|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 3, 2015 21:42:21 GMT -5
Vermette makes it 2-1!
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 3, 2015 21:52:09 GMT -5
Hawks 2-1 final....and HNIC is stunned....
Rope-a-dope doesn't work at this stage of the game, Cooper....
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 3, 2015 21:54:38 GMT -5
Hawks 2-1 final....and HNIC is stunned.... Rope-a-dope doesn't work at this stage of the game, Cooper Therrien.... Fixed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 3, 2015 21:58:18 GMT -5
Hawks 2-1 final....and HNIC is stunned.... Rope-a-dope doesn't work at this stage of the game, Cooper Therrien.... Fixed it. Yep....ha! Let's hope notes are being taken...although I was buoyed a bit by the way we took it to the Sens and Bolts. We have Petry locked up.....now let's get at least one more legit scorer! |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 3, 2015 22:31:10 GMT -5
That feels good, mostly because of the regrettable attitude of the HNIC staff, who can't seem to call a balanced game. I'd love to smirk in Glen Healy's face right about now, but that would lower me to his level.
Tampa rode a particularly inventive goal in the first. If they don't score first, they can't quite play that way. Terevainen scores on a 'seeing eye' goal according to HNIC. I'm sure there were a bunch of 'almost seeing eye' shots that didn't find the net. That's why coaches say it's never a bad thing to put the puck on the net. I thought it was a good shot. High (which is where I'd always put it against pretty well every goalie) and accurate.
So the Hawks win, without Kane or Toews getting on the scoreboard.
Honestly, I got so tired of the HNIC cheerleading, I stopped watching the game after the first. Ward, McKenzie and Ferraro are talking right now and they're pretty balanced. Ward says Tampa should be pleased because they gave the Hawks very little, but couldn't finish it. Interesting that Tampa is the one team I'd think is the best at finishing, but Crawford stopped just enough.
One of the things I really loved was the fact that Tampa lost after scoring first and after leading after 2 periods, where their record is near perfect. I hate it when announcers throw out those facts because they mean nothing. Today is different and nothing you've done in the past is going to affect today. So what if you won a gazillion games in a row after scoring first. You can score first today and lose. Hopefully it will stop them (HNIC) from bleating about it. It's fair to point out they're pretty good at holding a lead, but too often the announcers act like it's over once Tampa scores first. Healy was like that. He must be suffering big time right now. I certainly hope so.
As mentioned, I only watched the first period, but at least in that one, the Triplets line accomplished very little. I'm not sure what Chicago did to match them, or if that same performance continued in the 2nd and 3rd, but they sure handcuffed them in the first. Killorn seemed to be the best Lightning forward. Any observations from you guys? Do you think game 2 will be much of the same or will one of the coaches adapt better than the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 3, 2015 22:46:35 GMT -5
That's pretty much how it played out, seventeen.
The Bolts sat back in a 1-4 for most of the third and generated 0 shots for the first 12 minutes, or thereabouts. Their first shot of the period came on a Callahan breakaway with the score still 1-0 Tampa.
If Crawford doesn't make that save, it's 2-0 and likely a W.
But that's the chance you take playing kitty-bar-the-door. Which is what makes the Habs so frustrating to watch. We picked it up in the playoffs to some extent, granted....but I'm expecting more of the same next season.
Stamkos wasn't really a factor, either.
Killorn's goal was solid hand-eye....but also a lot of luck as far as physics are concerned. The puck was fluttering like crazy when Killorn backhanded it mid-air. He had no idea it was going to go to the perfect spot. Another rotation on that puck...and it could've gone wide.
Not saying it's going to happen, but I can see Chicago sweeping this series now.
They'll be playing a bit looser with house money in Game 2....and if Tampa's not careful, it could be a blowout.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 4, 2015 6:50:46 GMT -5
Looks like Vermette was a good pickup for the Hawks after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 4, 2015 7:07:33 GMT -5
Looks like Vermette was a good pickup for the Hawks after all. He also had an OT winner in the Ducks series. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 4, 2015 7:57:00 GMT -5
He's also been a healthy scratch ...
I've watched the highlights on nhl.com, which meant revisiting the Tampa goal. Stamkos' dump in was essentially a pass to Filppula. I'm I the only one that thinks the way Valteri played it could have been cause for a call for interference? He has slight position on Keith, barely. He stops, not once touching the puck, and engages in a no so subtle bump of Keith which helps create extra separation for when he does pick it up. If the defender had bumped the forward, and impeded their ability to play the puck that would be grounds for a penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 4, 2015 8:35:48 GMT -5
Looks like Vermette was a good pickup for the Hawks after all. He also had an OT winner in the Ducks series. exactly. I meant his overall playoff play even though he sat out a few games he has made the most of his opportunities (though that OT winner was redemption for a bonehead move earlier in the game). |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 4, 2015 9:09:56 GMT -5
That feels good, mostly because of the regrettable attitude of the HNIC staff, who can't seem to call a balanced game. I'd love to smirk in Glen Healy's face right about now, but that would lower me to his level. Tampa rode a particularly inventive goal in the first. If they don't score first, they can't quite play that way. Terevainen scores on a 'seeing eye' goal according to HNIC. I'm sure there were a bunch of 'almost seeing eye' shots that didn't find the net. That's why coaches say it's never a bad thing to put the puck on the net. I thought it was a good shot. High (which is where I'd always put it against pretty well every goalie) and accurate. I saw Brassard score an almost identical goal on Bishop in game 4 I think. Can't remember them going on about a seeing eye goal then. It's as if it has less value or is flukey in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jun 4, 2015 9:51:39 GMT -5
I didn't catch the first two but caught parts of the third. Boy, it was so boring, I was questioning my commitment to watching hockey in general. I have a bad feeling that hockey is turning into soccer and it turning into 2-1 or 1-0 games. The focus will only be on defense in the future.
Making the nets bigger will not increase scoring. It will make all 5 guys collapse even more in front of the net. You can't input illegal defenses or 3 secs in the key like in the NBA, so I think eventually the NHL will have to go to a 4 on 4 league to open it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 4, 2015 10:17:51 GMT -5
I figure if you reduce the number of blocked shots, it will change the game a whole lot. Best way to do that (in a sadistic sort of way), is to mandate size and thickness of eqipment (or ban skate protection), so that it hurts a lot when you block a shot. That should stop it.  That broadcast crew is a disgrace. It isn't just when the Habs play either. They seem to pick a favourite team and then its all about them. Pathetic. How do I get on the hiring committee? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 4, 2015 10:25:49 GMT -5
It's hard for me to watch the finals ... very limited interest ... might have it on as background, might watch a stretch of dominant play, or a PP, but other than those ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 4, 2015 10:51:38 GMT -5
That broadcast crew is a disgrace. It isn't just when the Habs play either. They seem to pick a favourite team and then its all about them. Pathetic. How do I get on the hiring committee? Could it be because Leaf Nation is hoping that Stamkos is comin' home  after next season? I wonder if the crew will criticize him should he not produce in the Finals. Could also be because the Bolts are the underdogs against the proven Blackhawks. And there's the difference when it comes to covering the Habs. We could be playing the Earth's Extirpators from another galaxy, and that crew would cheer for the end of existence…. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 10:56:03 GMT -5
Nice 1-4 by Tampa in the third period. What was an exciting game from them became a New Jersey Devils game from 2003. No shots....halfway through. I hope it backfires. It was odd to see Bishop beat from up high, through traffic, while he was on his feet. He looks incredibly small when he's deep in his net. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 4, 2015 12:08:28 GMT -5
Could it be because Leaf Nation is hoping that Stamkos is comin' home I know of a few Leaf fans who are "sure" this is the case ... kind of sounds like us hoping for Vinny Lecavalier back in the day ... who knows, maybe he'll want to play with his childhood teammate, PK Subban ... might be good to bring that up to them just to see how they ping ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2015 22:27:31 GMT -5
Wow. You'd swear the Bolts were the Leafs.
As unbalanced a broadcast as I've see in a long time.
I missed the first intermission, so I don't know if MaCherry talked about Chicago or not.
But if not for Kypreos talking about Shaw in the second intermission, it was pretty much all Tampa.
Bishop left the game in the third period. Cooper would not field any questions on that topic.
And it was funny to me that, of those on the panel, only Kypreos expressed concern at the prospect of Vasilevski going the rest of the way.
In Quenneville's post-game, a reporter asked him about Crawford's play tonight.
"Okay....just okay...."
Goalie trouble in the Finals.....
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 6, 2015 23:03:42 GMT -5
In Quenneville's post-game, a reporter asked him about Crawford's play tonight. "Okay....just okay...." channeling his inner Carlyle. all the way through, no? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 7, 2015 1:57:08 GMT -5
Yeah, Tampa got some breaks there with Crawford being so-so, any iffy goal by Johnson and an lucky deflection on the winning goal. Now that goal by Johnson was a seeing eye goal. It had to make several hairpin turns.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 7, 2015 7:25:11 GMT -5
Crawford has a habit of looking small in net.
Tampa got away with a clear too many men late in the third with the lead. They had a number of sloppy changes in the game, and had been called for too many men 5 times already these playoffs. Given that, the refs should be watching them a lot closer.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 7, 2015 7:45:32 GMT -5
Crawford has a habit of looking small in net. Tampa got away with a clear too many men late in the third with the lead. They had a number of sloppy changes in the game, and had been called for too many men 5 times already these playoffs. Given that, the refs should be watching them a lot closer. Even the Hockey Night in Tampa triplets caught that. But not a big deal was made of it. Hossa also clearly put his stick into Bishop's left pad on Seabrook's 3-3 goal. It likely didn't make a difference as the shot was high…but it was still contact initiated solely by Hossa with Bishop at the top of his crease. The Stanley Cup Finals should offer the best officials in the league. Not long after that goal, Sharp was called for a very weak trip. I forget who fell, but it could've also been a dive. The Hawks killed it….then Sharp took another penalty…a clear high-sticking call. They almost killed it…. Quenneville appeared "barely-holding-it-together-let's-get-this-over-with" during his presser. He can't be too happy with Sharp. They almost went home up 2-0. Plus, as mentioned above….he wasn't pleased with Crawford's game. Johnson's goal was inexcusable. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 7, 2015 8:05:58 GMT -5
I didn't have a huge issue with the Hossa play. IMO, he barely touched him. That said, the cramping collapse that Bishop showed appeared on his lower left. Groin perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 8, 2015 20:06:33 GMT -5
Bishop clearly hurting. Likely groin.
But still in the net....and more than horseshoes tonight.
19-7 shots for Chicago after 1. But they missed two wide open nets.
1-1.
Heavy Tampa from HNIC once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 8, 2015 20:54:39 GMT -5
Bickell called for roughing up Callahan right in front of the Chicago bench.
That kind of play happens throughout the regular season with no call....certainly during scrums in front of the net.
To call that in a 1-1 game in the Stanley Cup Finals is ridiculous, IMO.
Now Saad gets Bishop in the head with his glove as he cuts in front.
Bishop stays down as if shot.
Gets back up.
5-on-3 Tampa.
Quenneville and Toews are furious.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 8, 2015 20:56:34 GMT -5
Hawks kill both penalties.
Crawford with a couple of nice saves.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 8, 2015 21:26:45 GMT -5
Saad makes it 2-1.
Palat scores on the next shift.
2-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 8, 2015 21:53:13 GMT -5
Hedman moves up as he does so well....finds Paquette in the slot....Cumiskey and Sharp can't tie him up.
3-2 Bolts with just over 3:00 to go.
Game over: Bolts up 2-1.
Horseshoes, I tell ya. Hawks with a bit of Hab-itis....no finish.
Chicago's defence is really being tested, as Oduya was injured tonight on a slew foot by Kucherov.
Keith played over 31 minutes.....Seabrook was almost 27.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 8, 2015 22:15:34 GMT -5
I gave everyone a huge tip before this started. Mortgage your home and load up on Tampa. Cooper's smirks will win out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 22:40:05 GMT -5
Did Bishop look right at all? It was like he's playing hurt.
|
|
after next season? I wonder if the crew will criticize him should he not produce in the Finals.