Posted by moy23 on 4/20/2011 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by holer on 4/20/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):
It's not rocket science that when the Hawks finally came out and showed some grit - and nasty grit  at that - they took control of the game.  The Hawks won that game because guys like Keith spent the whole game trying to show everyone who was boss.

yep. And no coincidence when guys like Buff take down Pronger twice in finals game 5 that the Hawks turn the corner and win the Stanley Cup after 49 years. Physical play IS playoff hockey.

No argument here...my argument was against all those that said the Hawks weren't able to do it...I think they're able, it's just that some guys haven't been willing. Big difference.

The simple fact of the matter is the Hawks have had the refs on their side since the puck dropped in game. Huge powerplay advantage in every game and  the first 3 games were way closer than the Canucks deserved.
I mean Ehrhoff getting a penalty for trying the puck at the net. I've never seen that in my life.
Toews, Kane, Sharp have done ZERO in this series 5 on 5.  
This series has been a joke. It should have been a walk in the park based on the Canucks overwelming advantage in every aspect of the game. But I always forget about reffing and how they try to equalize teams. Especially US teams.  

Posted by andru2797 on 4/20/2011 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/20/2011 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by holer on 4/20/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):
It's not rocket science that when the Hawks finally came out and showed some grit - and nasty grit  at that - they took control of the game.  The Hawks won that game because guys like Keith spent the whole game trying to show everyone who was boss.

yep. And no coincidence when guys like Buff take down Pronger twice in finals game 5 that the Hawks turn the corner and win the Stanley Cup after 49 years. Physical play IS playoff hockey.

No argument here...my argument was against all those that said the Hawks weren't able to do it...I think they're able, it's just that some guys haven't been willing. Big difference.

I think its even more than that. I don't think the hawks coaches/management emphasize physical play. That's why the hawks have missed the playoffs 9 of the last 13 seasons when teams like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philly, NYR, NJ, etc rarely miss the playoffs (even in rebuilding mode). Jmo

Posted by peter_puck on 4/20/2011 1:11:00 PM (view original):
The simple fact of the matter is the Hawks have had the refs on their side since the puck dropped in game. Huge powerplay advantage in every game and  the first 3 games were way closer than the Canucks deserved.
I mean Ehrhoff getting a penalty for trying the puck at the net. I've never seen that in my life.
Toews, Kane, Sharp have done ZERO in this series 5 on 5.  
This series has been a joke. It should have been a walk in the park based on the Canucks overwelming advantage in every aspect of the game. But I always forget about reffing and how they try to equalize teams. Especially US teams.  

You're right peter...it wasn't that the Canucks played poorly, gave the puck away, had 0 forecheck and were generally just playing not to lose instead of to win...and it surely wasn't the Hawks who brought a more physical game, or that Dave Bolland simply put together a great night, or even that it was pure luck that everything the Hawks threw at the new went in...it was the refs. That makes total sense.

I love how Canuck fans feel that just because their team is good on paper and had the season they had, everyone should just hand everything to them. Overwhelming advantages on paper mean nothing. Just ask the Capitals and Penguins of last season, or even the Bruins of this year about overwhelming advantages over their opponents, and those are all US teams that got/are getting beaten by a canadian team.

The Hawks had a solid gameplan and simply wanted that game more than the Canucks. Period. Its not much more complicated than that. If the Canucks are to earn their first ever Stanley Cup this season, as they're expected to, then they need to show some backbone and not follow their fans' lead and claim the refs screwed them.

In addition, an interesting quote by Roberto Luongo about Dave Bolland: "Obviously he helped them out, but he's not a guy who will change a series".

I wasn't really talking about game 4, although SURPRISE SURPRISE, they Hawks still got the calls despite a lot of dirty play by Keith and co. It wouldn't have mattered if the Canucks played the best game of their life. The Hawks would keep getting powerplays to stay in it (see games 1 to 3). 

Just when I think moy can't know less about hockey, he proves me wrong.

Wow.

good one. let me introduce everyone to Muddy - the king of comebacks!

Doesn't mean I'm wrong.  Toews is elite.  Once you figure that out, you'll see how being "tough" means **** in hockey.

Posted by peter_puck on 4/20/2011 1:11:00 PM (view original):
The simple fact of the matter is the Hawks have had the refs on their side since the puck dropped in game. Huge powerplay advantage in every game and  the first 3 games were way closer than the Canucks deserved.
I mean Ehrhoff getting a penalty for trying the puck at the net. I've never seen that in my life.
Toews, Kane, Sharp have done ZERO in this series 5 on 5.  
This series has been a joke. It should have been a walk in the park based on the Canucks overwelming advantage in every aspect of the game. But I always forget about reffing and how they try to equalize teams. Especially US teams.  

Stop whining like a little *****.

He's impressing moy with it.  Two guys who think being "tough" equates to winning hockey games.

Posted by mudbone1969 on 4/20/2011 5:26:00 PM (view original):
He's impressing moy with it.  Two guys who think being "tough" equates to winning hockey games.

Consistantly winning. Don't misquote.

Even wronger!!

  I actually agree with Andru for once ..the Hawks were better,wanted it more and the refs were not a factor in the Hawks win..it was all the Canucks being over confident,playing not to lose which is the kiss of Death ,and Vancouver ALWAYS tries that crap ,instead of laying the boots to the opposition..they forget how they won the first 3 games,coincidently their hit totals have decreased after each game...its simple, play passive =Lose  ,play aggressive/Offensive win..they are the better team  if they play all out. If Vancouver comes out with this passive crap again ? Chicago wins game 5...simple, I want to see 20 hits in period 1 of game 5....frustrating  as hell...any proven winner has that killer instinct..you never let your opponent up ...last nite the Canucks were a no show, complete no show...Hawks were by far the superior team,atleast on tuesday nite

Posted by juiced33 on 4/20/2011 6:01:00 PM (view original):
  I actually agree with Andru for once ..the Hawks were better,wanted it more and the refs were not a factor in the Hawks win..it was all the Canucks being over confident,playing not to lose which is the kiss of Death ,and Vancouver ALWAYS tries that crap ,instead of laying the boots to the opposition..they forget how they won the first 3 games,coincidently their hit totals have decreased after each game...its simple, play passive =Lose  ,play aggressive/Offensive win..they are the better team  if they play all out. If Vancouver comes out with this passive crap again ? Chicago wins game 5...simple, I want to see 20 hits in period 1 of game 5....frustrating  as hell...any proven winner has that killer instinct..you never let your opponent up ...last nite the Canucks were a no show, complete no show...Hawks were by far the superior team,atleast on tuesday nite

what do you mean?  OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE KNOWS *TOUGHNESS* / *PHYSICALITY* DOESN'T WIN GAMES!!!!!  you must know nothing about hockey.

Its like muddy doesn't even watch the Hawks.  how many games this season have we watched the hawks jump to an early lead (1-2 goals) and then the other team changes to a more physical game plan and the hawks gave up that lead.  It was like clockwork all season long.