TGDT: 12/3 Canucks @ Blackhawks 7:30PM CSN+/NHLN

[Chief Walking Stick]

Very disappointing loss.



They only had 18 friggin shots on goal.



Wow

YEEEEESH! It seemed like much more then that! I didn't realize it was that low.

 

[sth]

Yep I knew Lou would have to show up one of these days. We own him in Vancouver but actually the goon does good in Chicago. Tonight was the best Louser has ever played against the Hawks. Nothing you can do. It is clear why the Nucks are 12-1-1 when scoring first. When they go behind they start whining and taking dumb penalties and then quit skating. They have a fragile ego but when they take the lead early then they give effort.

 

[Rdrhwke]

YEEEEESH! It seemed like much more then that! I didn't realize it was that low.

Hawks outshot them 32-18.



Turco faced 5 shots in the third period.........2 went in.

 

[genefoley]

Very disappointing loss.



They only had 18 friggin shots on goal.



Wow

Yep and I believe the Hawks had 12 after 1. Therefore, SIX shots in two periods. SIX.



As much as I hate 7uongo he played pretty well even though he only faced 18 shots. Made several great saves; the ones on Toews and Kopecky(PP) come to mind. Oh well, turn the page and go get the Flames and make up for the last time they played them in Calgary.



Also, on goal 1, someone has to get the puck outta there. Goal 2 goes to Kopecky. Wonderful board there...did you really have hit him? That came right after the Canucks killed off two penalties too and that just gave them even more momentum. And goal 3 I thought Sharp could've been back-checking a little harder as he let Henrik skate right past him to the loose puck, but, whatever, the game was pretty much over at that point.

 

[Rdrhwke]

Yep and I believe the Hawks had 12 after 1. Therefore, SIX shots in two periods. SIX.



As much as I hate 7uongo he played pretty well even though he only faced 18 shots. Made several great saves; the ones on Toews and Kopecky(PP) come to mind. Oh well, turn the page and go get the Flames and make up for the last time they played them in Calgary.

No dude. The Canucks only had 18 shots, Hawks had 32.

 

[genefoley]

No dude. The Canucks only had 18 shots, Hawks had 32.

I tweaked. I thought that sounded kinda low, should've checked before I posted. Losses **** with my head.

 

[bookjones]

Hawks 1 of 2 teams in the WC under .500 at home.

 

[the canadian dream]

Can't fault defense/goalkeeping or offense on that one.



It was 100% Luongo. Nothing more and nothing less. If I hear one person say so and so sucked or so and so wasn't skating hard or so and so should have done this or so and so should have done that I will rage!! That includes Turco..none of those goals can be pinned on him.



Hawks looked fantastic tonight from top to bottom and if wasn't for that ugly greasy Luongo the score would have been at least 6-3 if not 6-0. Luongo gave his team everything they needed to win including giant momentum. Hate to say it but the ****** might have the save of the year so far from that game if not 2 of them.



YIKES!!! I won't hear the end of it tonight from the Canuck jerks.

 

[Rdrhwke]

Hawks 1 of 2 teams in the WC under .500 at home.

That is something I can't understand and really can't come up with a good reason for it.

 

[genefoley]

Can't fault defense/goalkeeping or offense on that one.



It was 100% Luongo. Nothing more and nothing less. If I hear one person say so and so sucked or so and so wasn't skating hard or so and so should have done this or so and so should have done that I will rage!! That includes Turco..none of those goals can be pinned on him.



Hawks looked fantastic tonight from top to bottom and if wasn't for that ugly greasy Luongo the score would have been at least 6-3 if not 6-0. Luongo gave his team everything they needed to win including giant momentum. Hate to say it but the ****** might have the save of the year so far from that game if not 2 of them.



YIKES!!! I won't hear the end of it tonight from the Canuck jerks.

Hey! I wasn't ripping Sharp, he had a fine game. As I said it was basically academic at the point. (Not sure if that was directed at me) Anyway...



For those who attended(sorry if slightly off-topic), did they do/say anything regarding Ron Santo? Figured with the Cub connection they might've had a moment of silence or something like that.

 

[the canadian dream]

That is something I can't understand and really can't come up with a good reason for it.

Think it's just one of those stats that can't be explained. People always try to find reasons for it no matter what team they are talking about but I don't think anything can easily really explain home ice/away ice records. Next year the same Hawks team could go .800 at home and people will try to explain why the home record is so good. Or they will go .400 on the road and people will try to develop theories as to why that is. Alls I know is that home/away records for all teams change season to season. They are never a constant. As Bertuzzi would say "it is what it is".



And no Gene that wasn't directed at you at all. Just bracing for the storm of those who like to make someone a goat everynight or rip on the team because of a loss (which I know I have done in the past,....but when i do it I am 100% correct

. But I think we all watched the same game tonight and know who won that game and why he did.

 

[MassHavoc]

Can't fault defense/goalkeeping or offense on that one.



It was 100% Luongo. Nothing more and nothing less. If I hear one person say so and so sucked or so and so wasn't skating hard or so and so should have done this or so and so should have done that I will rage!! That includes Turco..none of those goals can be pinned on him.



Hawks looked fantastic tonight from top to bottom and if wasn't for that ugly greasy Luongo the score would have been at least 6-3 if not 6-0. Luongo gave his team everything they needed to win including giant momentum. Hate to say it but the ****** might have the save of the year so far from that game if not 2 of them.



YIKES!!! I won't hear the end of it tonight from the Canuck jerks.

I blame you TCD, horrible game, and just pull a Roy on your friends and tell them you can't hear them with the rings in your ears.

 

[genefoley]

Agreed TCD. You can try to pass blame around all you want when it comes to this game but I just can't come up with any reasons for the loss other than Luongo playing well. Like I said before, Hawks just have to turn the page. This is hockey; goalies steal games from time to time. Nothing can be done about it. Just sucks not getting any points. With detroit about to go up 6 points with 6 games in hand, the division is looking like its going to be really really tough to win. But as long as the Hawks make the playoffs, I can live with that.

 

[bookjones]

Can't fault defense/goalkeeping or offense on that one.



It was 100% Luongo. Nothing more and nothing less. If I hear one person say so and so sucked or so and so wasn't skating hard or so and so should have done this or so and so should have done that I will rage!! That includes Turco..none of those goals can be pinned on him.



Hawks looked fantastic tonight from top to bottom and if wasn't for that ugly greasy Luongo the score would have been at least 6-3 if not 6-0. Luongo gave his team everything they needed to win including giant momentum. Hate to say it but the ****** might have the save of the year so far from that game if not 2 of them.



YIKES!!! I won't hear the end of it tonight from the Canuck jerks.

Eh, I don't agree with that assessment. I think the Hawks generally played okay but the Canucks played better, esp. Luongo who brought his A-game. Also now we know what it's like to play VAN with their revamped, more mobile full D lineup since Hamhuis and Ballard played this time. That doesn't mean that I feel there was any one goat for the Hawks but obviously if you're shutout the team *could* have played better. I personally didn't think they had a ton of energy, they clearly didn't convert with the man advantage and while they did some, I don't think they crowded the net as much as they needed to to get 2nd and 3rd opportunities which frankly, is what you have to do in front of Luongo.



After listening to Toews' post-game he certainly didn't think they had enough energy and felt there were things the team could have done to get back in the game, that they kind of just gave it away. He felt VAN didn't especially "take it to them" and wasn't in their faces. I don't disagree with him.

 

[supraman]

Eh, I don't agree with that assessment. I think the Hawks generally played okay but the Canucks played better, esp. Luongo who brought his A-game. Also now we know what it's like to play VAN with their revamped, more mobile full D lineup since Hamhuis and Ballard played this time. That doesn't mean that I feel there was any one goat for the Hawks but obviously if you're shutout the team *could* have played better. I personally didn't think they had a ton of energy, they clearly didn't convert with the man advantage and while they did some, I don't think they crowded the net as much as they needed to to get 2nd and 3rd opportunities.



After listening to Toews' post-game he certainly didn't think they had enough energy and felt there were things the team could have done to get back in the game, that they kind of just gave it away. He felt VAN didn't especially "take it to them" and wasn't in their faces. I don't disagree with him.

Hawks played great top to bottom Lou just played better. We owned the game until the first goal. I promise you, had we have scored first we would have won easily. We had too many excellent chances that lou just saved. We score on him he gets a bit rattled and the puck goes a lot easier.

 

[genefoley]

Hawks played great top to bottom Lou just played better. We owned the game until the first goal. I promise you, had we have scored first we would have won easily. We had too many excellent chances that lou just saved. We score on him he gets a bit rattled and the puck goes a lot easier.

You know, I had the exact same thought cross my mind. Thought maybe it was a little far-fetched, glad I wasn't the only one who thought that, should help me sleep tonight.

 

[supraman]

You know, I had the exact same thought cross my mind. Thought maybe it was a little far-fetched, glad I wasn't the only one who thought that, should help me sleep tonight.

I'll be honest I think the hawks played their best game of the season. So many chances just Lou finally played up to his hype.

 

[bookjones]

Hawks played great top to bottom Lou just played better. We owned the game until the first goal. I promise you, had we have scored first we would have won easily. We had too many excellent chances that lou just saved. We score on him he gets a bit rattled and the puck goes a lot easier.

Perception is everything, differences of opinion, and all that jazz. I think the Hawks basically looked good (though turnover stats were ugly and they certainly could have checked more), they took a lot of shots but I felt that only a half dozen or so were beautiful chances and that's where Luongo stood large and the Canucks D was damn good out there in front of him too. As for the other shots, I thought a lot of them were from a distance, unscreened, and thusly Luongo had no problem with them which gets back to what I meant when I said they didn't crash the net enough ultimately IMO. It was a pretty game from Luongo but I think in general the Canucks just played better as an entire team against the Hawks tonight. As for your comment about if we score on him once, eh, it's a "what if"---we won't ever know because the Hawks didn't convert on anything at any time so it is what it is. On to facing the Lames on Sunday.

 

[the canadian dream]

Eh, I don't agree with that assessment. I think the Hawks generally played okay but the Canucks played better, esp. Luongo who brought his A-game. Also now we know what it's like to play VAN with their revamped, more mobile full D lineup since Hamhuis and Ballard played this time. That doesn't mean that I feel there was any one goat for the Hawks but obviously if you're shutout the team *could* have played better. I personally didn't think they had a ton of energy, they clearly didn't convert with the man advantage and while they did some, I don't think they crowded the net as much as they needed to to get 2nd and 3rd opportunities which frankly, is what you have to do in front of Luongo.



After listening to Toews' post-game he certainly didn't think they had enough energy and felt there were things the team could have done to get back in the game, that they kind of just gave it away. He felt VAN didn't especially "take it to them" and wasn't in their faces. I don't disagree with him.

We are on two different pages then. I thought the Hawks faught hard in that game and didn't take one shift off. Looked to me that they wanted it bad. Even after the Nucks first goal I though they put in a solid effort to get it back. Luo was just having nothing of it. Maybe mid way through the 3rd the Hawks started to let up a little bit and certainly were not skating hard after the Sedin goal they packed it in (they weren't coming back anyways). I actually thought the Nucks defense looked horrible and slow to tell you the truth. I didn't notice Hamhuis or Ballard much at all. I thought the Hawks D was much more stingy tonight and it showed on the shot count. Sure some of the pucks on Luo were not all quality shots but when they were Luo made some pretty unbelievable saves.



I agree with Toews that the Canucks were not "in the hawks faces" (not including the last 10 mins of the first period it started getting chippy). I disagree with Toews assessment that the Hawks didn't show enough energy to get back in the game. Sometimes Toews tows the line as most captains do. He is pointing the finger at himself and the team for the loss. I respect that of course rather than pointing the finger elsewhere. However this time around he could give the nod to the goalie on the other team. Honestly don't think Toews knows Luongo was the difference in the game? He knows it.

 

[genefoley]

I'll be honest I think the hawks played their best game of the season. So many chances just Lou finally played up to his hype.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Mainly because The Captain thought they could've played better. I think they played better in Vancouver, for example. I do agree, strongly, though-- If the Hawks could've potted one there in the second period, the flood gates would have opened. It seems like, against the Hawks, the more saves Lou makes and as it gets later in the game the more confidence he gets. On the other hand, when he lets a couple in, he can get rattled. As someone else mentioned before(bookie?), the Hawks needed to get more bodies and traffic in front of Lou. Kopecky did OK in that respect. Which begs the question...where was Brouwer? He was invisible again and I feel like I've wondered where he's been too many games this year. I guess he just isn't as effective if he isn't on a line with Kane and/or Toews. He is a guy who can be effective in front of the net against Lou.