tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767965973861050539.post6305372411680393530..comments2023-05-01T06:05:27.013-04:00Comments on Red Wings Corner: More afraid of 'Hawks than DucksChuck Pleinesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687215987088549996noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767965973861050539.post-70649850696736656482009-05-18T14:34:00.000-04:002009-05-18T14:34:00.000-04:00I largely agree with Nathan and Ryan. I think the ...I largely agree with Nathan and Ryan. I think the Ducks roster changes to get Wisnewski and otherwise shore up their defense during the season made them a wholly more effective ice hockey club. They made themselves into a club where the opponent was forced to play Anaheim's game to succeed not the other way around. <br /><br />I think hockey is a game of matching up, it's as much emotion and style as it is flow and personality.<br /><br />I think the Ducks, Bruins and Sharks were the teams that were most capable of dropping the Wings because they disrupted the Wing's flow and the personality and tone that they set on the ice most conflicted Detroit's.<br /><br />I think that almost every aspect of the Hawks' game lends itself to Detroit's. Chicago is going to score, sure. Chicago is not capable of playing the series the Duck's played against Detroit.<br /><br />Could the Hawks beat the Ducks in a 7 round series? I doubt it. I think Chicago would beat all but two or three teams in a series right now, but they either didn't face them, or are facing them now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12780163982873955247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767965973861050539.post-34630268427003294312009-05-18T09:58:00.000-04:002009-05-18T09:58:00.000-04:00I think it's all about a playing style. Ducks are ...I think it's all about a playing style. Ducks are very physical team based on a good defense and a great goalie. Chicago plays more like WIngs. Fast, offensive hockey, so... we have a great experience from last year [almost everyone in our roster have a Stanley Cup ring] and well balanced team with more better D than Chicago - Seabrook showed how he can play when he lost a puck on a blue line ;-)Kwiatekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06843316093146155089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767965973861050539.post-87813429097209262752009-05-17T14:30:00.000-04:002009-05-17T14:30:00.000-04:00The Hawks certainly were better than the Ducks all...The Hawks certainly were better than the Ducks all season, but I really do buy the argument that the Ducks vastly underperformed all season. Meanwhile, the Hawks might have overperformed. (They were outscored in games against playoff teams. (The Wings, fwiw, did the second best against playoff teams. Boston was best.))<br /><br />Most of the season, I've felt that no other team is really in the same orbit as Detroit and San Jose, not even Boston. Anaheim has convinced me that they were actually somewhat close to that level. But beating a badly-injured Calgary and Vancouver in a weird series isn't enough yet to convince me the Hawks are 'elite'.<br /><br />They've been very good all year, and I think a lot of people expected them to magically stop being very good in the playoffs. Then when they didn't, those people confused their very goodness for elite-ness.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767965973861050539.post-11811280313363785122009-05-17T13:58:00.000-04:002009-05-17T13:58:00.000-04:00Valid points Nathan. But I don't want this to spin...Valid points Nathan. But I don't want this to spin in this direction.<br /><br />Here's what I'm saying. The Blackhawks are better than the Ducks. The Wings are better than the Blackhawks.<br /><br />Right now, I'll take Keith/Seabrook over the Ducks' top pairing. We agree that the Ducks have one special line, but nothing scary after that. And of course the 'Hawks have to deal with Z and Pavel, etc. The Wings are better.Chuck Pleinesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687215987088549996noreply@blogger.com