If Wings faced Hawks in 3rd Round
#1
Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:41 PM
I really feel that we would of been matched up better against the Hawks then the Sharks did.
#2
Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:46 PM
I thought we'd match up well with San Jose based on our previous dominance of them, and look how that went for us. Before the playoffs, I wanted us to play Chicago because I thought it'd be a good matchup for us.
However, based on what happened with us and San Jose, we probably would lose to Chicago. Better to lose to the Sharks than to the Hawks when it's all said and done with.
- Hockey13Playa, heinz57, Vladifan and 1 other like this
#3
Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:49 PM
Well, that wouldnt' be hard considering how San Jose got swept.
I thought we'd match up well with San Jose based on our previous dominance of them, and look how that went for us. Before the playoffs, I wanted us to play Chicago because I thought it'd be a good matchup for us.
However, based on what happened with us and San Jose, we probably would lose to Chicago. Better to lose to the Sharks than to the Hawks when it's all said and done with.
This. Faceoffs killed us more than anything and Chicago is better at faceoffs than San Jose. I'm glad we lost to San Jose too, because it leaves that little shadow of doubt in the Hawks as far as them beating us. But I think we would have gotten schooled.
- 2guns likes this
#4
Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:54 PM
I think we would have given them more of a series, but in the end, I think we would have lost... the main reasons we lost to San Jose were faceoffs and poor PP and Chicago's faceoffs and PK are as good, if not better than San Jose's... so chances are, the end result would have been the same, just a little later...Well, that wouldnt' be hard considering how San Jose got swept.
I thought we'd match up well with San Jose based on our previous dominance of them, and look how that went for us. Before the playoffs, I wanted us to play Chicago because I thought it'd be a good matchup for us.
However, based on what happened with us and San Jose, we probably would lose to Chicago. Better to lose to the Sharks than to the Hawks when it's all said and done with.
All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:
and finally
Holland is a damn good GM. period.
#5
Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:54 PM
#7
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:05 PM
However, it's definitely true that the Wings are a weaker team and the Hawks are a better team this season, a considerable shift from last year in fact. The loss of Sammy (who was clutch), Hudler (less so), Hossa (for whom I know there is no love lost but probably had his best series in the WCF), Cleary scoring like a maniac, and Ozzie being in beastmode; versus the Hawks solidified goaltending (via some complete nobody with a funny name, but that's the trend) and continued ascension of their young folk, probably doesn't spell a happy ending for the Wings.
No, you know what we are, we're good. You can't do what we do every single day and not be good." - Mike Babcock
#8
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:13 PM
Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Versteeg, Byfuglien, Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, etc. They've got a roster as stacked as the 'Wings did last year. Luckily for the rest of the league, the cap is going to level the playing field a bit (the same way it did to the Red Wings).
I'm not up on the Hawks or the cap. Who are they likely to lose or have to move in the off season?
#9
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:20 PM
Depends on officiating.
Depends of face-off proficiency. Wings need to either work on face-offs big time... or learn to cheat better. That's the most glaring thing to me.
#10
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:24 PM
@Gay4Datsyuk
Check It Out!
#11
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:24 PM
After watching the WCF play out, it just makes me feel that San Jose beating the Red Wings was pretty much a fluke. Everything went the Sharks way against Detroit and they got clearly exposed by probably the best team in the league. Without the refs handing the Sharks games or Howard blowing game three, the Red Wings could have easily taken that series.
It was all or nothing for the Blackhawks this season. The cap is going to wreck their depth just like it did to the Red Wings.

#12
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:36 PM
#13
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:36 PM
Chicago would have won, but the Red Wings would have given them a way better series.
After watching the WCF play out, it just makes me feel that San Jose beating the Red Wings was pretty much a fluke. Everything went the Sharks way against Detroit and they got clearly exposed by probably the best team in the league. Without the refs handing the Sharks games or Howard blowing game three, the Red Wings could have easily taken that series.
It was all or nothing for the Blackhawks this season. The cap is going to wreck their depth just like it did to the Red Wings.
Chicago blackhawks are fast, just like we were last year, any fast team in the playoffs gives san jose nightmares, especially speed and skill that they cant match,
#14
Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:40 PM
Maybe 5. I think simply because Q is their coach Detroit would have won at least one game.

#15
Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:03 PM
This. Faceoffs killed us more than anything and Chicago is better at faceoffs than San Jose. I'm glad we lost to San Jose too, because it leaves that little shadow of doubt in the Hawks as far as them beating us. But I think we would have gotten schooled.
i dont know how you can say the blackhawks are better at faceoffs than the sharks when the sharks won more faceoffs in 3 out of the 4 games...
#16
Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:18 PM
i dont know how you can say the blackhawks are better at faceoffs than the sharks when the sharks won more faceoffs in 3 out of the 4 games...
Ya, but the games I was watching, the Blackhawks won a majority of the crucial offensive and defensive zone faceoffs. Those are the ones that will kill you quick.
- EZBAKETHAGANGSTA likes this
#17
Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:23 PM
People need to realize that the Hawks are a lot better then many give them credit on here, and arguably played better than their roster looked on paper, something that was missing for a lot of this year for the Wings. I know it hurts to admit it, but the difference in levels of intensity is just unreal this year (though there are a myriad of excuses for the Wings, many of which hold valid), and the Hawks really put it all into winning it this year, at the expense of a lot of their future depth.If the Wings had prevailed and beat the Sharks in the 2nd round. How do you guys think we would of handled ourselves facing the 'Hawks in the 3rd round?
I really feel that we would of been matched up better against the Hawks then the Sharks did.
As for the series, I really think we had the capability to beat them, and vice versa. In my mind we were a bit less talented and slower version of them, but had a lot more experience and more of an "x-factor" feel, so I think beating them would have certainly not be a huge upset by any means.
I really think a lot of people don't give the Hawk's depth and Defense enough credit, so I would not have been surprised if we lost.
With that being said, I really think the Phoenix series wore us out, and as much as I'm tempted to blame the horrible officiating in the SJ series, the facts are the Wing's were either just too tired or didn't play up to their potential to win a 7 game series vs the Sharks. If the same effort was shown towards the Hawks that was shown in the vast majority of the San Jose series we would be out in 5-6 games, all of them being close games but with the same feeling of "We're just as good, they're just playing better" that was seen in game 5 of SJ.
Ya, but the games I was watching, the Blackhawks won a majority of the crucial offensive and defensive zone faceoffs. Those are the ones that will kill you quick.
Oh hell yeah, say what you want about the dives some thing SJ through, but one thing that cannot be denied is that they took one of the simplest aspects in the game and enforced it to a ridiculous, and in my mind unfair, extent.
- Vladifan and stevkrause like this
Like my posts? Contact Hossa4life for information regarding my fan club
#18
Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:57 PM
Saying that, though, I felt the Sharks looked extremely slow and could not take advantage of any of the opportunities they were given. The didn't play completely horribly, but for much of what I saw, their being out of position and not jumping on second and third chances cost them those goals that might have won a game for them. In a lot of ways, I felt I was re-watching the Det/SJ series but with the Sharks playing worse than the Wings.
Like others have said, I'm kind of glad that we didn't play Chicago this year and have that possibility of getting beaten by them. We weren't showing our true colors in this year's playoffs, and I like the fact that if Chicago does go on to win the Cup, there is still that little asterisk in the back of Chicago's mind that says: *But we didn't have to go through Detroit to get here.
Next year will definitely be interesting. And I can't wait.
#19
Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:58 PM
Ill do one better. Depends on face-offs AND officiating.Depends of face-off proficiency. Wings need to either work on face-offs big time... or learn to cheat better. That's the most glaring thing to me.
Honestly though, I think we would have pushed the Hawks to game 6 or 7, but would have lost in the end. This year just wasnt our year from the start.
#20
Posted 24 May 2010 - 05:38 PM
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter
Similar Topics
| Topic | Forum | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wings interested in Stalberg and Bickell |
General Discussion | jollymania |
|
|
|
2013 Stanley Cup Finals - Boston Bruins vs. Chicago Blackhawks |
General Discussion | Hockeytown0001 |
|
|
|
Wings interested in Weiss |
General Discussion | Zetts |
|
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users














