Top gun in arsenal

Top gun in arsenal

There are 23 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled Top gun in arsenal. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The NHL 's most prolific offensive team has its most potent scorer back. Patrick Kane returned to the Blackhawks on Thursday night after missing two games with a right high-ankle sprain, the first two the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
RamRod

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Jan 9, 2009
Ouch!

The Hawks still looked good and I didn't see anyone slacking, but it was one of those nights where you lose one of the five out of thirty games. The Lanche were better when it counted and Raycroft didn't let any easy ones by.

The empty net flurry didn't look all that much better than the typical 5 on 5 by the kids in any other game.

NEXT!

"They're OUR kids, damnit!"
BFM

Wood Dale, IL

#2 Jan 9, 2009
When did the infamous think tank that presides over the NHL rules decide that they would leave it up to the on ice officials to determine if there was a "kicking motion" when a puck goes in off a guys skate? The way I've seen this rule applied, unless a guy finishes with his skate above his head, like Ray f-ing Guy, there is no kicking motion. That goal bugs me more than the b.s. faceoff because I don't know if the Hawks had been warned about dilly-dallying before faceoffs earlier. Nobody is saying that they were and it was definitely a bush league move by the linesman.
I don't really think the Hawks got after it for most of the game. I thought they had a "don't worry, we're gonna win" attitude. Bugs me. Don't be mislead by the most misleading stat in the game, shots on goal. The only part of this game the Hawks dominated were the last 7 minutes. I know they can't win them all, but Colorado? Without Stastny or Sakic? With Raycroft? Sour taste when I went to bed last night.
ManzMan

Belleville, IL

#3 Jan 9, 2009
Qville will make it straight-
paul

Fergus, Canada

#4 Jan 9, 2009
BFM wrote:
When did the infamous think tank that presides over the NHL rules decide that they would leave it up to the on ice officials to determine if there was a "kicking motion" when a puck goes in off a guys skate? The way I've seen this rule applied, unless a guy finishes with his skate above his head, like Ray **** Guy, there is no kicking motion. That goal bugs me more than the b.s. faceoff because I don't know if the Hawks had been warned about dilly-dallying before faceoffs earlier. Nobody is saying that they were and it was definitely a bush league move by the linesman.
I don't really think the Hawks got after it for most of the game. I thought they had a "don't worry, we're gonna win" attitude. Bugs me. Don't be mislead by the most misleading stat in the game, shots on goal. The only part of this game the Hawks dominated were the last 7 minutes. I know they can't win them all, but Colorado? Without Stastny or Sakic? With Raycroft? Sour taste when I went to bed last night.
Avalanche mises 2 top players and the human sieve in thier net meant the stars were lined in our favor and we missed a chance to get a win.

Since: Oct 08

La Crosse, WI

#5 Jan 9, 2009
The name of that game was Andrew Raycroft. Last season he was 2-9-5, an .876 save percentage and a 3.92 GAA with Toronto. He only had 5 starts in the second half of last season. He is unpredictable. He has had success in the past as a number one goalie. This season he is looking good again in the games he has played as a backup to Budai. He is 8-1-0 with a .908 save % and a 2.52 GAA. The Hawks saw the "good" Raycroft. He had a bad camp and almost didn't make the cut in September. It was his career best for the number of saves in a game. I say all of this to remind us that a hot goalie can win a game. Man, the shots that almost went in late in the game! My take on this is give credit to the opposing netminder and simply move on. It's a long season. Keep the feet moving boys! GO HAWKS!

“COMMIT TO THE INDIAN”

Since: Oct 08

Naperville

#6 Jan 9, 2009
I was not happy with that goal. I know that the NHL said it was not a kicking motion but come on. The ref called no goal and the war room over ruled it. I also was not impressed with the penality kill and changing the entire line and leaving the goalie there by himself. And for Sharp not to be in the faceoff?? There were a few mental lapses, now lets move on and beat the Preds
Bryan

Evanston, IL

#7 Jan 9, 2009
Tim - Hockey Rules wrote:
I was not happy with that goal. I know that the NHL said it was not a kicking motion but come on. The ref called no goal and the war room over ruled it. I also was not impressed with the penality kill and changing the entire line and leaving the goalie there by himself. And for Sharp not to be in the faceoff?? There were a few mental lapses, now lets move on and beat the Preds
Agreed. I believe the rule needs to be modified. I think that any skate in motion, regardless if it is a kicking motion or not, should not be allowed to deflect the puck into the net. If your skate is stationary, fine, but the line between "kicking" and "natural motion" is too fine, and should not be left up to the discretion of the officiating crew.

Much like in football, they should give some moore integrity to the call on the "field" and have "conclusive" evidence to overturn.

But in my opinion, just change the rule. Ryan Smythe's skate was moving straight for the net and put the puck in, kicking or not, I don't think it should have been a goal.

With that said, I also believe the goal that Colin Fraser had against the Yotes should have been called no goal as well. His skate was in motion, heading towards the net, when the puck went in.

Pretty good game, tough loss... As Hawk would say..."just too much andrew raycroft"
bhawks fan in sb

United States

#8 Jan 9, 2009
the headline should read "two flukey goals = two point for the avs" but whatever.
that puck drop was such b.s.
raycroft stopped 43 shots!
BF-I want that 4th spot-M

Wood Dale, IL

#9 Jan 9, 2009
Bryan wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. I believe the rule needs to be modified. I think that any skate in motion, regardless if it is a kicking motion or not, should not be allowed to deflect the puck into the net. If your skate is stationary, fine, but the line between "kicking" and "natural motion" is too fine, and should not be left up to the discretion of the officiating crew.
But in my opinion, just change the rule. Ryan Smythe's skate was moving straight for the net and put the puck in, kicking or not, I don't think it should have been a goal.
With that said, I also believe the goal that Colin Fraser had against the Yotes should have been called no goal as well. His skate was in motion, heading towards the net, when the puck went in.
Agreed. I might even go the the extreme of "unless the last contact by an offensive player was made with a stick, no goal." The less you leave to the discretion of humans, the less b#@*hing your going to have. I hate goals that go in off skates, regardless of which team gets them.
deadboy

Wayne, IL

#10 Jan 9, 2009
technically smyths foot was moving forward toward the goal.it looked like he was just trying to move the puck to his stick.forward kicking motion equals no goal according to the rulebook.rules are rules that should not have to be interpreted during gameplay.we could have won if only sharp could finish the half dozen chances he had.this team has stated before after a loss,including the captain,that "we thought it would be easy".i did too but come on.this team does not have the credentials to go into any game thinking they can coast to a win,unless its phoenix
Tony

Saint Petersburg, FL

#11 Jan 9, 2009
Tough loss. Colorado got the breaks and the Hawks weren't sharp.Lots of shots and not a lot of traffic in front of Raycroft. You can't just flip the switch fellas...learn and move on.
Hankchifan

Boca Raton, FL

#12 Jan 9, 2009
We lost primarily because Sharp was not sharp - he had a lack of focus, and missed several point blank opportunities and failed to make it to the face off circle in 5 sec. opening the door for the ref to hurt the Hawks.

By the way, why did the Hawks let Rene Bourque go - he is tearing it up in Calgary and could have helped the Hawks big time this season.
USMCVet

United States

#13 Jan 9, 2009
Sharp did lose focus on the faceoff. I can't really blame the linesman on the faceoff, but come on, use some discretion.
Bourqe never skated or played as hard for the Hawks as he is with the Flames. I'm glad they let him go!
Tony

Saint Petersburg, FL

#14 Jan 9, 2009
If Bourque would've played last year the way he's playing this year he'd still be a Blackhawk. Sometimes a trade wakes a guy's asss up.....I don't miss him.
RamRod

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Jan 9, 2009
Tony wrote:
Tough loss. Colorado got the breaks and the Hawks weren't sharp.Lots of shots and not a lot of traffic in front of Raycroft. You can't just flip the switch fellas...learn and move on.
Oh Tony, you and your damn sense of reason and logic!

You're right, of course, and I hope that's just what they do. We're in "virgin territory" here, but from what I've seen of the kids, they DO learn and seem to feed on the bummers and don't look back. Minor test Saturday and Sunday vs. Preds. Let's do back to back and start to ramp up for the real test; Wings and Sharks.

Side note: Buff looked good, fast (honest) and determined, PLUS, the over-the-counter check of DuPuis could have been a spark. Thing of beauty.

This is still the most fun I've had in daylight with my jeans on!

"They're OUR kids, damnit!"

“COMMIT TO THE INDIAN”

Since: Oct 08

Naperville

#16 Jan 9, 2009
Tony wrote:
If Bourque would've played last year the way he's playing this year he'd still be a Blackhawk. Sometimes a trade wakes a guy's asss up.....I don't miss him.
Right about that, I could not stand Bourque when he wore the Indianhead. He always seemed to be lazy, then he goes to be a flamer and improves his play. Go figure. At least Tyler Arnison isn't playing great no matter which team he goes to.
deadboy

Wayne, IL

#17 Jan 9, 2009
since they let bourque go for nothing what does future considerations mean if he scores 30? we get a draft pick,prospect?
Tony

Saint Petersburg, FL

#18 Jan 9, 2009
I think the Hawks got a 2nd rd. pick for Bourque...Which wasn't bad considering the way he played last year.
paul

Fergus, Canada

#19 Jan 9, 2009
Old lesson learned again the hard way. There are no easy opponents in the NHL.Take the night off against an "easy team" and you can get your butt kicked.Detroit took the night off against the sad sack Leafs their first game against them this year and took a whuppin. They learned and as we all too well know they don't take nights off against any one any more. They learned and I hope we did. Lets attack the Preds like it is game 7 of the Stanley Cup final.
>>>>>>GO HAWKS>>>>> >>>
paul

Fergus, Canada

#20 Jan 9, 2009
I can't believe the way Raycroft is playing. He was known here as the human sieve and signing him was one of the things that greased the skids under Leaf GM John Ferguson.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Duncan Keith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Game Preview: Chicago Blackhawks to Take On Inj... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Reg 1
News The Most Disappointing Players on the Chicago B... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Reg 1
News Kane's 5th goal in 7 games helps Blackhawks win (Nov '14) Nov '14 Reg 1
News Who Must Step Up for the Chicago Blackhawks Aft... (Nov '14) Nov '14 B-Hawks Forever 1
News Chicago Blackhawks Must Stop Relying So Heavily... (May '14) May '14 Reg 1
News Seabrook gets 3-game suspension for hard hit (Apr '14) Apr '14 Reg 1
News Will Brent Seabrook's Olympic Snub Become a Pro... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Reg 1
More from around the web