2010-2011 Chicago Blackhawks

[Wiggleboom]

If they had beaten Vancouver in game 7 that year (lost in OT), would they have won the Cup? I think they would have made it to the Finals and would have an epic battle against Boston. Not sure who would have won.

Click to read more...

 

[RedBaronIndian]

If they had beaten Vancouver in game 7 that year (lost in OT), would they have won the Cup? I think they would have made it to the Finals and would have an epic battle against Boston. Not sure who would have won.

Hawks fan here. Nope. That team was really shorthanded due to the long previous season, cap overages so much so that they barely made the playoffs. The reason they pushed it to 7 against Canucks was they really dug deep after the Torres cheapshot on Seabrook and Keith/Bolland kinda took over the series. Even if they got past the Canucks, Nashville or San Jose would have taken them out.

 

[SAADfather]

No I don't think the Hawks would have won the cup that year. They weren't deep at all that year. However, I do believe the Hawks win that series if Bolland is available the whole series. Brought this up in a few threads. Bolland completely changed the tone of the series when he returned from injury in game 4 and was matched up against the Sedins.

Sedins games 1-3 : 9pts +7
Sedins games 4-7 : 3pts -13
Bolland game 4-7 : 6pts +6

Neither Sedin had a + game when Bolland was in the lineup.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Even if Sharp had scored on that PP in OT, I doubt the Hawks would have made the finals in 2011.

 

[Wiggleboom]

I think they would have beaten SJ, personally, a team that never showed the mettle to get it done in the playoffs when it counted before or since. And Nashville was too inexperienced. Not sure what the matchups would be but it was a pretty weak west that year other than Van and Chicago, IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

I always thought the Hawks in 2011 were a much better team than the standings showed. The West that year wasn't strong in the top end aside from Vancouver but they had a lot of 95+ point teams. Two teams in the West had 95 and 94 points and still missed the postseason. Chicago was right there with any of them outside of perhaps Vancouver's big year, they had 97 points.

Now, I realize they were hurt from the long Cup run in 2010 and the players they lost. Not to mention they were still pretty young and maybe didn't have the mettle yet to re-group. Crawford was a rookie that year, Keith had an "off" year I guess you could say. There was no one head and shoulders above anyone else in the West except Vancouver. So I can't see why coming back from a 3-0 deficit wouldn't give them the extra boost.

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

I think the Blackhawks would have made the Finals. They would have played San Jose in the next round. The same Sharks team who almost blew a 3-0 series lead against the Red Wings in the second round that year. I think the Hawks would have taken it to the Sharks who were still a weak team come playoff time. The next round would have been against the winner of Detroit-Nashville. One would think the Red Wings would probably come out on top there. Detroit vs Chicago would have been a pretty epic showdown but you really had one good team that was a bit past its prime vs the defending champs who were in their prime. I think their rosters were evenly matched but Chicago's youthful energy would probably have been the difference. However, I don't think they would have beaten the Bruins in the Finals. Tim Thomas was pretty unstoppable that year.

 

[Voight]

Hate to say it but nope. We just didnt have it 2011-2012, team was in a transition and lacked the depth to make it.