30
|
|
Post by hawkfaninpdx on Aug 11, 2020 11:55:26 GMT -6
Shockingly, not a single analyst has picked the Hawks over Vegas!
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 11, 2020 13:44:48 GMT -6
🤷♂️🤷♂️
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 1:36:11 GMT -6
Now I know how teams like the Wild/Predators/Blues/etc. felt playing the Blackhawks 2010-15
Vegas is very talented, plays a great system and sadly is just far more talented than the Blackhawks are.
Not saying our boys can't force it to 6 or 7 games but they're going to have to pick up the effort big time going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by acesandeights on Aug 12, 2020 10:10:42 GMT -6
^^
I only got to watch most of the first period and I recall the commentators saying later on in the period the Hawks had gone 9 minutes without a shot. That didn't bode well for the Hawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 12, 2020 10:45:29 GMT -6
Now I know how teams like the Wild/Predators/Blues/etc. felt playing the Blackhawks 2010-15 Vegas is very talented, plays a great system and sadly is just far more talented than the Blackhawks are. Not saying our boys can't force it to 6 or 7 games but they're going to have to pick up the effort big time going forward. I don’t see it going that far. The Vegans got caught their stride towards the end of the 1st and dominated the rest of the game. Hawks had what 3 shots in the 3rd? I was listening to Berube (Chief) on Spittin Chickletts yesterday. He made a very good point in saying that in order to win in the playoffs, you gotta play a certain way. And that’s the run through them way. The Hawks aren’t built to play that way and won’t be. I looked at how bad Boqvist was. He would stand there and swing is stick like his feet were in cement. Then the Vegan came out of the corner and he had zero interest in chasing him. His passes were hurried and he has zero protection. Can’t have Keith and Boqvist on the same pairing in the playoffs. Won’t work. We need size.... baaaaad!!! |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 12, 2020 13:57:08 GMT -6
gonna have to disagree with Berube. there's more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to win in the playoffs.
we all know this is true cuz we watched the Blackhawks do it a different way than his team did it last year. what we need is a guy or three that can go out there and bang instead a team full of waterbugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 12, 2020 19:27:35 GMT -6
gonna have to disagree with Berube. there's more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to win in the playoffs. we all know this is true cuz we watched the Blackhawks do it a different way than his team did it last year. what we need is a guy or three that can go out there and bang instead a team full of waterbugs. Let’s not fool ourselves Vade, those Hawks teams were tough. They took hits to make plays and dished out a lot of punishment until 2015. 2010 and 13 they played take no prisoners. Seabrooks hit on a Backes (14). Bolland destroys Bertuzzi in Detroit and it leads to Sebrooks goal (13). Bolland in 13 vs LA, absolutely kills Mike Richards. There’s many many more. Eager, Burish etc etc etc. Hawks were a very fearful team. Hawks were built to play any style. I’m not saying Berube is totally right. But it has been proven playoff hockey has to be played tough. Nowadays. I truly think teams look forward to playing the Hawks. The team is not built for this. We all know this. Why doesn’t the guy up top??? |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 12, 2020 19:49:59 GMT -6
gonna have to disagree with Berube. there's more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to win in the playoffs. we all know this is true cuz we watched the Blackhawks do it a different way than his team did it last year. what we need is a guy or three that can go out there and bang instead a team full of waterbugs. Let’s not fool ourselves Vade, those Hawks teams were tough. They took hits to make plays and dished out a lot of punishment until 2015. 2010 and 13 they played take no prisoners. Seabrooks hit on a Backes (14). Bolland destroys Bertuzzi in Detroit and it leads to Sebrooks goal (13). Bolland in 13 vs LA, absolutely kills Mike Richards. There’s many many more. Eager, Burish etc etc etc. Hawks were a very fearful team. Hawks were built to play any style. I’m not saying Berube is totally right. But it has been proven playoff hockey has to be played tough. Nowadays. I truly think teams look forward to playing the Hawks. The team is not built for this. We all know this. Why doesn’t the guy up top??? playing tough and playing the way the blues do aren't the same thing, imo. for sure those teams were all tough. there is still a little left, but we could use more. Dach seems to be ok with it. others not so much... we could surely use a bunch more of it. BTW, it was Nyquist that Bolland destroyed on the Seabrook goal. 😜 |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 12, 2020 20:39:48 GMT -6
Let’s not fool ourselves Vade, those Hawks teams were tough. They took hits to make plays and dished out a lot of punishment until 2015. 2010 and 13 they played take no prisoners. Seabrooks hit on a Backes (14). Bolland destroys Bertuzzi in Detroit and it leads to Sebrooks goal (13). Bolland in 13 vs LA, absolutely kills Mike Richards. There’s many many more. Eager, Burish etc etc etc. Hawks were a very fearful team. Hawks were built to play any style. I’m not saying Berube is totally right. But it has been proven playoff hockey has to be played tough. Nowadays. I truly think teams look forward to playing the Hawks. The team is not built for this. We all know this. Why doesn’t the guy up top??? playing tough and playing the way the blues do aren't the same thing, imo. for sure those teams were all tough. there is still a little left, but we could use more. Dach seems to be ok with it. others not so much... we could surely use a bunch more of it. BTW, it was Nyquist that Bolland destroyed on the Seabrook goal. 😜 You are correct. I think I wanted it to be Bertuzzi! I agree fully that St Louis took it too far. However, I do agree with Berube that playoff hockey has to be played tougher than normal hockey. He’s right in that assessment. But I think the Blues took it too far, and they’ll get it sooner or later!!! |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 12, 2020 21:08:20 GMT -6
In the GDT last night I had mentioned the way to be the trap of heavy hitting teams is to flip or “Hail Mary” the puck out of your zone. The Canucks are doing that tonight and are getting good results so far. The Hawks will need to do this to break into the offensive zone.
When the defenders are all looking up, they can’t be absolutely aware of where they are. When the puck lands, it’s a scramble to get the puck and back in position. When they put 4 guys in the neutral zone it’s tough to skate out the puck, the puck moves faster than the man, so lift it out in the air, and get a few lucky bounces and you’re set.
Getting a lead is crucial for the Hawks. Gotta make teams like the Vegans to open up and drop the trap. It can be done. But coaching has to have a solid plan and get the guys to buy into it!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Aug 13, 2020 0:16:09 GMT -6
In the GDT last night I had mentioned the way to be the trap of heavy hitting teams is to flip or “Hail Mary” the puck out of your zone. The Canucks are doing that tonight and are getting good results so far. The Hawks will need to do this to break into the offensive zone. I said this to my wife during the Hawks game. Flip it out and get that puck bouncing around center ice and rush at it. They did it a couple times but not enough. The Dmen just don't have enough time to try to make a perfect pass. They couldn't get it out (and keep it out) of their end for way too much of game 1. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 13, 2020 6:56:56 GMT -6
In the GDT last night I had mentioned the way to be the trap of heavy hitting teams is to flip or “Hail Mary” the puck out of your zone. The Canucks are doing that tonight and are getting good results so far. The Hawks will need to do this to break into the offensive zone. I said this to my wife during the Hawks game. Flip it out and get that puck bouncing around center ice and rush at it. They did it a couple times but not enough. The Dmen just don't have enough time to try to make a perfect pass. They couldn't get it out (and keep it out) of their end for way too much of game 1. That’s exactly it. If no time or options flip it to centre. The Nucks did this last night. When they got the lead the Blues had open up and play a loose unfamiliar style, then your stars can shine and waste them. Our D are getting rushed and trashed back there. I sure hope the coaching staff picks up on this. Cuz if not, it’s a really short series!!! |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Aug 13, 2020 13:34:13 GMT -6
Boqvist and Keith can't handle the Knights size so I'd like to see Murphy with Keith and Boqvist with de Haan, two dmen under 200lbs on the top two won't work vs Vegas.
|
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Aug 13, 2020 23:49:07 GMT -6
i wonder if the refs have decided to call the qualifiers like they were regular season games and from this point on will call the rest of the playoffs as playoff games? or is this one of my dumbest theories ever? one at a time, people. : ) play-ins and round robins totaled 44 games and 945 penalty minutes for an average of 21.5 minutes per game. i'll pass on the numbers in this opening playoff round when the round is over. so far it's an average of 3.7 minutes/game less but 12 games in is a pretty small sample size. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 14, 2020 7:49:06 GMT -6
i wonder if the refs have decided to call the qualifiers like they were regular season games and from this point on will call the rest of the playoffs as playoff games? or is this one of my dumbest theories ever? one at a time, people. : ) play-ins and round robins totaled 44 games and 945 penalty minutes for an average of 21.5 minutes per game. i'll pass on the numbers in this opening playoff round when the round is over. so far it's an average of 3.7 minutes/game less but 12 games in is a pretty small sample size. True, but it’s 100% of the sample size. So there’s no cherry picking or anything goin on there. Still by the eye test and the numbers you’ve provided, it looks like it’s been called quite tight. We’ll see if this keeps up. I suspect it will. I don’t think teams like St. Louis get a gift like that again!!! |
|
|
|
Post by gigecj on Aug 14, 2020 12:17:46 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams).
Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams.
Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues."
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 14, 2020 12:50:25 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams). Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams. Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues." Thank you! Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Aug 14, 2020 12:53:02 GMT -6
Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! Must be nice having a good GM... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 13:09:51 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams). Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams. Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues." Thank you! Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! I'm in agreement with Gig here. I thought it was ridiculous that a first year expansion team was pretty much handed a Stanley Cup ready team, when 30 other teams have to build thru trades, drafts, and free agency for years to get where Vegas was. And I fully expect the same thing to happen with Seattle. Vegas was unprecedented in all major sports to have a first year team go to the Finals, with the exception, as Gig said, of the Blues, who during the expansion was in a division of all expansion teams, so someone had to make it. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Aug 14, 2020 13:12:10 GMT -6
I hear ya, gig. I felt the same way during their magical 2018 run. I've lessened my stance now, though. I did not want to see them win in their first season, that just seemed a bridge too far for me, i guess. now, I have zero problem with them winning. they have a pretty good team, the folks in charge there did a good job of putting together a team.
and that is where I would say they've paid their dues now. they didn't win at the end of that magical run. last year they got hosed and also crapped down their legs. not decades worth of failures, i know, but failures nonetheless. those things combined with crediting their brass for doing a damn good job (this is not to say that they didn't have a pretty nice selection of players to choose from, including a 3 time Cup Champ to build out from) is enough for me, anyway, to not root against em (depending on opponent).
also, have you been there lately? that town is CRAZY for that team. literally every store has GK stuff, I swear. went with my buddy who lives there to get him a new suit and I can't recall the name of the men's store, but I swear to you they had a whole little section of GK stuff. embroided suits, cuff links, belts and buckles..... so i give em that, the locals are fully on board.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 14, 2020 13:41:06 GMT -6
Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! Must be nice having a good GM... I hear it is. Let’s hope we have that luxury one fine fine day!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 14, 2020 13:55:11 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams). Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams. Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues." Thank you! You also have to figure in that the players who came in were not superstars--Fleury was closest and even he was questionable. The main thing I took away is that all of the players bought into Vegas' system and execute it--and it seems to me like egos were checked at the door. Basically they've been everything the 'hawks haven't. We have superstars, sure, but they only bring it sporadically, couple that with any reluctance to do any dirty work, prima donna mindset, no system, no pack mentality, and the players have no buy-in. Vegas is a team, the 'hawks are just 19 separate players on the ice. And I think the "pay their dues" is is elitist mentality and hurts the league overall. They weren't gifted Crosbys, Malkins, McDavids, Ovechkins, or any real top-tier players. If there's a new team you want them to be good enough to attract fans in their location to grow and keep the product beyond the honeymoon phase. Making an expansion team be as bad as Detroit doesn't help that. Ideally they should come in somewhere middle of the pack, and on paper before their inaugural season that's where they were pegged, they overachieved because of the aforementioned reasons in my view. The problem of the 'hawks vs. Vegas is the fault of the 'hawks being a bad team. We have more star power, but zero team mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by gigecj on Aug 14, 2020 15:40:40 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams). Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams. Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues." Thank you! You also have to figure in that the players who came in were not superstars--Fleury was closest and even he was questionable. The main thing I took away is that all of the players bought into Vegas' system and execute it--and it seems to me like egos were checked at the door. Basically they've been everything the 'hawks haven't. We have superstars, sure, but they only bring it sporadically, couple that with any reluctance to do any dirty work, prima donna mindset, no system, no pack mentality, and the players have no buy-in. Vegas is a team, the 'hawks are just 19 separate players on the ice. And I think the "pay their dues" is is elitist mentality and hurts the league overall. They weren't gifted Crosbys, Malkins, McDavids, Ovechkins, or any real top-tier players. If there's a new team you want them to be good enough to attract fans in their location to grow and keep the product beyond the honeymoon phase. Making an expansion team be as bad as Detroit doesn't help that. Ideally they should come in somewhere middle of the pack, and on paper before their inaugural season that's where they were pegged, they overachieved because of the aforementioned reasons in my view. The problem of the 'hawks vs. Vegas is the fault of the 'hawks being a bad team. We have more star power, but zero team mindset. I agree with you, but it makes me even more p-o'd that my team can't do over years what they did immediately! |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Aug 14, 2020 17:36:11 GMT -6
I have a very curious question for anyone willing to share their understanding about the Vegas Golden Knights and how they avoided the typical few years of mediocrity or worse that all other expansion teams before them had to experience (unless you don't count the St. Louis Blues of the late sixties that simply had to be better than all of the other really bad expansion teams). Admittedly, it's likely that my 60 years on this earth has contributed to a personal bias or even discrimination toward a team like Vegas that didn't, in my view, pay its dues like an expansion team is supposed to. So much of my bias or discrimination could be alleviated if any one of you were able to explain to me what exactly was different with how the NHL dealt with Vegas' expansion giving them this "right" to be good off the bat. I'm thinking that they did perhaps "pay their dues" in other ways such as the cost to get in, the ease that the NHL made the league-wide draft, etc. However, since I really am not privy, I continue to discriminate against this team and it now is especially targeted due to their being up 2 games to none against my team not to mention having beaten us 11 times out of 12 which is a ridiculous stat that goes against any sort of expectation between two NHL teams. Please explain to me how Vegas has "paid its dues." Thank you! Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! T: Can you explain the process involved in the stupid trades of not taking a certain player in return for a 2d rounder that you described? I don't get how that worked to make Vegas so good in the first year of play. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 14, 2020 18:21:30 GMT -6
I agree with you, but it makes me even more p-o'd that my team can't do over years what they did immediately! We do have 3 cups in the 2010's...so there's that. The way I see it though is that Vegas was given mediocrity and rose above it to become better than the sum of its parts. The 'hawks in comparison lost all team mentality after the 2015 cup and became worse than the sum of its parts. IMHO that's not on Vegas. That's on Stan, JC, and the players on the ice for the 'hawks. I won't begrudge Vegas for their comparative success because they did everything right and we did everything wrong. IMHO the 'hawks in their entirety could (re)learn something from Vegas. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 14, 2020 19:11:39 GMT -6
Gig, in the cap era, teams are desperate to shed salary. The VGK took full advantage of every team and they loaded up on draft picks with those stupid trades of “not taking a certain player” and they’d give them a 2nd rounder etc. So they haven’t paid their dues, but do you really have to? I think what they’ve accomplished is quite cool. They used every tool they could to get as good as they could. It sucks seeing them beat our team, I get that, but I think what they’ve accomplished is quite respectable. I’d like to see our team back on top here soon!!! T: Can you explain the process involved in the stupid trades of not taking a certain player in return for a 2d rounder that you described? I don't get how that worked to make Vegas so good in the first year of play. Thanks. Vegas agreed to not select a certain player from a team. In return, the Vegans received a draft choice for not taking a player that teams couldn’t protect. I believe the Penguins were so cash strapped that they may have sent a pic to the Vegans to take Fleury. So the Vegans had a ton of pics and made a lot of trades to better their roster. They also took chances on a lot of talented players that other teams were looking to get rid of. Theodore, Karlsson, Reaves, and they gelled incredibly well. So those pics they got are still providing value as they use them for trades for guys like Pacioretti, Stone etc. That’s why they’re so good. They’re loaded and ready to rock!!! |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Aug 14, 2020 19:18:07 GMT -6
T: Can you explain the process involved in the stupid trades of not taking a certain player in return for a 2d rounder that you described? I don't get how that worked to make Vegas so good in the first year of play. Thanks. Vegas agreed to not select a certain player from a team. In return, the Vegans received a draft choice for not taking a player that teams couldn’t protect. I believe the Penguins were so cash strapped that they may have sent a pic to the Vegans to take Fleury. So the Vegans had a ton of pics and made a lot of trades to better their roster. They also took chances on a lot of talented players that other teams were looking to get rid of. Theodore, Karlsson, Reaves, and they gelled incredibly well. So those pics they got are still providing value as they use them for trades for guys like Pacioretti, Stone etc. That’s why they’re so good. They’re loaded and ready to rock!!! Thanks, as you said, they were well managed and made smart moves, unlike some other team I know about. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 15, 2020 8:21:47 GMT -6
I agree with you, but it makes me even more p-o'd that my team can't do over years what they did immediately! We do have 3 cups in the 2010's...so there's that. The way I see it though is that Vegas was given mediocrity and rose above it to become better than the sum of its parts. The 'hawks in comparison lost all team mentality after the 2015 cup and became worse than the sum of its parts. IMHO that's not on Vegas. That's on Stan, JC, and the players on the ice for the 'hawks. I won't begrudge Vegas for their comparative success because they did everything right and we did everything wrong. IMHO the 'hawks in their entirety could (re)learn something from Vegas. Great post. There’s no point in hating the Vegans cuz they did things right. My complaint is that if people watch the Vegans, and see that they don’t really have a super star, why can’t the Hawks be better? Seriously, the team on the ice is not very good. I know I know I don’t give chances to guys like Boqvist, Highmore, Strome, etc. But look at the small kid picked just one spot in front of Boqvist. He’s probably the best player in the playoffs right now, and the same age and same position. Now we have the exact same fill that Stan had before, but they’re younger, and he can sell patience for another year or two. Good players show something right away, maybe not their full potential, but they’ll show they belong. And most of Stan’s kids he brought in haven’t shown that yet. But we’re in a cap crunch so expect more kids and more problems!!! |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Aug 15, 2020 8:26:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Aug 15, 2020 11:15:22 GMT -6
We do have 3 cups in the 2010's...so there's that. The way I see it though is that Vegas was given mediocrity and rose above it to become better than the sum of its parts. The 'hawks in comparison lost all team mentality after the 2015 cup and became worse than the sum of its parts. IMHO that's not on Vegas. That's on Stan, JC, and the players on the ice for the 'hawks. I won't begrudge Vegas for their comparative success because they did everything right and we did everything wrong. IMHO the 'hawks in their entirety could (re)learn something from Vegas. Great post. There’s no point in hating the Vegans cuz they did things right. My complaint is that if people watch the Vegans, and see that they don’t really have a super star, why can’t the Hawks be better? Seriously, the team on the ice is not very good. I know I know I don’t give chances to guys like Boqvist, Highmore, Strome, etc. But look at the small kid picked just one spot in front of Boqvist. He’s probably the best player in the playoffs right now, and the same age and same position. Now we have the exact same fill that Stan had before, but they’re younger, and he can sell patience for another year or two. Good players show something right away, maybe not their full potential, but they’ll show they belong. And most of Stan’s kids he brought in haven’t shown that yet. But we’re in a cap crunch so expect more kids and more problems!!! Kids are the problem, coach is the problem, GM is the problem...and the old core is also a problem. Toews gift wrapped turnover in game 1 and blowing coverage in OT is on him. Crawford's Meh. play is on him. Keith being schizo is on him. Kane being lazy is on him. As I've said for a few years...the rot is systemic. No one is absolved from blame. The 'hawks could be better with an organization-wide kick in the pants...but that won't happen until shit changes top-down. |
|
