Anyway, it would be interesting if someone could offer his renewed assessment of the Chicago Blackhawks in light of how this team appears to be growing by leaps and bounds with each game! Perhaps each period?

I mean, look no further than a the peach-fuzzed Patrick Kane. Willie Mitchell told him that he was lucky and couldn’t play 5 on 5. His three above-average-to-spectacular “Hat Trick” goals (don’t tell me that last one wasn’t sick!) in Game 6 were all 5 on 5! I have almost instantly gone from uncertainty about his future as a superstar to certainty–in one game!

Moreover, Kane is just the tip of the iceberg for the point I’m trying to make. Alain Vigneault went on to state that these Blackhawks were amongst the most talented offensive teams of our era. Then, to go and score 7 against Luongo? I listened to the Vancouver sports station stating that these Hawks are starting to remind them of the eighties Edmonton Oilers. High praise indeed–although I tend to be the cautious type.

I still wouldn’t pick them to beat Detroit, but I really think they have a very legit shot. In other words, it shouldn’t be thought of as an upset. There really isn’t a weak link on the team. As good as Detroit is, I’m thinking home ice is really the only reason the Wings would be favored.

I’d love to hear someone’s thoughts on this current Chicago Blackhawk team.

That changes things quite a bit for me. It’s now just a couple of guys having a friendly brew at the local sports bar. Thanks!

Glad to hear you’re enjoying the site and with the excellent insight you’ve added to the conversation we look forward to hearing more from you.

Thanks for setting me straight. I did re-read your initial column and you weren’t as much of a “homer” or “sympathizer” (Yes, I did leave it open that you might be merely a sympathizer–not homer) as I it seemed at the time. However, you did throw me some “red flags” when you chose to refer to the entire ‘Nucks’ defense with their first names, while keeping the ‘Hawks relatively faceless by using only their last names–a classic “homer-like” reference. I also still don’t completely buy your defense about Luongo versus Khabibulin, but it’s open for argument. Perhaps you might have chosen a more straightforward means of communicating that? It wasn’t clear to me.

True, so much of this stuff is opinion. You have yours and I have mine. There’s no question about that, but there is a key difference. You work, either professionally or not, for a publication that is read by many (moreover, one that’s fair to all teams) and I don’t. Hence, one of us should be more objective than the other. In fact, I used the provided link just beneath a Chicago Sun-Times Blackhawks article in order to find Illegal Curve and your ‘Nuck-’Hawk preview.

I don’t think that my opinions would have change at all prior to Game 1. Why would they have changed? The Blackhawks lost Game 1! If anything, one would have expected me to be even more conciliatory toward Vancouver at that point.

You’re perceived assumption was correct. I never read anything at all by Illegal Curve or anyone associated with it prior to this Vancouver-Chicago series preview. I have since read a bit here and there and will likely be back. I also noticed that you had a Game 2 Chatroom opened. I normally participate in the one from the Chicago Sun-Times. Perhaps I’ll visit at some point.

Bob, you do come across intelligently. Thanks again for your reply. I look forward to more of your articles.

By the way, as I write this, the series is 2-2. Unlike many Blackhawk fans, I’m still picking the Canucks in 7.

Have you checked my comments on the CHI-CAL series and VAN-STL series? If so, can we dispense with the notion that I have a bias for VAN or against CHI? If not, please read them.

I’ve carefully re-read my posting in light of your comments AFTER GAME ONE. Here are my conclusions PRIOR TO GAME ONE:

I say Luongo was younger, more rested, and in my opinion playing the best goal anywhere. He was younger and more rested. My opinion is my opinion and though you may have said prior to game one that Khabibulan was the playing the best goal anywhere that would be your opinion and I wouldn’t dispute it — how could I? It’s your opinion and you’d be just as entitled to it as I am to mine.

It was never my intention by my comments on goaltending to imply that a comparison of the two left Luongo “no contest” better than Khabibulan. If you take that inference, that’s you.

I said that in my opinion in this series Luongo gives his team a distinct advantage. I think you would agree. Who would you rather have — Khabibulan or Luongo? I answered that question with “Luongo” before the series started, and still do. I doubt there’s a GM or coach in the NHL who wouldn’t agree.

I say “I like the Blackhawk D” and that they are young, mobile, gritty, tough and determined and have depth. That 3 are have O upside and the rest are solid on D. I say Campbell has untapped O potential and that in my opinion he plays too soft. I say they played well against the Flames with the exception of some lapses which cost them and that they will have lapses aginst the speedy Canucks at their peril. I’d call that complimentary and accurate.

I say “I like the Canuck D” and that they are solid verterans who are mobile puckmovers who can play any style; and that against the Blues they allowed 5 goals and played very much in sync with their goalie. Also, I felt that, as a group, the Canuck top six D have it over the Hawk top six D. That looks like an accurate breakdown with an opinion in conclusion to me.

I say the Chicago forwards are natural goalscorers who are young and fast and don’t quit. I comment that their youth and inexperience will be interesting to watch in round two as the pressure mounts. I say that Sharp and Havlat have played well and that Eager and Byfuglien are ever-willing hardhitters. I say that adding Pahlsson has given the forward group stability and experience. Later I give the Hawks the edge on the PK with SP. Your problem with this is what?

I say that up to the opening game of round two, the Canuck forwards are playing well as a group; and that the Sedin line in particular are really reading each other well. Also, I’m surprised that Henrik showed some physical play vs the Blues — a rare thing. I say that Sundin and Demitra are suspect physically, but that when healthy they add a lot to the team. Apparently I think Kesler is a must-have playoff performer and that Wellwood’s growth impresses me — I look for him to do well. Problem here?
I give a close edge to the Canucks because that is what I think.

I say the Chicago coach is and smart and that he inspires his team to play well. I say I can’t get a read on the Vancouver coach because I cannot for the life of me figure out how he stayed on all season with a new GM/President and won the division — with no rumours about his imminent firing all season! In Vancouver! Unprecedented! He obviously handles pressure well — big plus in the playoffs, that.

On their first round performance I give the PP edge to the Canucks. With the addition of Pahlsson I give the PK edge to the Hawks.

I point out that the only time my series-winner guess missed in the first round was choosing the Blues over the Canucks. Some homer. I say based on them dropping the Blues four straight and the Hawks losing 2 games against a less-than-stellar performing Flame team, I’ll take the Canucks in 6 or maybe 5.

I’m sure you feel better after last night about your Hawks, Gig, and I would have liked to hear what you thought before the series started.

Either way, now that you’ve commented on an IC posting I hope you’ll become a regular contributor. (Have you been reading it and just not commented before?) Be sure to follow the live blog today and listen to the radio show on Wednesday nights. I follow a lot of hockey blogs and this is far and away the best in my opinion. Which others do you like?

Enjoy ALL the games — I do.

Thanks for the reply thus far.

Nor a Chicago “homer”.

In fact, I’m not a homer at all. I just love hockey.

I haven’t got time to answer you in detail today (but I will tomorrow if you still want me too), and if you’d care to look at the “comments” I’ve made on numerous IC articles since the start of the season (pre-season, too, come to that); I think you’ll agree.

One thing: As noted in the last paragraph of my commentary, the one prediction I missed in the first round was picking the Blues over the Canucks — in 6 games yet. Sound like a Canuck “homer”? Not by any definition I know.

(P.S. I also picked the Hawks vs the Flames in 6. Read my comments and see if I dislike the Hawks or simply picked them to beat the Flames for the reasons I stated, just as I picked the Canucks for the reasons I state here.)

It isn’t so much that they’re better however as they have experience, home ice, matchup advantages, and, as you said (but I think under the influence) Luongo.

We need not discuss experience and home ice as those are obvious. So, let’s move to matchups. The Vancouver Canucks have ALWAYS been a difficult matchup for the Blackhawks as long as I can remember. Some teams are just like that. As you said, one consideration is the exceptionally disciplined positional game that they play which does a lot to neutralize the free-wheeling attitudes of the entire Hawk team. I liken the Canucks a more talented version of the Minnesota Wild. The Wild are a downright boring team to watch still playing late 90′s style neutral zone traps and patiently awaiting their chances with hardly anyone besides Gaborik and the other guy. I find Vancouver a boring team as well, but I do respect them. Vancouver is more talented primarily because the D is more mobile.

My problem with how you go about your “D vs. D” and “O vs. O” matchups is that you make the Canucks out to be more talented across the board! To me, this smacks of homerism. The Hawks D is every bit as talented as your savvy, checking D and I would argue more. Duncan Keith has been an All-Star and is a simply fantastic skater who never tires. Cam Barker’s a #3 pick and has been playing like it lately for the most part, Brent Seabrook is another high first rounder who has now become an All-Star with his play over the past couple of months. Brian Campbell is classified as a premier rush-type player, although I’ll concede that’s he’s playoff soft. The balance of the D is solid, not a major fall-off. Answer that without wearing a Canucklehead Hat.

You want to talk O? Ask any real hockey expert and they’ll tell you that hardly any team is deeper at forward lines 1 through 4 besides, of course, the Red Wings. You saw a little of that as Vancouver coughed up a three-goal lead Thursday night. By the way, Jonathon Toews had the flu and was awful as a result. I’ll end this with a statement about the overall skating and puck-handling abilities of the Blackhawks. They are superior to those of the Canucks almost across the board!

Now, here’s where I believe you were sipping something influential. You couldn’t merely say that Luongo edged Khabibulin. You had to infer that it’s no contest! If this isn’t homerism, then it’s just lunacy. I’m not saying that Luongo isn’t great. He is. However, how can you say that Khabby isn’t almost there with him at least in the playoffs? Yeah, I’ll concede that, for some odd reason, Khabby has a horrible record against Vancouver. Still, why couldn’t you allude to that instead of coming off like he just simply pales in comparison. That’s when you lost me.

I’ll end this with stating that the Hawks need to win Saturday in order to have a chance and a chance they do have. Still, to read your writings, one would think that Vancouver ended the regular season twenty points higher than the Chicago Blackhawks. I hope you don’t get paid for your drivel.