CDSF- (2)Blues vs (3)Blackhawks (Blues win 4-3)

[bax]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Someone asked if I am proud of our guys? Yes, yes I am...every team has an agitator (except, perhaps, your guys), Shaw knocked down Boumeester, I think, while driving late to the net, happens all the time...Forwards and D jousting as the forwards drive the net...the Blues D-man, whoever it was, surely went down easily.

As far as the Ladd interference...I think, because it was in the middle of the ice, it seemed worse than it was...but, I think, also, if you roll back your DVRs, and watch the Blues "finish their checks", about the same amount of time between the guy getting rid of the puck, and getting hit, has been similar to that Ladd play.

As far as Crawford going Billy Smith on Fabbri...Fabbri, had nowhere to go, and hit Crawford high...but, I certainly, also, didn't see any extraordinary effort to "avoid the contact"...the extra Blues call, apparently was somebody spearing Ladd in a scrum.

The Blues have been somewhat lucky, that the 'Hawks are simply not a physical team, up and down the lineup...A couple of times, I thought that the 'Hawks could lay a clean hit on Tarasenko, as he pulled up on the half-boards, I think TVR passed up an opportunity to smoke him, just before one of the PPs that led to a goal, but, only Ladd and Seabrook really seem to hit.

Elliot was both good and lucky (the puck that got behind him and flipped up, instead of rolling in, for instance). And this series looks liable to be "stolen" by him.

But, my guys have been down in series before, and have proven to be a "tough out"...

On to game 5...

Your posts are usually well thought out, but this one is some serious Chicago homerism.

1. Bouwmeester and Shaw were not "jousting" as you described. Shaw simply came in and drove J Bow into the net, a clear penalty. There is nothing to be proud of in regards to Shaw last night. He showed blatant disrespect to the officials, the league, and the fans. I understand people make mistakes in the heat of the moment, but using the kind of hate speech that he did is a disgrace and should not be tolerated. This guy is supposed to be a role model.

2. Disagree here, the Ladd hit was a penalty. Chicago has been given a lot of breaks in this series (Crawford last night). Complaining about the officiating is a poor excuse especially when you could argue that the Blues have been on the worse end of it.

3. Looks like to me that Fabbri tries to jump out of the way and accidentally clips Crawford's shoulder. In no way a high hit and in no way intentional. These things happen all the time. I have no idea why Crawford was so upset as he was clearly in the wrong. Then Chicago gets a power play out of it? Ridiculous. Also, there was no spear and that call ended up getting changed.

4. This doesn't mean that St.Louis is lucky, this means that they are playing a strong game that exposes Chicago's weaknesses.

5. Elliot has been fantastic. It seems like the only way the Hawks can beat him is on the power play or by a fluke goal (Keith last night).

Last point I 100% agree with you. The last one is the hardest to win and no team is tougher to close out then the Blackhawks. The next game is a huge one. I think all the hockey that Chicago has played over the last few years is starting to catch up with them. I sure wouldn't discount a comeback though.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Disgusting comment by Shaw, if that's still in the hockey culture on the ice than hopefully this is the first road block to changing that culture. Watching the mental jiu-jitsu some posters are using to brush it aside is hilarious. These guys are nhl employees, they're not at home having a few beers, the NHL can dictate what is acceptable language.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That's your opinion. I'm not going to tell people what words they can and cannot use and what context they are using them in.

Haha, you would, and could, if they're employees of you, on the "job site".

Some impressive gymnastics here.

[Caged Great]

I would suspend Shaw for the remainder of round 1.

The only way things change is to make changes.

[thefoss1957]

bax...wasn't complaining about officiating...on the Ladd hit, Steen passed, Ladd put a shoulder in him, "finishing the check", I've seen that called and not called, I think, if it was along the boards, it doesn't get called.

The Shaw interference, a lot of crosschecking goes on after plays, again, some called, some not (see the 2 crosschecks after Shaw scored in game 2)...in this case, desperation time, Shaw is going to the paint to muck it up...it was a cross check, but, again, compare to the whistle in pocket kind of refereeing that one often sees in desperation time. They tagged Shaw...fine, but, I'd also like to see tighter refereeing across the board, and clean up the earlier in the game post-whistle scrums, face washes, and gloved punches...(and Ott should be called for, well, playing like Steve Ott!)

The luck I referred to, was the Puck bouncing on edge instead of rolling across the line, on what might have been the 1st goal...taking nothing away from Elliott, but, double post ringers (game 3) and pucks getting by and NOT going in? Some luck is involved.

On the extra penalty after Crawford went after Fabbri...the NBCsports feed didn't say what the extra call was, though, they did briefly cut to Ladd and a Blue engaged, when I checked the box score, at the time, it had a spearing, but, as the camera was mainly on Crawford and the Ref, my assumption was that there was something in the undercard bout...As far as Crawford channeling Billy Smith/Ron Hextall, by game 4 of a series, there has been a war in the paint for 3 plus games, and Fabbri hitting him the way he did, Crawford snapped...it's a passionate game, he didn't know it us unintentional, all he knows is that he got ran, so Crow took exception, and got tagged for a roughing.

Clearly, the main difference in the series, besides Elliott standing on his head, has been Tarasenko on the PP...'Hawks have had no answer...

And sure, Shaw is a knucklehead...but, I am still proud of the team for battling to the end...my comment was about the TEAM, not about Shaw's antics, in particular.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That's your opinion. I'm not going to tell people what words they can and cannot use and what context they are using them in.

Except what you're missing is there is no context where that word has a positive connotation, and offends a large group of people.

So in this case my opinion is correct and using the word is not acceptable.

Look I know growing older and wiser is tough and it's easy to get set in your ways, but believe it or not it's not acceptable to call people that anymore. Maybe you and your buddies think it's fine, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Do you really have to call someone that? Does the word matter that much to you that you think it should be still acceptable to use? It's only a word, you can find another way to get your point across without offending a large group of people.

Shaw could and should have just said something like f-ing idiot, a-hole, or something along those lines.

[Bourque's Twin]

I wonder what's going to happen with the Blues goalie situation. Elliot just turned 31 and has been lights out this season/playoffs. He still has years of good production left. Allen is ready to be a full-time starter as well, and he turns 26 this summer. Only a 5 year difference.

If the Blues were smart they would pick a horse and get assets for the other one. Otherwise they will lose 1 for nothing as Elliot is UFA and Allen is RFA in 1 year.

[thefoss1957]

Bourque (and I hope it's Ray, and NOT Rene!)...

Elliot surely is pumping up his UFA value with his performance!

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Except what you're missing is there is no context where that word has a positive connotation, and offends a large group of people.

So in this case my opinion is correct and using the word is not acceptable.

Look I know growing older and wiser is tough and it's easy to get set in your ways, but believe it or not it's not acceptable to call people that anymore. Maybe you and your buddies think it's fine, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Do you really have to call someone that? Does the word matter that much to you that you think it should be still acceptable to use? It's only a word, you can find another way to get your point across without offending a large group of people.

Shaw could and should have just said something like f-ing idiot, a-hole, or something along those lines.

I don't understand why particular groups give power to such silly words by getting so offended.

And in this particular situation, it is very unlikely shaw used that word with any intent at insulting the ref or anyone else's sexual orientation. Any reasonable person can see that he wasn't using it homophobically, so why are people choosing to be offended? Don't let a stupid word have so much power over you when it's not even being used in the connotation that you're getting offended by.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I wonder what's going to happen with the Blues goalie situation. Elliot just turned 31 and has been lights out this season/playoffs. He still has years of good production left. Allen is ready to be a full-time starter as well, and he turns 26 this summer. Only a 5 year difference.

If the Blues were smart they would pick a horse and get assets for the other one. Otherwise they will lose 1 for nothing as Elliot is UFA and Allen is RFA in 1 year.

Not sure why they have to pick one. They showed this year why depth is important when Elliott and Allen went down with injuries. Take away a couple wins and suddenly they're not the home team in the CHI/STL series and it may be a totally different series. I think most teams want two very capable goalies that don't cost a fortune. Even if Elliott re-signs at $4M per year, I think they can make it work with both goalies. IMO, that's probably more valuable to the team then getting a couple 2nd rounders for Elliott now.

[bax]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

I don't understand why particular groups give power to such silly words by getting so offended.



And in this particular situation, it is very unlikely shaw used that word with any intent at insulting the ref or anyone else's sexual orientation. Any reasonable person can see that he wasn't using it homophobically, so why are people choosing to be offended? Don't let a stupid word have so much power over you when it's not even being used in the connotation that you're getting offended by.

It's not about being offended. I bet there are tons of homosexuals out there that aren't offended by it, but unless you're in that position than its not up to you to decide what does and doesn't offend people.

The NHL has committed to welcoming players, employees, and fans to the league regardless of sexuality. It's unfortunate, but even these situations where I bet Andrew Shaw is not intending to offend the LGBT community it still halts true change and empowers those that are discriminatory.

I encourage anyone who doesn't think that this is important or think that "silly words" do not have an impact to read this article by Chris Hine. Chris is a gay journalist who covers the Blackhawks and has known Shaw for a number of years.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...20-column.html

[Fan in Exile]

Shaw is turning into the second coming of Sean Avery. Too bad because he actually has the skill to play the game, just like Avery did. Hopefully he gets suspended and smartens up as a result.

I came in to this series not really feeling too much about either team but at this point I'm strongly supporting the Blues in this one. I expect they're winning a fair amount of neutral fans.

[Erick Estrada]

Losing in the playoffs seems to bring the worst out of teams just look at the Flyers.

[Buff]

Shaw looked like a defiant teenager who got caught breaking the rules, so he was going to grab as much attention as he could to make his buddies laugh at his antics. Grow up and act like a professional.

[TheScorpion]

I'd give Shaw one game, so the rest of the playoffs.

[JoelOtto29]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

I don't understand why particular groups give power to such silly words by getting so offended.

Congratulations, you're a straight white man. You hit the jackpot. The least you could do is listen to marginal and oppressed groups when they say you are doing something (deliberately or inadvertently) that is rooted in centuries of unimaginable violence.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Regardless of all the actual details, how can any Hawks fan be "proud" of Shaw? Without getting caught up in the debate of details, Shaw went full on selfish mode in a one goal game last night costing his team.

Check on Bouwmeester was risk a smart player thinking about his team simply doesn't take at that point in the game, very selfish act. Followed up by all the antics afterwards which didn't end up costing him, but again a terrible selfish emotional response that could have and should have cost his team with his 12 year old tantrum.

Guy evidently isn't mature enough and can't be trusted to be on the ice at emmotional and big game moments cause he's gonna make some bad bad decisions.

[thefoss1957]

Steam..."playing on the edge" seems to be a quality DESIRABLE in "grit" players, and is often admired, by media types...it is often not too far to go "over the edge"...

As far as comparisons to Avery...Shaw, really, has negligible skills...his main asset is tenacity, not size, not hands, not really even physicality...he is a yapper in the Esa Tikkanen mode, and his terrier like focus on yapping, clearly, got him in trouble last night.

I really don't think that he thinks strategically...Shaw seems to play "in the moment"...head butting in pucks, scrumming in the crease, chasing bigger guys to chirp at. Poor judgment sometimes will occur when emotions take over...not an excuse, just his nature, and he goes with his emotions often enough... and if he draws a suspension, it is deserved, but, the 'Hawks have Weise, who can also step into a "grit" role, to replace him.

Shaw's indiscipline did cost the 'Hawks an opportunity to tie, but, that alone, is not why they lost, the truth is, that the main reason for this loss, and the last one, has been the inability to defend Tarasenko

As far as a compressed (every other night) series vs. a fierce rival, this series, hasn't been as chippy as might be expected. The first major flare up, was Crawford going Billy Smith on Fabbri...and even that wasn't as bad as line brawls that have occurred elsewhere.

[MissTeeks]

[AC]

Those canned apologizes are meaningless when its painfully obvious its just a statement being submitted on his behalf by the team PR department.