Rowand44 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) This isn't the same team as last year. Something is missing. It sure seems that way but it'd be silly to count them out. They've had some pretty crazy comebacks over this 5 year run so it'd be ridiculous to assume they're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:14 PM) No one should defend Seabrook's moronic hit. BUT TOUGHNESS AND HITTING AND f*** YOU BACKES YEAH Not directed at anyone here, but I've seen that type of nonsense elsewhere with the bandwagon. Sigh. Edited April 19, 2014 by IlliniKrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:17 PM) Seabrook hit a sitting duck and had plenty of time to line it up. And he didn't even have the puck. This was all on him, and the absolute principal point of contact was the head in an upward motion. This has been an emphasis for 2 years now. Intent, at this point, doesn't matter as much as what actually happened. Plus, Backes could be out the series, who knows. That should, and will, play into it as well. I think intent should matter when it comes to the discussion of suspending a guy. Did he mean to lay him out? Yes. Could he have let up without unleashing on Backes? Probably. But I don't think he meant to go up into his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:17 PM) It sure seems that way but it'd be silly to count them out. They've had some pretty crazy comebacks over this 5 year run so it'd be ridiculous to assume they're done. Once the road team wins s*** gets real. Until then I don't assume anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Last year St. Louis won the first two games at home vs the defending champs, then lost the next four. So you are saying there's a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (dasox24 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:26 PM) I think intent should matter when it comes to the discussion of suspending a guy. Did he mean to lay him out? Yes. Could he have let up without unleashing on Backes? Probably. But I don't think he meant to go up into his head. Principal point of contact = head Backes = likely out 1 game if not the whole series Totally suspension worthy. Intent can only matter so much. And it's Backes, so who knows what the intent was there. You'll never know. Intent maybe makes the suspension longer, but it's nowhere near (and shouldn't be) the determining factor of suspension/no suspension. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:27 PM) Once the road team wins s*** gets real. Until then I don't assume anything. Doesn't make sense. You're down 2-0. If this was the case, you could enter game 7 and nothing's real yet? Home/road doesn't matter as much in the NHL, we know that. You're down 2-0 regardless of where the games were played. It's real. Edited April 20, 2014 by IlliniKrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 I only saw glimpes of the Seabrook hit while at work, but it looks pretty bad. I wouldn't argue a suspension. At the same time, I doubt Seabrook of all people would be targetting the head. He knows exactly how bad that sucks to get a cheap shot like that. The *only* glimmer of hope I have right now is that we have no lost a home game yet. As long as we take care of business as home like it was designed, then we got a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Love the early Rangers v Flyers game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 3 games for Seabrook. I don't agree with it but that's probably the amount of time Backes is out so it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 20, 2014 Author Share Posted April 20, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 01:45 PM) 3 games for Seabrook. I don't agree with it but that's probably the amount of time Backes is out so it makes sense. I'm not really happy about it. To me it looked like the hit was made much worse by A/ Backes ducking and leaning back at the last second to try to avoid the hit, and B/ Seabrook turning to avoid driving through him. But you knew this was coming after the way everyone freaked out about the hit, and that Backes is probably out for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 3 games a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 3 games sucks, but given the nature of the game today, can't really complain. And let's be honest, had that been Shattenkirk blasting Toews, we would all be demanding justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) I'm not really happy about it. To me it looked like the hit was made much worse by A/ Backes ducking and leaning back at the last second to try to avoid the hit, and B/ Seabrook turning to avoid driving through him. But you knew this was coming after the way everyone freaked out about the hit, and that Backes is probably out for a while. It was made much worse because Seabrook made the principal point of contact the head with the puck nowhere near Backes. Backes didn't even know the hit was coming, he didn't duck out of the way of anything. Seabrook didn't turn to avoid anything. He wanted to plant him into the 5th row, because it was Backes. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 07:32 PM) 3 games sucks, but given the nature of the game today, can't really complain. And let's be honest, had that been Shattenkirk blasting Toews, we would all be demanding justice Exactly, that's what makes all of this hilarious. My initial thought of 3 games was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Any way the Hawks have it in them to come back from 2-0 down? To the hockey experts ... are the Hawks out of gas because of the deep run of a year ago coupled with the Olympics? What do u think of that theory? Doesn't seem to be the Hawks' year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Nice to see the refs steal a goal and possibly the game away from Tampa Bay tonight with a bogus goalie interference call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 12:14 AM) Nice to see the refs steal a goal and possibly the game away from Tampa Bay tonight with a bogus goalie interference call. Bad call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) I'm not really happy about it. To me it looked like the hit was made much worse by A/ Backes ducking and leaning back at the last second to try to avoid the hit, and B/ Seabrook turning to avoid driving through him. But you knew this was coming after the way everyone freaked out about the hit, and that Backes is probably out for a while. Agreed but if Backes is out at least that long it makes sense to me. It wasnt as dirty as Wiz's hit on him a few years back but definitely wasnt legal so 3 games is that "middle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 11:50 PM) Any way the Hawks have it in them to come back from 2-0 down? To the hockey experts ... are the Hawks out of gas because of the deep run of a year ago coupled with the Olympics? What do u think of that theory? Doesn't seem to be the Hawks' year. They had a deep run (lost in WCF) in 09 and won the Cup in 2010 with the Olympics. All the good teams had multiple players in the Olympics. I don't believe any of that. Down 3-1 to the Wings last year, they came back. That said, this is a vastly inferior team from last year. That said, one win and it's (obviously) 2-1 and the series is well within reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:15 AM) They had a deep run (lost in WCF) in 09 and won the Cup in 2010 with the Olympics. All the good teams had multiple players in the Olympics. I don't believe any of that. Down 3-1 to the Wings last year, they came back. That said, this is a vastly inferior team from last year. That said, one win and it's (obviously) 2-1 and the series is well within reach. They have to defend home ice, then we can start to talk about a come back. They absolutely can't lose a game at the UC though. It is already going to be tough enough to beat STL at least 4 out of 5 games to win the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:15 AM) They had a deep run (lost in WCF) in 09 and won the Cup in 2010 with the Olympics. All the good teams had multiple players in the Olympics. I don't believe any of that. Down 3-1 to the Wings last year, they came back. That said, this is a vastly inferior team from last year. That said, one win and it's (obviously) 2-1 and the series is well within reach. Defensively this team is lazy IMO and Seabs being gone after having a very strong season isnt going to help anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) Defensively this team is lazy IMO and Seabs being gone after having a very strong season isnt going to help anything. My personal feeling is that the team is either a step slow this year, or a bit fat and happy after last years cup. I have nothing really to base it on other than watching games this year, but IT just doesn't seem to be there this year. There isn't that little extra they have had in the past years, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:15 AM) They had a deep run (lost in WCF) in 09 and won the Cup in 2010 with the Olympics. All the good teams had multiple players in the Olympics. I don't believe any of that. Down 3-1 to the Wings last year, they came back. That said, this is a vastly inferior team from last year. That said, one win and it's (obviously) 2-1 and the series is well within reach. I don't either, as the Bruins had almost the same thing going on and lit it up all year and didn't have a slide at the end of the season. I had a lot more confidence (though I wasn't confident) vs Detroit last year. Felt different. This doesn't feel great right now, but like you said, win tonight and you're back in the series. I know it's not a "must win" since it's not the 4th win for the Blues...but like, it's a must win. I can't see this team, as currently composed and playing, winning 4 straight games against the Blues if they drop tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Backes officially out. As if there was any chance he'd play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 First game all year; Section 108, Row 6 (I am being treated). Don't worry bros, I got this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 LOL, I like how the media has completely forgotten the Blues are one of the dirtiest teams in the league because they think Keith trash talked Backes. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts