Post-Game Talk: Bruins win 2-1 in OT to even up the series!

[Pie O My]

Not sure how Crawford hasn't impressed. He has made some great saves.

he's impressed as being solid, not impressed as in wow, this guy can easily steal one down the road. I still don't think he's been tested this series. Hawks are doing a good job so far of clearing rewbounds and not giving B's 2nd and 3rd opps. we'll see what happens with the last change in games 3 and 4. I don't foresee any Vokoun 1st period game 2's, but i think we'll start to score more.

 

[Bruins 54]

Not sure how Crawford hasn't impressed. He has made some great saves.

I think he is ...

Playing is way on Team Canada ...

 

[howaryuh]

The book seems to be out on Crawford and it's similar to Rask's (at least in the regular season): high glove

Out of the 5 goals the Bruins scored so far this series, I think all but 1 (Kelly's tying goal last night) were scored there. And that Paille goal, while it was a great shot from Danny, was pretty soft. No screen, not a one timer and Pie isn't exactly a sniper in the league.

Crawford looks pretty solid blocker side and 5-hole though. And he has good positioning.. that or the Bruins just love shooting into his gut.

Rask on the other hand.. I think there was really only one goal the Blackhawks scored that was legit and that was in game 1 where Tuukka was sliding from left to right across the crease and Saad (I think it was Saad?) buried it blocker side off a nice pass to the slot. Truth be told, I thought that was a shot that Tuukka could have had. he was a little slow coming off the post as the pass wasn't *that* fast and the shooter hesitated slightly. But that's nit picking because it was a great pass and a great shot.

Other than that it was garbage goals and deflections (assuming I'm remembering correctly)

Cherry pointed out in the post game the Chicago D put their stick in front of the shot, and in slo mo you could see a bit of a deflection. Not sure that Crawford would have saved it given his glove was over the puck, but it might have messed him up.
The quickness of Seguin turning around with the puck and making the pass before the hawks D could adjust and get set up made that goal.

 

[bruins4thecup65]

There's no doubt Rask is earning himself a great contract, but he's an RFA and is well aware of the cap situation. I don't see him pulling a Kessel. At any rate, worrying about it now is certainly a tad odd.

SignRask to a 6/30m contract and send 1M to AndrewRaycroft as a signing bonus.

 

[Jdrewc]

I for one haven't been to impressed with Crawford. He was hardly tested last night and didn't look like anything special. I think he can be exposed with enough shots on net.

I agree with you! I went to bed last night with a huge smile on my face. I watched game one and then game two back to back and put all in perspective. We're gonna win the cup this year. Crawford really isn't that impressive all the goals we have are legit no lucky bounces legit.

Chicago has worked real hard to achieve all that they got last night and that wasn't much. Game one I counted 2 lucky bounces and 2 legit goals. Playing as poorly as the bruins did last night and only producing 1 goal says a lot about our defense as well as goaltending.

I think you'll find the Bruins will turn up the heat at home and hit Chicago with a game they haven't seen yet a truly awesome team. Glad to see Seguin moved to line four and now that line producing, Jgar looked slow at first but man he looked good at the end. Krecji, Lucic, and Horton have been looking great. I see the bruins taking this in 6

 

[Kelly23]

Jdrewc

Paille Kelly Seguin is the third line not the fourth line

Thornton and Dog played less than 5 minutes thats not the third line

 

[Jdrewc]

Jdrewc

Paille Kelly Seguin is the third line not the fourth line

Thornton and Dog played less than 5 minutes thats not the third line

My apologize your right.

 

[Bizarro Bandwagoner]

Sidenote :

Loved Frolick(sp) getting wiped out near the boards on the Bruins OT winning goal. Double our pleasure right there.

Yeah, I was laughing at that too. One more solid check to end the night.

 

[Kelly23]

My apologize your right.

Agree with everything else, did it look to you like Crawford was swimming alot in game 1?

 

[Jdrewc]

Agree with everything else, did it look to you like Crawford was swimming alot in game 1?

Absolutely! I think he has been struggling (kinda like the ducks feet under the water) against us and Chicago's d is good but still leaving a lot more quality chances for us to capitalize on. If we play our ga,e like we did game 2of Pitt series with Chicago and not feed into their pace, well be victorious.

Crawford has skill I think he can steal a game for Chicago, but I think that happened already in game 1. My confidence level shot up last night, ill say that.

 

[Bone for your jar]

i hear ya. near the end of the 1st i thought Hawks fans and neutral fans who didn't see a lot of the B's must be thinking, that's it?! That's all they've got?

.

Exactly. I hadn't seen a period like that from them since the regular season (and even then...).

Jekyll and Hyde indeed.

 

[dtam83]

SignRask to a 6/30m contract and send 1M to AndrewRaycroft as a signing bonus.

I think rask will cost more than that unless he is willing to take a discount. but if it were 5 per, it would be 8 years

 

[Jdrewc]

.

Exactly. I hadn't seen a period like that from them since the regular season (and even then...).

Jekyll and Hyde indeed.

I think their playing a psychological, game with them. Trying to get Chicago to think they have an edge.

 

[Xegiie]

no.. they simply could not answer that play from chicago, couldn't get started.. nothing psychological there

 

[Jdrewc]

How do you explain a team that can look so bad and turn around and stun you with how great they can be. I honestly said to myself at the beginning of 2nd period we would need a miracle to win then it happened.

 

[774EVER]

Some interesting stats I just found...

First, this is the most OT games (7) in franchise history (5-2). This is the first time Boston has won an OT game on the road ever and finally the best stat ... the winner of game 2 in the SCF goes on to win it all 80% of the time.....

The game plan will be the same formula that worked last night, hit them often and clog up the neutral zone, same strategy that worked against Vancouver. If you look at the 5 OT periods played in Chicago how many people can say that Boston should not be up 2-0? The B's were the dominant team when it counts and this is why we will win it all.

So many great performances, starting with Tuukka who was outstanding in the first. There is no OT without him. I thought Segs was outstanding last night he is improving game by game, he is tireless and has been creating many opportunities. Jags was good last night and should have won the game just like he could have done in game 1 OT. His ability to maintain possession is something we lacked yesterday.
I thought there were too many plays that just gave the puck away more so in the first. Looch/Horty and DK were outstanding. Looch was a hitting machine and has gotten into the heads of the Hawks D especially 4 and Oduya with big thunderous hits. I thought Paisy and Kelly were really strong last night also. The first 10 minutes of game three is going to be fantastic ,hopefully we can bury them from the start.

This completely blows my mind.

 

[boston77]

who cares. how many PP goals combined with L's and PP 0'fers combined with w's will it take for folks to realize great play on the PP doesn't definitively translate to winning hockey.

i'd rather the ref make a mental note of that play and then give us the benefit of a makeup non call later down the road.

I would rather have a pp opportunity on an obvious call than no call and then a call that wasn't made earlier gets made. PP's are not definitive we know that, we had no pp in 2011 and won so this is not a mystery. In this series though I think the pp is important. Their struggles on the pp are hurting them. Kane and Toews are struggling from their standards in these playoffs Kane is clearly frustrated by the tight checking.

Even if you don't score the pp changes the momentum of the game. On Bollands early second period penalty the Hawks were applying pressure continuing from their first period dominance and the kill gave the B's a little boost. They played a lot better after that and gave up only 9 shots in the second and third combined.

 

[Artemis]

How do you explain a team that can look so bad and turn around and stun you with how great they can be. I honestly said to myself at the beginning of 2nd period we would need a miracle to win then it happened.

Because that's hockey.

I just watched the first period again in DVR and I think the OMG they were dominated reaction is a bit overblown. The two teams were fairly evenly matched through the first seven minutes or so, then Chicago used its PP to take the momentum and had several tremendous offensive shifts and great chances. In the final couple of minutes the Bruins started to take it back. It certainly wasn't 20 minutes of absolute domination.

At any rate, games like that are going to happen between two evenly matched teams. One or the other can get on a roll and control play for significant stretches.

 

[CamFan81]

did my normal stroll through the Habs OUtofTown just to update myself on how happy they are that we're in the finals again.


GLORIOUS.

NHL handing games to the bruins lol.

Spectators gonna spectate

 

[jagrgodr]

they've done studies you know... 80% of the time they win every time!

 

[bruinswincup]

such an amazing win. From how they played in the 1st and only allowing one goal.

 

[11MilesPerJohan]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the official reason that the Chicago "goal" was called back?

On the broadcast, they seemed to suggest it was a "dead in the head" call, where the ref lost sight of the puck, and then on Comcast, Amonte said they couldn't definitively tell if the puck crossed the line, and then on NHL network they are saying that it didn't count because a Hawk's player was pushing Rask into the net with his stick...

So, which one was it? Not that it really matters at this point, but...

 

[Rubber Biscuit]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the official reason that the Chicago "goal" was called back?

On the broadcast, they seemed to suggest it was a "dead in the head" call, where the ref lost sight of the puck, and then on Comcast, Amonte said they couldn't definitively tell if the puck crossed the line, and then on NHL network they are saying that it didn't count because a Hawk's player was pushing Rask into the net with his stick...

So, which one was it? Not that it really matters at this point, but...

Post game- Coach Q said the explanation he got was the ref's intent was the blow the whistle. He lost sight, so he called it dead. Obviously upon review, you could see it was in the net. But the ref's intent was to blow the play dead at that time so it was dead.

 

[11MilesPerJohan]

Post game- Coach Q said the explanation he got was the ref's intent was the blow the whistle. He lost sight, so he called it dead. Obviously upon review, you could see it was in the net. But the ref's intent was to blow the play dead at that time so it was dead.

Thanks.

 

[EverettMike]

Three things about the non-goal:

1) It was called "Intent to blow the whistle." It is a stupid rule, but it is the rule and it is pretty clear cut and uniformly called that way.

2) Hossa pushed Rask's pads, causing the puck to maybe go over the line. That is not allowed, and it is clearly not a goal anyway.

3) There is still no definitive proof the puck crossed the line before the whistle and wave off occurred anyway. Saw an overhead photo on the mainboards that shows the puck still partially on the line even with the ref already waving it off.