IlliniKrush

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 21, 2014 -> 09:15 AM) They had a deep run (lost in WCF) in 09 and won the Cup in 2010 with the Olympics. All the good teams had multiple players in the Olympics. I don't believe any of that. Down 3-1 to the Wings last year, they came back. That said, this is a vastly inferior team from last year. That said, one win and it's (obviously) 2-1 and the series is well within reach. I don't either, as the Bruins had almost the same thing going on and lit it up all year and didn't have a slide at the end of the season. I had a lot more confidence (though I wasn't confident) vs Detroit last year. Felt different. This doesn't feel great right now, but like you said, win tonight and you're back in the series. I know it's not a "must win" since it's not the 4th win for the Blues...but like, it's a must win. I can't see this team, as currently composed and playing, winning 4 straight games against the Blues if they drop tonight.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Cole is an idiot and should be blamed for that whole ordeal. Pitchers should never talk trash and you never b**** at a guy for admiring a non-home run; he's already been punished by looking like an idiot. Looks like Russell Martin was a little too eager to prove he could fight somebody too. Tempers aside, though, Gomez looks a lot like a guy who is juiced up Why, exactly? Only hitters can talk trash? Pitchers should just take it all day long. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 09:07 PM) What did Gomez do wrong? That wasn't showboating at all IMO and I hate the guy. Baseball players are such b****es with all their unwritten rules. Eh, this happens in all sports. Maybe in baseball more, but I think that's because of how the game is set up. Act like a clown, someone's going to have an issue with it, and I'm fine with that. Go play the damn game.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) I'm not really happy about it. To me it looked like the hit was made much worse by A/ Backes ducking and leaning back at the last second to try to avoid the hit, and B/ Seabrook turning to avoid driving through him. But you knew this was coming after the way everyone freaked out about the hit, and that Backes is probably out for a while. It was made much worse because Seabrook made the principal point of contact the head with the puck nowhere near Backes. Backes didn't even know the hit was coming, he didn't duck out of the way of anything. Seabrook didn't turn to avoid anything. He wanted to plant him into the 5th row, because it was Backes. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 20, 2014 -> 07:32 PM) 3 games sucks, but given the nature of the game today, can't really complain. And let's be honest, had that been Shattenkirk blasting Toews, we would all be demanding justice Exactly, that's what makes all of this hilarious. My initial thought of 3 games was spot on.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:26 PM) I think intent should matter when it comes to the discussion of suspending a guy. Did he mean to lay him out? Yes. Could he have let up without unleashing on Backes? Probably. But I don't think he meant to go up into his head. Principal point of contact = head Backes = likely out 1 game if not the whole series Totally suspension worthy. Intent can only matter so much. And it's Backes, so who knows what the intent was there. You'll never know. Intent maybe makes the suspension longer, but it's nowhere near (and shouldn't be) the determining factor of suspension/no suspension. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:27 PM) Once the road team wins s*** gets real. Until then I don't assume anything. Doesn't make sense. You're down 2-0. If this was the case, you could enter game 7 and nothing's real yet? Home/road doesn't matter as much in the NHL, we know that. You're down 2-0 regardless of where the games were played. It's real.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:14 PM) No one should defend Seabrook's moronic hit. BUT TOUGHNESS AND HITTING AND f*** YOU BACKES YEAH Not directed at anyone here, but I've seen that type of nonsense elsewhere with the bandwagon. Sigh.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:11 PM) I'm in agreement here. I know I've mentioned this before, but I'm a college lacrosse official so I have a bit of a unique perspective when it comes to refereeing a sport at a high level. Like someone else mentioned, you have to call it because of the contact to the head and the emphasis is to remove these types of hits from the game. However, I don't think it was Seabrook's intention to make head contact. Like you said Rock, Backes dropped down a bit. Still, it had to be called. I'm not sure a suspension is necessary, but I'm sure the NHL will give him one anyway. Seabrook hit a sitting duck and had plenty of time to line it up. And he didn't even have the puck. This was all on him, and the absolute principal point of contact was the head in an upward motion. This has been an emphasis for 2 years now. Intent, at this point, doesn't matter as much as what actually happened. Plus, Backes could be out the series, who knows. That should, and will, play into it as well. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) This isn't the same team as last year. Something is missing. Ding ding ding. I'll root for them til they are down and out, but anyone watching knows this team isn't playing good hockey the past few months.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 06:06 PM) I meant Seabrook. I detest him. Head shot should be a game. But he was still on his feet when he delivered a hit to the front of Backes. Gotcha. He'll probably get a game, I could see it up to 3 but unless I'm forgetting one, he hasn't been suspended before which helps. And no Shanny anymore. His feet were either up or barely on the ice as it was delivered, which is really splitting hairs at that point. They'll look at the direction of hit going up. I realize that's what people were looking at because Eddie O was being a homer and somehow not realizing what the hell just happened.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 05:54 PM) Yes a head shot because Backes changed levels and dropped down to the shoulder level. Clearly a penalty. He's my least favorite player but I don't think it was nearly as bad as everyone makes it to be and shouldn't be a suspension. See, you basically make anything you say irrelevant as it's coming from a point of hate for Backes. Be objective. It was one hell of a dirty hit. Backes didn't drop down, he was at a normal level. Seabrook came up. He left his feet as contact happened. But, again, the main point in this whole thing...principal point of contact = head. Onus is on the guy giving the hit. I've seen plays like this reviewed for the past 2 years. What's hilarious is if this was say, Jackman on Toews, everyone would be going OMFG KILL HIM SUSPEND HIM 50 GAMES.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:49 PM) Bad luck his head was that low. Shoulder, still on the ice. s***. Gotta be a little more aware. QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:52 PM) There seems to be a lot of different opinions if that was a dirty hit or not. I'm interested to hear your guys' opinion. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) It was a penalty but not as bad as everyone acts like it is. Guy had his head down and got lit up. Hold on a minute there. Bad luck? Let's recap: 1) It's easy interference, as the puck is nowhere near him. 2) Principal point of contact is the head. Rule 48 to an absolute T here. 3) His feet may or may not have left the ice prior to the hit, but definitely after. As such, he was projecting upwards. So the only thing missing here is a clear jump. 4) For emphasis, because it's what matters - the principal point of contact was the head, and no it doesn't matter whether it was a shoulder instead of an elbow. Irrelevant. 5 and a game was the right call. Now he'll get suspended for 3ish games, which will also be the right call. Let's call a spade a spade here. Bickell with a stupid and dangerous penalty followed by Seabrook with one of the dumbest hits I've seen in a while out of a Blackhawk. He took a "free" shot at Backes and cost the team the game, possibly the series. Hope it was worth it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 18, 2014 -> 08:53 PM) Pavel Datsyuk is f***ing incredible I've always said he's the most fun guy to watch play hockey. He does things and tries things no one else does.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 05:09 PM) So, do any of you financially savvy people have some investing advice for a guy who is just starting his first real job out of college? Paying back my student loans is my primary priority at the moment, but I'd like to start putting some money aside for retirement etc. sooner rather than later. Any thoughts? If your company offers any sort of 401K match, make sure you max out on that. Absolute first thing to do.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 10:22 PM) Why am I seeing f***ing commercials. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 10:25 PM) Ok good. I'm not crazy QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 10:51 PM) I had just told my wife how nice it was there were no commercial breaks during overtime. Always an ice clear at the under 10, so they take a commercial. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 10:59 PM) They have been targeting his shoulder. And there's another DOG, missed by the refs this time. God it's the absolute worst f***ing rule in sports. So stupid. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 11:22 PM) Avalanche tie it with 13 seconds left. Playoff hockey is the s*** Crazyyyyyyyyyyyy

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) f*** em That's what I'm saying, take advantage.

No Oshie, huge, also no Berglund. Their 3rd and 4th lines are severely lacking.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) NYT takes on the Winston investigation. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colle...,0,320798.story http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04...is-winston.html Surely it can't be a cover up, Winston would never do such a thing! - SoxFan1

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 09:58 AM) I believe it was a rookie umpire behind home plate. They should just go to automated balls and strikes., or have guys who are strickly home plate umpires. Have something beep in the umpire's ear if it hit the zone. Of course, after watching the replay debacle, that certainly would have some kinks to work out. LOL

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 16, 2014 -> 10:16 AM) They should have gone back to the chief logos. f***ing liberal admins. I dig the silver. I dig the football jerseys. Not crazy about the block I logo, but I'll wait and see what it looks like for real. The pics were at an angle and I want to see it straight on. Overall they didn't screw it up like they did with the awful Giants-style underline logo, but I'm not exactly wowed either. Considering what they had to work with - orange, blue, the letter I, and the best logo/imagery taken away - this is a major win so far. We'll see what the rest looks like tonight. It's also nice to see consistency in font, numbers, colors, and no more script on top of a block I, or script on a helmet.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 16, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) I also don't like the complete phase out of fighting illini. I guess we don't have a nickname anymore. I'd have to think more of that is coming tonight, they stressed it a lot in the videos.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 11:17 PM) Silver uniforms are absolutely hideous and that I shield with the stripes is questionable at best. Helmets rock but the football coach still sucks. Shield is awesome, my hat is off to Nike to make something original, has something to do with U of I and isn't gimmicky. I think it looks best in one color on another color like in the soccer jersey, but it totally works. And the silver uniforms look awesome as an alternate.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 11:00 PM) Except the silver basketball uniforms. Those shouldn't exist They look f***ing badass. They are better than the whites.

Man the amount of people winning the internet finding the Illini re-brand stuff is incredible. And at first glance, I f***ing love it.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 07:47 PM) You're seeing something the NESN announcers and the rest of us didn't apparently ?? The definitive replay was basically shot from somewhere behind the runner along 3rd base and he was clearly off the base. 1) WCIU doesn't have whatever "definitive" angle you're talking about. That would be the angle you'd need, is directly down the first base line. Really, the guy who had the best angle there is the home plate umpire. 2) It's not if he was off the base, it's a matter of when. As long as that ball contacts the mitt before he's off, he's out. The majority of the time a guy comes off, everyone thinks he's safe, but in reality he actually had the bag at time of possession.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 07:44 PM) SoxNet.net ‏@SoxNet 30s Hawk just flat out said that MLB refused to overrule a call on replay to protect an ump who already had one overruled. Which is one of the dumbest things Hawk has ever said.

There wasn't a replay that showed him safe. That one they showed from by the dugout, his foot was off the bag way after the ball was in his mitt, not sure what they were trying to show there. It's as likely that he was still on the bag when that was caught, replays didn't show anything different.