[A] Poor Play Costs Hawks: CHI 1, STL 5

[R K]

This team/Core is built for speed and Skill. Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Seabrook, Keith. Out of those 6 players ONE can hit, and he's the stay at home guy.



You go 0-5 on the PP against a team that's taking every cheap shot in the book, you are going to lose.



How do you beat those teams, you make them pay when they undoubtedly take dumb penalties. The other night, the Hawks didn't.



It's really that simple. Had nothing to do with being out hit. They had their chances to gain momentum and failed. Why, because they couldn't get that little blacg think in the other teams little net.



Anyone who thinks we won the Cup by being physical is off their rocker. We won the Cup on speed and skill in Scoring goals, while having excellent defense. Not pounding the shit out of the other team every chance we had.

 

[R K]

I also seriously doubt St. Louis is a serious contender for the Cup. They just lack the experience it takes. Similar to the Hawk team which lost in the WCF's. We'll see as they've done extremely well since Hitch took over.



Especially in that building the Hawks are 1-1 in. Go see how many other teams, when healthy, beat the blues 5-2 in St. Louis under Hitch. You'll look a long time.

 

[Pez68]

Why do you constantly associate "being physical" with JUST hitting? They are not one and the same. Hitting is just ONE aspect of playing physical hockey. You cannot consistently win hockey games without playing physical. You might be able to get by against certain teams, but it is NOT a recipe for success. Also, only ONE of the core players can hit? Give me a fucking break. Toews, Hossa, Sharp, and Keith are all more than capable of throwing body checks. Kane is pretty much the only guy that doesn't have the size or strength to engage physically. Playing physical includes, but is not limited to:



1) Engaging in, and winning board battles.

2) Going to the tough areas.

3) Using your body to rub out puck carries and slow guys down.

4) THROWING HITS.

5) Blocking shots.

6) Clearing guys out from in front of the net.

7) Crashing the net hard.

8) Taking hits to make plays.

9) Mixing it up in scrums to show you won't just lay down and take it.



The 2010 team did ALL of those and were engaged physically in every game. Every single player on that team engaged actively in physical play, and they did not AVOID physical play, like this team does. This team goes out of their way to avoid anything that involves any kind of physical contact, or the risk of being hit. The other night against St. Louis was a perfect example of this and they got fucking creamed because of it.



This team will not be successful in the playoffs until they decide they are going to play physical hockey night in and night out.

 

[R K]

Playing phsical and being out hit are two different things. I agree with that aspect of what you babble. And I have never said they weren't, although you pointed out I did. But thank you Hockey Master for your observation. Sure wasn't what they did when the won the Cup. Then they controlled the puck and made their PP's count.



Going 0-5 on the PP cost them that game as much as ANYTHING you typed up there. They score on the PP, St. Louis fails at playing that type of game.



DIS A GREE!

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Don't forget we just beat the Blues at home 9 or 10 days prior to this loss. The physical beating does'nt compare to what Vancouver laid on us last year in game 1 of our series with them, and we did end up winning 3 in a row after being down 3. The core can deal with physical play and win. I don't think its as bad as some of you do, remember at one point earlier this season we were at times leading the league in pnts. I like this years team better than last years, if we can get healthy this team can overcome this BUMP in the road.



If Kitchen is in charge of the power play he needs to go and if Quenville is standing in the way he needs to go as well ! **** money grubbing Rocky ! An owner of a professional sports team should not stand in the way of a teams progress and admit a fucking personnel mistake and make changes when necessary, especially when considering the success the team and him has had. He really must think he can take his money with him.

 

[R K]

Don't forget we just beat the Blues at home 9 or 10 days prior to this loss. The physical beating does'nt compare to what Vancouver laid on us last year in game 1 of our series with them, and we did end up winning 3 in a row after being down 3. The core can deal with physical play and win. I don't think its as bad as some of you do, remember at one point earlier this season we were at times leading the league in pnts. I like this years team better than last years, if we can get healthy this team can overcome this BUMP in the road.



If Kitchen is in charge of the power play he needs to go and if Quenville is standing in the way he needs to go as well ! **** money grubbing Rocky ! An owner of a professional sports team should not stand in the way of a teams progress and admit a fucking personnel mistake and make changes when necessary, especially when considering the success the team and him has had. He really must think he can take his money with him.

Agree pretty much with all of this. As far as "bump" it was one of three games where we had already won two of. Anyone who expected to win all three of those games, with two of those teams having the best 1-2 home record in the entire NHL has expectatios up their ass.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Why do you constantly associate "being physical" with JUST hitting? They are not one and the same. Hitting is just ONE aspect of playing physical hockey. You cannot consistently win hockey games without playing physical. You might be able to get by against certain teams, but it is NOT a recipe for success. Also, only ONE of the core players can hit? Give me a fucking break. Toews, Hossa, Sharp, and Keith are all more than capable of throwing body checks. Kane is pretty much the only guy that doesn't have the size or strength to engage physically. Playing physical includes, but is not limited to:



1) Engaging in, and winning board battles.

2) Going to the tough areas.

3) Using your body to rub out puck carries and slow guys down.

4) THROWING HITS.

5) Blocking shots.

6) Clearing guys out from in front of the net.

7) Crashing the net hard.

8) Taking hits to make plays.

9) Mixing it up in scrums to show you won't just lay down and take it.



The 2010 team did ALL of those and were engaged physically in every game. Every single player on that team engaged actively in physical play, and they did not AVOID physical play, like this team does. This team goes out of their way to avoid anything that involves any kind of physical contact, or the risk of being hit. The other night against St. Louis was a perfect example of this and they got fucking creamed because of it.



This team will not be successful in the playoffs until they decide they are going to play physical hockey night in and night out.

I have to disagree RK, the 2010 team DID DO all of this. BUT, they also scored on their PP chances and played a solid puck possession style. You can still do all the things Pez listed and have a puck possession style (look at the Wings). Hawks just lack the physical game and that will more than likely hurt them come playoff time (If we even make it that far).

 

[R K]

I never said they didn't do all of that either. I just said they did not win due to their physical play, they won by speed and skill.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I never said they didn't do all of that either. I just said they did not win due to their physical play, they won by speed and skill.

I reread what you posted, you are correct, you didn't say that.



You are right, we didn't win due to our physical game. That team did have a physical game.



This team has NO physical game, and it is blatanty obvious. This, IMO, is why we are not going to win the cup this year or go deep in the playoffs. A team like the Blues, Rangers, Bruins, Flyers, Canucks, Sharks could really do damage to us.

 

[R K]

I reread what you posted, you are correct, you didn't say that.



You are right, we didn't win due to our physical game. That team did have a physical game.



This team has NO physical game, and it is blatanty obvious. This, IMO, is why we are not going to win the cup this year or go deep in the playoffs. A team like the Blues, Rangers, Bruins, Flyers, Canucks, Sharks could really do damage to us.

Yet have you checked our record against those teams? Apparently we can do damage to them as well. Funny how that works. Again I don't totally disagree with what you or Pez are saying. I just think there are other extreme factors.



We didn't win because we were physical, IE hitting people OFF the puck, we controlled the puck and made teams pay when they were "over physical" IE taking penalties. This team can be physical but they aren't built to be. Maybe not as physical as the Cup team, but they aren't as talented bottom 6 as that team either.



This team is built on puck possession and skill. That includes a working PP. Again we were 0-5 on the PP meaning the Blues kept on bringing it because they knew even if they took a penalty we'd most likely not score.



Blues 2-2

Bruins a game we easily could have won and the officiating was brutal 0-1

Rangers 1-0

Canucks 1-2 Completely destroyed them in Vancouver game #2.

Sharks 2-2



I don't think ANY of those teams have dominated the season series, nor do I think they'd dominate a playoffs series, WITH a healthy Hawks and working PP. Specially a team like the Blues who have ZERO playoff experience.

 

[the canadian dream]

Blues have as good as a chance as any other team to win the cup. They have depth they have a decent blueline they have decent special teams they have a good coach and they have a mix of youth and vets. If Halak can play at the top of his game I see no reasons why the Blues can't win the cup. Do I pick them too? Not really..as a dark horse maybe while everyone is talking about the Bruins and Rangers.



I really don't want the Hawks facing them in a first round series to be honest. Not that we couldn't beat them (Toews would be a difference maker in that series for us), but they could add some bruises early and hell they would have just as good as a chance at beating us to be honest..they are a good team..no ones giving them enough credit.

 

[R K]

I don't think the Hawks are contenders, but I do think if healthy they could win. Again Blues are playing great hockey but for playoff experience theres none. Similar to the Hawks in 09.



95% of the Hawks in 2010 were 6 wins away from the Stanley Cup in 09.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Yet have you checked our record against those teams? Apparently we can do damage to them as well. Funny how that works, whether I'm right or wrong Trev if you haven't figured it out after all these years I don't really give a flying ****.



We didn't win because we were physical, IE hitting people OFF the puck, we controlled the puck and made teams pay when they were "over physical" IE taking penalties. This team can be physical but they aren't built to be. Maybe not as physical as the Cup team, but they aren't as talented bottom 6 as that team either.



This team is built on puck possession and skill. That includes a working PP. Again we were 0-5 on the PP meaning the Blues kept on bringing it because they knew even if they took a penalty we'd most likely not score.



Blues 2-2

Bruins a game we easily could have won and the officiating was brutal 0-1

Rangers 1-0

Canucks 1-2

Sharks 2-2



I don't think ANY of those teams have dominated the season series, nor do I think they'd dominate a playoffs series, WITH a healthy Hawks and working PP. Specially a team like the Blues who have ZERO playoff experience.

I never said that we did win because of a physical game, I stated we won because of our puck possession and skill, but having that physical game was helpful and present in those series. We don't have that same physical style like we did then, now. That will hurt us come playoff time.



In a best of 7 series, in playoff hockey, I don't see the Hawks beating those teams without a physical presence being around. If our PP was clicking, then that would be a major difference maker, but it's obviously not.



That's my opinion, and I know it's shared with many as well.

 

[R K]

They didn't win game five in 2010 due to being physical. They won by tying the game short handed and racking up 5 on five via Puck Moving. They don't win that game, who knows. Wasn't phsyical play that made Erat give up the puck. It was idiocy.

 

[R K]

I never said that we did win because of a physical game, I stated we won because of our puck possession and skill, but having that physical game was helpful and present in those series. We don't have that same physical style like we did then, now. That will hurt us come playoff time.



In a best of 7 series, in playoff hockey, I don't see the Hawks beating those teams without a physical presence being around. If our PP was clicking, then that would be a major difference maker, but it's obviously not.



That's my opinion, and I know it's shared with many as well.

Then explain the first round last year? They were 2 inches from wiping out the Canucks from an 0-3 deficite? Certainly wasn't for being physical or physical play. It was because they got healthy and added two Centers in game #4.



And I could care less who shares it Trev. This is not a validate your opinion. Just like I could give a shit who agrees with me. Its an opinion. In which I somewhat disagree.



And who knows where our PP will be come that time. If it's one thing this team has it's playoff experience.



Toews

Kane

Sharp

hossa

Seabrook

Keith

Hjarlmarsson

Bolland

Emery



have all played in the Stanley Cup Final.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

They didn't win game five in 2010 due to being physical. They won by tying the game short handed and racking up 5 on five via Puck Moving. They don't win that game, who knows. Wasn't phsyical play that made Erat give up the puck. It was idiocy.

lol 3rd and last time: I never said we won the cup in 2010 because of our physical play. BUT, in 2010 we did have a physical style as well with out puck possession and skill. It wasn't as prevalant because most teams have a physical game and it's not noticeable. THIS YEARS team, does not have any kind of physical play/style/whatever.

 

[the canadian dream]

Hawks pp was bad going into the playoffs in 2010 if I recall then exploded in those playoffs.



It's strange how some teams regular season special teams just do a complete turn around in the playoffs. Happens to a lot of teams. Urgency takes over and some teams and players react well to that and some don't. I think the Hawks are a team that would react well to playoff urgency. It's something the Hawks probably need.



Anything can happen as we all know come the playoffs. The best regular season teams often make it deep but ohhh how special teams can really change.



Hawks 3rd line in 2010 was physical. Bolland and Ladd alone took over that aspect of the game from all other teams.

 

[R K]

Hawks pp was bad going into the playoffs in 2010 if I recall then exploded in those playoffs.



It's strange how some teams regular season special teams just do a complete turn around in the playoffs. Happens to a lot of teams. Urgency takes over and some teams and players react well to that and some don't. I think the Hawks are a team that would react well to playoff urgency. It's something the Hawks probably need.



Anything can happen as we all know come the playoffs. The best regular season teams often make it deep but ohhh how special teams can really change.

Exactly. This over analyzing every time this team loses is pretty comical. Twitter is hilarious, one minute these guys are the bestest thing in the world, the next asshole, heartless, weak fucks. Cracks me up.

 

[R K]

lol 3rd and last time: I never said we won the cup in 2010 because of our physical play. BUT, in 2010 we did have a physical style as well with out puck possession and skill. It wasn't as prevalant because most teams have a physical game and it's not noticeable. THIS YEARS team, does not have any kind of physical play/style/whatever.

I disagree with that too. They have it yet some players have chosen not to play it. Bickell has been much better since the AS break. Mayers is very physical, Carcillo before the injury was very physical. The Top Six is not phsical and was never built physical. Bottome six is NOT as talented as the 2010 team.



When you have guys like Andrew Ladd on your "checking line" you have a pretty awesome team!

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Then explain the first round last year? They were 2 inches from wiping out the Canucks from an 0-3 deficite? Certainly wasn't for being physical or physical play. It was because they got healthy and added two Centers in game #4.



And I could care less who shares it Trev. This is not a validate your opinion. Just like I could give a shit who agrees with me. Its an opinion. In which I somewhat disagree.



And who knows where our PP will be come that time. If it's one thing this team has it's playoff experience.



Toews

Kane

Sharp

hossa

Seabrook

Keith

Hjarlmarsson

Bolland

Emery



have all played in the Stanley Cup Final.

Again, I didn't blame last season's playoff loss on physical play. Last season was a culmination of lack of depth, team being tired, certain players not playing up to par...



If you are going to use those players for some kind of point, why did they lose to the Canucks with no Stanley Cup final experience?