or Denver. However, the metro is pretty small. the city is 80% of the metro population...its about the size of the Omaha metro.
But comparing to US metros is apples to oranges. Canada is hockey crazy. It doesn't compete with other sports the way that US markets do.
I was seeing a metro of 800K which is more like the size of the Madison or Des Moines metro.