Crawford should have stopped the Game Winner?


Give me a freaking break.
- CBHawks88

Said he "could" have. You can read, right?

I said it last night and ill say it again....

Hawks are not winning this series unless they get major contributions from the pp. it's going to end in 6 and the refs, Crawford, Bolig, or stalberg will have very little to do with it.

Boston has dominated this series. Half of period 1, all of period 2, half of period 3, and 90% of ot in game 1. Game 2....the last 35 minutes plus ALL of ot.

Leddy....awful. Seeing him get walked by a 3rd line player by choosing to throw a half @ss attempt at a stick check is a joke. He's been brutal all playoffs. He and seabrook are neck and neck for the title.

Core.....a goal from sharp, and an assist from hossa. Are toews and Kane playing? Getting very tired of all the lap articles for toews as he hits at 1 goal tied with bollan and saad.

70% of game 2 winners win the cup. Boston has proven they can handle the hawks without their ideal matchups what happens in Boston? I sense at least 1 blowout.

So let the stalberg militia let loose. He can come down from a top mt hockey elite and bless all of us with his once in a lifetime skill set.

I said it last night and ill say it again....

Hawks are not winning this series unless they get major contributions from the pp. it's going to end in 6 and the refs, Crawford, Bolig, or stalberg will have very little to do with it.

Boston has dominated this series. Half of period 1, all of period 2, half of period 3, and 90% of ot in game 1. Game 2....the last 35 minutes plus ALL of ot.

Leddy....awful. Seeing him get walked by a 3rd line player by choosing to throw a half @ss attempt at a stick check is a joke. He's been brutal all playoffs. He and seabrook are neck and neck for the title.

Core.....a goal from sharp, and an assist from hossa. Are toews and Kane playing? Getting very tired of all the lap articles for toews as he hits at 1 goal tied with bollan and saad.

70% of game 2 winners win the cup. Boston has proven they can handle the hawks without their ideal matchups what happens in Boston? I sense at least 1 blowout.

So let the stalberg militia let loose. He can come down from a top mt hockey elite and bless all of us with his once in a lifetime skill set.
- SteveRain

u were all there pal.

I agree...Boston kicked the crap out of CHicago tonight. Give the other team kudos...then again Boston didn't give the Hawks any credit after the game 1 win either.

Worst Player Award goes to Brent Seabrook with honorable mention to all other defensive players except for Rosival...and we need a goal from #19...he has 1 goal in the entire playoffs. Not good enough. Sharp was the only consistently good forward tonight, though I thought Hossa, Frolik and Kruger were also good.

The rest pretty much sucked.

And Crawford did not get outplayed by Raask. Both goalies played great, certainly good enough to win.
- kwolf68

Crawford was good, Rask was better. Sorry.

I thought the 2nd PP marked the tuning point of the game in terms of momentum. They never did find their pace or rhythm after that.
- Tugboat

The Hawks lose momentum after their power plays. Boston should not be concerned about taking penalties which means they can clutch and grab all they want.

Too many guys coughing pucks up on the boards, in our end, in the neutral zone and at their blue line. If you can't get it out and get it deep CONSISTENTLY...you deserve to lose.
- philco28

Yep

The Hawks lose momentum after their power plays. Boston should not be concerned about taking penalties which means they can clutch and grab all they want.
- jhawk159

Yep

There is no good reason that Stalberg isn't playing. They could really use his speed right now.
- fvineze

He is either in Q's doghouse or the organization has given up on him.

Most people of this board don't seem to like him

I am not one of those sharing that view

Stalberg contributes more than Bolligg but everyone points to goal production

If that was the yard stick 80 % of the Hawks would be a healthy scratch

He played all year and his speed creates open ice so I for one do not understand why he isn't playing.
Hope they make the change in Boston

He is either in Q's doghouse or the organization has given up on him.

Most people of this board don't seem to like him

I am not one of those sharing that view

Stalberg contributes more than Bolligg but everyone points to goal production

If that was the yard stick 80 % of the Hawks would be a healthy scratch

He played all year and his speed creates open ice so I for one do not understand why he isn't playing.
Hope they make the change in Boston
- PEIHawkFan

time for the speed monster.

Maybe Q should try lining up Bollig against Lucic since he's running all over everyone else. At some point they probably get in a scrap and I like that trade off.

He is either in Q's doghouse or the organization has given up on him.

Most people of this board don't seem to like him

I am not one of those sharing that view

Stalberg contributes more than Bolligg but everyone points to goal production

If that was the yard stick 80 % of the Hawks would be a healthy scratch

He played all year and his speed creates open ice so I for one do not understand why he isn't playing.
Hope they make the change in Boston
- PEIHawkFan

we are playing an even game, i guess, what else do we have. we have something, they have nothing in their change book, whatever.

Said he "could" have. You can read, right?
- John Jaeckel

Sorry to nitpick, but if the task of the goaltender is to stop pucks from going into the net, then could have and should have are, essentially, lexically synonymous.

Maybe Q should try lining up Bollig against Lucic since he's running all over everyone else. At some point they probably get in a scrap and I like that trade off.
- jhawk159

i like ur idea, in theory, but not right now in the finals. plus bollig cant do it, and he is a liability.

Sorry to nitpick, but if the task of the goaltender is to stop pucks from going into the net, then could have and should have are, essentially, lexically synonymous.
- Tugboat

funny, are you really in a joking mood right now?

JJ- im so sick of you saying Crawford didn't do this or didn't make a save, the damn dude is playing way above what anyone has expected all year...... he has been at the top of every goaltending stat from the start of season. give credit where credit is due...... he is the reason why we made it to OT tonight...... heres another thing, Boston looked terrible against Toronto , the only thing the maple leafs had over boston is team speed, and what do we do, Q benches one of the fastest players in the league for bollig, just terrible, stally opens up space ad has a big body and offense skill. I would be willing to bet that stally chips that puck out and we are still playing, but no that didn't happen because bollig just waved and cost us the game..... I know you cant blame one player but still
- hawks5

Then don't read it.

Bollig did not cost the Hawks the game, because it is just as easy to say—because it's TRUE—Crawford COULD HAVE stopped that shot. It was from nearly 30 feet., right over his glove.

Crawford was very good at times, but Rask was better. They were both about the same in game 1.

Crawford, your dear sweet "Crow" is an ok goalie. The Hawks (and the Bruins) have the best defense in the league. When it breaks down, he can be exposed. He is ok. He makes some great saves and he lets some in that the elite goalies stop. Sorry if you can't take that.

Ray Emery, with one hip, had basically the same numbers—pretty much exactly the same, as Crawford did this season.

All I said was Rask was better last night—which he was. Crawford was very good at times, but he WAS saved by posts when he was beaten twice (Marchand's would have been a very soft goal and he WAS beaten) and he could have had the game winner. Did not say he SHOULD have. Nor am I blaming himin particular for the loss.

You kiddies need to learn to read.

Crawford needs to be better, because the only way Rask is getting beaten is through deflections, a Hawk player getting deposited on top of him or well executed 2 on 1's. Crawford got beaten by a 30 foot shot over his glove—in Game 1 AND Game 2. There's a difference. Period.

Sorry to nitpick, but if the task of the goaltender is to stop pucks from going into the net, then could have and should have are, essentially, lexically synonymous.
- Tugboat

No, I get you, but I really meant it was saveable, not that it was soft. Soft,to me says, he absolutely should have saved it. No goalie saves every one that is conceivably saveable.

Crawford has been beaten by that same basic shot the last two games—saveable but not soft. Rask hasn't.

And let me be clear, Crawford is far from the only one who needs to be better. And not the worst culprit.

But anyone saying he is playing as well as Rask is fooling themselves.

Rask is making stops that Crawford isn't. And he is seeing more shots.

1-1, going back to Boston. Crawford will need to be better, because Rask is playing slightly better—as well as Crawford is playing.

Then don't read it.

Bollig did not cost the Hawks the game, because it is just as easy to say—because it's TRUE—Crawford COULD HAVE stopped that shot. It was from nearly 30 feet., right over his glove.

Crawford was very good at times, but Rask was better. They were both about the same in game 1.

Crawford, your dear sweet "Crow" is an ok goalie. The Hawks (and the Bruins) have the best defense in the league. When it breaks down, he can be exposed. He is ok. He makes some great saves and he lets some in that the elite goalies stop. Sorry if you can't take that.

Ray Emery, with one hip, had basically the same numbers—pretty much exactly the same, as Crawford did this season.

All I said was Rask was better last night—which he was. Crawford was very good at times, but he WAS saved by posts when he was beaten twice (Marchand's would have been a very soft goal and he WAS beaten) and he could have had the game winner. Did not say he SHOULD have. Nor am I blaming himin particular for the loss.

You kiddies need to learn to read.

Crawford needs to be better, because the only way Rask is getting beaten is through deflections, a Hawk player getting deposited on top of him or well executed 2 on 1's. Crawford got beaten by a 30 foot shot over his glove—in Game 1 AND Game 2. There's a difference. Period.
- John Jaeckel

Rask was beaten by Saad on exactly the same shot in game 1

Rask was beaten by Saad on exactly the same shot in game 1
- PEIHawkFan

True, but he wasn't last night.I believe the guy was a bit further out last night than Saad was, maybe not. Also I believe Saad's shot was higher. Minor details. But I don't think anyone was stopping Saad's. The one last night, gets saved by some goalies, including Crawford, in some situations.

They played the same in game 1, Rask was better last night. As I have been saying.

Ok, after a night of sleep and some coffee....

Its 1-1 after 2.

Home Ice matters , but no really that much.....

I do hate the fact that the Hawks could of had Boston on the ropes but they don't.


It really sucks that the Hawks have had 3 legitimate goals waved off but that's what happens sometimes. The Hawks got away with some penalties and the Bruins got away with some stick penalities, gotta find a way to fight through it.

The Hawks could have avoided all this with one simple POWER PLAY GOAL .

1-0 wasn't going to hold up in this game , Hawks were not desperate or aggressive enough trying to get up 2-0

To have 4 shots on goal in the second period after 19 in the first is inexcusable... its phucked up actually.
- mrpaulish

HNIC showed a viable explanation for the reason Chicago slowed down. The physical pounding by the Bruins is making allot of Hawks nervous, if not timid. One example was they showed was Hjalmersson taking three huge hits by Lucic, the next time Hjalmersson had the puck with Lucic bearing down on him he quickly just dumped it out into the middle of the ice right to a Bruin player.

Can the Hawks recollect themselves and take a hit to make a play of is the physical play by the Bruins going to slowly but surely wear the Hawks down and beat them into submission?

The Hawks lose momentum after their power plays. Boston should not be concerned about taking penalties which means they can clutch and grab all they want.
- jhawk159

This.

True, but he wasn't last night. They played the same in game 1, Rask was better last night. As I have been saying.
- John Jaeckel

John do you see any flaws in Rask's game that they can exploit?

Maybe Q should try lining up Bollig against Lucic since he's running all over everyone else. At some point they probably get in a scrap and I like that trade off.
- jhawk159

Lucic will run circles around Bollig, steal his girlfriend, kick his dog and Bollig will be left not having a clue what just happened.

HNIC showed a viable explanation for the reason Chicago slowed down. The physical pounding by the Bruins is making allot of Hawks nervous, if not timid. One example was they showed was Hjalmersson taking three huge hits by Lucic, the next time Hjalmersson had the puck with Lucic bearing down on him he quickly just dumped it out into the middle of the ice right to a Bruin player.

Can the Hawks recollect themselves and take a hit to make a play of is the physical play by the Bruins going to slowly but surely wear the Hawks down and beat them into submission?
- paulr

Yep, and he's not the only one

John do you see any flaws in Rask's game that they can exploit?
- jhawk159

GET BODIES AND SHOTS ON HIM!!!