Posted by peter_puck on 4/27/2011 8:53:00 PM (view original):
So your assertion is that Bieksa is a useless goon (who plays 26 minutes a night) and should fight Chicago's useless goon. Get a clue. Do you watch hockey? When Stalberg slashes you in the face and it goes uncalled, what's the manly thing to do? Slash him back (the Bickell method)  or challenge him to a fight. The fact that Chicago doesn't have any actual players who can stick up for themselves when challenged for their stick work isn't Bieksa's problem.   

first off, bieksa didn't challenge anyone. he grabbed a guy he knew full well wasn't a fighter and pummelled him without warning. Jonathan toews is a tough kid who has fought guys much higher than him, but you didn't see him grabbing mikael samuelsson and start fighting a player who doesn't fight.

as for henrik, nice try peter, but he speaks English just fine. i understand the canucks must be happy to have finally beaten the hawks, but keep that stuff in the locker room and among your teammates. it was a low class thing to say publicly. he could have just as easily chosen to say that they're the Stanley cup champs and they put up a good fight and were just glad to be moving on, like luongo and bieksa did. let's also keep in mind that nhl players do take interview classes, so its not like the question caught henrik by surprise.

eh - who cares. Its just words.


It is comical to hear hawks fans discuss class (like they have a monoploly on it) after winning though..... this interview was right after winning the stanley cup in game 6.

<copy/paste>


In an interview with NBC, Burish couldn't pass up the opportunity to needle Chris Pronger on live television.

"I think Chris Pronger's the biggest idiot in the league," Burish said. "I can't stand him one bit. I hope I never have to see him again. If I see him out there, I might punch him."

Did Burish see the poorly done Chicago Tribune poster that depicted Pronger in a skirt, calling him 'Chrissy Pronger'?

"No, but that's perfect," Burish said. "He should have worn that out here [on the ice]. He was terrible."

Yes moy, I mentioned Burish in my initial post. I also said he didn't matter anyway. No one for a second believed he was speaking for his team or his city. It's a little different when it's the captain, reigning hart Trophy Winner and leader of your team. Henrik (and any captain for that matter) is supposed to represent his organization and city with the class, dignity and respect that every great leader exemplifies. I'm not saying the Hawks have never had anyone say or do anything stupid, but just because they have doesn't excuse what he did.

Aside from that, attacking one player is different than questioning an entire team's resolve. I understand the Canucks were under immense pressure and that because the Hawks won 3 straight, they must have been sick of answering the same questions, but that's why they are professional athletes. If they can't handle it, then they should chose another profession. Trash talking during a series is one thing, which is why I had no problems with Henrik saying that he thought the Canucks dominated game 6 and that the Hawks looked tired. That's a psychological ploy to try and swing momentum. But after the series, there's no reason for that.

ha ha andru.... if the hawks are that upset by what henrik said then they really don't have much resolve - do they?


Its sports. trash talk is ok - before and after a series. Its called a rivalry and it doesn't end after 1 seven game series - use it to add fuel to the fire for next season.


btw - burish did not print the "Chrissy Pronger" cover story with pronger in a skirt on the Trib. That was one of the more classless things I've seen on a national level - and the trib does represent the city of chicago. Fuel on the fire.

True that about the paper...although it was a funny photo...I'm sure even big #20 laughed at it...he's got a good enough sense of humour.

I don't think the Hawks were upset with what Sedin said. It just showed how classless a supposed leader is. I thought the Pronger thing was moronic and the Times? should have known better.

Yup, Henrik is disrespectful. You guys are such hypocrites. He just everything but call them crap and basically says they should beat them easily. 


CHICAGO — Captain Serious wasn’t in the mood to be handing out any compliments to the Vancouver Canucks.

“They’re a beatable team,” Jonathan Toews, the earnest young captain of the Chicago Blackhawks, said Monday, a day after the Canucks pushed the Blackhawks to the brink of elimination in the NHL playoffs.

“They have got weaknesses just like any other team. I think it is up to us to expose them and we haven’t done a good enough job of that. It’s pretty simple.”

What might those weaknesses be? Toews suggested the Canucks are guilty at times of playing too cute and leaving themselves vulnerable in their own end.

“They’re skilled, they like to make plays, and sometimes that leaves you in vulnerable defensive positions,” Toews said. “So like I said, it’s up to us to be better.”

The Blackhawks have one game left to be better or their season is over. Game 4 of their WesternConference quarter-final goes Tuesday night at the United Center, and the Canucks will be trying to earn just the second sweep of a seven-game playoff series in franchise history.

Toews’ comments Monday were a followup to ones made after the reigning Stanley Cup champions lost 3-2 in Game 3 on Sunday.

“Everybody wants to look at the stats all year and talk about what they do well and how good of a team they are,” Toews said after Game 3. “That’s what’s frustrating because we’re not exposing them for what they really are. And I think a lot of people outside of this locker-room are giving them too much credit and maybe we are as well.”

Posted by andru2797 on 4/28/2011 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by peter_puck on 4/27/2011 8:53:00 PM (view original):
So your assertion is that Bieksa is a useless goon (who plays 26 minutes a night) and should fight Chicago's useless goon. Get a clue. Do you watch hockey? When Stalberg slashes you in the face and it goes uncalled, what's the manly thing to do? Slash him back (the Bickell method)  or challenge him to a fight. The fact that Chicago doesn't have any actual players who can stick up for themselves when challenged for their stick work isn't Bieksa's problem.   

first off, bieksa didn't challenge anyone. he grabbed a guy he knew full well wasn't a fighter and pummelled him without warning. Jonathan toews is a tough kid who has fought guys much higher than him, but you didn't see him grabbing mikael samuelsson and start fighting a player who doesn't fight.

as for henrik, nice try peter, but he speaks English just fine. i understand the canucks must be happy to have finally beaten the hawks, but keep that stuff in the locker room and among your teammates. it was a low class thing to say publicly. he could have just as easily chosen to say that they're the Stanley cup champs and they put up a good fight and were just glad to be moving on, like luongo and bieksa did. let's also keep in mind that nhl players do take interview classes, so its not like the question caught henrik by surprise.

andru,
when did Samuelsson slash Toews in the face?? Stalberg was the exact individual who slashed him. He was paying him back. He wasn't some random player. He was the only player he went after. Please go watch that again. Assuming you guys watched it  the first time. I'm starting to wonder.   

Defending your players I understand. Defending them blindly is just plane biased peter.

1. I never said Samuelsson slashed anyone. It was a hyopthetical scenario I was presenting. Kevin Bieksa didn't challenge Stalberg. He didn't look at him and drop his gloves as if to say "let's go" the way you see normal players do in the NHL. He grabbed Stalberg and started pounding because he knew he could, seeing as how Stalberg wasn't a fighter. I suspect we would have seen a different reaction from Kevin if instead of Stalberg he looked up and saw that it was John Scott who had done that to him.

2. Toews didn't say anything disrespectful. He called the Canucks a beatable team, and said that they have weaknesses. Guess what peter: EVERY team is beatable and EVERY team has weaknesses. The other thing to keep in mind is that during a series, when you're down 3-0, you're looking for an edge, whether it be on the ice or psychologically. Toews was trying to make comments in order to swing momentum and didn't insult the team to do it. Henrik Sedin made his comments AFTER winning the series and made it sound as if the Hawks got to game 7 only because the Canucks let them, not because they fought hard to get there. That's my problem. The last 2 years when the Hawks blasted the Canucks in elimination games, you didn't hear one Hawk say how lucky the Canucks were to even get to 6 games.

And the biggest problem with Sedin's comments? His play. The Canucks won the series IN SPITE of the Sedins' play, not because of it. If there is no Ryan Kesler, there is no series win for Vancouver.

Guys, you realize your series is over now, right?  You can stop bickering and ignore each other til September!  hahaha

Posted by smeric on 4/28/2011 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Guys, you realize your series is over now, right?  You can stop bickering and ignore each other til September!  hahaha

heh.

Posted by smeric on 4/28/2011 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Guys, you realize your series is over now, right?  You can stop bickering and ignore each other til September!  hahaha

You're right. We probably won't have to discuss another Hawk's playoff series for 5 years.

Posted by andru2797 on 4/28/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Defending your players I understand. Defending them blindly is just plane biased peter.

1. I never said Samuelsson slashed anyone. It was a hyopthetical scenario I was presenting. Kevin Bieksa didn't challenge Stalberg. He didn't look at him and drop his gloves as if to say "let's go" the way you see normal players do in the NHL. He grabbed Stalberg and started pounding because he knew he could, seeing as how Stalberg wasn't a fighter. I suspect we would have seen a different reaction from Kevin if instead of Stalberg he looked up and saw that it was John Scott who had done that to him.

2. Toews didn't say anything disrespectful. He called the Canucks a beatable team, and said that they have weaknesses. Guess what peter: EVERY team is beatable and EVERY team has weaknesses. The other thing to keep in mind is that during a series, when you're down 3-0, you're looking for an edge, whether it be on the ice or psychologically. Toews was trying to make comments in order to swing momentum and didn't insult the team to do it. Henrik Sedin made his comments AFTER winning the series and made it sound as if the Hawks got to game 7 only because the Canucks let them, not because they fought hard to get there. That's my problem. The last 2 years when the Hawks blasted the Canucks in elimination games, you didn't hear one Hawk say how lucky the Canucks were to even get to 6 games.

And the biggest problem with Sedin's comments? His play. The Canucks won the series IN SPITE of the Sedins' play, not because of it. If there is no Ryan Kesler, there is no series win for Vancouver.

So it's okay for Toews to disrespect them after game 3 because they still have games to play and it's motivating. Newsflash for you: THE CANUCKS ARE STILL PLAYING NOW. They can't be satisfied at all with how they played Chicago because now they have to go on and play a better team. It's the captain's responsibility to let his team know that they have achieved NOTHING so far and beaten NOBODY. Pretty much what Toews said after game 3. 

Again, I'm  starting to smell bigotry here. Yes Toews is the poster boy of hockey. Give him all the rope he wants. But how dare Henrik even open his mouth.   

Oh and by the way, Bieksa LEADS ALL CANUCKS in ICETIME with 25:05 a game. But yeah, he should get tossed fighting some slab of meat. 

You can't discuss fighting with hawks fans.... they will never get it. All non-hawk fans agree.... Fighting Scott is stupid.... for one because it plays to his strength and once he pummels your player the hawks now gain momentum.... and two because Scott is a bigger liability on the ice than in the box. The guy for all his size can't even check players hard. I should add he is the worst player on the ice and any team that squares off with him will be losing a more valuable player for 5 minutes.