Game 1 Stanley Cup Finals Bruins at Blackhawks 6/12/13 7 PM CT

[KBIB]

My thoughts on last nights game;

Hawks speed killed the Bruins, just like I said it would.

Rask, the goalie who was "Quick on steroids" looked like a chump, who then threw players on his own team under the bus afterwards.

All the bringing up the Pens looked foolish and dumb considering the Hawks aren't the Pens.

Shaw was giving it to Chara all game long. Chara. I thought Chara was gonna break somebody in half? How come he couldn't break Shaw?

I don't want to see Bollig out there another game. Stalberg would have a track meet against such a slow team.

Chara, for everything said about him, just looks like an awkwardly tall defenseman out there.

Dave Bolland is better then you.



The Bruins aren't Hawks good.


SHAW!!!

 

[almanbulls]

sexy game from crawford. 51 saves!

 

[KBIB]

Agree with all of this. In all honesty, Boston doesn't look to be any better than Detroit, and Detroit was much more effective in stopping Chicago's offense. I think the series can still go either way, because Chicago's defense is a liability, but Boston wasn't all that impressive to me. I expected them to be much more physical, being able to take over long parts of the game with their size. But they never did.

Detoilet scared me because of Babcock. Julien isn't Babs. The Hawks defense is that much better at transitioning the Bruins never had too many opportunities to install their forecheck. The Kings were much,much better containing because of their speed on the back line, something the Bruins dont have. Q coached a great game, he took advantage of the mediocre talent on the Bruins blue line which forced the Bruins to have to use up Chara who was spent after the first OT.

I've always viewed the Western Conference as being superior to the East over the last few years. Perhaps Boston's dominance of Pittsburgh was kind of an inflated accomplishment.

The Pens wernt shit before all those horrible trades and were hot garbage afterwards. They were out played by the Islanders and cruised thru a shitty Sens team. Neither of those teams would have been anywhere near the playoffs if it was a complete schedule.

The Bruins can have their moral victories in beating a putrid Pens team. They wont beat the Hawks.



SHAW!!!

 

[RacerX]

Agree with all of this. In all honesty, Boston doesn't look to be any better than Detroit, and Detroit was much more effective in stopping Chicago's offense. I think the series can still go either way, because Chicago's defense is a liability, but Boston wasn't all that impressive to me. I expected them to be much more physical, being able to take over long parts of the game with their size. But they never did.

I've always viewed the Western Conference as being superior to the East over the last few years. Perhaps Boston's dominance of Pittsburgh was kind of an inflated accomplishment.

Cannot say I agree, Boston looks like a formidable opponent. Any number of bounces could have changed the first game outcome. I am predicting Hawks in 7, those of you taking the Bs lightly - I don't know what game you were watching last night, they gave us all we can handle.

 

[KBIB]

Cannot say I agree, Boston looks like a formidable opponent. Any number of bounces could have changed the first game outcome. I am predicting Hawks in 7, those of you taking the Bs lightly - I don't know what game you were watching last night, they gave us all we can handle.

They were up two goals with "Quick on steroids" in net. If they really gave the Hawks "all they could handle", their goalie wouldn't have had a melt down when the game was over in the media.



SHAW!!!

 

[kchicub08]

My thoughts on last nights game;

Hawks speed killed the Bruins, just like I said it would.

Rask, the goalie who was "Quick on steroids" looked like a chump, who then threw players on his own team under the bus afterwards.

All the bringing up the Pens looked foolish and dumb considering the Hawks aren't the Pens.

Shaw was giving it to Chara all game long. Chara. I thought Chara was gonna break somebody in half? How come he couldn't break Shaw?

I don't want to see Bollig out there another game. Stalberg would have a track meet against such a slow team.

Chara, for everything said about him, just looks like an awkwardly tall defenseman out there.

Dave Bolland is better then you.



The Bruins aren't Hawks good.


SHAW!!!

As I stated previously, I cant stand the Bruins and am cheering for the Hawks..

But if I just read this post and never saw the score, I would think Hawks won 7-2.

To just disparage the Bruins is ridiculous.... They just as easily could have won the game......

 

[KBIB]

As I stated previously, I cant stand the Bruins and am cheering for the Hawks..

But if I just read this post and never saw the score, I would think Hawks won 7-2.

To just disparage the Bruins is ridiculous.... They just as easily could have won the game......

Then why didn't they?


SHAW!!!

 

[kchicub08]

Then why didn't they?


SHAW!!!

Because the Hawks got a fortunate bounce just as the Bruins could have.

You take homerism to a level I have never seen,... And I thought Boston fans were the worst.

 

[bears5150]

Bruins looked very tuff I saw them with more energy in the second half of the periods than the Hawks. This is going to be a tuff series it took us 3 ots at home to win the first game after trailing 3-1 in the 3rd not convincing enough to crown our guys yet

 

[KBIB]

Because the Hawks got a fortunate bounce just as the Bruins could have.

You take homerism to a level I have never seen,... And I thought Boston fans were the worst.

Save the "fortunate bounce" crap for the lotto. The Bruins didn't live up to the hype in any facet that the media tried to paint them out to be and were out played for about 80% of the game yesterday.

They had a two goal lead and "Quick on steroids" in net. They lost. Deal with it.



SHAW!!!

 

[Diehardfan]

Cannot say I agree, Boston looks like a formidable opponent. Any number of bounces could have changed the first game outcome. I am predicting Hawks in 7, those of you taking the Bs lightly - I don't know what game you were watching last night, they gave us all we can handle.

Yeah, I agree. Not sure if it was poor puck handling & passing by the Hawks or the Bruins playing great postional hockey but the Hawks didnt get a whole lot of clean looks. I thought Boston had a lot more good scoring chances than the Hawks had and if Crawford didnt make every single one of those spectacular stops in the 3 OTs, there would be a lot of people on this Forum talking out of the other side of their asses.

 

[RacerX]

The Bruins' strength over the Blackhawks was allegedly their defense and their physical play...I didn't see much of either last night. Its kind of like the LA series...Quick was supposed to be great and LA was supposed to be unbeatable at home...neither was the case. It was still a tough series, but Chicago won in 5.

As I said, I think Boston has just as much of a chance of winning the series as Chicago, but Boston didn't look impressive to me last night. The Hawks came back from a 3-1 deficit with 12 minutes remaining.

I don't think the Kings series and its dynamics have any relevance to this series.

The Lucic line was kicking our asses up and down, best line I've seen from an opponent all year. I agree the Hawks will likely (hopefully) win a close series, but let's be honest, we got the luckier bounces last night.

 

[RacerX]

They were up two goals with "Quick on steroids" in net. If they really gave the Hawks "all they could handle", their goalie wouldn't have had a melt down when the game was over in the media.



SHAW!!!

Bolland's one-timer was nasty, that beats any goalie including Craw, and the JO goal - sailing wide and deflects in off a skate, come on now, that's not on Rask.

Don't get me wrong, **** Rask and **** the Bs, but let's not downplay their abilities.

 

[RacerX]

Save the "fortunate bounce" crap for the lotto. The Bruins didn't live up to the hype in any facet that the media tried to paint them out to be and were out played for about 80% of the game yesterday.

They had a two goal lead and "Quick on steroids" in net. They lost. Deal with it.



SHAW!!!

You are either drunk or a crazed and delusional Homer.

 

[Capt. Serious]

I do. Quick was supposed to be unbeatable after shutting down StL and SJ in the playoffs. Rask was supposed to be unbeatable after shutting down Pittsburgh.

Rask's save % was 93 last night, dumb nuts.

He was a big reason why the game wasn't over well beforehand.

 

[nwfisch]

Wow, 93%. Is that supposed to be "unbeatable"? Not saying Rask played poorly, but he wasn't like Hasek or Brodeur in their primes.

His save % against Pittsburgh was 98.5%, and his GAA was 0.43. Its 93% and 4.00 against Chicago.

What a large sample size!

 

[HawkWriter]

Wow, 93%. Is that supposed to be "unbeatable"? Not saying Rask played poorly, but he wasn't like Hasek or Brodeur in their primes.

His save % against Pittsburgh was 98.5%, and his GAA was 0.43. Its 93% and 4.00 against Chicago.

Actually it is just over 2.00 - I'm not going to do the math but played close to 120 minutes (almost two games) and gave up 4 goals.

Rask played well as did Crawford. This is going to be a great series.

 

[Diehardfan]

Wow, 93%. Is that supposed to be "unbeatable"? Not saying Rask played poorly, but he wasn't like Hasek or Brodeur in their primes.

His save % against Pittsburgh was 98.5%, and his GAA was 0.43. Its 93% and 4.00 against Chicago.

Its actually closer to 2.00 as GAA is not by game, its by 60 minute intervals.

 

[HawkWriter]

Thanks for the semantical input. My point was that Rask was unbeatable against Pitt the entire series, yet proved to be mortal against Chicago in the first game.

But its kind of an edge to Chicago when Crawford can play just as well as Rask and Quick, no?

Crawford doesn't need to play as well as Rask. Crawford definitely has a better team in front of him, but Rask is the better goalie. Both did plenty to give their team the opportunity to win. Crawford stood tall in the OT when Boston vastly has the better chances than Chicago.

If Crawford can find a way to play as well as Rask (hard to measure who plays better because of the teams in front, but round one goes to Crawford - SOG not being an end all measuring stick by any means) then it simply increases the Blackhawks' chances.

 

[dabearsjjk]

Take enough shots, eventually one will go in


With that said I thought the Blackhawks looks terrible at the beginning of the game. Not sure if they where just off or if Boston's Zone D was that great.

I really am not sure how we won that game.

I really hope we where just off that game. If we won a game by having a off night then I think we can win the series in 5.

If Boston's D really makes us look that bad its going to game 6 or 7.