Skip to content

Discuss: Hawks narrowly beat Kings in Game 1

Jun 1, 2013, 7:49 PM EDT

Patrick Sharp Getty Images

The first period was all Chicago, but the Los Angeles Kings still took a 1-0 lead on the road when goaltender Corey Crawford mishandled the puck. The Blackhawks and Crawford deserve a lot of credit for staying focused despite that.

They stayed strong and managed to beat Jonathan Quick twice despite what was an impressive outing by the Kings’ netminder. Consequently, Chicago has taken Game 1 on the strength of a 2-1 victory.

Here are the game notes:

    • Chicago outshot the Kings 9-0, 13-1, and 17-2 in the first period, but as mentioned above, Los Angeles still took an early lead.
    • Speaking of which, this was just the fourth time in 13 postseason contests that Chicago fell behind 1-0. Saturday’s contest was also the second time in the 2013 playoffs that the Kings were defeated after netting the first goal.
    • Kings forward Mike Richards was minus-seven in three contests against Chicago during the regular season and minus-one against Chicago in Game 1.
    • These two teams were 13th and 14th in the first two rounds of the playoffs when it came to winning faceoffs. The Kings had a slight edge in Game 1 by winning 33 of 64 faceoffs.
    • 12 of the Los Angeles Kings’ first 14 playoff contests have been decided by just one goal.
  1. hammerhead5573 - Jun 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM

    Very Impressive from both teams. Hawks have that look right now. Hopefully they keep it. Both goalies are the real deal and I would definitely expect these games to be 2-1 or 3-2 scores. Gonna be a fun and long series.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM

      As Mr Sutter so eloquently put it, “Yup.”

    • polegojim - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      You’re being kind hammerhead… Kings actually got slower as the game went on.

      Kings can’t skate stride for stride with the Hawks… and Kane is getting more into the action.

      Hawks in 5.

      • florida727 - Jun 2, 2013 at 8:58 AM

        I’m a Hawks fan but trying not to be too biased in my comment, but I agree with you. I thought the Hawks completely outplayed the Kings in this one. They looked so much faster throughout. In fairness to the Kings, tough to win in 7 the previous round then have to travel right away. They’ll be better today (Sunday).

        What scares me though is how many somewhat “easy” chances the Kings got on Crawford. He made some great saves, and the Kings missed the net or lost control of the puck on others, but if they keep getting those kinds of looks, the Hawks could outshoot them 50 to 2 and lose.

      • polegojim - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:01 AM

        Yes 727… that’s the downside.

        Hawks were playing an aggressive O game… and must get more balanced on the D.

        Crawford was the 2nd biggest difference… awesome.

  2. garagehero1 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM

    A lot of flagrant non-calls against the chicagos hurt the Kings, as well as ridiculous calls against them, but that’s to be expected anytime you play a playoff in an Original Six arenas. Its merely the old boy network protecting their own. Look at the back to back games the Kings are forced to play, if that isn’t favoritism, I don’t know what is. And, once again, Chicago showed why its one of the dirtiest team, (along with the Reedwings), in the Western Conference. One thing is sure, even in this tentative first game, the Kings sure rung the Bleakhawks bells in this game, and it will only get worse as the series goes on. And for all their scoring prowess and puck control, and despite all the bogus calls in their favor, especially at the end, the chicagos only won by one goal. The refs should just let play, instead of protecting the Bleakhawks.

    • atwatercrushesokoye - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:42 PM

      I don’t think Chicago cares how hard they get hit as long as they win. I’m a fan of neither team but blaming the refs for a loss is weak, usually there are a good 5-10 reasons a team loses a game (missed a wide open net, missed a pass that would have led to an odd man rush etc) and officiating is just one of them. Be a big boy, accept that your team lost game 1 and hope for a better result tomorrow.

      Oh and you’re really going to complain about back to back games? 1. You guys had an extra day of rest that Chicago didn’t. 2. BOTH teams have to play back to back! 3. If the Kings are going to beat up on the Hawks like you say they are, you should love back to back games because it doesn’t give the Hawks time to recuperate inbetween games, and the likelihood of them being worn down quicker grows.

    • hammerhead5573 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM

      Wow, that is all that you can come up with???? And of course you provide absolutely no examples of the “dirty plays”. Did you even listen to the game where the announcers were saying what the Kings were getting away with behind the plays? Such as Dustin Brown taking a run at Stahlberg (what a surprise) Dude if you are going to cry about calls after a very tame game like this one, it is going to be a long series for you.

    • lostone49 - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:04 PM

      I don’t know what you were watching, but it wasn’t the same game as the rest of us. I’m a 30 year Kings fan and want nothing more than to see them repeat, but this game was lost by them and them alone. If you want to complain about something, how about starting with Richards, Kopitar, Penner, Carter, and the way they played today!!
      GO KINGS GO!!!!

    • blackhawksdynasty - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:48 PM

      And the Dumba$$ Post of the Day goes to…..The Garage!!!
      Seriously dude??? After asking my 6 year old nephew to translate your awful English, I’ve learned you’re a complete idiot.
      Back to your mom’s garage, Hero-Boy!

    • squatch9 - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:54 PM

      “WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!” – Kings fan, garagehero1.

    • alexbaymac - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM

      The best ‘idiot’ part of this post by little GarageHero was that Chicago had about 6 or 8 MORE back-to-backs this shortened season than the Kings had…but keep up the verbal sewage, it makes the Hawk’s Wins even more entertaining!

    • acepylut - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM

      Um, what game did you watch again? Memo to you – you have to write your “we lost” game summaries after the game, not before it, because nothing you said maketh any sense.

    • indianhead1992 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      Just to let you know, Canucks are probably the most dirtiest team in the NHL and it is hard for the Red Wings and Hawks to be a dirty team when they are both puck possesion teams. “Look at the back to back the Kings are forced to play”, oh do the Hawks have a day off tomorrow while the Kings play themselves? Also, the reason why their is back to back games is because the Rolling Stones are in Chicago this weekend so the United Center is booked right now. These are the only two day they are open for the games to be played in a timely matter. So before you start your whinning please have a clue what you are talking about. It’s annoying how many (not all) but many L.A fans suddenly know their hockey because they have been watching since last June.

  3. pastabelly - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    Narrowly? The way LA scores, 1 goal is significant.

  4. loyallakingsfan35yrs - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    By the time game 5 comes around with series tied Chicago will be beat up and bruised. Kings in 6

    • esracerx46 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:45 PM

      Blomfeld/valoisjoeybfeld69/firebettman… that you? Kings came out flat. Was expecting a way more physical game from them. Was surprised how physical the Hawks were.

    • blackhawksdynasty - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM

      You actually made me laugh. If Chicago plays every game like today’s, you won’t even see a game 5 – except maybe in the East.

  5. sharkmaster88 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:53 PM

    David holland should get a seven game suspension I don’t care if its first time or multiple it was a bad hit he lead with an elbow”

  6. hammerhead5573 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:56 PM

    Who’s Dave Holland? is this someone new on the Hawks? Crap how do I miss these new guys they sign in the 3rd round of the playoff’s?

  7. sprtsfan1 - Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 PM

    Garagehero1……. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! What game were you watching homer? So you’re one of the ones who found out LA had a hockey team last year. Gonna be a long series for you. Keep blaming the refs. It’s all their fault. The Kings were flawless today.

    • Jackson Scofield - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:18 PM

      He should hope it will be a long series anyway, seeing as the Kings are down a game to the Hawks, I mean refs, and it is hard to win 4 straight against the Hawks

  8. blackhawkslove - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:01 PM

    Its going to be pretty tough for the Kings to win this series if they only put Quick on the ice. I saw a lot of Kings player disappear tonight. Its going to take a lot more effort to win against them, especially when the Kings are notorious for one goal affairs.

    • indianhead1992 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM

      I was thinking the same thing. The only names I heard were Quick, Doughty, Greene, Voynov, Muzzin, Regehr, Scuderi, Williams (on a fluke play), and Penner going to the box. I don’t know any other players that were mentioned. Oh yeah, Kopitar lossing a lot of faceoffs too in the beginning.

  9. ashtongronholz8 - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:09 PM

    It’s amusing reading the comments from kings fans. Acting as though they know anything living in California. News flash, Chicago is not a dirty team this coming from a MN fan. In case you didn’t realize, every team has certain players that make questionable hits. Do I even need to mention brown?

    • blackhawksdynasty - Jun 1, 2013 at 9:57 PM

      Chicago has a lot of class, as does Minnesota. Well put.

    • chicagobtech - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM

      Hey ashtongronholz8! If we can get four series of Chicago/Minnesota-style hockey (high quality play, minimal drama) nothing would make me happier. That was a great series, I can only wonder how things might have changed had you guys not had that weirdness with your goalies.

  10. Jackson Scofield - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:22 PM

    Kings D needs to perform better, the Hawks offense is scary and Quick can only make so many saves without someone bailing him out, he is human after all, they need to step up and stop the onslaught. Hawks defense has been big all season and look what it has done for Crawford, who was supposed to be our major weakness coming into the season. Kings don’t have too much offense to begin with, and dealing with the Hawks defense will make it worse, the Kings D absolutely needs to step up IMO.

  11. aldog83 - Jun 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM

    Hawks looked faster than the Kings.

    If Kopitar Carter and Brown don’t start contributing every night (GOALS!!!!)

    The Hawks will be in the diver seat!

    Thank you Quick for heroic playoff record.

    Come on Kings gotta help this guy out!

    In Quick’s words… How bout this F***ing team!

    Please put song punks in the net!

  12. blomfeld - Jun 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM


    Well so much for all this hoopla about the President’s Trophy winner smashing our LA Kings in ‘four’ and such eh ? There on ground of their own choosing, these mid-west ‘simpletons’ were afforded the opportunity of firing the first volley … yet some lethargic 2-1 score is all they can come up with ? Well PSSST say we Kings ! Now comes our turn to ‘return fire’ and man do we ever have something in store for you people ! Fellow historians like me will know only too well that General Wolf’s deadly ‘return volley’ at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (ie: Quebec City 1759) is the ‘sole’ reason why all of you jack asses are today conversing here at PHT in English as opposed to French. That one ‘lethal’ and ‘expertly timed’ counter action by Wolf, is perhaps the greatest example in military history of how one ‘carries the day’ in a most ‘decisive’ of fashions. I would submit to you friends that ‘right now’ as I type these words of electronic discourse, people like Carter, Richards, Kopitar, Doughty, Williams, Brown, Lewis, Penner and Martinez are all ‘salivating’ at the prospect of that which comes tomorrow !

    ps: the Stones are my favorite band of all time and I’ve got a feeling they’ve got a hand in all this ? :)

    ALRIGHT THEN, HERE WE GO … GO KINGS GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • blomfeld - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 AM

      ps: thanks a lot Mick for making us play two nights in a row ! :)

      too funny eh? … these Hawks are about to be introduced to the NHL’s equivalent of Lucifer !

    • comeonnowguys - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM


      -Overheard in the Blackhawks locker room after the game, regarding the Kings’ forecheck and physical play.

      • blomfeld - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:33 AM

        Blomfeld in Tiger 1: Tiger ‘one’ to Tiger ‘two’ … blow that piece of junk off the bridge !

        Tiger 2: “Consider it done” comrade Blomfeld !

    • jrhawk - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM

      LOL. Did anyone read anything even remotely intelligent in that rant?

    • chicagobtech - Jun 2, 2013 at 9:43 AM


      A question asked by a fan of the team that did not even score its only goal.

  13. earpaniac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:40 AM

    For all the talk about the Kings’ hitting, the harder hits, IMO, were by the Hawks. The difference in speed was also a big factor. The Kings’ one goal was basically an own goal. I don’t care how good Quick is, he’s human. You can’t win many games getting outshot like that, especially with as good an offense as the Hawks have. I still don’t think it’s going to be a cakewalk. Hawks in 6.

    Go Hawks!!

  14. jpat2424 - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM

    Hey garage. Get a clue. They have to play back to back, cause the freaking Rolling Stones are gonna be playing in the UC on Monday. What’s the deal with this Hawks are the dirtiest team in the league? It’s quite the opposite. So get clue and shut the freaking mouth

  15. alwaysgame7 - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM

    Holy Sh1zz1t!!! I accidentally clicked a video on mobile and a video started! THE END IS NEIGH!!!!!!!

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1965)
  2. P. Kessel (1626)
  3. M. Richards (1395)
  4. N. Backstrom (1211)
  5. M. Giordano (1182)