Winston Legthigh Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Like I said... the BEST Blackhawks team I have ever seen... I've been thinking about this statement... I certainly think they have the potential to be the best Hawks team, but it's still too early. Though I appreciate your enthusiasm for a team making the playoffs for the 2nd time in 11 years. I'd take 90's Belfour over Bulin, 90's Chelios & Smith over Seabrook & Keith, and 90's Roenick over any current forward. But until the current crew takes home the Cup or some individual awards, 90s team trumps this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 And I'll take Bobby/Dennis Hull, Stan Makita, Tony E, and Keith Magnuson over any of them. Though the style of hockey today seems faster and more precise than I recall it being in the 60s and 70s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 And I'll take Bobby/Dennis Hull, Stan Makita, Tony E, and Keith Magnuson over any of them. Though the style of hockey today seems faster and more precise than I recall it being in the 60s and 70s.WAY faster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't either, I had a reason at the time...probably something to do with the Bruins haha See, the salary cap is brought down by bad markets with low attendance. The gross profits of such franchises are hurt even more in this economy. If the league had 26 teams, with no Florida, Atlanta, Nashville, and Phoenix, the over all profits would go up, for sure.I don't think the "sunbelt" is hopeless. Dallas has done really well. And I think a market like Kansas City or even Las Vegas would probably do decently. Phoenix is hurt by being so poorly run. Everything I hear, the team does nothing to get out into the community and there's too much to compete with, what with their MLB, NFL, and NBA team. The NFL isn't trying to expand into Canada (besides Toronto, apparently), where it is not wanted. Why does the NHL feel the need to be accepted in the south? It's a winter sport, put it where there's snow!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied lightning Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Keith Magnuson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 Looks like Detroit is cruising into the Finals. I say in 5. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Looks like Detroit is cruising into the Finals. I say in 5.Hawks were definitely making me nervous last night. But, anything less than winning the next 2 at home will make things very hard on them. And even then, they have to win the next 4 out of 5... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scalzunfield Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hawks were definitely making me nervous last night. But, anything less than winning the next 2 at home will make things very hard on them. And even then, they have to win the next 4 out of 5... Wings in 4, maybe 5, no problem. They're a better team all around than my Hawks, but the refs are lending a HUGE helping hand. So far I've seen two high sticks not called in each game on the Wings, and Patrick Sharp was body slammed into the ice last night so hard he was bleeding from his head and yet...no call. Then they called Bolland for a hook when the blade of his stick was pointed AWAY from the Detroit player. I don't want to call conspiracy theory, but holy crap are the refs turning a blind eye to most Red Wing penalties that seem to get immediately called on the Hawks. I know the Hawks had their fair share of power plays in last night's game, but it was obvious stuff getting called, but only getting called 50% of the time on the Wings. I know the Hawks get away with some stuff too, but if the refs in the playoffs are going to make a habit of calling ONLY the obvious penalty, you have to call the obvious every damn time it happens on BOTH teams, not pick and choose when and where. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Wings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Wings in 4, maybe 5, no problem. They're a better team all around than my Hawks, but the refs are lending a HUGE helping hand. So far I've seen two high sticks not called in each game on the Wings, and Patrick Sharp was body slammed into the ice last night so hard he was bleeding from his head and yet...no call. Then they called Bolland for a hook when the blade of his stick was pointed AWAY from the Detroit player. I don't want to call conspiracy theory, but holy crap are the refs turning a blind eye to most Red Wing penalties that seem to get immediately called on the Hawks. I know the Hawks had their fair share of power plays in last night's game, but it was obvious stuff getting called, but only getting called 50% of the time on the Wings. I know the Hawks get away with some stuff too, but if the refs in the playoffs are going to make a habit of calling ONLY the obvious penalty, you have to call the obvious every damn time it happens on BOTH teams, not pick and choose when and where.Dude, really? Complaining about reffing AGAIN? Your team had a 5-3 power play. And... check the rules on hooking - there's no mention of where the blade must be pointed in order to call the penalty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lodestar Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I don't want to call conspiracy theory, but holy crap are the refs turning a blind eye to most Red Wing penalties that seem to get immediately called on the Hawks. I know the Hawks had their fair share of power plays in last night's game, but it was obvious stuff getting called, but only getting called 50% of the time on the Wings. I know the Hawks get away with some stuff too, but if the refs in the playoffs are going to make a habit of calling ONLY the obvious penalty, you have to call the obvious every damn time it happens on BOTH teams, not pick and choose when and where. I'm a totally unbiased observer (well, actually I'm a Canucks fan), but I don't see how the NHL would gain anything from having the Red Wings win another Cup or sweep an up-and-coming team like Chicago (in a huge sports market, with scads of young star players). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Stop complaining about reffing. The Hawks got lucky a number of times during the Canucks series... these things even themselves out. If anything the NHL probably wants Chicago in the finals, not Detroit so quit your whining. The Wings were clearly the better team in game 1 and were the better in game 2. If you can't score on Chris Osgood during a lengthy 5-3 then you probably don't deserve to win the game. WINGS VS PENGUINS ROUND II COMING THIS JUNE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 I hate Cup repeats. I hope the Pens win, just for variety's sake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I hate Cup repeats. I hope the Pens win, just for variety's sake.Fully agreed! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Well -- I have not given up on the Hawks. I just keep thinking about the Bulls losing the first two games to the Knicks in NY in '93 -- and they pulled it out in six. It can be done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I hate Cup repeats. I hope the Pens win, just for variety's sake.There's only been 2 cup repeats in your lifetime! Parity sucks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't think there's ever been so much parity in the league. Which makes what the Wings do all the more impressive. Well -- I have not given up on the Hawks. I just keep thinking about the Bulls losing the first two games to the Knicks in NY in '93 -- and they pulled it out in six. It can be done.What? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 JR's an idiot. (and his name will never be on the Cup) Babcock doesn't play Chelios because Chelios sucks. Even this kid thinks so: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 What? Here, I'll help you. Link Granted, it's unlikely, but hey, I'm a fan. I am allowed to grasp at straws if I want to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Looks like the Blackhawks are going to make a series out of this after all. Hell, as I typed that, Redwings scored. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Holy mother of God. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Well -- I have not given up on the Hawks. I just keep thinking about the Bulls losing the first two games to the Knicks in NY in '93 -- and they pulled it out in six. It can be done.Or the Mets dropping the first two games to the Red Sox in '86. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 You guys watching the Memorial Cup? So good, so good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sgtpepper64 Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 God I love the Red Wings, but god the fucking NHL is a joke. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 God I love the Red Wings, but god the fucking NHL is a joke.Why?Because NHL's stars don't do steroids? Constantly go to jail for drugs/assault/dog fighting rings??? Anyways... to anyone who has ever been annoyed by Pat Kane sticking his mouth guard out: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.