Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Intrepid Reader: Fro DogQuoteHey Slak, your friends want you over there.
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Intrepid Reader: Fro Dog
QuoteHey Slak, your friends want you over there.
Told him to cock block you, and that's what he came up with? When I left he was working a 40something who looked like 5 miles of bad road.
Quote from: Fork on June 18, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Intrepid Reader: Fro Dog
QuoteHey Slak, your friends want you over there.
Told him to cock block you, and that's what he came up with? When I left he was working a 40something who looked like 5 miles of bad road.
It was pathetic. Then I got yelled at for letting him talk.
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 03:55:49 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 18, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 18, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Bollig and Smith re-sign for 2 years. People are mad about Bollig returning. His first year is a two-way deal and the second year is a one way. Read into that however you want. Some people have already decided it means Stink Bowman should be executed.
Anyway, for those who didn't make it to the MalortFest on Friday, that being most of you, you missed Fro trying to hit on all of the things with vaginas - at one point he even interrupted me mid-conversation so he could work his magic. It was woeful.
Intrepid Reader: Fro Dog
QuoteHey Slak, your friends want you over there.
Told him to cock block you, and that's what he came up with? When I left he was working a 40something who looked like 5 miles of bad road.
It was pathetic. Then I got yelled at for letting him talk.
BTW, that redhead is our newest writer.
DPD.
Enjoying Meatball Nation clamoring for the Hawks to draft Malcom Subban, even though he'd be a waste of the 18th pick, and hockey draft picks take almost as long to develop on average than baseball draft picks do.
Bowstink strikes out on the Parise/Suter combo.
The good news is, this sends the Red Wings asshurt to DEFCON 1 levels.
http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/7/4/3137174/go-ahead-and-panic-here-if-youd-like-wings-miss-big-free-agents
Quote from: CT III on July 04, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
Bowstink strikes out on the Parise/Suter combo.
The good news is, this sends the Red Wings asshurt to DEFCON 1 levels.
http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/7/4/3137174/go-ahead-and-panic-here-if-youd-like-wings-miss-big-free-agents
Matt Carle's off the table too - signed with the Lightning. Wonder if Ken Holland is on the phone begging Nicklas Lidstrom to come back for another year yet.
Quote from: CT III on July 04, 2012, 07:41:39 PM
Bowstink strikes out on the Parise/Suter combo.
The good news is, this sends the Red Wings asshurt to DEFCON 1 levels.
http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/7/4/3137174/go-ahead-and-panic-here-if-youd-like-wings-miss-big-free-agents
Quote from: japobereGood for them. I hope MN flounders like they always flounder and S&P can only watch as the Wings bring home cup after cup while they're stuck in the wild for 13 years.
You can only hope.
Quote from: AppStateYou know what, Kenny? Fuck it.
Just sign Semin and Doan. Trade for Perry. Let's just not play D anymore. We'll just beat everyone 7-5
Quote from: DarkKnt1047Worked for Chicago a couple years ago...
Wait...
what?Quote from: HARPER13I just don't understand what's so unappealing about Detroit?
Heh.
LUONGO SPORTZ
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
LUONGO SPORTZ
If Mike Gillis is really willing to see Roberto Luongo's next appearance in Vancouver to be in an Indian Head, then he's a worse GM than Scott Howson.
Quote from: Fork on July 07, 2012, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
LUONGO SPORTZ
If Mike Gillis is really willing to see Roberto Luongo's next appearance in Vancouver to be in an Indian Head, then he's a worse GM than Scott Howson.
I don't see it coming to that, honestly. I would like it but I can't see it.
If management is really telling Bowman he needs to make something happen just for the sake of shaking things up then management should shut the fuck up.
If I'm Bowman, I'd put my job on the line and roll with a similar roster rather than do something stupid just to appease the front office.
Quote from: Slaky on July 08, 2012, 11:58:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 07, 2012, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
LUONGO SPORTZ
If Mike Gillis is really willing to see Roberto Luongo's next appearance in Vancouver to be in an Indian Head, then he's a worse GM than Scott Howson.
I don't see it coming to that, honestly. I would like it but I can't see it.
If management is really telling Bowman he needs to make something happen just for the sake of shaking things up then management should shut the fuck up.
If I'm Bowman, I'd put my job on the line and roll with a similar roster rather than do something stupid just to appease the front office.
I assume you mean ownership, yes? Or McDonough. I mean, Bowman's part of management and the front office.
Anyone who honestly thinks Scotty Bowman will bend to pressure from John McDonough is sorely mistaken.
Quote from: Fork on July 08, 2012, 06:26:42 PM
Anyone who honestly thinks Scotty Bowman will bend to pressure from John McDonough is sorely mistaken.
Scotty? The power behind the throne?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 08, 2012, 06:45:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 08, 2012, 06:26:42 PM
Anyone who honestly thinks Scotty Bowman will bend to pressure from John McDonough is sorely mistaken.
Scotty? The power behind the throne?
Yeah. He had his guy run Q's practice to try fixing the power play.
Quote from: Fork on July 08, 2012, 06:26:42 PM
Anyone who honestly thinks Scotty Bowman will bend to pressure from John McDonough is sorely mistaken.
Anyone who thinks meatball's have rationality are themselves irrational.
When I say management I mean Wirtz and the hockey operations people, aka Scotty Bowman.
Like Fork said, if Scotty Bowman got any lip from McDonough he'd have quit the Hawks long ago.
Morph is still a genious.
(http://i.imgur.com/tTJ9m.jpg)
Opening Night October 13?
Don't count on it (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/08/13/grange_nhl_cba_negotiations/).
http://twitter.com/aladd16/status/268415310443458560
Quote from: Michael Richards @MRichie_10Whoever's up for a street hockey game, meet me on top of the parking garage at the Forks at 4PM. Need the best in Winnipeg for my team.
Quote from: Andrew Ladd @aladd16I'll be taking on @mrichie_10's team at 4PM at the Forks. Re-opening the wound from 2010. Should I bring my ring? Who's in?
(If you guys need Buff's stick, you might try checking here (http://www.theforks.com/dining/show,listing/forks-market/all-categories/99/mini-donuts-factory).)
http://pics.lockerz.com/s/261196668
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 07:06:31 PM
http://pics.lockerz.com/s/261196668
I. Hate. Winnipeg. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq_s_q0u2DA)
http://zachwolfswanderinglens.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/nhl-players-gather-atop-parking-garage-for-impromptu-hockey-game-with-fans/
There's at least word that they've agreed on some stuff (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/20/report-nhl-and-nhlpa-agree-to-move-free-agency-start-date-trading-cap-space/).
Also, today the NHLPA's making an offer to the owners, which is expected to include the players moving off setting hard dollar amounts for "make whole" and going with a percentage, like the owners have held the line on. There's a pretty good chance the train is finally pulling into the station on this one, unless the owners do another 30 minute rejection.
Quote from: Fork on November 21, 2012, 09:32:39 AM
There's at least word that they've agreed on some stuff (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/20/report-nhl-and-nhlpa-agree-to-move-free-agency-start-date-trading-cap-space/).
Also, today the NHLPA's making an offer to the owners, which is expected to include the players moving off setting hard dollar amounts for "make whole" and going with a percentage, like the owners have held the line on. There's a pretty good chance the train is finally pulling into the station on this one, unless the owners do another 30 minute rejection.
I disagree. They'll dismiss it and cancel games through mid-December. Season definitely not over.
I guess we're going to find out in a minute. My twitter feed is fucked up though.
This (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/23/fan-asks-chicagos-bolland-for-wanting-bettman-dead-re-tweet-bolland-obliges/) was not a good idea.
Quote from: Fork on November 23, 2012, 05:55:47 PM
This (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/23/fan-asks-chicagos-bolland-for-wanting-bettman-dead-re-tweet-bolland-obliges/) was not a good idea.
But sure to be nominated for a Chicago Emmy.
Mediation (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410329). Last time they had a mediator, the season was cancelled 3 days later.
Quote from: Fork on November 26, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Mediation (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410329). Last time they had a mediator, the season was cancelled 3 days later.
(http://pendletonpanther.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/debbie.gif?w=480)
Quote from: Fork on November 26, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Mediation (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410329). Last time they had a mediator, the season was cancelled 3 days later.
They can still get a contract together and have around a 40 game season even in mid to late January.
Ticketmaster: still assholes.
(http://i.imgur.com/r644F.png)
Quote from: Slaky on November 26, 2012, 03:17:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 26, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Mediation (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410329). Last time they had a mediator, the season was cancelled 3 days later.
(http://pendletonpanther.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/debbie.gif?w=480)
About one of those mediators...
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/Creepy-Federal-Mediator-Hired-Fired-Within-Two-Hours/134/47682
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 26, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
Ticketmaster: still assholes.
(http://i.imgur.com/r644F.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/WelfM.png)
However far apart the players and owners are at this stage of the game, Gary Bettman's newfound urgency is a pretty clear indicator that whatever difference still remain aren't enough for the owners to sacrifice an entire year of revenue.
This whole thing looks like it'll be wrapped up in a few days, and in the meantime we can bask in the glow of Team USA at the World Juniors.
Quote from: Fork on January 03, 2013, 06:53:19 AM
However far apart the players and owners are at this stage of the game, Gary Bettman's newfound urgency is a pretty clear indicator that whatever difference still remain aren't enough for the owners to sacrifice an entire year of revenue.
This whole thing looks like it'll be wrapped up in a few days, and in the meantime we can bask in the glow of Team USA at the World Juniors.
Thank fuck for that.
Kyle Beach goes all Alex Zhamnov and scores 50 goals and 300pIMs now right?
Quote from: BBM on January 06, 2013, 10:11:27 PM
Kyle Beach goes all Alex Zhamnov and scores 50 goals and 300pIMs now right?
Does that mean he's texting from the penalty box?
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 07, 2013, 07:39:45 AM
Quote from: BBM on January 06, 2013, 10:11:27 PM
Kyle Beach goes all Alex Zhamnov and scores 50 goals and 300pIMs now right?
Does that mean he's texting from the penalty box?
He'd set his spellcheck on fire.
KANER
There has been a decided lack of bullshit tolerance by this team.
Bullshit toleration at a(n) historically low level.
Since everyone who goes to a game the Hawks win gets a free Egg McMuffin, I'm pretty sure they're fucking killing McDonald's right about now.
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2013, 10:15:14 AM
Since everyone who goes to a game the Hawks win gets a free Egg McMuffin, I'm pretty sure they're fucking killing McDonald's right about now.
More like killing themselves.
#EndTheStreak
In accordance with his no-bullshit-toleration policy, Jonathan Toews uses the reflection in the glass to spot Brent Seabrook for the pass leading to the game winner in OT.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cDm-dGJ_Imo/UTGIuxrxAyI/AAAAAAAAATg/e5dhcJ-xl4I/s512/ToewsPassSeabrookGoal.png)
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
That guy's a douche.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xdVn42-vOt8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxdVn42-vOt8
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
What? A sexy assist?
Yeah, one of the two has roughly twice as many career assists as goals. Many of those of the sexy variety. The other is one of the league's premier two-way centers and is already talked about as a latter day Steve Yzerman.
Which is to say: No, Chuck.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 02, 2013, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
What? A sexy assist?
Yeah, one of the two has roughly twice as many career assists as goals. Many of those of the sexy variety. The other is one of the league's premier two-way centers and is already talked about as a latter day Steve Yzerman.
Which is to say: No, Chuck.
I sure wish that first guy made plays like that second guy does.
(http://i.imgur.com/htrcPrj.gif)
So we're arguing the merits of the finest perimeter player on Planet Earth (and quite possibly the best playmaking forward since #99) vs. one of the best, if not THE best two-way player in the NHL?
Goddamn, I love this team.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
I have zero interest in hockey and don't understand the sport at all, but I ventured in here to say that even *I* can tell that this is dumb.
Carry on!
Quote from: Eli on March 04, 2013, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
I have zero interest in hockey and don't understand the sport at all, but I ventured in here to say that even *I* can tell that this is dumb.
Carry on!
I thought we had an agreement on not linking Fro's stuff anymore.
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2013, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 04, 2013, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
I have zero interest in hockey and don't understand the sport at all, but I ventured in here to say that even *I* can tell that this is dumb.
Carry on!
I thought we had an agreement on not linking Fro's stuff anymore.
Hiyo!
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2013, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 04, 2013, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
I have zero interest in hockey and don't understand the sport at all, but I ventured in here to say that even *I* can tell that this is dumb.
Carry on!
I thought we had an agreement on not linking Fro's stuff anymore.
I don't know what you mean but it had the cadence of a joke
Quote from: Eli on March 05, 2013, 08:11:13 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2013, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 04, 2013, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
Someone I know once said to me, "Kane will win scoring titles. Toews will win Stanley Cups."
Pretty good example of why that guy said that.
I have zero interest in hockey and don't understand the sport at all, but I ventured in here to say that even *I* can tell that this is dumb.
Carry on!
I thought we had an agreement on not linking Fro's stuff anymore.
I don't know what you mean but it had the cadence of a joke
I don't know the answer to that, but your tone makes me think: Yes.
Is this (http://thecommittedindian.com/shiftless-when-idle-hawks-5-wild-3/) Gorilla Salad going mainstream? In so much as The Indian being mainstream compared to Hockeenight.
No offence.
Quote from: Oleg on March 06, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Is this (http://thecommittedindian.com/shiftless-when-idle-hawks-5-wild-3/) Gorilla Salad going mainstream? In so much as The Indian being mainstream compared to Hockeenight.
No offence.
Insomuch as two members of Hockeenight are listed as "contributors" in the print edition of the Indian, none taken.
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Quote from: CT III on March 07, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Apparently.
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 07, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Apparently.
I saw that last night on Twitter and was blown away by the ability to find sexism is a simple pubic hair reference.
Quote from: Bort on March 07, 2013, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 07, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Apparently.
I saw that last night on Twitter and was blown away by the ability to find sexism is a simple pubic hair reference.
Isn't having untamed insanely gross pubic hair a hygiene thing vs. a woman thing?
If you happen to be a woman trim your shit. If you're a dude, trim your shit.
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 10:39:41 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 07, 2013, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 07, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Apparently.
I saw that last night on Twitter and was blown away by the ability to find sexism is a simple pubic hair reference.
Isn't having untamed insanely gross pubic hair a hygiene thing vs. a woman thing?
If you happen to be a woman trim your shit. If you're a dude, trim your shit.
And then glue it to your buddy's face. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mk16_it-s-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-g_fun#.UTjEgBwjn-s)
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 10:45:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 10:39:41 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 07, 2013, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 07, 2013, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 07, 2013, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: Tony on March 07, 2013, 08:48:26 AM
I'm always late to the party on stuff like this, like I was with Shaw facts, but figured it was safe to assume that Hockeenight was behind the Gorilla Salad phenomenon.
It is always safe to assume that.
Did you know guys don't have pubes?
Is that why I keep seeing people say that this is sexist?
Apparently.
I saw that last night on Twitter and was blown away by the ability to find sexism is a simple pubic hair reference.
Isn't having untamed insanely gross pubic hair a hygiene thing vs. a woman thing?
If you happen to be a woman trim your shit. If you're a dude, trim your shit.
And then glue it to your buddy's face. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mk16_it-s-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-g_fun#.UTjEgBwjn-s)
sexist
Doom.
On the bright side, they made the cover of SI.
(http://i.imgur.com/P1dfg2Z.jpg)
Thank you.
Bowstink is terrible.
Michal Handzus returns, to tear off the scab Slak still had from Kyle Calder being traded away.
Quote from: Fork on April 01, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Michal Handzus returns, to tear off the scab Slak still had from Kyle Calder being traded away.
Stan Bowman just righted a major wrong.
Quote from: Slaky on April 01, 2013, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 01, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Michal Handzus returns, to tear off the scab Slak still had from Kyle Calder being traded away.
Stan Bowman just righted a major wrong.
WEN'S HE GONNA BRING CRISTIAN LAFLAME BACK?
"Despite the fact that they've had a tremendous amount of sex..." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AlU2RpM1TI)
1 puppy down, 15 to go.
(http://i.imgur.com/HB7oMfk.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on May 01, 2013, 08:44:08 AM
1 puppy down, 15 to go.
(http://i.imgur.com/HB7oMfk.jpg)
This is the best and worst thing I've ever seen at the exact same time.
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 01, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 01, 2013, 08:44:08 AM
1 puppy down, 15 to go.
(http://i.imgur.com/HB7oMfk.jpg)
This is the best and worst thing I've ever seen at the exact same time.
WHY DON'T THEY JUST MAKE THE WHOLE SLAK OUT OF PUPPIES?
Detroit sucks.
Update: down to 12 puppies.
(http://i.imgur.com/jduo75F.jpg)
This is not what I would consider a bold prediction, but if Patrick Sharp maintains this level of play the Hawks are going to win the Cup and he's going to win the Conn Smythe.
11 Puppies to go. We've got a bare foot now.
(http://i.imgur.com/MF3i9fD.jpg)
Last night Duncan Keith was on-ice for 24 of Pavel Datsyuk's 27 shifts. Datsyuk had 0 shots.
That's pretty good.
Was just told that Montador would be an upgrade for game 4 over the expendable Rozsival.
Quote from: Slaky on May 21, 2013, 12:55:19 PM
Was just told that Montador would be an upgrade for game 4 over the expendable Rozsival.
Zuh?
Quote from: CT III on May 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 21, 2013, 12:55:19 PM
Was just told that Montador would be an upgrade for game 4 over the expendable Rozsival.
Zuh?
Don't you guys get it? Rozsival is SLOW.
9.
(http://i.imgur.com/7dz3twO.jpg)
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Wade into a Pacers blog sometime. No. Don't.
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 28, 2013, 02:11:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Wade into a Pacers blog sometime. No. Don't.
I get my referee grades from www.lebronsflopping.wordpress.com
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Screw the tinfoil hat-wearing blogosphere asshats; I'm more amused by the absolute clearing out, LA-Dodger style, of the stands after Frolik's penalty last night. Holy shit you're sitting behind the glass and can't stay until the end of a 1-goal game? That's some weak sauce.
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock? I mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's--regular season or otherwise. As I didn't expect Frolik to make the shot last night (by making it, he becomes the only man to ever score 2 penalty shots in the NHL playoffs), I would've preferred the Hawks take the penalty and hold the puck. In general, I would prefer teams are given the option to accept the penalty shot or the 2 minutes.
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Screw the tinfoil hat-wearing blogosphere asshats; I'm more amused by the absolute clearing out, LA-Dodger style, of the stands after Frolik's penalty last night. Holy shit you're sitting behind the glass and can't stay until the end of a 1-goal game? That's some weak sauce.
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock? I mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's--regular season or otherwise. As I didn't expect Frolik to make the shot last night (by making it, he becomes the only man to ever score 2 penalty shots in the NHL playoffs), I would've preferred the Hawks take the penalty and hold the puck. In general, I would prefer teams are given the option to accept the penalty shot or the 2 minutes.
Did you mean the road?
I remember a Hossa penalty shot goal in January of 2011 in Chicago
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Screw the tinfoil hat-wearing blogosphere asshats; I'm more amused by the absolute clearing out, LA-Dodger style, of the stands after Frolik's penalty last night. Holy shit you're sitting behind the glass and can't stay until the end of a 1-goal game? That's some weak sauce.
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock? I mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's--regular season or otherwise. As I didn't expect Frolik to make the shot last night (by making it, he becomes the only man to ever score 2 penalty shots in the NHL playoffs), I would've preferred the Hawks take the penalty and hold the puck. In general, I would prefer teams are given the option to accept the penalty shot or the 2 minutes.
I actually think there was a penalty on a Saad breakaway earlier in the series that was more penalty shot-worthy, but it was two minutes instead.
Quote from: Yeti on May 28, 2013, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 28, 2013, 01:43:56 PM
I realize our fans are idiots just like every single team that's ever existed but the Detroit Red Wings blogs are still going on about officiating. I don't think I've ever seen that from the CI and certainly not from us.
Screw the tinfoil hat-wearing blogosphere asshats; I'm more amused by the absolute clearing out, LA-Dodger style, of the stands after Frolik's penalty last night. Holy shit you're sitting behind the glass and can't stay until the end of a 1-goal game? That's some weak sauce.
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock? I mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's--regular season or otherwise. As I didn't expect Frolik to make the shot last night (by making it, he becomes the only man to ever score 2 penalty shots in the NHL playoffs), I would've preferred the Hawks take the penalty and hold the puck. In general, I would prefer teams are given the option to accept the penalty shot or the 2 minutes.
Did you mean the road?
I remember a Hossa penalty shot goal in January of 2011 in Chicago
No I meant at home. My main point is that the success rate of penalty shots is not that great and, though they represent a clear shot on goal, that in certain situations--like last night--a 2-minute power play for the team with the lead may be preferred.
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock?
Probably.
The Hawks were only up a goal with the period not even half over. A goal there is worth way more than two minutes burned off of the clock.
And penalty shots convert at a higher percentage (per this data, 180/532 or 33.8% in the regular season since 2005 (http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2635/which-is-more-likely-to-result-in-a-goal-a-penalty-shot-or-a-power-play)) than even
the very best power plays (compare to WAS at 26.8% in the regular season or DET at 25.5% in the '08-09 regular season, the best 82-game mark since 2005), let alone the 2013 Hawks' weaker offering (16.6% regular season/18.2% postseason).
This is why a penalty shot is almost always better...
(http://i.imgur.com/NOSSqiZ.png)
TL;DR: YOU'RE OVERTHINKING IT, HUEY.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 28, 2013, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock?
Probably.
The Hawks were only up a goal with the period not even half over. A goal there is worth way more than two minutes burned off of the clock.
And penalty shots convert at a higher percentage (per this data, 180/532 or 33.8% in the regular season since 2005 (http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2635/which-is-more-likely-to-result-in-a-goal-a-penalty-shot-or-a-power-play)) than even the very best power plays (compare to WAS at 26.8% in the regular season or DET at 25.5% in the '08-09 regular season, the best 82-game mark since 2005), let alone the 2013 Hawks' weaker offering (16.6% regular season/18.2% postseason).
This is why a penalty shot is almost always better...
(http://i.imgur.com/NOSSqiZ.png)
TL;DR: YOU'RE OVERTHINKING IT, HUEY.
Maybe, but I'm not comparing success rate outcomes, just strategy. As neither play represents any sort of a sure thing, I'm just suggesting a puck possession strategy that, while it happens to yield worse odds at actually scoring, brings the game closer to a finish. Purely academic, obviously, but I'm just throwin' it out there.
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 28, 2013, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock?
Probably.
The Hawks were only up a goal with the period not even half over. A goal there is worth way more than two minutes burned off of the clock.
And penalty shots convert at a higher percentage (per this data, 180/532 or 33.8% in the regular season since 2005 (http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2635/which-is-more-likely-to-result-in-a-goal-a-penalty-shot-or-a-power-play)) than even the very best power plays (compare to WAS at 26.8% in the regular season or DET at 25.5% in the '08-09 regular season, the best 82-game mark since 2005), let alone the 2013 Hawks' weaker offering (16.6% regular season/18.2% postseason).
This is why a penalty shot is almost always better...
(http://i.imgur.com/NOSSqiZ.png)
TL;DR: YOU'RE OVERTHINKING IT, HUEY.
Maybe, but I'm not comparing success rate outcomes, just strategy. As neither play represents any sort of a sure thing, I'm just suggesting a puck possession strategy that, while it happens to yield worse odds at actually scoring, brings the game closer to a finish. Purely academic, obviously, but I'm just throwin' it out there.
When you're talking about a one goal lead, knowing there's going to be an extra-attacker in the final minute, I just don't see how you ever turn down the chance to go one on one with the goalie to theoretically play keep away for two minutes.
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Maybe, but I'm not comparing success rate outcomes, just strategy. As neither play represents any sort of a sure thing, I'm just suggesting a puck possession strategy that, while it happens to yield worse odds at actually scoring, brings the game closer to a finish. Purely academic, obviously, but I'm just throwin' it out there.
How much closer to a finish? 8:17 remaining instead of 10:17? Whoop-de-doo.
If we had an in-game win probabilities tool like people have made for baseball, football and basketball, we could probably look for an inflection point time- and score-wise at which the win probability gained by the Hawks with a penalty shot (over a power play) is
less than the win probability lost by the Wings to the two minutes burned off of the clock.
I'm not aware of such a thing existing, but my
hunch is that such an inflection point, if it even exists with a one-goal lead, wouldn't come until far later in the game.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 28, 2013, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Maybe, but I'm not comparing success rate outcomes, just strategy. As neither play represents any sort of a sure thing, I'm just suggesting a puck possession strategy that, while it happens to yield worse odds at actually scoring, brings the game closer to a finish. Purely academic, obviously, but I'm just throwin' it out there.
How much closer to a finish? 8:17 remaining instead of 10:17? Whoop-de-doo.
If we had an in-game win probabilities tool like people have made for baseball, football and basketball, we could probably look for an inflection point time- and score-wise at which the win probability gained by the Hawks with a penalty shot (over a power play) is less than the win probability lost by the Wings to the two minutes burned off of the clock.
I'm not aware of such a thing existing, but my hunch is that such an inflection point, if it even exists with a one-goal lead, wouldn't come until far later in the game.
I think you've missed the point. Huey doesn't care for your ZORPing Statfaggery. He's got his gut feeling*, dammit.
*His gut is telling him to find potatoes, soonest.
This is probably somewhat dubious, and is most certainly a dramatic oversimplification, but what the hell...
Per this (http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_team_statistics.php), the Wings scored 80 goals in 2277.6 5-on-5 minutes this season, and 3 shorties in 252.6 4-on-5 minutes. That makes for 0.023 fewer goals per minute 4-on-5 versus full strength.
By robbing them of a skater for two minutes, then, you're (theoretically and, again, probably dubiously) reducing their "expected goals" by 0.046.
So, by that number I think you could say that, if the Hawks' odds of scoring on a penalty shot are better than 4.6% greater than their odds of scoring on a power play, you want them to be taking the shot. I think.
The Hawks' regular season and playoffs power play was, by my reckoning, 30-for-178 (16.9%) coming into last night (including likely-higher-percentage 5-on-3s and what have you).
And, as far as Frolik's numbers go, he was a career 2-for-2 in penalty shots (1 (http://www.nhl.com/ice/gamestats.htm?season=20082009&gameType=2&team=&viewName=penaltyShots), 2 (http://www.nhl.com/ice/gamestats.htm?season=20102011&gameType=3&team=&viewName=penaltyShots)) before last night and 2-for-13 in shootout attempts (http://www.nhl.com/ice/shootoutstats.htm?fetchKey=20132ALLSAZAll&viewName=shootoutSkaterCareerTotals&sort=goals&pg=8), good for 4-for-15 (26.7%) overall in 1-on-goalie set pieces. (After last night he's 5-for-16 or 31.3%, a touch closer to the league average of 33.8%)
So...
Vanishingly small sample size aside, Frolik's penalty and shootout percentage bests the Hawks' PP% by at least 9.8%.
And, in turn, potential dubiousness of this entire damn exercise aside, a Frolik penalty shot is AT LEAST 5.2 BETTER than burning 2 minutes off the clock with a CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS POWER PLAY. (I think.)
You dumb mick.
TL;DR: Now I'm the one overthinking it.
Quote from: PANK! on May 28, 2013, 02:34:07 PM
Also, speaking of the Frolik penalty, am I the only one who would've been fine with a regular penalty, which would've likely shaved 2 minutes off the clock? I mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's--regular season or otherwise. As I didn't expect Frolik to make the shot last night (by making it, he becomes the only man to ever score 2 penalty shots in the NHL playoffs), I would've preferred the Hawks take the penalty and hold the puck. In general, I would prefer teams are given the option to accept the penalty shot or the 2 minutes.
Intrepid Reader: Marty MornhinwegMakes sense to me.
I'm not tryin' to be that YOU SHOULDNA WRITE ABOUT DA HOCKEY CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT guy, but holy shit, is this terrible.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/sports/sportsmondaytuesday_biggest_bl.php
QuoteCrawford was good enough and actually, he has been very good through 11 playoff games now. If the Hawks manage to win Game 7 versus the Wings (and remember that Hockey Town's finest just came out of a series in which they played a Game 7 on the road - in southern California for goodness sake - and won it), Crawford is likely the guy in front of the net the rest of the way.
So, if Crawford wins Game 7 it's likely he'll get the nod the rest of the way? Likely? What if he loses?
Quote from: CT III on May 28, 2013, 09:52:53 PM
So, if Crawford wins Game 7 it's likely he'll get the nod the rest of the way? Likely? What if he loses?
The rest of the way means for the rest of the NHL's existence. So, with Gary Bettman, that could be a few weeks.
Overthinking everything all over again, some problems with what I wrote above occurred to me on my drive back into Chicago tonight.
For one thing, I realized that I was overestimating the relative value of the Hawks power play by failing to account for the very real possibility of them scoring during the 5-on-5 not-a-power-play following the penalty shot attempt.
By way of atoning for this glaring boner, here's another amateur attempt at this particular laptop faggotry. (If anyone actually cares after this is all over, they can tell me how I bonered this time around.)
...
5 on 5 in the 2013 regular season, the Hawks scored 0.048 goals per minute and allowed 0.031, for a net of 0.017 goals more than the opposition per 5-on-5 minute.
5 on 4, they scored 0.077 per minute and allowed 0.020, for a net of 0.056 more goals than the opposition per 5-on-4 minute.
The value that a 5-on-4 power play added for the Hawks in the regular season, then, would be the difference between the two:
0.056 net goals per 5-on-4 minute
minus
0.017 net goals per 5-on-5 minute
equals
0.039 additional net goals per 5-on-4 minute
Hawks regular season power plays lasted an average of 1.744 minutes per opportunity (261.6 min/150 PPO). (This is an imperfect number for our purposes, as it also includes 5-on-3s, 4-on-3s and major penalties. But I can't find any numbers on just their total number of 5-on-4 2-minute minors, so this is the best I can manage.)
So the total value of a Hawks 5-on-4 works out to:
0.039 extra goals per 5-on-4 minute
times
1.744 minutes per 5-on-4
equals
0.069 additional net goals per 5-on-4 over what they'd expect 5-on-5
That's the expected net value of a Hawks 5-on-4 power play in place of 5-on-5 hockey: 0.069 goals.
The penalty shot is easier to reckon, as we have Frolik's career stats in penalty-shot-like situations as I shared above (small sample size and all): 4-for-15 or 26.7%, making each attempt by him worth roughly 0.267 expected goals.
That's the expected net value of a Michael Frolik penalty shot: 0.267 goals.
Thus, the total value of taking the shot over the power play is the difference between the two: 0.267 - 0.069 = 0.198 expected net goals.
Basically, if the 2013 Hawks were given five Frolik penalty shots in place of five 5-on-4 power plays in a game against a random opponent, you'd expect the goal differential to increase by one goal in the Hawks' favor.
...
We can also look at this from the Wings' perspective. Slightly more briefly...
5 on 5, the Wings scored 0.035 goals per minute and allowed 0.032, for 0.004 net goals per full strength minute.
4 on 5, the Wings scored 0.012 goals per minute and allowed 0.107, for -0.095 net goals per 4-on-5 minute.
The value the Wings lost going down a man, then, would be -0.099 net goals added per 4-on-5 minute.
Wings penalty kills averaged 1.612 minutes (264.3 min/164 TSH), making the total expected net value for a Detroit 4-on-5 PK -0.159 goals.
Now to the penalty shot. In his career, Jimmy Howard had let in 1 penalty shot in 6 attempts before last night, and 32 shootout goals on 117 attempts. That's 33-for-123, good for a 26.8% success rate by shooters or -0.268 net goals to Detroit per penalty-shot-like attempt.
For the Wings, then, the total "value" of Howard facing a penalty shot instead of having to play down a man is: (-0.268) - (-0.159) = -0.109 expected net goals.
In other words, if a random team were given ten penalty shots against Howard in place of ten 5-on-4 power plays, you'd expect the goal differential to increase by one in Wings' opponent's favor.
...
The truth, as any good sensible moderate will tell you, probably lies in somewhere the middle.
Taking that as our lazy centrist article of faith, we average the two numbers above (0.198 and 0.109) to find our bottom line:
0.1535 expected net goals added in the Hawks favor if they're given a Frolik-on-Howard penalty shot in place of a 5-on-4 power play.
I'll take it!
I'm still hung up on Huey saying the last two home penalty shot goals are Frolik, and then way back to Troy Murray
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 06:26:52 AM
I'm still hung up on Huey saying the last two home penalty shot goals are Frolik, and then way back to Troy Murray
I know you're an idiot who flunked out of college, but that was not what I said, Gomer.
Reading iz hard. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=266179;topic=8154.105;num_replies=108;sesc=05dd6ca8897628418c06a4cfc7067584#top)
QuoteI mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's
This remains true. You referenced a successful penalty shot made by Hossa before Frolik vs. Schneider, and you indicate that this goal was on the road, and of course Frolik's on Monday was on the road. I'd guess there have been others made throughout the years, and of course they'd all have been on the road. My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
How many home penalty shot opportunities did they get in those 25 years?
How many home penalty shot opportunities on a Sunday?
Also, how many meatballs can you fit in one potato?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 08:28:24 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
How many home penalty shot opportunities did they get in those 25 years?
Probably not many, but your research already demonstrates that the success rate is not that great--just greater than a typical power play.
I'm taking issue with the fact that Yeti can't read but insists on being a moronic jackhole.
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 06:26:52 AM
I'm still hung up on Huey saying the last two home penalty shot goals are Frolik, and then way back to Troy Murray
I know you're an idiot who flunked out of college, but that was not what I said, Gomer.
Reading iz hard. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=266179;topic=8154.105;num_replies=108;sesc=05dd6ca8897628418c06a4cfc7067584#top)
QuoteI mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's
This remains true. You referenced a successful penalty shot made by Hossa before Frolik vs. Schneider, and you indicate that this goal was on the road, and of course Frolik's on Monday was on the road. I'd guess there have been others made throughout the years, and of course they'd all have been on the road. My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
So, based on your timeline, it was Troy Murray sometime in the 80s, then no goal until Frolik in 2011...
However, this is the very least of what it is because I'm not looking through every game from 2011 and before. (I don't actually have the Murray goal because I don't feel like looking)
Troy Murray: sometime in the 80s
Marian Hossa: vs. Philadelphia 1/23/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201101230CHI.html)
Michael Frolik: vs. Vancouver 4/24/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201104240CHI.html)
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Frolik's goal on Monday was not at home, so I don't really know why you chose that as your criteria for the history of Blackhawks penalty shot goals.
And yes, this is picking nits, but something something potato fuck the Irish TBFA, PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION
You were probably too busy putting on your Packer bodypaint in preparation for the game that would make Jay Cutler a full-on pussy to remember that Hossa goal
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 06:26:52 AM
I'm still hung up on Huey saying the last two home penalty shot goals are Frolik, and then way back to Troy Murray
I know you're an idiot who flunked out of college, but that was not what I said, Gomer.
Reading iz hard. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=266179;topic=8154.105;num_replies=108;sesc=05dd6ca8897628418c06a4cfc7067584#top)
QuoteI mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's
This remains true. You referenced a successful penalty shot made by Hossa before Frolik vs. Schneider, and you indicate that this goal was on the road, and of course Frolik's on Monday was on the road. I'd guess there have been others made throughout the years, and of course they'd all have been on the road. My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
So, based on your timeline, it was Troy Murray sometime in the 80s, then no goal until Frolik in 2011...
However, this is the very least of what it is because I'm not looking through every game from 2011 and before. (I don't actually have the Murray goal because I don't feel like looking)
Troy Murray: sometime in the 80s
Marian Hossa: vs. Philadelphia 1/23/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201101230CHI.html)
Michael Frolik: vs. Vancouver 4/24/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201104240CHI.html)
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Frolik's goal on Monday was not at home, so I don't really know why you chose that as your criteria for the history of Blackhawks penalty shot goals.
And yes, this is picking nits, but something something potato fuck the Irish TBFA, PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION
I was not aware that Hossa had broken the string. My bad. Still somewhat irrelevant to your confusion.
Quote
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Frolik's goal on Monday was not at home, so I don't really know why you chose that as your criteria for the history of Blackhawks penalty shot goals.
Who said I was using it a criteria? I referenced the fact that a team went two-and-a-half decades without scoring a penalty shot at home to illustrate the difficulty in doing so. It was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true. I was wrong about Folik having been the one to have broken the streak but you're almost coming off as obtuse in your seeming inability understand my basic point.
OK, so is this the last game of the Red Wing rivalry as we know it? They come here once every three years and the Hawks go there once every three years and they don't play once every three years so Bettman can realize his plan of more Hawks games with Winnipeg, Nashville, Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado, Anaheim and San Jose and Detroit can earn the hate of diehard hockey fans in Miami, Tampa, and Raleigh?
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 29, 2013, 06:26:52 AM
I'm still hung up on Huey saying the last two home penalty shot goals are Frolik, and then way back to Troy Murray
I know you're an idiot who flunked out of college, but that was not what I said, Gomer.
Reading iz hard. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=266179;topic=8154.105;num_replies=108;sesc=05dd6ca8897628418c06a4cfc7067584#top)
QuoteI mean, until Frolik scored on a penalty shot while tearing Corey Schenider's groin in half 2 years ago, a Blackhawk had not scored on a penalty shot at home since Troy Murray in the 1980's
This remains true. You referenced a successful penalty shot made by Hossa before Frolik vs. Schneider, and you indicate that this goal was on the road, and of course Frolik's on Monday was on the road. I'd guess there have been others made throughout the years, and of course they'd all have been on the road. My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
So, based on your timeline, it was Troy Murray sometime in the 80s, then no goal until Frolik in 2011...
However, this is the very least of what it is because I'm not looking through every game from 2011 and before. (I don't actually have the Murray goal because I don't feel like looking)
Troy Murray: sometime in the 80s
Marian Hossa: vs. Philadelphia 1/23/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201101230CHI.html)
Michael Frolik: vs. Vancouver 4/24/11 (http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201104240CHI.html)
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Frolik's goal on Monday was not at home, so I don't really know why you chose that as your criteria for the history of Blackhawks penalty shot goals.
And yes, this is picking nits, but something something potato fuck the Irish TBFA, PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION
I was not aware that Hossa had broken the string. My bad. Still somewhat irrelevant to your confusion.
Quote
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Frolik's goal on Monday was not at home, so I don't really know why you chose that as your criteria for the history of Blackhawks penalty shot goals.
Who said I was using it a criteria? I referenced the fact that a team went two-and-a-half decades without scoring a penalty shot at home to illustrate the difficulty in doing so. It was just handy fact (which technically had wrong) to do so. I was wrong about Folik having been the one to have broken the streak but you're almost coming off as obtuse in your seeming inability understand my basic point.
No, I didn't misunderstand your point. I was just proving your facts wrong.
So....
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 08:28:24 AM
How many home penalty shot opportunities did they get in those 25 years?
How many home penalty shot opportunities on a Sunday?
Also, how many meatballs can you fit in one potato?
Quote from: Brownie on May 29, 2013, 09:04:22 AM
OK, so is this the last game of the Red Wing rivalry as we know it? They come here once every three years and the Hawks go there once every three years and they don't play once every three years so Bettman can realize his plan of more Hawks games with Winnipeg, Nashville, Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado, Anaheim and San Jose and Detroit can earn the hate of diehard hockey fans in Miami, Tampa, and Raleigh?
No. The Hawks will have a home-and-home series against every non-Conference-III team every season. So every team in the league, including the Wings, will play here at least once every year.
Quote from: Brownie on May 29, 2013, 09:04:22 AM
OK, so is this the last game of the Red Wing rivalry as we know it? They come here once every three years and the Hawks go there once every three years and they don't play once every three years so Bettman can realize his plan of more Hawks games with Winnipeg, Nashville, Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado, Anaheim and San Jose and Detroit can earn the hate of diehard hockey fans in Miami, Tampa, and Raleigh?
With realignment the Hawks will play every Eastern Conference team twice a season, home and away. So that'll still happen. And it'll be cool or whatever.
But they can't meet in the playoffs again unless it's for the Cup.
Until Phoenix moves to Quebec in which case we welcome back our friends from the Motor City.
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:15:11 AM
Until Phoenix moves to Quebec in which case we Eli and the rest of Kansas City welcome back our friends from the Motor City Brolumbus.
CONFERENCE III'd
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
So enough of this tardfeud.
Here's my hot sports take: I think we're going to feel awfully silly after the game tonight for being remotely concerned about how this turns out.
Hawks win big. 5-1 is your final.
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:15:11 AM
Until Phoenix moves to Quebec Seattke before the league expands into Quebec and Markham Ontario in which case we welcome back our friends from the Motor City.
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:26:22 AM
So enough of this tardfeud.
Here's my hot sports take: I think we're going to feel awfully silly after the game tonight for being remotely concerned about how this turns out.
Hawks win big. 5-1 is your final.
This is still hockey. There will still be some pants-peeing and hair-pulling and ill-conceived recriminations, and rightly so.
5-2 Hawks, sealed by a gutsy empty-netter by Brain Bickell.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:26:22 AM
So enough of this tardfeud.
Here's my hot sports take: I think we're going to feel awfully silly after the game tonight for being remotely concerned about how this turns out.
Hawks win big. 5-1 is your final.
This is still hockey. There will still be some pants-peeing and hair-pulling and ill-conceived recriminations, and rightly so.
5-2 Hawks, sealed by a gutsy empty-netter by Brain Bickell.
It's a nail-biter halfway through the third, but the Hawks pull away late, 4-1.
GWG for Kane, just because.
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
There's a lot of TLDR in the exchange but if I'm following it correctly Huey is saying that his statement of fact being off by 30 years is just a technicality.
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
There's a lot of TLDR in the exchange but if I'm following it correctly Huey is saying that his statement of fact being off by 30 years months is just a technicality.
Did you go to Evelyn Wood Upstairs Reading College too?
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
There's a lot of TLDR in the exchange but if I'm following it correctly Huey is saying that his statement of fact being off by 30 years months is just a technicality.
Did you got to Evelyn Wood Upstairs Reading College too?
<3
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
There's a lot of TLDR in the exchange but if I'm following it correctly Huey is saying that his statement of fact being off by 30 years months is just a technicality.
Did you go to Evelyn Wood Upstairs Reading College too?
Not trying to be obtuse here - you said a Hawk hadn't scored on a home penalty shot since the 80s. Yeti found a couple of times that it happened in 2011. Isn't that about a 30 year difference?
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:45:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 08:28:24 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
My point was that scoring on a penalty shot is not a slam dunk. The fact that a team went 25 years without scoring one at home was used to illustrated this fact, numbnuts.
How many home penalty shot opportunities did they get in those 25 years?
Probably not many, but your research already demonstrates that the success rate is not that great--just greater than a typical power play.
By the same token, Barry Bonds' success rate was not that great in 2001, hitting a home run in only 11% of his plate appearances. That's just one homer every 2.1 games, hardly a "slam dunk."
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 10:07:57 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 29, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:03:31 AMIt was just handy fact--which technically had wrong but the basic point remained true.
This sentence is so good. I just want to bathe in it all day.
Good gravy
There's a lot of TLDR in the exchange but if I'm following it correctly Huey is saying that his statement of fact being off by 30 years months is just a technicality.
Did you go to Evelyn Wood Upstairs Reading College too?
Not trying to be obtuse here - you said a Hawk hadn't scored on a home penalty shot since the 80s. Yeti found a couple of times that it happened in 2011. Isn't that about a 30 year difference?
No, I'll defend the tard here. He remembered one of the 2 times in 2011. Really, I only remember the other one in 2011, CAUSE I WAS THERE, MAN.
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:54:10 AM
4-1 Hawks. Fuck Detroit.
1-0 Hawks in double OT. I'm not sure why people think this will be easy.
Quote from: CT III on May 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 29, 2013, 09:54:10 AM
4-1 Hawks. Fuck Detroit.
1-0 Hawks in double OT. I'm not sure why people think this will be easy.
Just watch.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
The division the Hawks will play in next season.
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
The division the Hawks will play in next season.
Their division is called a conference? Nothing about hockey makes sense.
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
The division the Hawks will play in next season.
Their division is called a conference? Nothing about hockey makes sense.
They were the prototype names for the new divisions. They'll have real divisional names like "Northeast" and "Central" (super original stuff) at some point. But Conference III took off and now it's a blog (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/)and also let's be honest - it's chock full of the most bland hockey teams in existence.
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
The division the Hawks will play in next season.
Their division is called a conference? Nothing about hockey makes sense.
The original realignment plans called for four separate "conferences", independent of each other even for playoff purposes.
But, as finally approved, they're keeping the Western- and Eastern-based playoff bracketing, and I guess now calling the realigned groupings "divisions".
Also...
http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/about/
QuoteWhat even is Conference III (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2013-02-23/nhl-realignment-plan-red-wings-eastern-conference-seattle-hockey-team)?
Which leads to... (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2013-02-23/nhl-realignment-plan-red-wings-eastern-conference-seattle-hockey-team)
QuoteThe proposed conferences are as follows:
I: Carolina, Columbus, New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
II: Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Florida, Montreal, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Toronto
III: Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg
IV: Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
BTW, speaking of Conference III... (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/joe-patrick-and-colorados-wacky-new-front-office-sitcom/)
QuoteFirst up, check out the Conference III shoulder patch (http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/a-dozen-distractions-for-decoration-day/) from Chris Cieslak (https://twitter.com/cieslak/status/339111808264728577).
(http://i.imgur.com/LtRxtay.jpg)
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
What the hell is conference III?
The division the Hawks will play in next season.
Their division is called a conference? Nothing about hockey makes sense.
The original realignment plans called for four separate "conferences", independent of each other even for playoff purposes.
But, as finally approved, they're keeping the Western- and Eastern-based playoff bracketing, and I guess now calling the realigned groupings "divisions".
Also...
http://conferenceiii.wordpress.com/about/
QuoteWhat even is Conference III (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2013-02-23/nhl-realignment-plan-red-wings-eastern-conference-seattle-hockey-team)?
Which leads to... (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2013-02-23/nhl-realignment-plan-red-wings-eastern-conference-seattle-hockey-team)
QuoteThe proposed conferences are as follows:
I: Carolina, Columbus, New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
II: Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Florida, Montreal, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Toronto
III: Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg
IV: Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver
Geigh.
See also also... Tweeter. (https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%23ConferenceIII&src=hash)
OK this all kind of makes sense. Now I wish they would go with the roman numerals, because Led Zeppelin.
Quote from: Tony on May 29, 2013, 11:28:51 AM
OK this all kind of makes sense. Now I wish they would go with the roman numerals, because Led Zeppelin.
And with expansion, we'd get Houses of the Holy.
I'm hardly a "real" Blackhawks fan, but I definitely leapt off my couch and gave that Seabrook gamewinner a fist pump. What a play. Congrats, real Hawks fans.
Quote from: CT III on May 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
1-0 Hawks in double OT. I'm not sure why people think this will be easy.
I guess CT wins.
http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p151643852&date=2013-5-23#p151643852
Quote from: Intrepid Reader: BCNo way the Hawks beat Detroit three straight
FYBC.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on May 29, 2013, 10:04:09 PM
I'm hardly a "real" Blackhawks fan, but I definitely leapt off my couch and gave that Seabrook gamewinner a fist pump. What a play. Congrats, real Hawks fans.
You're as real as any LA Kings fan. Welcome aboard, now let's have a shirtless hug.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on May 29, 2013, 10:04:09 PM
I'm hardly a "real" Blackhawks fan, but I definitely leapt off my couch and gave that Seabrook gamewinner a fist pump. What a play. Congrats, real Hawks fans.
Yeah. Me too. Not really into hockey. But damn! That was exciting.
Quote from: CT III on May 29, 2013, 11:24:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on May 29, 2013, 10:04:09 PM
I'm hardly a "real" Blackhawks fan, but I definitely leapt off my couch and gave that Seabrook gamewinner a fist pump. What a play. Congrats, real Hawks fans.
You're as real as any LA Kings fan. Welcome aboard, now let's have a shirtless hug.
As a lifelong Hawks fan and regular expert contributor to the Puckcast, I disagree. Get off my bandwagon, Johnny-come-lately.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 29, 2013, 10:33:02 PM
http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p151643852&date=2013-5-23#p151643852
Quote from: Intrepid Reader: BCNo way the Hawks beat Detroit three straight
FYBC.
Leave the hockey analysis to the smirking nobodies, BC.
I'll just leave this here
https://soundcloud.com/destillat/john-wiedeman-calls-hawks-ot
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
I don't know about that. This was huge. But the win in Game 5 was so damn improbable that'll be hard to ever overtake that one. Kane scores a shorthanded goal in the last minute to tie? The Hawks kill off the remainder of a carry-over major penalty in OT and Hossa emerges from the box to immediately score the game winner? I think the emotional whiplash I suffered in that game will probably remain unmatched.
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
I don't know about that. This was huge. But the win in Game 5 was so damn improbable that'll be hard to ever overtake that one. Kane scores a shorthanded goal in the last minute to tie? The Hawks kill off the remainder of a carry-over major penalty in OT and Hossa emerges from the box to immediately score the game winner? I think the emotional whiplash I suffered in that game will probably remain unmatched.
I'm of the belief that this series will go down as the most important one in recent memory because of how it happened and who it was against. While game five against Nashville was improbable and led to a Cup, it was still Nashville.
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
I don't know about that. This was huge. But the win in Game 5 was so damn improbable that'll be hard to ever overtake that one. Kane scores a shorthanded goal in the last minute to tie? The Hawks kill off the remainder of a carry-over major penalty in OT and Hossa emerges from the box to immediately score the game winner? I think the emotional whiplash I suffered in that game will probably remain unmatched.
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
And they never were. Zero game sevens during the Cup run.
I hope they can win four before the other team gets three the rest of the way as well.
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
I don't know about that. This was huge. But the win in Game 5 was so damn improbable that'll be hard to ever overtake that one. Kane scores a shorthanded goal in the last minute to tie? The Hawks kill off the remainder of a carry-over major penalty in OT and Hossa emerges from the box to immediately score the game winner? I think the emotional whiplash I suffered in that game will probably remain unmatched.
Not to mention, even if things had gone pear-shaped last night, we've all still experienced a Blackhawks' Stanley Cup. We didn't have that in 2010 yet.
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Chicago against Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
Huey'd.
The last five minutes of clock time of Round 1, Game 5, 2010 is up there with the great moments in Chicago Sports History. Sandberg Game. Dent / Marshall and snow. The Shot.
Quote from: Fork on May 30, 2013, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
Obviously this getting ahead of things a bit, particularly considering the Conference Final and potential Cup Final competition, but...
If the Hawks were to go on to win the 2013 Stanley Cup, Game 7 would overtake Game 5 in the annals of Blackhawk lore, right?
I don't know about that. This was huge. But the win in Game 5 was so damn improbable that'll be hard to ever overtake that one. Kane scores a shorthanded goal in the last minute to tie? The Hawks kill off the remainder of a carry-over major penalty in OT and Hossa emerges from the box to immediately score the game winner? I think the emotional whiplash I suffered in that game will probably remain unmatched.
Not to mention, even if things had gone pear-shaped last night, we've all still experienced a Blackhawks' Stanley Cup. We didn't have that in 2010 yet.
I think it boils down to '49 years' versus 'Game 7'. If the Hawks had not pulled that game out, the series would had gone back to Nashville (where they had split) so it wasn't quite as 'all or nothing' as last nights game was.
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Chicago against Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
Huey'd.
The last five minutes of clock time of Round 1, Game 5, 2010 is up there with the great moments in Chicago Sports History. Sandberg Game. Dent / Marshall and snow. The Shot.
Geoff Blum... etc.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
They would not have kicked the shit out of any of those teams and especially not 1996. Beat them in a seven game series? Who knows? But this is some total Chuckbaggery.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
Same team that got taken to 7 games by the Knicks?
Quote from: PANK! on May 30, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
Same team that got taken to 7 games by the Knicks?
That Knicks team was better than any team they faced in the East from 1996-98. People discount that 72-10 team because the East was awful that year. But when you look at the way the best teams turn the switch on and off these days, there's something to be said for how focused that team remained through it all. No way they get the shit kicked out of them. The Jordan of 1996 knew everything there was to know about 1992 Jordan and that's an advantage that you can't overlook.
/basketball talk, I promise.
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 30, 2013, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Chicago against Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
Huey'd.
The last five minutes of clock time of Round 1, Game 5, 2010 is up there with the great moments in Chicago Sports History. Sandberg Game. Dent / Marshall and snow. The Shot.
Geoff Blum... etc.
You're all forgetting Atlanta's Tom Glavine winning #300 at Wrigley Field in front of some awestruck left field bleacher season ticket holders. That has to be right up there at the top.
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 30, 2013, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
They would not have kicked the shit out of any of those teams and especially not 1996. Beat them in a seven game series? Who knows? But this is some total Chuckbaggery.
Ditka versus a hurricane. But the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on May 30, 2013, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 30, 2013, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 30, 2013, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 30, 2013, 11:30:01 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just the victory afterglow, but Game 7 has a whole lot to commend to it, too. The culmination of the series comeback. The culmination 87 years of rivalry. Game 7 overtime in general. Hjalmarsson's no-goal stoking every fear fans had of those fickle asshole hockey gods.
I guess it will probably depend on how the rest of the playoffs go. For me, Game 5 in Chicago against Nashville was the turning point. Never again in that playoff season did I feel that the Hawks were in any real danger of losing a series.
Huey'd.
The last five minutes of clock time of Round 1, Game 5, 2010 is up there with the great moments in Chicago Sports History. Sandberg Game. Dent / Marshall and snow. The Shot.
Geoff Blum... etc.
You're all forgetting Atlanta's Tom Glavine winning #300 at Wrigley Field in front of some awestruck left field bleacher season ticket holders. That has to be right up there at the top.
How about Greg Maddux winning the World Series in 1995? #31!!!! WOOOO KUBBEEEEZZZZ
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 30, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 30, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
Same team that got taken to 7 games by the Knicks?
That Knicks team was better than any team they faced in the East from 1996-98. People discount that 72-10 team because the East was awful that year. But when you look at the way the best teams turn the switch on and off these days, there's something to be said for how focused that team remained through it all. No way they get the shit kicked out of them. The Jordan of 1996 knew everything there was to know about 1992 Jordan and that's an advantage that you can't overlook.
/basketball talk, I promise.
Knicks were not better than the Sonics in '96 and or Jazz in '97 and '98. They weren't as good as the '93 Knicks team that was on the verge of beating the Bulls in the Conference Finals in '93. They stole Game #1 and, to their credit, hung tough in Game #6, but that series served as a wakeup call more than the fact that the Knicks were some underrated, lowly-rated seed that would prove to be better than the 12 combatants the Bulls would face from 96-98.
Quote from: PANK! on May 31, 2013, 05:30:13 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 30, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 30, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 30, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 30, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
This of course is all academic if the Hawks don't win the big shiny cup this year, so I hope we will be arguing this for years to come.
Agreed. It's like, "Which Bulls team was the best?"
FYI, it's 1992. They'd have kicked the shit out of the 96, 97 and 98 teams.
Same team that got taken to 7 games by the Knicks?
That Knicks team was better than any team they faced in the East from 1996-98. People discount that 72-10 team because the East was awful that year. But when you look at the way the best teams turn the switch on and off these days, there's something to be said for how focused that team remained through it all. No way they get the shit kicked out of them. The Jordan of 1996 knew everything there was to know about 1992 Jordan and that's an advantage that you can't overlook.
/basketball talk, I promise.
Knicks were not better than the Sonics in '96 and or Jazz in '97 and '98. They weren't as good as the '93 Knicks team that was on the verge of beating the Bulls in the Conference Finals in '93. They stole Game #1 and, to their credit, hung tough in Game #6, but that series served as a wakeup call more than the fact that the Knicks were some underrated, lowly-rated seed that would prove to be better than the 12 combatants the Bulls would face from 96-98.
I said in the East. Something something Kings suck, go Hockee, go.
What the fuck are you assholes doing to the only hockee thread
Darryl Sutter still looks like Cousin Eddie.
Quote from: Fork on May 31, 2013, 09:36:09 AM
Darryl Sutter still looks like Cousin Eddie.
Actually he looks like a muppet that Jim Henson designed while on acid.
Quote from: Slaky on May 31, 2013, 09:35:16 AM
What the fuck are you assholes doing to the only hockee thread
Sorry, Slaky. *Hangs head*
I'm usually good about not taking Apex' Bullsbait.
Quote from: PANK! on May 31, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 31, 2013, 09:35:16 AM
What the fuck are you assholes doing to the only hockee thread
Sorry, Slaky. *Hangs head*
I'm usually good about not taking Apex' Bullsbait.
I'm sorry too but in this case Huard and I were arguing the same anti-Chuck position. I'll leave now.
HOLY SHIT HOCKEY IS AWESOME
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 13, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
I don't like overtime. It's too much. Can't handle it.
Quote from: Tony on June 13, 2013, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 13, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
I don't like overtime. It's too much. Can't handle it.
I don't think there's any sport that commands the viewer's attention like it. (Look out, n00b stating the obvious here.) Something amazing can happen at any moment with no warning. Roles get reversed in mere seconds. I was so invested during OT I simply couldn't look away. Haven't felt like that as a spectator in a long time. No wonder you all love/hate/love this so much.
This fucking team.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 13, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
Quote from: Tony on June 13, 2013, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 13, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
I don't like overtime. It's too much. Can't handle it.
I don't think there's any sport that commands the viewer's attention like it. (Look out, n00b stating the obvious here.) Something amazing can happen at any moment with no warning. Roles get reversed in mere seconds. I was so invested during OT I simply couldn't look away. Haven't felt like that as a spectator in a long time. No wonder you all love/hate/love this so much.
I work from home and usually try to get stuff done with a regular season sporting match on TV in the background. I can easily do this with baseball, and sometimes basketball, but never with hockey. Even average games command your attention.
The CBC montage guy is really good at his job (http://www.youtube.com/embed/qTRPgtHLk88?feature=player_detailpage).
Quote from: Fork on June 13, 2013, 10:13:48 PM
The CBC montage guy is really good at his job (http://www.youtube.com/embed/qTRPgtHLk88?feature=player_detailpage).
We get it, you love Oasis.
Quote from: Bort on June 13, 2013, 10:56:31 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 13, 2013, 10:13:48 PM
The CBC montage guy is really good at his job (http://www.youtube.com/embed/qTRPgtHLk88?feature=player_detailpage).
We get it, you love Oasis.
I thought that was Wings...
more awesomeness (http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/76292924/Blackhawks-time-lapse-Goalie-Corey-Crawford).
The Blackhawks power play, anthropomorphized (https://twitter.com/mikealper/status/346426029176418304/photo/1):
(http://i.imgur.com/pLwC6Y0.jpg)
Here's some bullshit (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130615/ISSUE01/306159983/why-the-blackhawks-are-losing-money) to be tolerated.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2013, 08:42:16 AM
Here's some bullshit (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130615/ISSUE01/306159983/why-the-blackhawks-are-losing-money) to be tolerated.
So absent parking and concessions and league revenues for merchandise and they are breaking even in a year they lost 17 home dates. Its a shame that the 'Hawks dont provide any other income potential to Rocky and the family. (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194769/nhl-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-blackhawks-since-2006/)
Quote from: thehawk on June 17, 2013, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2013, 08:42:16 AM
Here's some bullshit (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130615/ISSUE01/306159983/why-the-blackhawks-are-losing-money) to be tolerated.
So absent parking and concessions and league revenues for merchandise and they are breaking even in a year they lost 17 home dates. Its a shame that the 'Hawks dont provide any other income potential to Rocky and the family. (http://www.statista.com/statistics/194769/nhl-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-blackhawks-since-2006/)
And also note that the rent to UCJV is essentially flowing back to themselves.
Quote from: Tony on June 13, 2013, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 13, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
I don't like overtime. It's too much. Can't handle it.
I hate the way they have decided to resolve ties in collegiate football. Starting the game with 4 downs from the twenty yard line, then giving the ball to the other side with the same opportunity is football's answer to the designated hitter. What's wrong with ending the game with a tie? (Except, of course, in a playoff or championship game, where I would be content with using the NFL rule)
Quote from: CBStew on June 17, 2013, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: Tony on June 13, 2013, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 13, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Hockey is awesome. Hockey is the worst.
I don't like overtime. It's too much. Can't handle it.
I hate the way they have decided to resolve ties in collegiate football. Starting the game with 4 downs from the twenty yard line, then giving the ball to the other side with the same opportunity is football's answer to the designated hitter. What's wrong with ending the game with a tie? (Except, of course, in a playoff or championship game, where I would be content with using the NFL rule)
Ties are stupid, but the college overtime is even stupider.
Claude Julien has a very punchable facial expression 99.8% of the time he's on my TV.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 19, 2013, 08:50:08 PM
Claude Julien has a very punchable facial expression 99.8% of the time he's on my TV.
He had a good part on Seinfeld.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120103133553/seinfeld/images/b/b5/Tumblr_l8cesxF2Jy1qza49co1_500.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/rED0twA.gif)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 19, 2013, 08:50:08 PM
Claude Julien has a very punchable facial expression 99.8% of the time he's on my TV.
I don't think his face is punchable-looking. It looks affable and avuncular, like someone's friendly druncle.
Quote from: PANK! on June 20, 2013, 05:42:20 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 19, 2013, 08:50:08 PM
Claude Julien has a very punchable facial expression 99.8% of the time he's on my TV.
I don't think his face is punchable-looking. It looks affable and avuncular, like someone's friendly druncle.
I don't know about friendly. He looks exactly like a hockey coach to me.
(http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1521749/raskbwahahaha.gif)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 20, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
(http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1521749/raskbwahahaha.gif)
That needs the "Price Is Right" loser horn.
(http://i.imgur.com/rED0twA.gif)(http://static-2.socialgo.com/cache/12542/image/462.jpg)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 20, 2013, 11:26:52 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/rED0twA.gif)(http://static-2.socialgo.com/cache/12542/image/462.jpg)
I congratulate your memory for faces.
Kyle Orton has nothing on Corey Crawford.
Quote from: CBStew on June 20, 2013, 12:07:46 PM
Kyle Orton has nothing on Corey Crawford.
Easy there, Gramps.
Quote from: SKO on June 20, 2013, 12:29:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 20, 2013, 12:07:46 PM
Kyle Orton has nothing on Corey Crawford.
Easy there, Gramps.
I was referring to the neckbeard. And that's Zeyde, thank you.
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18rpt6v6acxnigif/ku-medium.gif)
(insert your own the-Cubs-should-sign-him joke here)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 23, 2013, 05:17:17 PM
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18rpt6v6acxnigif/ku-medium.gif)
(insert your own the-Cubs-should-sign-him joke here)
DAT LOU CHEECH GUY GETS IT MY FRENTS.
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2013, 08:04:12 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 23, 2013, 05:17:17 PM
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18rpt6v6acxnigif/ku-medium.gif)
(insert your own the-Cubs-should-sign-him joke here)
DAT LOU CHEECH GUY GETS IT MY FRENTS.
Heh! Lou Cheech.
I have always found the whole "smash my stick against the goal/boards/goaltender's head" thing so forced.
Or maybe I'm just butthurt because WHEN I PLAYED THE GAME (like Barry Rozner) a busted stick meant eating ramen for two weeks until I could head over to Play It Again Sports and pick up a used one.
Quote from: CT III on June 24, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
Or maybe I'm just butthurt because WHEN I PLAYED THE GAME (like Barry Rozner) a busted stick meant eating ramen for two weeks until I could head over to Play It Again Sports and pick up a used one.
Not to mention the actual goddamned effort it took to bust that Sher-Wood lumber in half.
As opposed to the paper mache deals you find your modern day pussified pros swinging.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 24, 2013, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 24, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
Or maybe I'm just butthurt because WHEN I PLAYED THE GAME (like Barry Rozner) a busted stick meant eating ramen for two weeks until I could head over to Play It Again Sports and pick up a used one.
Not to mention the actual goddamned effort it took to bust that Sher-Wood lumber in half.
As opposed to the paper mache deals you find your modern day pussified pros swinging.
Not to mention, there is nobody in the NHL who could even hazard a guess as to what a stick costs - They probably haven't had to buy one since they were 14.
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2013, 09:41:11 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 24, 2013, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 24, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
Or maybe I'm just butthurt because WHEN I PLAYED THE GAME (like Barry Rozner) a busted stick meant eating ramen for two weeks until I could head over to Play It Again Sports and pick up a used one.
Not to mention the actual goddamned effort it took to bust that Sher-Wood lumber in half.
As opposed to the paper mache deals you find your modern day pussified pros swinging.
Not to mention, there is nobody in the NHL who could even hazard a guess as to what a stick costs - They probably haven't had to buy one since they were 14.
This conversation would be a lot different if sticks were made out of drywall.
(http://cl.ly/image/2l1T3S2p0Z1W/o/what.jpg)
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Down 2-1 with minutes to go? NBD.
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 08, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
What is the cap situation exactly? Who am I most likely saying goodbye to?
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
What is the cap situation exactly? Who am I most likely saying goodbye to?
Quickly (I'll do more detail on our site) - Bickell, Stalberg, Handzus, Mayers, Emery and Rozsival are all gone for sure.
Every team gets two buyouts that don't count against the Cap, so those will probably be Montador and Olesz. That will give the Hawks over $7 million in Cap space to take care of Leddy and Kruger.
Bolland and Oduya will probably be shopped around.
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
What is the cap situation exactly? Who am I most likely saying goodbye to?
Quickly (I'll do more detail on our site) - Bickell, Stalberg, Handzus, Mayers, Emery and Rozsival are all gone for sure.
Every team gets two buyouts that don't count against the Cap, so those will probably be Montador and Olesz. That will give the Hawks over $7 million in Cap space to take care of Leddy and Kruger.
Bolland and Oduya will probably be shopped around.
NOOO! Now is the time to package Kane and Crawford for picks and grinders, then re-sign RONNIE PICKLE and RAY ARMORY.
Step 3:
PROFIT MINIMAL LOSSES
Quote from: CT III on June 25, 2013, 09:24:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
What is the cap situation exactly? Who am I most likely saying goodbye to?
Quickly (I'll do more detail on our site) - Bickell, Stalberg, Handzus, Mayers, Emery and Rozsival are all gone for sure.
Every team gets two buyouts that don't count against the Cap, so those will probably be Montador and Olesz. That will give the Hawks over $7 million in Cap space to take care of Leddy and Kruger.
Bolland and Oduya will probably be shopped around.
NOOO! Now is the time to package Kane and Crawford for picks and grinders, then re-sign RONNIE PICKLE and RAY ARMORY.
Step 3: PROFIT MINIMAL LOSSES
Antti Raanta will be the goalie next season who will be immesaurably better than DAT BUM CRAWFORD.
Toews Face...
(http://i.imgur.com/fRuEuOP.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 08:47:13 AM
Also, they'll be able to keep most of the guys this time around.
What is the cap situation exactly? Who am I most likely saying goodbye to?
Quickly (I'll do more detail on our site) - Bickell, Stalberg, Handzus, Mayers, Emery and Rozsival are all gone for sure.
Every team gets two buyouts that don't count against the Cap, so those will probably be Montador and Olesz. That will give the Hawks over $7 million in Cap space to take care of Leddy and Kruger.
Bolland and Oduya will probably be shopped around.
Just so you're all aware Fork will be wrong about at least one of these names.
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the
right way.
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
So would you call these the 2012 Hawks or the 2013 Hawks? Meaning, when discussing the year in Chicago sports would you lump them in with the disappointment that was the 2012 Bears, or the Superbowl Champion 2013 Bears?
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
So would you call these the 2012 Hawks or the 2013 Hawks? Meaning, when discussing the year in Chicago sports would you lump them in with the disappointment that was the 2012 Bears, or the Superbowl Champion 2013 Bears?
Well, the lockout ... What?
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
Have you ever zinged somebody without at least one typo or grammar mishap?
Quote from: R-V on June 25, 2013, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
Have you ever zinged somebody without at least one typo or grammar mishap?
Get brain pay the fuck attention.
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
So would you call these the 2012 Hawks or the 2013 Hawks? Meaning, when discussing the year in Chicago sports would you lump them in with the disappointment that was the 2012 Bears, or the Superbowl Champion 2013 Bears?
When it comes to banners, teams vary. The Blackhawks' banners are 1934, 1938, 1961 and 2010. 2013 will go up in October.
The Kings hung 2011-12 last year.
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
So would you call these the 2012 Hawks or the 2013 Hawks? Meaning, when discussing the year in Chicago sports would you lump them in with the disappointment that was the 2012 Bears, or the Superbowl Champion 2013 Bears?
When it comes to banners, teams vary. The Blackhawks' banners are 1934, 1938, 1961 and 2010. 2013 will go up in October.
The Kings hung 2011-12 last year.
EA Sports goes by championship year. I've just always referenced a team by Opening Day year.
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 25, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 25, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 25, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 25, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2013, 10:06:16 PM
I watched both of these last two games while basically not understanding what was happening, mostly just because of my Internet friends who love hockey so much. Sports are weird.
Enjoy it, guys.
Yeah, this. I'm not going to lie, I got goosebumps at the end, there.
It started like that for me when they were playing Detroit in the Conference Finals in 089, and then I bandwagon'd the entirety of the playoffs the next year when they won the first, and since then hockey's pretty rapidly made the climb up to #2 on my list. Stick around. I guarantee they make it worth your while.
Intrepid Reader: Meatball Savant: GET YER FACKS STRATE!
08-09. I always refer to a team by the year the season started or I get too easily confused.
As opposed to when they actually played the series you were referencing? Sounds like a solid plan.
Seriously. See if you can't get that brain of yours get it the right way.
So would you call these the 2012 Hawks or the 2013 Hawks? Meaning, when discussing the year in Chicago sports would you lump them in with the disappointment that was the 2012 Bears, or the Superbowl Champion 2013 Bears?
When it comes to banners, teams vary. The Blackhawks' banners are 1934, 1938, 1961 and 2010. 2013 will go up in October.
The Kings hung 2011-12 last year.
EA Sports goes by championship year. I've just always referenced a team by Opening Day year.
In the NFL most teams play 100% of their games in the Opening Weekend calendar year. In hockey and basketball, the games that take place before February are not nearly as important as those that come after. The leagues can claim they are but that's just not so. At least not in basketball. They will parade their teams around the continent drawing crowds and collecting gates but shit gets real after the all-star break.
Is this really a conversation we're having or have I been roped into some weird trolling due to lack of sleep?
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on June 25, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
Why not?
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on June 25, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
Because he's an attention-seeking asshat? Stop hating on my hate.
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on June 25, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
I don't get this TDubbs protestation at all.
Quote from: Eli on June 25, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on June 25, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
I don't get this TDubbs protestation at all.
He's just trolling.
Because hockey is stupid, so who gives a shit about this, right?
[PHOTOS REDACTED]Edit: My bad.
Quote from: Eli on June 25, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on June 25, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 25, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Just for the record, fuck Jim Belushi. If the Cubs ever win another World Series I hope they refuse to let him on the field.
why?
I don't get this TDubbs protestation at all.
Yes you do. ChadStink is terrible.
Godammit Thrill.
In 2010 I was one of those census workers that walked around interviewing people that didn't send in their forms, and one of the guys on my route was named Fels. The night the Hawks won I was at a bar and a buddy of mine pointed out a guy that writes about hockey, and it was the guy from my census route. So my drunk ass went up and congratulated him and reminded him I was his census taker.
Last night I ended up in a bar with Sam Fels again, and my drunk ass reminded him that I was his census taker and that the last time I saw him was at a bar the night the Hawks won the cup in 2010. He said something about it being a tradition now.
He most likely thinks I'm some kind of weird stalker that kept his info from his census form.
Anyway... last night was fun.
Quote from: Tony on June 25, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
In 2010 I was one of those census workers that walked around interviewing people that didn't send in their forms, and one of the guys on my route was named Fels. The night the Hawks won I was at a bar and a buddy of mine pointed out a guy that writes about hockey, and it was the guy from my census route. So my drunk ass went up and congratulated him and reminded him I was his census taker.
Last night I ended up in a bar with Sam Fels again, and my drunk ass reminded him that I was his census taker and that the last time I saw him was at a bar the night the Hawks won the cup in 2010. He said something about it being a tradition now.
He most likely thinks I'm some kind of weird stalker that kept his info from his census form.
Anyway... last night was fun.
You should have told him you know us, that would have scared the ever-loving shit out of him.
DPD.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNndQX0CUAAFbz_.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2013, 02:22:39 PM
Quote from: Tony on June 25, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
In 2010 I was one of those census workers that walked around interviewing people that didn't send in their forms, and one of the guys on my route was named Fels. The night the Hawks won I was at a bar and a buddy of mine pointed out a guy that writes about hockey, and it was the guy from my census route. So my drunk ass went up and congratulated him and reminded him I was his census taker.
Last night I ended up in a bar with Sam Fels again, and my drunk ass reminded him that I was his census taker and that the last time I saw him was at a bar the night the Hawks won the cup in 2010. He said something about it being a tradition now.
He most likely thinks I'm some kind of weird stalker that kept his info from his census form.
Anyway... last night was fun.
You should have told him you know us, that would have scared the ever-loving shit out of him.
I thought about it, but it was kind of chaotic in the bar, and there's no good way to bring up that you have mutual internet friends.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/988487_10151788937459384_992820633_n.jpg)
Taiwan has the final say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pold2C552T4).
Guess who saved hockey again? (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/06/25/8-16-million-viewers-watch-chicago-blackhawks-win-stanley-cup-on-nbc/189075/)
QuoteGAME 6
Last night's game drew a 4.7 U.S. household rating and 8.16 million viewers on NBC, up 52% and 66%, respectively, vs. last year (3.1 and 4.929 million viewers). This year's series-clinching contest was the second-most watched Stanley Cup Final Game 6 since 1994, trailing only Chicago's 2010 series-clinching Game 6 against Philadelphia (6/9/10, 8.279 million).
Game 6 peaked with 10.424 million viewers from 10:45-11 p.m. ET.
Following are NBC's Most-Watched NHL Games (Since 2006):
| Rank | Program | Episode | Date | Rtg | Viewers |
| 1 | Game 7 | Boston at Vancouver | 6/15/2011 | 4.8 | 8,537 |
| 2 | Game 6 | Chicago at Philadelphia | 6/9/2010 | 4.7 | 8,279 |
| 3 | Game 6 | Boston at Chicago | 6/24/2013 | 4.7 | 8,160 |
| 4 | Game 7 | Pittsburgh at Detroit | 6/12/2009 | 4.3 | 7,992 |
| 5 | Game 6 | Detroit at Pittsburgh | 6/4/2008 | 4.0 | 6,781 |
...
Network
On the strength of Bruins-Blackhawks Game 6, NBC finished first among Adults 18-49 (3.1 rating) and Adults 25-54 (3.5). Game 6 was the No. 1 program of the night among Men 18-49 and 25-54, and tied for first among Adults 18-49 (CBS' Under the Dome).
STANLEY CUP FINAL
The Stanley Cup Final averaged a 3.3 household rating and 5.764 million viewers across NBC (Games 1, 4 -6) and NBC Sports Network (Games 2-3), making it the most-watched on record (since 1994), and up 83% (1.8) and 91% (3.012 million), respectively, vs. last year.
Game 6 was the most-watched game of the final with 8.16 million viewers.
STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS
For the entire playoffs, NBC, NBCSN and CNBC combined to average 1.467 million viewers for 84 games, making it the most-watched Stanley Cup Playoffs on record (since 1994) and up 18% vs. last year (1.241 million for 81 games).
The 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs set new records for NBCSN, averaging 1.209 million viewers for 55 games, up 17% vs. last year (1.030 million, 52 games).
NBCSN and CNBC combined to average 1.000 million viewers over 72 Stanley Cup Playoff games, making the 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs the most-watched post-season on cable since 1999 (ESPN/ESPN2, 1.022 million).
Most-Watched NBC Sports Network Games
Three of the five most-watched NHL games in NBCSN history occurred this season: Stanley Cup Final Game 3 (4.001 million viewers); Stanley Cup Final Game 2 (3.964 million); and Game 7 of the Western Conference Semi-Finals between Chicago and Detroit (3.354 million).
Five Most-Watched NHL Games in NBC Sports Network History
| Year | Game | Teams | Viewers |
| 2013 | Stanley Cup Final, Game 3 | Chicago @ Boston | 4.001 million |
| 2013 | Stanley Cup Final, Game 2 | Boston @ Chicago | 3.964 |
| 2010 | Stanley Cup Final, Game 3 | Philadelphia @ Chicago | 3.600 |
| 2009 | Stanley Cup Final, Game 4 | Detroit @ Pittsburgh | 3.448 |
| 2013 | Conference Semi-Finals, Game 7 | Detroit @ Chicago | 3.354 |
...
So, who's going to the parade/boner rally?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 27, 2013, 02:21:43 PM
So, who's going to the parade/boner rally?
I went to the last one in the ungodly heat and then eventually met up with Oleg and Jon, as I recall. But I won't be able to make it this time.
Enjoy it though. It'd be nice to see mass amounts of people in the streets and it not be a zombie movie.
I'll be there, as you well know. I am parking at a hotel at Harrison and Des Plaines and then walking north from there
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2013, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 27, 2013, 02:21:43 PM
So, who's going to the parade/boner rally?
I went to the last one in the ungodly heat and then eventually met up with Oleg and Jon, as I recall. But I won't be able to make it this time.
Enjoy it though. It'd be nice to see mass amounts of people in the streets and it not be a zombie movie.
BH, the stranger on whom I tried pawning off my daughter, my daughter, and me all resent our respective omissions.
Jerk.
Quote from: PANK! on June 28, 2013, 05:47:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2013, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 27, 2013, 02:21:43 PM
So, who's going to the parade/boner rally?
I went to the last one in the ungodly heat and then eventually met up with Oleg and Jon, as I recall. But I won't be able to make it this time.
Enjoy it though. It'd be nice to see mass amounts of people in the streets and it not be a zombie movie.
BH, the stranger on whom I tried pawning off my daughter, my daughter, and me all resent our respective omissions.
Jerk.
I ONLY HAVE SO MUCH RAM IN MY HEAD, OPTOAT!!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-hawks-thanks-bruins-20130628,0,6246683.story
(http://i.imgur.com/ziAxB39.png)
Sometimes it's like Rocky sits down and says "what would my old man have done in this case?".
And then he does the exact opposite.
So... $4MM cap hit for Bickell?
Seems slightly on the high-ish side, no?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2013, 09:16:29 PM
So... $4MM cap hit for Bickell?
Seems slightly on the high-ish side, no?
He would of gotten five in a week.
Quote from: Fork on June 30, 2013, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2013, 09:16:29 PM
So... $4MM cap hit for Bickell?
Seems slightly on the high-ish side, no?
He would of gotten five in a week.
Just because Jay Feastink is going to jump off a bridge...
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2013, 09:16:29 PM
So... $4MM cap hit for Bickell?
Seems slightly on the high-ish side, no?
Sort of but the way I see it they don't have a Bickell-esque guy to do what he does. Hayes isn't it. Plus 4mm isn't going to look so bad when the cap flies north of 70.
The hope is a) people don't demand his removal from the roster when he doesn't score at the same rate he did in the playoffs (because he won't) and b) well, that he's even worse than that.
Probably time for a new thread, yeah?
Quote from: Slaky on July 01, 2013, 12:54:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2013, 09:16:29 PM
So... $4MM cap hit for Bickell?
Seems slightly on the high-ish side, no?
Sort of but the way I see it they don't have a Bickell-esque guy to do what he does. Hayes isn't it. Plus 4mm isn't going to look so bad when the cap flies north of 70.
I already have a Morinboner warming.
Last week the Blackhawks signed Teuvo Teravainen to an entry-level contract. This is very good for three reasons:
First, since he's still under 20, the Hawks can use a "slide year" - He can play up to 9 NHL games and get sent back to Finland's SM-Liga (their top league) and the Hawks get another year tacked onto the back end of the deal. A three-year deal becomes a four-year one.
Secondly, Teravainen's team, Jokerit, is leaving SM-Liga after the 2013-14 season for the KHL. Getting him signed now ensures no bidding war this time next year.
Thirdly, this kid's skill set is fucking insane. His puck skills, vision and creativity are similar to Patrick Kane at the same age. The reason he's still in Finland (and the reason he fell to the Hawks in the 2012 draft) is that he's 5'11, and around 165. Until he gets into the Hawks' workout regimen, he'll get knocked into next week. Especially since he doesn't shy away from high traffic areas.
But bonertime? Fuck yeah, bonertime.
Quote from: Fork on August 26, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Last week the Blackhawks signed Teuvo Teravainen to an entry-level contract. This is very good for three reasons:
First, since he's still under 20, the Hawks can use a "slide year" - He can play up to 9 NHL games and get sent back to Finland's SM-Liga (their top league) and the Hawks get another year tacked onto the back end of the deal. A three-year deal becomes a four-year one.
Secondly, Teravainen's team, Jokerit, is leaving SM-Liga after the 2013-14 season for the KHL. Getting him signed now ensures no bidding war this time next year.
Thirdly, this kid's skill set is fucking insane. His puck skills, vision and creativity are similar to Patrick Kane at the same age. The reason he's still in Finland (and the reason he fell to the Hawks in the 2012 draft) is that he's 5'11, and around 165. Until he gets into the Hawks' workout regimen, he'll get knocked into next week. Especially since he doesn't shy away from high traffic areas.
But bonertime? Fuck yeah, bonertime.
Bah! 5-foot-something/165 with Patrick Kane's skill set will never make it in the NHL.