BLACKHAWKS AT PENGUINS GDT - 6:30PM AT CONSOL ENERGY ARENA

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="224723" data-time="1396311863">
<div>


eing a puck possession team, they will almost always be outhit. They will always be taking more physical punishment than they give out when it comes to that. That's how they play. But besides that and more to my point, to isolate this one incident here with Toews and say that your outlook on their chances in the playoffs hinged on that ONE single reaction, is utterly ridiculous, no matter what the incident was or who it involved. As it is with isolating any one single play and it's aftermath and basing an outlook off it. Especially considering in the aftermath of the Toews hit, the Hawks honestly controlled most of the flow of play throughout the rest of the game. It's just all this stupid dinosaur bullshit that will just never go away and will forever always be overreacted to.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Again, you just don't get it.</p>

 

[Variable]

You say how they played after that hit is what makes them "gutless pussies" when they outplayed the Penguins for the vast majority of the rest of that game and I'm missing something? They were trying to win the game, not trying to get revenge. But that's all some people seem to look for when things like this happen. That is what is fucking sad about this. How some can ignore everything else and look only for revenge, because **** how they play right, at least they'd have that going for them if somebody did something to Orpik, right? It's a crock of shit. Because even the most extreme of "playing for the team" horseshit responses to Orpik got absolutely nothing but another goddam black eye for the sport. And it also didn't change anything in the player that was "made an example of". It doesn't work that way.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BHP" data-cid="224725" data-time="1396312078">
<div>


Chart of team hits.

Blackhawks are dead last.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


As they were last season and the season before and were ranked 25th in  09'-10'.</p>

 

[Pez68]

You're hopeless. Who is talking about retribution or going after Orpik? Read the fucking posts. The Hawks weren't wining that game because they were too fucking scared to go anywhere near the puck when a Penguin was nearby. Let alone going hard to the net and paying the price to score a goal. Their puck possession in the third meant jack shit because they weren't generating any decent scoring chances by playing around the fucking perimeter.... They needed to show Pittsburgh they weren't afraid of them and were willing to play physical hockey as well. They didn't, and the 4-1 score paints a very accurate picture of how that game played out. The Penguins asserted themselves physically all fucking night, and not a single Hawk did the same in response. If that's how they respond to physical play come playoff time, they'll be golfing in a couple weeks.</p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="224728" data-time="1396313829">
<div>


As they were last season and the season before and were ranked 25th in  09'-10'.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I am well aware of that.</p>


 </p>


The Kings were #2 in hits when they won the cup.

I posted it for reference and for all of us to use stats to pad our arguments. </p>

 

[Variable]

And that's fine, because that's how the Kings play, it's a much bigger part of how they find success. That's never been how the Hawks' have played under Q. It's not that I thought you were posting for any other reason, just that I don't know what some people expect from the Hawks. The way this has gotten overreacted to is crazy.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Let's get something out of the way that some here are missing:


There is a difference between hitting and physical play. A hit is registered when a play checks an opponent and cause a turn over. This is very subjective as many statisticians record this differently, and usually more towards the home team.


Physical play is finishing your checks (despite defender having just passed the puck), going to the front of the net, digging in the corners, being aggressive.


The Hawks are a puck possession team, and when you control the puck more than the opposition, you will have more "hits" against, just like you will have more giveaways.


The issue at hand is the Pens dominated the Hawks physically. They put a body on all puck carriers and worked hard in the corners, also took the puck to the dirty areas. The hit on Toews pretty much showed that the Hawks were mentally defeated because they weren't willing to match the Pens physically afterwards. Instead, they turned soft and allowed the possibility of getting roughed up to ruin there game. Nobody took the puck to the net, passes were thrown away quickly to avoid contact, all perimeter game. The final 10 minutes in the 3rd was their best effort, but that's only 1/6 of the game.


Someone going after Orpik, not cheaply but roughing him up a bit and showing that the Hawks were going to match them physically and not sit back would of done wonders for that game. Guys lay big hits all the time, and sometimes they fight after, other times there's just a small scrum. The point is to show that as a team you aren't going to take any shit. Instead, they shied away and lost the mental part which in turn fucked with their physical game. The Pens saw that and turned up their physical play. Hence why Sharpie got banged up and others.


You can say it's "dinosaur theory" Variable, but it's not. It's basically the "punk test". If a bully at school gets the best of you, they will continue until you stand up for yourself. The Hawks turned into the victim and got bullied. Again, they lost the punk test.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Why is anyone still arguing this point with Variable?

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Here's a link to a great article written by someone in the know (Bourne's dad is a SC winner back in the Islanders dynasty, his father in law is Clark Gillies, and he himself played NCAA and had time in the AHL/ECHL.


http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/03/16/once-teams-realized-they-had-to-pass-the-bruins-punk-test-the-bs-were-in-for-a-long-season/

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="224736" data-time="1396321823">


Why is anyone still arguing this point with Variable?</p></blockquote>
Because putting him on ignore is only beneficial if nobody quotes his post.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="224734" data-time="1396321631">
<div>


Let's get something out of the way that some here are missing:


There is a difference between hitting and physical play. A hit is registered when a play checks an opponent and cause a turn over. This is very subjective as many statisticians record this differently, and usually more towards the home team.


Physical play is finishing your checks (despite defender having just passed the puck), going to the front of the net, digging in the corners, being aggressive.


The Hawks are a puck possession team, and when you control the puck more than the opposition, you will have more "hits" against, just like you will have more giveaways.


The issue at hand is the Pens dominated the Hawks physically. They put a body on all puck carriers and worked hard in the corners, also took the puck to the dirty areas. The hit on Toews pretty much showed that the Hawks were mentally defeated because they weren't willing to match the Pens physically afterwards. Instead, they turned soft and allowed the possibility of getting roughed up to ruin there game. Nobody took the puck to the net, passes were thrown away quickly to avoid contact, all perimeter game. The final 10 minutes in the 3rd was their best effort, but that's only 1/6 of the game.

Someone going after Orpik, not cheaply but roughing him up a bit and showing that the Hawks were going to match them physically and not sit back would of done wonders for that game. Guys lay big hits all the time, and sometimes they fight after, other times there's just a small scrum. The point is to show that as a team you aren't going to take any shit. Instead, they shied away and lost the mental part which in turn fucked with their physical game. The Pens saw that and turned up their physical play. Hence why Sharpie got banged up and others.


You can say it's "dinosaur theory" Variable, but it's not. It's basically the "punk test". If a bully at school gets the best of you, they will continue until you stand up for yourself. The Hawks turned into the victim and got bullied. Again, they lost the punk test.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


See that's where you lose me. Because you're talking about two different things when it comes to playing physically and a player making a big hit and revenge not being taken. Because someone on the other team might lay out a big hit on any player on the Hawks and nothing happens, there's no fight, there's no "response", it doesn't mean they've quit mentally. I remember Kruger getting blown up like every goddamn period last year, and there was hardly any type of response for it, at least not in the majority of cases, but yet they just continued to play their game. Other examples all year long of incidents like that happening and no one on the Hawks responding, (and of which  Pez mentions that Q coaches them not to do that and which I agree on with him). There's been years worth of that type of complaint about this team and yet they're sitting with 2 Cups in 4 years.</p>


 </p>


I don't think it matters half as much as you think it does,and  all because they didn't do anything to Orpik means they suddenly are a team that, what, are that easily thrown off? That suddenly teams that play that way against them will now all of a sudden ALWAYS get the better of them by doing stuff like that? If you can truly call the rest of that game "getting the better of them" of which is arguable. Because that's the kind of overreactions that are happening with this.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="224738" data-time="1396321993">


Because putting him on ignore is only beneficial if nobody quotes his post.</p>
</blockquote>


Oh dearie me</p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-time="1396336085" data-cid="224741" data-author="Variable">

See that's where you lose me. Because you're talking about two different things when it comes to playing physically and a player making a big hit and revenge not being taken. Because someone on the other team might lay out a big hit on any player on the Hawks and nothing happens, there's no fight, there's no "response", it doesn't mean they've quit mentally. I remember Kruger getting blown up like every goddamn period last year, and there was hardly any type of response for it, at least not in the majority of cases, but yet they just continued to play their game. Other examples all year long of incidents like that happening and no one on the Hawks responding, (and of which  Pez mentions that Q coaches them not to do that and which I agree on with him). There's been years worth of that type of complaint about this team and yet they're sitting with 2 Cups in 4 years.
 
I don't think it matters half as much as you think it does,and  all because they didn't do anything to Orpik means they suddenly are a team that, what, are that easily thrown off? That suddenly teams that play that way against them will now all of a sudden ALWAYS get the better of them by doing stuff like that? If you can truly call the rest of that game "getting the better of them" of which is arguable. Because that's the kind of overreactions that are happening with this.</p></blockquote>

No Offense, but you can be found by reading his last paragraph. It sums the point up nicely.

 

[supraman]

From what I saw the hit looked clean. It did not warrant fighting Orpik, the whole fighting after a big clean hit is dumb. However Crosby and Orpik should have been hit a lot the rest of the game. I know the hawks aren't a hitting team and haven't been under Q and that's fine we do ramp up the hitting during playoffs.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Ugh, there's a difference between a 4th liner getting decked and your star player getting creamed. Watch any star player get crushed and immediate a teammate is around to show that "that shit isn't okay". Hockey is much more complex then you make it seem Variable and physical and mental edges are huge.


Again, when a Bully comes at you, and you play victim and back down, you've essentially lost the upper hand and the Bully will keep coming at you until they realize you aren't going to not defend yourself. Most of the time, when someone takes a run (and by run I mean forceful hit) at Toews or Kane, someone stands up. Mitchell's hit on Toews, Brouwer goes after him. The plug on Columbus hits Kane, Brouwer goes after him. McKee hits Kane, Sharp went after him. Seabrook got plastered by Wiz, Keith went after him (though it should of been Eager, hence why he's not on the roster anymore). It doesn't even need to be a fight, just rough the guy up a bit and show that you're not going to take that shit. The other team won't be so inclined to do the extra stuff as much then. Instead, they saw that they could get away with the biggest offense (blowing up the teams superstar and captain) and they followed suit.

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="224747" data-time="1396352867">
<div>


From what I saw the hit looked clean. It did not warrant fighting Orpik, the whole fighting after a big clean hit is dumb. However Crosby and Orpik should have been hit a lot the rest of the game. I know the hawks aren't a hitting team and haven't been under Q and that's fine we do ramp up the hitting during playoffs.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


The fly in that ointment is that we're talking about the pens. Anything borderline and we would have been tagged while Bettman pleasures himself in the skybox.</p>


 </p>


That being said, I do wish more guys than just Hossa would have stepped up their play.</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="224749" data-time="1396362929">
<div>


Ugh, there's a difference between a 4th liner getting decked and your star player getting creamed. Watch any star player get crushed and immediate a teammate is around to show that "that shit isn't okay". Hockey is much more complex then you make it seem Variable and physical and mental edges are huge.


Again, when a Bully comes at you, and you play victim and back down, you've essentially lost the upper hand and the Bully will keep coming at you until they realize you aren't going to not defend yourself. Most of the time, when someone takes a run (and by run I mean forceful hit) at Toews or Kane, someone stands up. Mitchell's hit on Toews, Brouwer goes after him. The plug on Columbus hits Kane, Brouwer goes after him. McKee hits Kane, Sharp went after him. Seabrook got plastered by Wiz, Keith went after him (though it should of been Eager, hence why he's not on the roster anymore). It doesn't even need to be a fight, just rough the guy up a bit and show that you're not going to take that shit. The other team won't be so inclined to do the extra stuff as much then. Instead, they saw that they could get away with the biggest offense (blowing up the teams superstar and captain) and they followed suit.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Probably didn't help that Bollig got destroyed by Neil on Friday night either. </p>


 </p>


I know you mention a lot of examples, but the ones that stick out in my mind are the two Torres hits. Players did go after him but not to much of an extent at all, this is pretty much what would have happened Sunday night, Orpik would have turtled. We simply needed to respond via more physical play, it sucks that we did not do that, but we really don't dress guys who play like that.</p>


 </p>


Guys I expected to respond with physical play:</p>


 </p>


1: Forwards: Shaw, Bollig, Sharp, Smith (with the last two big maybes)</p>


    Defenseman: Seabrook, Brookbank, Hammer</p>


 </p>


The entire rest of the roster is does not contain guys who play that way,</p>


 </p>


Hossa, Saad, Versteeg, Kruger, Regin, Oduya, Keith, Leddy, Handzus, Teuvo. Yes, those guys can throw a hit every now and then, but the reality is they just don't play that way. In the end, our entire team doesn't need to play that way, but when we are losing, and more or less not responding to a hit that knocks our captain out it makes things seems like this is a big problem on this team.</p>


 </p>


Taking a step back, I don't think it is anything to worry about. We all know how shoddy our play has been as of late, get that fixed and then worry about dishing out big checks. </p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I'm not looking beyond the realm of that single game. Playoffs? I'm not worried as we ramp up our play. I'm just stating in that 1 out of 82, we got punked and it ended up beating us in that game.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BiscuitInTheBasket2in17" data-cid="224745" data-time="1396352375">
<div>


No Offense, but you can be found by reading his last paragraph. It sums the point up nicely.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


No it doesn't because even with examples he listed, there have been a ton of others where not just 4th line guys get plastered, which shouldn't really matter, but the "skilled" players as well and no one "responds" with anything but they go on to win the games. Sometimes multiple times in the same game, simply because they usually possess the puck a whole lot more than the other team. It's going to happen. To make the leap that because they didn't do anything means they just rolled over and died and that they failed a "punk test" is ridiculous. They must have failed a lot of them then en route to winning the Cup last year.  I mean come on, that was a one shot game up until less than 5 minutes to go. They were controlling the pace of the game mostly throughout it. Even without two of the best players in the world.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="224757" data-time="1396364494">
<div>


Probably didn't help that Bollig got destroyed by Neil on Friday night either. </p>


 </p>


I know you mention a lot of examples, but the ones that stick out in my mind are the two Torres hits. Players did go after him but not to much of an extent at all, this is pretty much what would have happened Sunday night, Orpik would have turtled. We simply needed to respond via more physical play, it sucks that we did not do that, but we really don't dress guys who play like that.</p>


 </p>


Guys I expected to respond with physical play:</p>


 </p>


1: Forwards: Shaw, Bollig, Sharp, Smith (with the last two big maybes)</p>


    Defenseman: Seabrook, Brookbank, Hammer</p>


 </p>


The entire rest of the roster is does not contain guys who play that way,</p>


 </p>


Hossa, Saad, Versteeg, Kruger, Regin, Oduya, Keith, Leddy, Handzus, Teuvo. Yes, those guys can throw a hit every now and then, but the reality is they just don't play that way. In the end, our entire team doesn't need to play that way, but when we are losing, and more or less not responding to a hit that knocks our captain out it makes things seems like this is a big problem on this team.</p>


 </p>


Taking a step back, I don't think it is anything to worry about. We all know how shoddy our play has been as of late, get that fixed and then worry about dishing out big checks. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


The thing is, Bollig *did* go after Torres, Remember?  Torres turtled, and Bollig/the team got dinged for a 2, a 5, and a 10.</p>


 </p>


If I'm Q in that position, I would have reigned in all of the guys and told them to beat them on the scoreboard, not into oblivion.  Why?  The game was winnible and there is no way in this universe that anything construed as "retaliation" would have been suffered lightly against the Pens.  IMHO if Seabrook, on his chance to line up Crosby behind the net put a good, legitimate check on him, it would have (a) started a line brawl and (b) put Seabrook out for at least 2, if not 5 or more because this is Bettman's Wet-dream team.  Remember, this is the same league which ignores all laws of physics where a much smaller Shaw can send a much larger Mike Smith to the ice faster than shaw was skating and still somehow call a penalty.  Had we been put on the PK--especially a major with Crosby on the ice, chances are he would have scored even if we had Tretiak in net.</p>


 </p>


IMHO had we gone after anyone--even cleanly, Bettman would have called down from his skybox or whever he was to lower the boom on the 'hawks for disrupting his "special time" while rubbing one out.  No need to do that as long as the game was still theoretically winnable.</p>


 </p>


*However*</p>


 </p>


Once the 3rd goal was scored--IMHO all bets should have been off for any *non crucial* player (i.e. Broookbank, Bollig (if his Reginald Denny impersonation in Ottawa didn't give him PTSD), Versteeg, Regin (if he could do anything physical), or hell, maybe even Shaw, would have been unleashed to do their worst (legally of course). the game was a lost cause and Morin/Runblad could have filled in and not done much worse.</p>