• cliffkoroll

    Dear Detwat,

    1. The Hawks might become overconfident.
    2. The Wings might play better than they’ve played all year
    3. Howard might stand on his head, Mike Smith-style
    4. Crawford might collapse
    5. The Hawks might suffer multiple injuries

    These are your straws. Clutch away.

    • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

      Houses of cards are still houses?

      • Joe DeTolve

        and a good “Television” show

        • mightymikeD

          I refer you to the original, actual TV show… which is BBC at its very, very best

          • Joe DeTolve

            I will check that out..Thanks!

      • cliffkoroll

        Then I’ll huff…and I’ll puff…

        • Accipiter

          Gasoline ?

          • cliffkoroll

            …or various household cleaning agents.

          • 2883

            I’ll grab some matches

  • Preacher

    I’m willing to take Q at his word on the Stalberg situation. But that doesn’t say much for his hockey IQ then, if he thinks that having Carbomb in against Scum is a good move strategically. (And yes, Carbomb did dislodge the puck from the netting that then led to a Hawks’ goal. But..) We hold the edge on Scum because of our speed. Stalberg is the fastest skater on the team. And a big body. How does it help to take him off the ice? If it was because Stals had some questionable defensive play in round 1, OK. But then you’d have to remove a coouple other guys for that too. This situation still isn’t looking good. And making Q look stupid. (But we won so no one will question it.)

    • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

      I’m going to go ahead, jump out on a limb, and suggest that Quennville’s hockey IQ is above average.

      • Preacher

        The man is a successful, Cup-winning coach. But then, he ices John Scott, Brandon Bollig, and Carbomb when other, BETTER, options are available. (And this is not about liking a particular style of play (“hits are important”)–since Q has then severely limited the ice time of those same players, forcing his other players to take on more ice time to their detriment.) He is a very good coach, no doubt. But you can’t deny that he displays some very flawed reasoning on a regular basis.

        • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

          “But you can’t deny that he displays some very flawed reasoning on a regular basis.” I can deny that, actually. He’s one of the winningest coaches in the history of the NHL, with an Adams Trophy already and two Cups, NOT because of his regularly flawed reasoning. From here on my couch I might not understand some of his decisions, but in every single case–in every one–Q’s reasons for doing what he does is based on more details than I could ever possibly hope to have.

          Is he flawless? Obviously, no. Because he’s a human. But regularly, very flawed reasoning behind a bench puts you on a Melrose or Milbury career arc, not Q’s. Scott shouldn’t have dressed most nights, but what did he bring to the locker room? Our PP sucks, but what do our habits do for us 5-on-5?

          And Stalberg sitting right now? Nobody knows a single thing about it!! How is it flawed?

          • ballyb11

            VG VG VG VG

          • Preacher

            As I said, Q is a very good coach. I guess the criticism is that he could have even more Ws with smarter personnel decisions (for example, if he hadn’t exhausted his players with his poor balance of ice time last season). So yes, I’m criticizing a successful coach, but the 85 Bears should’ve won more Super Bowls too, so there is a precedent.

          • Waylon

            Oh yeah, Ditka was nothing more than an average coach – someone like Walsh would’ve won at least two SB with that cast. Then we have idiots like Jim Frey…

        • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

          Coaches want “options.” Depending on how the game plays out. They want players capable of playing in “other ways” depending on the situation. Even situations that don’t eventually happen in the game. All of them do. It is just something you have to deal with when dealing with an NHL coach.

        • Waylon

          I don’t understand some of his decisions to be sure – but one thing I’ll give him credit for, he knows his players a hell of a lot better than I (or the rest of the media), do. I also think benching Stals at this point in the season shows a lot of guts, no matter the reasons why. Can you imagine the shit he’d be taking right now if they had lost that first game? Yikes.

      • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

        I’m assuming the downboat is due to the misspelling.

    • cliffkoroll

      I heard an interview with Toews this morning that praised Q effusively, not just ‘saying the right things’. I wish I could find the transcript, because he made a passing comment about the danger of being ‘flat’, which might give Sam and McClure an aneurysm.

    • nextgame

      I’m convinced (based mainly on Q’s limited comments to the press) that the Stalberg situation is based not on his play, but on some sort of fairly serious transgression of team rules.

      It wouldn’t be the first example of a coach (in any sport) sitting a player for a game for that reason. I’m pretty sure we’ll see Stalberg back in the lineup at some point in this series.

      • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

        I don’t see how it could be anything else. And it was something worse than getting into an argument over playing time. Since that wasn’t even addressed, per Q.

        • Preacher

          And Chris Kuc said on the radio this morning that he stands by his story. And that he asks tough questions. And that he works for the Trib and not the Hawks. All in response to the interviewer’s questions. (Think the radio guys read this blog?)

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            It’s a bit disingenuous to say that he works for the Trib and not the ‘Hawks isn’t it? I mean yeah, that’s technically true, but his job with the Trib is dependent on the access the ‘Hawks allow him.

          • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

            Yeah, without access he’d “just another blogger” and we could all belittle him. “Thanks for your input Chris, now sit down and leave the hockey commentary to us wearing the big boy pants.”

          • Accipiter

            Are you really wearing pants ?

          • Bullitt315

            And Susannah Collins worked for Comcast.

          • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

            Don’t buy that. It has been talked about where players have gone to Kuc and asked him “why Q benched Stalberg?” If Stalberg is complaining about playing time on the bench in front of the team, no player would have to ask Kuc “what happened.”

      • bennicksic

        Nashville last season comes to mind…

    • Korab22

      This video http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=628065
      about the Rangers 94 Cup run (NHL Network runs it a lot and it’s definitely worth watching) includes a great quote from Keenan (not part of the link) which goes something like this: “People say I do things that are controversial. It’s called coaching.”

      So we all know Keenan was a complete maniac and Q seems like a completely different guy, but for now, I’m going with the controversial/coaching thing and hope it all works out.

      Remember “in Dusty we trusty”? Oh wait, uh….how about Keenan and Q have their names on Cup. That’s better.

      • Waylon

        I remember when Baker had some guy sprig holy water on the field at Wrigley – and not doing anything but sitting his ass firmly on the bench while his entire team freaked out over a god damn foul ball.

        • Waylon

          Oh yeah, and his famous quote about walks – “they clog up the bases too much.” WTF?

  • Accipiter

    An article praising Patrice Bergeron’s play with and without the puck.
    (Neo, you prolly won’t like it)
    http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/05/17/perfect-patrice/#more-82131

    • lizmcneill

      the only thing wrong with Bergeron is the team he plays for. Imagine if the cap didn’t stop you from having Toews and him….

    • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

      Actually, don’t really have a problem with it. I like stats, obviously. I do like to understand the context of where they come from. I think that extra step is important.

      Bergeron is a heck of a player. He could play on my team anytime. I just think he gets to bumslay more than some of the other guys. Toews was criticized in the past for that. Bolland being the guy who played against the top competition. That is mostly no longer the case for Toews but still is for Bergeron.

  • cliffkoroll

    “They got new bodies in all of the time when they were forechecking. They’re coming in with fresh guys and we’re staying out there because we can’t change. So it’s wearing on us.

    It’s tiring, and then everybody stands still and looking like, ‘What’s going on?’ ””

    - Jonathan Ericsson

    • cliffkoroll

      It’s OK if I’M overconfident, right? Pretty sure I’m an unhealthy scratch for tomorrow anyway.

      The above reminds me of an interview with Joe Thiesman after a game against the Bears in 1985.

      • mightymikeD

        I’ve got a bit of swagger in my step too, Cliff. No worries.

        • Z-man19

          Well you’re MMD and Cliff isn’t

          • Accipiter

            *mmD, *cliff

          • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

            /cliffkoroll’d

            Worse than being rickroll’d

    • ballyb11

      An amazingly honest comment.

  • mightymikeD

    hey! Apropos of nothing… but today is three years since I joined up at the old SCH. Back then I was an idiot with only the vaguest of ideas about how Hockey should be played. Today, I’m an idiot with only the vaguest of ideas about how Hockey should be played, plus weakened liver and more frown lines.

  • roadhog

    Did Q just throw gas on a dying fire re: Stalberg? Are they fighting through the media now? I hope not.

    • MySpoonIsTooBig

      I don’t think so, in fact I think it’s quite the opposite. First off, he’s refuting a rumor that certainly makes Stals look bad – that he was complaining about not seeing PP time in the playoffs after producing virtually nothing there in the regular season to prove that he belonged. Second, he says that Stals knows why he didn’t play and doesn’t expand on that, which implies that Stals knows what he needs to fix to get back into the lineup while entirely avoiding criticizing or saying anything actually negative about Stals to the press.

      • roadhog

        In the case that the rumor is less damning than the truth, let them (the media/us) believe the rumor is all I’m saying. The rumor wasn’t all that bad, I was encouraged by the idea that Stals felt he could/wanted to do more, and even got hot about it- even if he didn’t deserve more PP time- it’s got some attitude. Now, there is some other reason . . . the press is going to keep chasing it . . . I see your point too, and with the Hawks win in game 1, I really thought the Stals thing had past . . . now I think the media will start digging all over again. God knows it’d be a hot topic if the Hawks lost game 1. I suppose it won’t make any difference if he returns to the line up soon, and Q controls that, so . . .

    • Sparky_The_Barbarian

      Q taking it out of StanBo’s hands which F of Kruger, Bicks, Stals sticks around.

      • roadhog

        Totally possible. See, if Q just ignores that question, and sticks to the same answers he gave before . . .

  • ballyb11

    Hosea going down is a result of Nyquist hitting his skate before Kromwell even touched him. I don’t know if a penalty should have been called, but if so it shoulda been on Nyquist. And it would SHOCK me if Hossa embellished it.

    Don’t worry a about it.

    • MySpoonIsTooBig

      Hossa took at least 2 more strides after Nyquist tapped his feet, Nyquist didn’t have anything to do with Hossa going down. Neither Did Kronwall. Hossa was already in the air when Kronwall’s stick entered the picture. Hossa did dive, but it wasn’t a dive for embellishing or drawing a penalty – he was diving to whack at the rebound, because Howard left the side of the net wide open. He might have gotten it too if Kronwall hadn’t gotten his stick into Hossa’s hands and pulled back. Kronwall deserved a penalty there, just not the one they called on him. He should have been called for hooking because he did hook Hossa’s hands and prevent him from getting a scoring chance, calling it a trip was a mistake because he didn’t cause Hossa to go down.

      • mightymikeD

        agreed. I thought “bad penalty” when I first saw it.. then saw the reverse angle where you could see Kronwall’s stick.. Edzo called it right on the broadcast.

      • red palace

        Kronwall deserved a penalty just on general principle.

      • ballyb11

        Calling Toronto and carefully watching all of the various feeds, all angles, you sir are probably right re Nyquist.

    • Waylon

      I would be much more pissed about a penalty if I were a Sharks fan last night. That last – minute 5 on 3 was ridiculous, the refs cannot make that kind of call in that situation unless they’re absolutely sure the puck didn’t graze a King’s player on the way out. The refs have sucked all year, and they’re not exactly redeeming themselves with all of the non – calls on boarding and now this ticky – tacky bullshit. Simply awful way to end a game.

      • Accipiter

        The refs have to make that DOG call.

        • MySpoonIsTooBig

          No they don’t, they can say it deflected off of Jeff Carter. Which it appeared very likely that it did.

          • Accipiter

            They can say it did, but it very likely didn’t.

          • mightymikeD

            I think the issue is that the DOG penalty sucks (we saw Leddy cop one the other night, luckily it came to nought).. but I can’t think of a rule change that would prevent the puck getting deliberately flipped into the crowd. Making it a judgement call by the refs just opens a whole new bunch of things for the Canucks to complain about.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I like the idea of making it like an icing call – face-off in the your defensive zone and you can’t change lines. That way it still punishes the team that flips the puck over the glass, it still means that the ref doesn’t have to judge intent, but you don’t have to kill a penalty over something that 99 times out of 100 is purely unintentional

          • mightymikeD

            yeah. The AHL does that, and it seems like a good idea. Is it enough of a deterrent?

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I don’t see why not. It’s not like it’s any more difficult to ice the puck than it is to put it over the glass, plus when you ice the puck there’s still the chance that someone gets down there to beat the icing and allow you to change after all which obviously won’t happen when you put the puck over the glass.

          • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

            I hate the penalty myself, but I think it’s the best of a bunch of shitty options. Treating it like an icing isn’t even close to a deterrent, imo.

          • Bullitt315

            1 minute penalty!

          • roadhog

            Agreed. and what is the downside if the refs miss the deflection? No change and face off in own end is far less likely to effect the game than one in the box.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            This would never happen but giving the offense an onsides possession without the defense line change as well. Everyone is in the offending team’s zone and forward of choice brings the puck in from center dot.

          • Jim A

            No.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            I don’t know how you can watch that and say “it very likely didn’t (deflect off Carter)”. It’s difficult to be certain, you can say “it’s possible that it didn’t” but it appears much more likely that it did.

          • Accipiter

            NSIS. I don’t know how you can watch it and say it did. If it hits Carter (not his stick, it definitely doesn’t hit that) it doesn’t go over the glass.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            The puck almost certainly hit off of Carter’s shoulder, the change in direction is pretty clear.

          • Accipiter

            The jersey is the same colour as the puck. I’ve watched a couple angles and am not seeing what you are seeing.

          • MySpoonIsTooBig

            Watch the head-on replay (facing Vlasic, from behind Carter) and pay close attention to the trajectory of the puck. It comes off of Vlasic’s stick and you lose it for a moment because of Carter and his black jersey. When you pick it up again a moment later it is definitely further left on the screen than the initial trajectory suggested it should be, indicating that it must have grazed off of Carter.

          • Accipiter

            I don’t see it. I watched that angle in slow motion. The angle from the blue line show Pickles get his blade pretty much underneath the puck and he flings it end over end right over JC’s shoulder and out over the glass.

          • Waylon

            Looked that way to me as well – and I don’t believe they even held a little meeting to make sure, they just made the call and that was it.

    • Preacher

      Whatever happened, Hossa didn’t seem to like whatever Kronwall had to say about it. He was in his face.

  • cliffkoroll

    Sounds like Rob Ford is taking the Leafs’ choke-act pretty hard.

    • Accipiter

      Up by two with around 1:30 left in the game, their chances of winning were about 99 % at that point. They were one puck possession away from winning.

      • Sparky_The_Barbarian

        Don’t think I’ve ever seen a team down two pull their goalie and tie the game in a playoff.

        • cliffkoroll

          Didn’t BC beat Miami of Ohio for the NCAA title a few years ago like this?

          Also, the Rob Ford angle is comedy gold.

          • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

            Needy SOB. Boat’d.

        • roadhog

          I see what you are trying to do there . . . Smarty.

    • mightymikeD

      arf!

  • Sparky_The_Barbarian

    Got to agree with PD on the Hossa call. Not a dive, but Hoss was already off balance. Weak call.

    Hoping Dats stays in Detroit. The NHL is better with that guy in the league. I wish him well and hope he has a wonderful summer, starting next week.

    • MySpoonIsTooBig

      There was definitely a penalty to be called on the play, problem was that the penalty wasn’t a trip and calling it a trip makes it seem like Hossa embellished. As I said somewhere below, Hossa did dive but he wasn’t diving for a call he was diving for the puck. Howard kicked out a juicy rebound and Hossa was diving to whack the puck towards what was a momentarily wide open side of the net. While Hossa was in the air Kronwall hooked his hands, pulling them down and preventing Hossa from getting to the puck. It was legitimately a hooking call, calling it a trip was silly.

      • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

        He was tripped by Nyquist, not Kronwall. There was a trip (watch Hossa’s skates). Wrong player was penalized. Still, a soft call since I think Hossa only went down because he was diving for the puck as you already mentioned.

        • MySpoonIsTooBig

          I disagree, I don’t think Nyquist tripped him. Hoss took at least 2 strides after Nyquist’s stick brushed his skates. I don’t think anyone tripped him – he dove for the puck. Kronwall did hook his hands though, which is what prevented him from actually reaching the puck he dove for

  • Sparky_The_Barbarian

    Dear Blackhawks. Take a lesson from Toronto and San Jose. Stay out of the box and NEVER take your foot off the gas.

  • bizarrohairhelmet

    I dig the Leaves’ Eulogy (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/eulogy-remembering-2012-13-toronto-maple-leafs-181609020.html). Also, the comments are fucking gold, Jerry! Gold!

    • putmeinthemadhouse

      …that was a eulogy?

    • mightymikeD

      I love it. When they say the Eulogy is written by “The fans that hated the team the most”.. well. it’s GOT to be Leafs fans to write it. Shame they didn’t get DGB involved.

      And the comments are incredible. I actually think they hate this one more than Fork’s Wild Eulogy.

      • bizarrohairhelmet

        I believe the rule is to “know your audience” unless you don’t really want to. Not quite Kaufman-esque but in the same theme park.

      • Flipper76

        It’s really hard to take the hate posts seriously when every other word is misspelled…