| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest4377 |
Posted - 03/08/2013 : 20:09:01
Colorado is leading the Hawks late in the 3rd period, and look to end Chicago's amazing points streak.
All good things come to an end. Well done Chicago. Maybe you can finish up the second half of the season with only one regulation time loss? Very unlikely, but will any team catch them for the President's trophy? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 03/11/2013 : 12:02:27
I thought by now that Emery has proven he can be counted on. This guy is no one year wonder. He has been a #1 in the playoffs and has been the big man on campus thru long stretches of the season multiple times for multiple teams. He hasn't exhibited the strange behaviour he had in his early career with Ottawa in a long time. Surely by now people are considering him a legit goalie? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/11/2013 : 10:00:22
Ah, i get it. Agreed though, the Canucks just have too much money invested in their 2 goalies as you mentioned. It's a nice luxury to have (2 good goalies) but Emery is a bit of a wild card. I don't think for a second that the Hawks would be 100% comfortable with him as their #1, especially going into the playoffs. Think about him on the open market. Would there be a lot of teams interested in Emery? Prob a few, but most for depth and not a starters role. Luongo and Schneider would fill a starters roll wherever they went at this point.
I don't know what the Canucks are gonna do, but it's apparent, especially with Kesler out, that they need help up front! I understand the theory of having two quality netminders for the playoffs, but how many teams actually go into the playoffs with such? And, how many cup winners have had a significant contribution from their backup? I'm not talking about a backup coming in when the team is down 3 and winning a single game either. I'm talking about a backup coming in for a series or more and taking over for an injured starter and winning consistently. Reality is, even 7 game series' are so short that if your starter fails you, you're prob toast by the time you make the move.
Having these two share the crease would be a luxury if it wasn't a 9M+ cost! They need to decide who they're going with and make a move to improve the lineup. If the goalie they go with gets hurt come playoffs, so be it. It's a risk you have to take IMO.
|
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 03/11/2013 : 09:32:58
Hey Alex – those comments were mine (Guest 4377).
I didn't mean it as a slight to the Canucks. By "paying note," I meant that having two very good goalies is a good thing (like the Hawks have at present), and the Canucks also have two very good goalies.
For a brief and passing moment, I actually thought the Canucks should find some way to keep both of their goalies. I know they have $9 million tied up between their two goalies, but my thought process (once again, brief and fleeting) was that some teams pay $9 million for just one player, so why not two quality goalies?
But this "logic" is flawed for a lot of reasons. You cannot keep two number one goalies happy, and good goalies need playing time.
What appears to be working for the Hawks does not translate to other teams. Crawford and Emery have played very well (with the exception of yesterday's 6-5 loss to the Oilers), and they only consume $4 million in salaries. And while they have split up the net duties somewhat evenly, Crawford is the Hawks number one goalie.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/11/2013 : 07:50:22
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4377
Here's the other thing about the Hawks (Canucks fans pay note), Chicago has two very good goalies (Crawford and Emery), and while Emery was given the hook tonight, he's played well for Chicago, as has Crawford.
What is it i'm/we're supposed to be "paying note" to exactly? |
| Guest4377 |
Posted - 03/10/2013 : 22:53:49
Here's the thing about the Hawks. They never say die.
They were down 4-0 to the Oilers after one period tonight, but when watching the game, you could tell they would make a come back. Sure they lost (6-5), but they made it a very close game.
Here's the other thing about the Hawks (Canucks fans pay note), Chicago has two very good goalies (Crawford and Emery), and while Emery was given the hook tonight, he's played well for Chicago, as has Crawford.
And here's another thing about the Hawks. If you take the top three offensive players on any team, the Hawks are up there with the best top threesome of any team, with Kane, Toews and Hossa. The Penguins are up there too with Crosby, Malkin and Neal/Kunitz, and Anaheim has a great threesome with Getzlaf, Perry and Ryan, and Tampa Bay has Stamkos, St. Louis and Lecavalier.
No disrespect to the Habs (I love how they're playing), but they don't have this upper echelon of talent. Right now, I'm picking the Penguins vs. the Hawks in the Stanley Cup Finals, but the Hawks will need to get past some very good teams (Ducks, Kings, and Canucks) to make it to the finals, for which I think they will be there.
But who knows? Maybe the Sharks or Blues will be there from the West? And maybe the Bruins or Rangers (or Leafs) will be there from the East?
So while I think the Hawks look good to win the West, there are no sure things. Look at the Kings last year. They were definitely not the best team in the NHL (or West) last year, but they got hot at the right time, and rode it all the way to the Stanley Cup!
|
| umteman |
Posted - 03/09/2013 : 14:14:15
well as they say all good things come to an end, but the best thing about Chicago's streak has been the entertaining type of hockey they have played. And that has not come to an end.
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/09/2013 : 14:04:53
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4587
To Alex: as far as the "blowout" surprise, when Philadelphia's 35 game unbeaten streak was snapped in 1979-80, the Minnesota North Stars beat the Flyers 7-1.
I wasn't aware of that! Did you happen to see the game last night? Just curious, as i didn't, about the third. They began the 3rd down 5-1 and i was wondering if when they made it 5-2, was there any sort of "push" by the Hawks to really go for it and salvage the streak? Judging by the shots on goal in the 3rd (14-12 for Chi), it certainly doesn't appear as though the Av's sat back and tried to defend the 3 goal lead?
The amazing thing to me is, 16 of those 24 games were one goal wins (including OT and shootouts). Oh, and one of the others i believe included an empty netter making it really 17 out of 24!!! That many close games and they didn't have a bounce or two go against them to cost them a goal that could have ended the streak? Talk about perseverence!!!
|
| Guest4587 |
Posted - 03/09/2013 : 13:26:50
Great job Hawks on the 24 game streak with at least a point to start the season. They beat every team in the West at least once, except for Anaheim, who beat the Hawks in a shootout. They also lost in shootouts to Minnesota & Vancouver, but have since beat them both.
To Alex: as far as the "blowout" surprise, when Philadelphia's 35 game unbeaten streak was snapped in 1979-80, the Minnesota North Stars beat the Flyers 7-1. I would say these teams with streaks are so wiped mentally, it probably is more likely to lose decisively. Anyway, in a sense, I'm sort of glad it's over; now they can just get back to having a strong finish in preparation for the Cup playoffs. Congratulations Chicago on a job well done !! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/08/2013 : 21:01:22
Incredible streak indeed! Very impressive and it goes to show you the depth the Hawks have, including in net! Emery has been really good and has been called on quite a bit!
What surprised me the most about tonight was it was a bit of a blowout. Sure it was a road game, but i really thought their streak would end with a 1 goal loss (or 2 with an empty netter), not a 4 goal blowout!
This team is gonna be tough to beat, however, quietly, Anaheim has put up an incredible start to this season as well with only 3 regulation time losses of their own. They currently trail Chicago by just 3 points and actually have 3 games in hand as i type this, one being played right now in which they lead 2-0 over Calgary, late in the second. If they hang on, they're within 8 and if they win the other two in hand, they'll be just 4 back? Not such an insurmountable lead as we all may have though?
Aside from the Ducks, i think it would take a mini slump by Chi for anyone else to catch'em, but there's a lot of hockey left yet. |
|
|
