Posted by moy23 on 10/8/2011 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by andru2797 on 10/8/2011 2:08:00 PM (view original):
moy, if you consider that the core of the team is locked up for the next 3-5 seasons, I'd say that's a big enough window for the prospects to mature.

In 3 seasons from now Hossa will be 36 w/ a few more years at $5mil AAV, Kane and Toews will be in contract negotiations, Hjalmarrson would have gone UFA. Teams that always play for the future seem to do just that.... right NOW the hawks are throwing away 3 great opportunities with FA garbage... '10-11,'11-12, and if these 'prospects' don't pan out '12-13 and maybe longer.

The Hawks won! Now for sure they'll win the Stanley Cup because they looked so good in game 2 of the season!

You see how basing your entire analysis of a team on one game sounds?

I thought the Hawks came out and dominated last night in all seriousness. Pat Kane is looking like a different player this season, and Bolland looked good as well. Bickell was very physical and Brunette did exactly what he was brought in to do: create traffic in front (which led to his goal). The defense moved the puck out of their zone much better than in game 1 and moved it very quickly. Efficient games from SOD, Seabs and Leddy.

The off-season plan worked to perfection last night. Does that mean it'll work perfectly EVERY night? No. Does it mean anything at this point in the season? Maybe a little but not much. Everyone should just calm down and reserve judgement until season's end...but where's the fun in that?

And btw moy, how's "building for now" working out for your Flyers? And for the nucks for that matter?

Posted by andru2797 on 10/9/2011 12:18:00 PM (view original):
And btw moy, how's "building for now" working out for your Flyers? And for the nucks for that matter?

Working out fine. Flyers average a Stanley Cup appearance every 5 seasons. They've missed the playoffs 7 times in 44 seasons.

Even the shuffle they pulled off in the offseason was to play for now.... they NEEDED a goalie. Yes they traded Richie and carts.... but they brought back experienced players w upside (Voracek, Simmonds), picked up productive FAs (Talbot, Jagr) and acquired NHL READY prospects (Schenn,Couturier). Flyers will surprise this season if the d stays moderately healthy and bryz keeps up the great play.... I wouldn't write them off for the '11-12 cup at this point.

Posted by andru2797 on 10/9/2011 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/8/2011 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by andru2797 on 10/8/2011 2:08:00 PM (view original):
moy, if you consider that the core of the team is locked up for the next 3-5 seasons, I'd say that's a big enough window for the prospects to mature.

In 3 seasons from now Hossa will be 36 w/ a few more years at $5mil AAV, Kane and Toews will be in contract negotiations, Hjalmarrson would have gone UFA. Teams that always play for the future seem to do just that.... right NOW the hawks are throwing away 3 great opportunities with FA garbage... '10-11,'11-12, and if these 'prospects' don't pan out '12-13 and maybe longer.

The Hawks won! Now for sure they'll win the Stanley Cup because they looked so good in game 2 of the season!

You see how basing your entire analysis of a team on one game sounds?

I thought the Hawks came out and dominated last night in all seriousness. Pat Kane is looking like a different player this season, and Bolland looked good as well. Bickell was very physical and Brunette did exactly what he was brought in to do: create traffic in front (which led to his goal). The defense moved the puck out of their zone much better than in game 1 and moved it very quickly. Efficient games from SOD, Seabs and Leddy.

The off-season plan worked to perfection last night. Does that mean it'll work perfectly EVERY night? No. Does it mean anything at this point in the season? Maybe a little but not much. Everyone should just calm down and reserve judgement until season's end...but where's the fun in that?

My analysis of the hawks is based on poor team management, a crappy (and predictable) '10-11, an unstellar offseason, an poor pre-season (where the holes I predicted beforehand were evident) and the fact a richardsless Dallas team jumped on the hawks defensive deficiencies game 1. Game 2 showed how bad Dallas really is. Don't forget .... the schedule will get harder for the hawks. Detroit and SJ look great so far.

First, ask the buffalo bills or Atlanta braves if success is measured by playoff appearances or being a championship runner-up. As far as I'm concerned, the flyers have failed at every turn since their last cup, just like every team not named Boston bruins failed last season.

As for the two games against the stars, interesting how when the hawks win, all of a sudden its because of the opponent not their own play. moy, after all I've seen you post I think its pretty safe to say that you simply don't like the hawks and will never give them credit, even if they deserve it. that kind of kills any objective analysis relating to this team that you can possibly make.

my question is simply, other than the finals two years ago, why so much hate for the hawks?

Kruger showed tons of balls blocking that bomb from Souray.  That's a damn good sign, as was Frodo passing up the empty net chance to feed Bolland for the goal. 

Posted by andru2797 on 10/9/2011 2:45:00 PM (view original):
First, ask the buffalo bills or Atlanta braves if success is measured by playoff appearances or being a championship runner-up. As far as I'm concerned, the flyers have failed at every turn since their last cup, just like every team not named Boston bruins failed last season.

As for the two games against the stars, interesting how when the hawks win, all of a sudden its because of the opponent not their own play. moy, after all I've seen you post I think its pretty safe to say that you simply don't like the hawks and will never give them credit, even if they deserve it. that kind of kills any objective analysis relating to this team that you can possibly make.

my question is simply, other than the finals two years ago, why so much hate for the hawks?

Thats lame.... "go ask the bills, go ask the braves".  At least those teams were successful in their own rights.  They fielded competitive teams with a shot at being the ONE team to win it all.  Go ask the Atlanta Thrashers or the Cleveland Browns if success is measured by making the playoffs.  Its all relative.  That said - FACT - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEN A TEAM DOES NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.  

Many teams have, like the hawks, ramped up through years of losing to eventually win a championship (Hurricanes, Lightning, Marlins, etc).  I have less respect for those teams than teams that consistently field a competitive team (Patriots, Flyers, Red Wings, Red Sox, etc).  The hawks had a chance to be a powerhouse for a loooong time.  They fucked it up first with the RFA deadlines, then by letting go of talent and replacing that talent with a handful of prospects that are not even NHL ready.  I guess if you are content being a fan of a team that misses the playoffs for 9 straight years just to take a couple shots at the cup... so be it.  I prefer my teams to consistently field a product with a shot at the championship.... thus yes, the playoffs are the first step to success imo.  

And I dislike the Hawks because besides Canucks fans, Hawks fans are probably the most gullible, annoying fans I have ever met.  Was talking to a pens fan yesterday - he said it best - chicago sports fans are in a bubble - they only get to see and hear their own media - so they always believe the hype.


Lastly - Dallas is a BAD team - you yourself ranked them #14 out of 15 teams in the west.  I said the second game showed that they were bad... and it did... they were terrible.  The hawks beat themselves with ****** turnovers in game 1... they should have won that first game, but their defense was exploited by a BAD team.

Oh - and I gave them credit for the '09-10 Championship - they were the better team.  Deep Bench and talented Finesse/Speed players with the right combo of Physicality (Buff, Sopel, Burish, Ladd, Eager).  That team was GREAT!!!! Its a shame management screwed the pooch and blew it all up.  I'd be ****** if I was a blackhawks fan, instead fans say "oh we had to do that cause we couldn't afford to keep them all". ... yeah, why couldn't you afford to keep them?  Thats what fans should have been asking.

and you mention how I can't make an unbiased opinion about the hawks... answer me this:

1) Who said the hawks were a 6-10 seeded team before the '10-11 season when every hawks fan here said that was just dumb?
2) Who said Campbell was tradable, and even said Florida would be the first choice when every hawks fan believed the chicago PR machine and said he wasn't?
3) Who said Brouwer (20 goals, 200 hits --- $2.3 mil AAV) gets dealt for peanuts before the draft? 


Just sayin'  

I'd prefer to see how Dainault pans out before terming him "peanuts". 

The Hawks PR machine never claimed Campbell was untradable.  We just assumed nobody was dumb enough to take him.  It helped that Florida needed to hit the salary floor.  Win/win.  Leddy is already better defensively than Campbell ever was. 

Posted by mudbone1969 on 10/9/2011 4:22:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer to see how Dainault pans out before terming him "peanuts". 

The Hawks PR machine never claimed Campbell was untradable.  We just assumed nobody was dumb enough to take him.  It helped that Florida needed to hit the salary floor.  Win/win.  Leddy is already better defensively than Campbell ever was. 

Hawks are under the cap by a landslide - they could have kept Brouwer (a 20G, 200 Hit, $2.3 mil Right Winger) - Instead they ****** him off and sent him packing.... and replaced him with a slow as ****, 40 year old, softy winger in Brunette.


Looks like Campbell is already off to a nice start in Florida btw.  1 GP, 2 A, +1 +/-.  

bottom line - Believe what you want.  If you think Leddy is better already better defensively than Campbell ever was it just proves my point.....  hawks fans will believe anything (gullible).

Wait, now Brunette is "soft"?  Really? 

I guess everyone else in the hockey world is wrong.

Posted by mudbone1969 on 10/9/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Wait, now Brunette is "soft"?  Really? 

I guess everyone else in the hockey world is wrong.

Are you suggesting brunette is known as a hard hitting player, one of those guys others fear to go up against, at 38 years old even?   

Bubble = Chicago.

and I'll be honest - I don't think "everyone else in the hockey world" even gives a **** about Brunette.  I doubt coaches gameplan around Brunette unless its to instruct players to skate circles around him.  This is a 38 year old that has been stashed in lowly Minnesota the last 3 seasons. 

Oh. My. GOD.  You are literally the ONLY person in the world who would try to call a guy like Brunette soft.  You literally have no clue what he brings to a hockey team.  None.  Zero.  Nada.


If you're just pressing buttons to provoke andru, then by all means, have at it.  But at least have something plausible to argue.  Brunette is the farthest thing from soft.  Since 1999, he has missed 14 games.  You don't play power forward in the NHL and miss a paltry 14 games in over a decade by being soft.  You just make randle look like a hockey savant with crap like this, 

Posted by mudbone1969 on 10/9/2011 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Oh. My. GOD.  You are literally the ONLY person in the world who would try to call a guy like Brunette soft.  You literally have no clue what he brings to a hockey team.  None.  Zero.  Nada.


If you're just pressing buttons to provoke andru, then by all means, have at it.  But at least have something plausible to argue.  Brunette is the farthest thing from soft.  Since 1999, he has missed 14 games.  You don't play power forward in the NHL and miss a paltry 14 games in over a decade by being soft.  You just make randle look like a hockey savant with crap like this, 

by 'soft' i am not referring to durability or pain tolerance.... I am referring to the lack of ability to dole out pain. 

The guy probably averages 15 PIMs and 15 Hits a season.

If you want to refer to Brunette as not soft in the durability department, great, I agree - the hawks got a player in brunette that plays every game... just doesn't play all that fast, or all that intimidating.  

Also - 28 year old Brunette is not on the hawks.... 38 year old Brunette is.

Again....I'm not sure what you think Brunette is supposed to do for us.  Being a guy who goes out and hammers people isn't it.  Never was supposed to be.  Never will be.

He was brought here to do what he did last night....get in front of the net, screen the goalie and knock in the garbage.  He's also a team leader and a great clubhouse guy.  We signed other guys to pitch in physically and they've done so.  Mayers was great last night, btw.  Lots of energy and grit.