mrvander

So..... them sure is a lot of words to eat.

Stop the presses! I actually agree with you. Julien was on the money and the Hawks analysts are just being homers. The B's did not play well. Sure in some respects they did, but that was NOT their style of game. That style plays to the Hawk's strength's not the B's. Even though that isn't their style, they still made it one HECK of a game. I think Julien's quote is the best "I don't think anybody that is a fan of hockey is disappointed right now."

Hawks finally played their game and the Bruins skated with them! That was ridiculous and had me scared this was going to be a 3-1 series! What a crazy game.

Hmmm...is Bolland losing a bit of ice time due to his penalty hat trick last game?

MMCXII ;) ;) ;) Best post of the entire thread!

Don't you think his parents had something to do with that? Seriously though, I think both teams are seeing some beyond-excellent goaltending. Game 3 should have been a rout by the Bruins but it was only 2-0. Hawks certainly need to solve Rask when they get their chances.

So how do we initialize 2112? 2? TT? ToT? TOOT? TTOHaT?

Tony Amonte questions Marian Hossa http://espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/9400373/2013-nhl-stanley-cup-finals-marian-hossa-sitting-not-good-enough-says-tony-amonte

Best. Captain. Ever.

Old people, lazy people, and inflexible people suck. So does your Mom, that's what led to you after all.

Me: "Wow, the Hawks are really playing poorly" You: "Don't you think the Bruins had something to do with it?" Me: Sure. I never said anything about the Bruins. I think its a great Orig. 6 series and of course they have a hand in the outcome, they're the opposition after all. You: "Holy crap - I'm so sick of this. Can't anyone give Bruins credit? Why is it when anyone loses to the Bruins, it's because they played poorly? Waaah!

In fact, forget the Team USA example. How did the Hawks win Game 1? The stat sheet was pretty damned equal down the middle. Hits, shots, face offs, goals were dead even hence the triple overtime. Did the Hawks win because they played at a higher level? Partly. Or was it due to a mistake by a Boston player who was recently inserted into the lineup? Would that not qualify as a Boston under-performing - a mistake which directly led to the game-winning goal?

Why would you be embarrassed? They lost to a pretty good team, playing at home, 2-0? It's not like they got run out of rink. This has been a great series so far. I hope it only goes two more games of course, but I don't think either team has been embarrassed in any of the games. If the Bruins can hold serve tomorrow night, I'll still be biting my nails. The Hawks have already climbed out of one 3-1 hole this post season, and the Bruins came horrifyingly close to blowing a 3-1 series lead. The score was no indication of how the game was played. I've seen the Hawks when they are firing on all cylinders and that game was a far cry form the play they are capable of. Bad time to show us the poor play. One example, critical power play late in the third, Kane gets the puck onto Keith's stick between the dots. They haven't had the puck there all game. What does Keith decide to do? Pass the puck looking for that pretty play to get Rask out of position. Come on. Just one example indicative of their team play the entire game. You don't think the play of Bruins has anything to do with that? What a silly question. Of course it does, otherwise the Hawks would have scored a goal! Then why call it showing you poor play? Is it poor play to get beat, or did the other team just play better? It's both. But when you've seen your team play all season, you know when they are not getting the job done, and playing to their strengths, and when they are not. When other teams start shutting down the scoring lanes or holding the Hawks up at the blue line, they try to do too much. They try to make the perfect passes, and make the perfect shots. Its especially apparent in our power play. When the Hawks do that, they eventually realize that they need to "simplify" things. They figured it out in game five against Detroit, and went on to win that game 4-1, and they had been rolling pretty good since then. Now they are playing like they did when they fell behind against the Wings. If the Hawks figure it out, and get back to their game, it's going to get real interesting. Bingo! There's no arguing Boston is a good team. I give them tons of credit showing what they have through these playoffs and I love the original six matchup we have to watch. As Chicago fans, we malign the fact we aren't seeing what we know this team is capable of and what I find "silly" is your insistence that it's all due to Boston. Of course the opponent factors into their playing - it wouldn't be a sport otherwise. The sky is blue and water is wet. Do you think 1980 Team USA would have beat Russia if Russia didn't also play below their capability? I'm so tired of hearing this drivel. Like IA pointed out, when do teams stop suggesting that their vaunted offenses are struggling just because, and start realizing that they're struggling specifically and for no other reason than because the team they're playing has a defense that won't let them do the things they want to do? What's "silly" is not realizing that one possible reason that Kane and Toews and Bickell (and Crosby and Malkin and Nash and Callahan and Kessel and Henrik Sedin, etc.) aren't putting up the eye popping numbers their fans are used to is because of their opponent's defense. Not because they "just can't seem to get it going." Because when they cross the blue line they get "hammered" into the boards, because they get pushed to where they have a bad angle on the net, because the defense blocks their shots. Keep telling yourself that they're just in a rut, and when they put it together, whoa, watch out Boston. You better hope that happens soon though. You're running out of time to impose your will on the Bruins. My apologies to Robert and ILS. I really didn't want to tee off on your team guys. Despite your argument being the complete antithesis of what you rant about (so all the teams Boston has beat have played PERFECTLY - it was purely Boston's skill keeping them down, right? Has nothing to do with a sub-par performance at all, eh?) I think you miss the point as that's not what anyone here has said. It's what you merely wish everyone has said, but its really not. You want to see "drivel" so you get off on it despite two of us Chicago fans saying it's BOTH. Both the team not performing up to par and another team doing a good job of seeing to it. You can't have a competition with one team. That's the point. What are the Hawks going to do when they lose a game? Do they go into the locker room and go "Geez, that Boston team is so damned good, I guess we just cant even compete. We have nothing left to give. We tried as hard as we possibly could. Why do we have to go more games - we simply can't take this punishment anymore?" That's about how silly your rant/attempted argument is. No, they go and say they have more to give, they need to execute better because just like your precious perfect Bruins, they have done it already (faced adversity and came out on top.) Everyone from Q to each fan knows they can play better. To say it's ALL because of the Bruins is just as ignorant as the point you think you're arguing (which again no one has said.) See what happens when you actually give the opponent team props? They can't get their heads out of clouds and want to argue that its not about the Hawks having their heads in their asses. If I recall, you guys were calling for Claude Julien's ass when he almost lost to Toronto in the first round. Now it's all Can't even diss my own team without the entire East Coast taking offense. Sheesh. I'll bash my under-performing team all I want, so f**k off. Edit: in fact, it would be nice if the hawks BOTH stepped it up and Boston took a night off like they did in Toronto a couple times.

Why would you be embarrassed? They lost to a pretty good team, playing at home, 2-0? It's not like they got run out of rink. This has been a great series so far. I hope it only goes two more games of course, but I don't think either team has been embarrassed in any of the games. If the Bruins can hold serve tomorrow night, I'll still be biting my nails. The Hawks have already climbed out of one 3-1 hole this post season, and the Bruins came horrifyingly close to blowing a 3-1 series lead. The score was no indication of how the game was played. I've seen the Hawks when they are firing on all cylinders and that game was a far cry form the play they are capable of. Bad time to show us the poor play. One example, critical power play late in the third, Kane gets the puck onto Keith's stick between the dots. They haven't had the puck there all game. What does Keith decide to do? Pass the puck looking for that pretty play to get Rask out of position. Come on. Just one example indicative of their team play the entire game. You don't think the play of Bruins has anything to do with that? What a silly question. Of course it does, otherwise the Hawks would have scored a goal! Then why call it showing you poor play? Is it poor play to get beat, or did the other team just play better? It's both. But when you've seen your team play all season, you know when they are not getting the job done, and playing to their strengths, and when they are not. When other teams start shutting down the scoring lanes or holding the Hawks up at the blue line, they try to do too much. They try to make the perfect passes, and make the perfect shots. Its especially apparent in our power play. When the Hawks do that, they eventually realize that they need to "simplify" things. They figured it out in game five against Detroit, and went on to win that game 4-1, and they had been rolling pretty good since then. Now they are playing like they did when they fell behind against the Wings. If the Hawks figure it out, and get back to their game, it's going to get real interesting. Bingo! There's no arguing Boston is a good team. I give them tons of credit showing what they have through these playoffs and I love the original six matchup we have to watch. As Chicago fans, we malign the fact we aren't seeing what we know this team is capable of and what I find "silly" is your insistence that it's all due to Boston. Of course the opponent factors into their playing - it wouldn't be a sport otherwise. The sky is blue and water is wet. Do you think 1980 Team USA would have beat Russia if Russia didn't also play below their capability?

I see no issue abbreviating the album titles. Those are understood on a site such as this. When people start abbreviating song titles, it gets a little annoying, unless it is extremely obvious, like FoL or TSOR. I was looking at a thread and saw MP. Had to look back a ways thru the thread to figure out they were talking about Manhattan Project. What's FoL? My thought exactly :) 19 minutes that remove all doubt as to whether the guys in Rush ever did drugs. Well, shouldn't it be TFoL? And for the record. It is way easier to type AFTK, and everyone knows what it means. When you start abbv. songs, that's when things get dicey. Maybe that's where the line is drawn then? Someone should post up a newbie-key so everyone knows PeW isn't a smelly blaster shot.