WCF: (1) Anaheim Ducks vs (3) Chicago Blackhawks

[Marina]

Hawks lost to LA last year because they couldn't hold a lead, had literally nothing to do with "ruggedness."

 

[Getzmonster]

Every team is more "rugged" than the Hawks, they don't play that type of game and it's not why LA beat them last year. Not saying the Ducks can't beat the Hawks but they won't beat them because they're a more physical team.

Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but don't dismiss the impact of a relentless physical Ducks forecheck over a long series. The Hawks top pair is probably going to be seeing 30+ minutes a game, when they are paying a physical toll on top of that over the course of a long series, it can really take some wind from the sails.

I don't mean to suggest we are so big and scary the Hawks will play scared, not at all, it's more about grinding and leaning on them to wear them down.

 

[Ducksforcup]

What happened to food?

Reality Check steered the conversation back pretty much singlehandley.

Actually an impressive feat.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What happened to food?

Still exists. Is readily available in many stores, and sometimes even in nature.

 

[alcolol]

Every team is more "rugged" than the Hawks, they don't play that type of game and it's not why LA beat them last year. Not saying the Ducks can't beat the Hawks but they won't beat them because they're a more physical team.

Why is that not a plausible narrative? It worked against the Flames, who's to say it won't work against Chicago?

The Ducks are at the best --and most dominant-- when they play a heavy game. Yes, Chicago's speed and skill may thwart the Ducks' forecheck but the opposite is possible too. In my opinion, that's what makes this series particularly interesting. The two teams win in very different manners.

 

[nbducksfan19]

I don't mean to be too hard on you guys. Its easy to think you have great depth when you play in an awful division and your first two opponents in the playoffs not only have literally no depth but they barely even have a first line. When it comes to the Flames and Jets, you can be a bunch of try hards and sometimes that'll get you in the playoffs but it doesn't mean you're good.

This is the Hawks though. The real deal. The pinnacle of hockey excellence. You guys think the Ducks are so great, I'm not buying it, I need to see it vs the Hawks.

If the Ducks beat the Hawks I'll eat crow and take crap from you guys, that's part of the fun in this. Its not personal. I just think the Ducks are total frauds as of now.

Do Less.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Oh the irony. Out of everyone here, YOU need the reality check. In regards to the "fraud" comment, I'd venture to say that you also think Corey Perry was faking the injury on Stajan's hit?

As for depth, the Ducks have 12 players (Perry, Getzlaf, Silfverberg, Kesler, Maroon, Vatanen, Lindholm, Beauchemin, Beleskey, Cogliano, Fowler, Despres) with at least .5 PPG in the playoffs whereas Chicago has 7 (Kane, Toews, Keith, Sharp, Hossa, Seabrook, Shaw).

Educate yourself.

Lol. Arbitrary cut offs for the win. Teuvo is 0.5 ppg btw.

 

[Getzmonster]

Hawks lost to LA last year because they couldn't hold a lead, had literally nothing to do with "ruggedness."

I watched that series and I disagree. Guys make mistakes that cost the team a lead often due to the fatigue of a long series, especially when playing against a big grinding team like LA. I don't want to argue with Hawks fans about their own series last season though, I concede to the majority on this one.

 

[alcolol]

Lol. Arbitrary cut offs for the win. Teuvo is 0.5 ppg btw.

You're right! My apologies.

 

[Puckstop40]

Ducks in 7

 

[hisgirlfriday]

From what I saw, you beat the Flames because you were a better team with more skilled goal scorers and a better forecheck and a power play that exploited their penalty kill very well. Not that you out-heavied them.

But aside from that just because a strategy works against one team doesn't mean it'like work against another one. The Hawks better not expect to beat the Ducks the exact same way they dispatched the Wild.

 

[Marina]

I honestly can't believe people still buy the "Hawks aren't physical enough/will be worn down by more physical team" narrative.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I honestly can't believe people still buy the "Hawks aren't physical enough/will be worn down by more physical team" narrative.

I don't get that either. It's been an ongoing narrative through the last like... 6 playoff years.

 

[ChewiesArmy]

That dude is just trying to rile up Ducks fans, the Ducks are no more frauds than the Hawks are the "pinnacle of hockey excellence". They lost to the Kings last season and are probably pretty jazzed that LA took a nose dive this season because they might have been in for another headache.

Now, to be fair, the Ducks are also pretty happy that LA had a rough season. And the Hawks have been the class of the NHL (along with LA) for several years now. Another Cup this season and they probably lock down the modern dynasty label.

But they lost to a more rugged team last season, and it can happen again.

The Hawks don't care, one way or another, if the Kings made it or not and neither do the Ducks. Both teams know they can beat the Kings. These teams know they can beat any team they play.

Every team is more rugged then the Hawks.

 

[kaner23]

Why is that not a plausible narrative? It worked against the Flames, who's to say it won't work against Chicago?

The Ducks are at the best --and most dominant-- when they play a heavy game. Yes, Chicago's speed and skill may thwart the Ducks' forecheck but the opposite is possible too. In my opinion, that's what makes this series particularly interesting. The two teams win in very different manners.

Just going off of the past the Hawks haven't been beaten because of a teams physicality. I'm not saying that it won't have an impact, because it's a big part of the Ducks game which has obviously been successful, but I don't think it'll be a deciding factor in the series.

 

[Getzmonster]

The Hawks don't care, one way or another, if the Kings made it or not and neither do the Ducks. Both teams know they can beat the Kings. These teams know they can beat any team they play.

Every team is more rugged then the Hawks.

I'm just saying that the resident Hawks pot-stirrer can't call his team the "pinnacle of hockey excellence" when they lost to LA on the WCF's last season. No knock on Chi though, I give them their full respects as a modern powerhouse.

I see the rugged comment has struck a cord with Hawks fans, that wasn't my intent. All I was trying to say is that the Hawks arguably had a deeper, more skilled roster than LA (it was close), but from watching the series I though LA did a good job of using their size to help level the advantage. I see the Ducks being able to do the same. Somebody above said physicality won't be a deciding factor, and I can agree somewhat, but I'm skeptical that it'll be a non-factor as so many Hawks fans are stating.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

They didn't have a deeper roster than LA last year in the wcf. That was the problem. Shaw was out hurt in games 1 and 2 so the mess of centers in play were toews, Kruger, Ben smith kind of, Peter regin, and Michal handzus. By the end of the series Shaw returned and emerged as the 2C but the hawks were only rolling 3 forward lines.

This year the hawks are so much deeper they can utilize last year's 2 C at 4th line rw.

 

[Xinji]

At a quick glance, I think Nashville averaged more hits against the Hawks per game in that first round series than Anaheim has averaged in either of their series against their opponents. I know the Hawks had a couple of longer than usual OT games, which may sway the numbers a bit, but it's likely close enough to be a wash.

 

[theaub]

I don't get that either. It's been an ongoing narrative through the last like... 6 playoff years.

Especially weird when you contrast it with the Hawks ridiculous record from Game 4 on over the past six years

e: up to 38-12 I believe after the Minny series? Probably have that wrong but its close to that

 

[Bakpuck]

Hawks in 6.

Ducks first real opponent (no disrespect) as they were given the red carpet to finals. Playoff experience and skill too much for Ducks.

And yet Chicago went 2 and 3 to the Jets and 2 and 1 to the Flames during the regular season. Surely a Red Carpet that Chicago would have walked itself but maybe not. Maybe Chicago would have been done in the first round if they had faced the Jets.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

hawks in 5 or 6.

 

[Vinegar Strokes]

Ahhh it feels nice to be underestimated and be the underdogs again.

This will be a tough series, that much I'm sure of. Don't think the Ducks are going to lose this one though, they seem to be on a mission this year. Very focused and very business like.

 

[Nothingman*]

And yet Chicago went 2 and 3 to the Jets and 2 and 1 to the Flames during the regular season. Surely a Red Carpet that Chicago would have walked itself but maybe not. Maybe Chicago would have been done in the first round if they had faced the Jets.

Jets are first round news not WCF news.

 

[here come the]

I'm just saying that the resident Hawks pot-stirrer can't call his team the "pinnacle of hockey excellence" when they lost to LA on the WCF's last season. No knock on Chi though, I give them their full respects as a modern powerhouse.

I see the rugged comment has struck a cord with Hawks fans, that wasn't my intent. All I was trying to say is that the Hawks arguably had a deeper, more skilled roster than LA (it was close), but from watching the series I though LA did a good job of using their size to help level the advantage. I see the Ducks being able to do the same. Somebody above said physicality won't be a deciding factor, and I can agree somewhat, but I'm skeptical that it'll be a non-factor as so many Hawks fans are stating.

No it wasn't. The Hawks had Handzus and Shaw as their middle 6 centers, one was a negative, one isn't even a center anymore, plus they were playing Bollig basically every game and Brookbank at forward. The Hawks are much deeper upfront and comparable on the back end, though the Rosival injury definitely hurts that.

 

[Getzmonster]

No it wasn't. The Hawks had Handzus and Shaw as their middle 6 centers, one was a negative, one isn't even a center anymore, plus they were playing Bollig basically every game and Brookbank at forward. The Hawks are much deeper upfront and comparable on the back end, though the Rosival injury definitely hurts that.

You had me at Handzus. No need to explain further.

I don't want to turn this into a rehashing of last year's WCF's. I watched that series chewing through my fingernails after the Kings broke my heart. I never rooted so hard for Chicago in all my life lol. All I'll say is LA's depth had some issues as well, but again, if I'm a little misinformed here I'll concede.