• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
crabcakes'n'redwings

Wings V. Hawks. Early predictions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone, just thought I'd share this with my fellow red wings community. Feel free to add on to or criticize my starting point:

5. Dustin Byfuglien - This guy in my opinion is one of the most overrated players in the Hawks lineup. He has been getting a lot of touches in this year's playoffs and granted, he has come through with some pretty clutch goals up to this point. That being said, the guy skates like a rookie in the UHL, takes pretty bad penalties, and could be good for the wings in terms of generating lots of power plays.

4. Quenneville - someone in the forum reminded me of a fact i had forgotten, Quenneville has coached a team defeated by the wings in the playoffs in 97,98,02,and08

3. They haven't won the cup since 1961 - I realize this isn't a genuine reason but come on. The last time the hawks hoisted the cup was during the friggin Kennedy administration. History has a strange way of repeating itself and the drought will continue for the Hawks (and cubs for that matter)

2. Lack of experience - Let's face it, the Hawks are an inexperienced young team. In the playoffs, especially in the later rounds, experience is an excellent thing to have. Before this year's playoffs began, many of the hawks, including young captain Jonathan Toews had never played a single NHL playoff game.

1. They are facing the 2008-2009 Red wings - This team is something special. Yes, I realize it took us 7 games to defeat the number 8 seeded ducks. But if you really break down the probable one on one match ups (chicago's #1 line compared to detroit's number 1 line) there really is no comparison. Datsyuk and Zetterberg will tear holes in even the best of Chicago's defensive pairings. Whether it be Campbell, Seabrook, it matters not.

Edited by redwingsandspartans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason's 5,4,3, and 1 honestly are off base. Byfuglien was outstanding against Couve'. "Black *****"....really? You do know it took us a hell of a long time between our cup runs in the 50s/60s and late 90s right? And for number 1, I just have one name for you to remember, Sammy Pahlsson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate quenneville just as much as the next guy but come on. The guy has an amazing career under his belt. 750+ wins, stanely cup in 96 withe Avs (booooo).

There have been 4 times that a Joel Quennville coached team has met up with (and lost to) the Wings in the playoffs:

1997

1998

2002

2008

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reason's 5,4,3, and 1 honestly are off base. Byfuglien was outstanding against Couve'. "Black *****"....really? You do know it took us a hell of a long time between our cup runs in the 50s/60s and late 90s right? And for number 1, I just have one name for you to remember, Sammy Pahlsson.

I disagree. I realize the cups the wings won in 97 and 98 came wayyy after the ones in the Howe era but you have to realize one thing: The 2009 hawks are not the 1997 red wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate quenneville just as much as the next guy but come on. The guy has an amazing career under his belt. 750+ wins, stanely cup in 96 withe Avs (booooo).

We've beaten a Joel Quenneville team each of our last four cups.

St Louis in 96-97, 97-98, 01-02

Avs 07-08

Edited by EuroTwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#4 was only a stupid joke so just take it for what it is, a stupid joke. Regarding #5 I stand by that 100%. Like I said before, Befyulgen did have some clutch moments against the Canucks but look at the full picture. The guy takes bad penalties, can't skate, and could be a reliable source of power plays for the wings in the upcoming series.

Edited by redwingsandspartans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. They haven't won the cup since 1961 - I realize this isn't a genuine reason but come on. The last time the hawks hoisted the cup was during the friggin Kennedy administration. History has a strange way of repeating itself and the drought will continue for the Hawks (and cubs for that matter)

You do realize Obama is a Democrat President with a popular wife who seems to advancing a liberal agenda during an unpopular war (you can add the minority thing too... Catholic damn near equaled black in the 60's...)? I have no issue with Kennedy or Obama... but those are facts. Don't talk about history repeating itself.

Sorry if I politicized the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize Obama is a Democrat President with a popular wife who seems to advancing a liberal agenda during an unpopular war (you can add the minority thing too... Catholic damn near equaled black in the 60's...)? I have no issue with Kennedy or Obama... but those are facts. Don't talk about history repeating itself.

Sorry if I politicized the thread.

What on earth does that have to do with the OP's statement about history repeating itself? We're talking hockey here.

That being said, the article up on NHL.com right now pretty much sums up all of the actual valid reasons for both teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What on earth does that have to do with the OP's statement about history repeating itself? We're talking hockey here.

That being said, the article up on NHL.com right now pretty much sums up all of the actual valid reasons for both teams.

He mentioned Kennedy. The parallels are .... there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. I realize the cups the wings won in 97 and 98 came wayyy after the ones in the Howe era but you have to realize one thing: The 2009 hawks are not the 1997 red wings.

No, you have to realize something, the 2009 cup doesn't care if you won it the year before or a half century before. And I am completely aware the 09' Hawks = 97' Wings, but the 09' Hawks are very similar to the 08' Wings that won the cup (Offensive depth, solid defensmen, a cup proven goaltender, and a very good coach who has been to the Stanley Cup finals before.) Plus they have one thing we don't have, hunger and youth. So maybe the long cup layoff is an advantage since they actually have the hunger and drive to win the Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What on earth does that have to do with the OP's statement about history repeating itself? We're talking hockey here.

That being said, the article up on NHL.com right now pretty much sums up all of the actual valid reasons for both teams.

I was simply trying to account for chicago's long standing tradition of losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you have to realize something, the 2009 cup doesn't care if you won it the year before or a half century before. And I am completely aware the 09' Hawks = 97' Wings, but the 09' Hawks are very similar to the 08' Wings that won the cup (Offensive depth, solid defensmen, a cup proven goaltender, and a very good coach who has been to the Stanley Cup finals before.) Plus they have one thing we don't have, hunger and youth. So maybe the long cup layoff is an advantage since they actually have the hunger and drive to win the Cup.

I fail to see that many similarities between Chicago's team this year and the wings of last year. Chicago's team this year has nowhere near the offensive depth of the 2007-2008 wings. But I do see your point about the defensive depth. But whatever...., who cares?

Edited by redwingsandspartans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see the similarities between Chicago's team this year and the wings of last year. But whatever who cares

That shouldn't detract from my entire post which I don't quite think you read entirely since I actually asserted the similarities :

(Offensive depth, solid defensmen, a cup proven goaltender, and a very good coach who has been to the Stanley Cup finals before.

My main point of argument is that it does not matter how long ago it was when you last won a cup because this is this year, not some other year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to say that the Hawks are a better team than the Ducks and it took the Wings 7 games to knock them out. The Hawks are no longer intimidated by the mystique of the Detroit hockey club. Those days are over. It's time for Chicago to finally slay those big, bad dragons from Motown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is safe to say that the Hawks are a better team than the Ducks and it took the Wings 7 games to knock them out. The Hawks are no longer intimidated by the mystique of the Detroit hockey club. Those days are over. It's time for Chicago to finally slay those big, bad dragons from Motown.

Last year, who was better, the Pens or Nashville? Doesn't matter which team is better, it's the teams playing styles that dictate a series and the Ducks playing style is a style that we struggle with, Chicago's style of play is a style we have no problems with.

And the answer to my question: Pens, but Nashville was a much harder team than the Pens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That shouldn't detract from my entire post which I don't quite think you read entirely since I actually asserted the similarities :

My main point of argument is that it does not matter how long ago it was when you last won a cup because this is this year, not some other year.

No, I read your entire post and still don't see that many similarities between the two teams. Perhaps at the surface these two teams possess similar characteristics as you mentioned (solid defense, offensive depth, cup proven goaltending) but as many similarities you can come up with there are twice as many differences regarding experience, Special Teams, detroit's insane ability at maintaining puck possession, and not to mention the huge disparity in skill level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last year, who was better, the Pens or Nashville? Doesn't matter which team is better, it's the teams playing styles that dictate a series and the Ducks playing style is a style that we struggle with, Chicago's style of play is a style we have no problems with.

And the answer to my question: Pens, but Nashville was a much harder team than the Pens.

Couldn't have put it better myself Konnan. :thumbup: Chicago's style of play is something the wings can easily overcome in this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this