Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Sign in to follow this  
Madrose

11/30 Hawks vs Stars

Recommended Posts

Hawks came out flat last night but that isn't uncommon for a team that just played a big game against their biggest rival. I'm sure both the Hawks and Predators had that game circled on the schedule. It looks like Nashville came out flat against Vancouver as well.

But overall, I'm very impressed with the Hawks' play since the Rangers game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EbonyRaptor said on 12 hours ago:

Crawford has been great this season - usually. Tonight he stunk. All 4 goals could have and probably should have been stopped. On the penalty shot and OT goal it looked like he was in a trance. The wrap around was because he overslid the crease and couldn't get back fast enough. The 3rd goal was a nothing shot that usually gets stopped Oh well - he can't be great every game.

Hawks lucky to get a point. Pretty much outplayed for about 40 of the 60 minutes.

Most of the team didn't give a 100% effort tonight. Hopefully the whole team shows up for the rematch. 

Well, in addition, Mr. Toews, the Big Star, turned the puck over on the wrap around goal that set up the Star player and then Toews failed to help Crow protect the side of the cage.  He could have stopped his own turnover from becoming a goal, but he choked, or fell asleep, or whatever it is that he does these days instead of make good plays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jacksalmon said on 11 minutes ago:

What I was referring to was the fact that the Hawks had been playing well; and, on paper, have the star count over the inappropriately named Stars.  So, why shouldn't the Hawks have won that game, if they had played well?  They had what it takes to win the game, but did not execute.  In addition, they were give 7, yes seven, or siete, or 8-1 power plays and managed to convert on only one.  So, they lost.  Therefore, they should have won it. 

 

Because they didn't play well in that game. I know they were given a plethora of PP's; hence, all the more proof they played like zit and didn't even deserve the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jacksalmon said on 5 minutes ago:

Well, in addition, Mr. Toews, the Big Star, turned the puck over on the wrap around goal that set up the Star player and then Toews failed to help Crow protect the side of the cage.  He could have stopped his own turnover from becoming a goal, but he choked, or fell asleep, or whatever it is that he does these days instead of make good plays. 

This is true; that play made me livid...and I thought it was gutless how Konroyd just completely ignored this fact, making no mention whatsover of the turnover. If memory serves, Toews tried a lackadaisical back-hand pass that obviously ended up being turned over; you'd never have known it if you didn't see it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 13 minutes ago:

Because they didn't play well in that game. I know they were given a plethora of PP's; hence, all the more proof they played like zit and didn't even deserve the point.

I agree.  When I say they should have won the game, I will use an example to illustrate my point.  Let's say the Bolts are playing the Yotes.  Many would say the Bolts should win that game.  Going into last night's game, we had seen the Hawks playing better; the Stars are a lousy road team; the Hawks were at home; the Stars lack the big names that the Hawks have and the Hawks should have been motivated to jump ahead of the Stars in the standings.  Therefore, I said they should have won that game.  If you had looked at the Vegas line on the game, my guess is that the Hawks would have been listed as the favorites.  Therefore, it is ok to say they "should have won the game". 

They didn't win because they played a lousy game and are not a consistent team and are not as good as they used to be.  But, they still should have won that game.  The fact that they did not only serves to raise a legitimate question about whether they are just condemned to be a middle of the road, up and down squad for the next many years. 

This is quite different than if they had played a good game and got beat by a bad break or bad call.  Then one could also say "they should have won the game".  But, that is not the way I am using it.  I am using it to describe a game which they should have won, but did not because they did not play well. 

Edited by jacksalmon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jacksalmon said on 1 hour ago:

What I was referring to was the fact that the Hawks had been playing well; and, on paper, have the star count over the inappropriately named Stars.  So, why shouldn't the Hawks have won that game, if they had played well?  They had what it takes to win the game, but did not execute.  In addition, they were give 7, yes seven, or siete, or 8-1 power plays and managed to convert on only one.  So, they lost.  Therefore, they should have won it. 

 

I bet you can figure out a team’s record before a season starts...or be able to predict wins before games get played.

I’m guessing you just count the number of stars each team has on their roster and whoever has more wins.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iknowpuck said on 12 minutes ago:

I bet you can figure out a team’s record before a season starts...or be able to predict wins before games get played.

I’m guessing you just count the number of stars each team has on their roster and whoever has more wins.

 

 

No, I can't do that.  But, when one team has a better roster, it is usually the favorite.  I'll help you understand by giving you more examples that you hate.

In a projected matchup between the Bolts and the Yotes, who would be favored?  Would the fact that the Bolts have more stars in their lineup have anything to do with it?

In case you want one from another sport----in this past year, in a matchup between the Astros and the White Sox, who would be favored, assuming Verlander/Keikel are throwing against whoever the White Sox want to throw?

In case you don't get it from the examples, go take a look at what the line was in Vegas last night for the Stars/Hawks game.  I'll bet you will find the Hawks were favored.  I'll bet that had something to do with the fact that the Hawks have Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith, Crawford and Saad over Spezza (who didn't even get a call out in last night's game), Seguin and name who you want. 

So, who do you think was favored to win before the game last night?  Who did you think would win before the game?  Why did you think that?  Did it have anything to do with the Hawk roster on paper vs. the Star roster? 

If you want to pick an argument over something I write, at least pick one you can win.  Otherwise, you are just screwing around for the sake of taking the other side, which is a waste of everyone's time and makes you look bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super disgusted today.......i read all the comments .......90%  of which were spot on ...... Yea Q and many others wanted to get DK going ...while the PP problems were not completely on DK ( He didn't move very well looking for clean looks) Q and  many others wanted to get him going and the circumstances dictate failure even if the actually play was average 

Its visible when Franson  is NOT in .....Long term be damned need to win games ....Still i want to talk Forsling and Kempny ......  maybe i should research the the posts i just have no idea why he has been scratched other than performance ......

so yea the idea of playing Franson  in spots   is a goofy idea  and the idea of getting any one player going by running plays or power plays  somewhat goofy  (the idea was to have a multi faceted power play with 2 shifts that use somewhat different deliberate schemes)

Didn't work last night

 

 

lol i take it all back  the Franson power play stunk  the DK pp could of been better but had some good chances ..hit a crossbar ..lot to work with there .... the Seabrook PP was intriguing if you want to have a positive attitude about things   ....Seabrook can run a power play ....the 2 d man power plays were stinkers  never set up well were over matched whatever ......still waiting to see the last 3 

Edited by PuckProphet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so Crawford being placed on IR throws a curveball on this one...fid he play injured, or did he injure himself in the game.

Either way, probably shouldn't have played after he was injured.

Still no excuse for Arkhipov, Quint, and Odelein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordKOTL said on 4 hours ago:

...so Crawford being placed on IR throws a curveball on this one...fid he play injured, or did he injure himself in the game.

Either way, probably shouldn't have played after he was injured.

Still no excuse for Arkhipov, Quint, and Odelein.

i remember in the first period (i think) when one of foley/konroyd said crow was slow getting up and in the 3rd after a flurry of saves...just the way he was standing in the net as the puck went up the ice...i remember thinking he didn't look right. it was kind of "funny lookin'"

bad news to read before my first coffee even....

edit: and it's all over twitter this morning of course. i imagine most have seen these by now likely.

 

Edited by galaxytrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jacksalmon said on 9 hours ago:

No, I can't do that.  But, when one team has a better roster, it is usually the favorite.  I'll help you understand by giving you more examples that you hate.

In a projected matchup between the Bolts and the Yotes, who would be favored?  Would the fact that the Bolts have more stars in their lineup have anything to do with it?

In case you want one from another sport----in this past year, in a matchup between the Astros and the White Sox, who would be favored, assuming Verlander/Keikel are throwing against whoever the White Sox want to throw?

In case you don't get it from the examples, go take a look at what the line was in Vegas last night for the Stars/Hawks game.  I'll bet you will find the Hawks were favored.  I'll bet that had something to do with the fact that the Hawks have Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith, Crawford and Saad over Spezza (who didn't even get a call out in last night's game), Seguin and name who you want. 

So, who do you think was favored to win before the game last night?  Who did you think would win before the game?  Why did you think that?  Did it have anything to do with the Hawk roster on paper vs. the Star roster? 

If you want to pick an argument over something I write, at least pick one you can win.  Otherwise, you are just screwing around for the sake of taking the other side, which is a waste of everyone's time and makes you look bad. 

There is a reason the games get played.  The  better team (the one with more star players for you) doesn’t always win the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×