Skip to content

Discuss: ‘Hawks beat Bruins 3-2 in shootout in Stanley Cup Final rematch

Jan 19, 2014, 3:18 PM EST

Brandon Bollig AP

Patrick Kane sealed the deal in a shootout as the Chicago Blackhawks beat the Boston Bruins 3-2 in a shootout. Kane and Jonathan Toews each scored in the skills competition while Brad Marchand was the only Bruin to tally.

What’s there to talk about from this one? Some food for thought:

– We know it wasn’t a playoff game and the Stanley Cup wasn’t on the line, but that sure felt like a playoff game.

– Who knew the game’s weirdest penalty would go to Toews? A 10-minute misconduct for tossing part of his broken stick in the crowd takes the cake.

– Brad Marchand showed a bit of everything he can do. He scored twice, was able to get under the Blackhawks skin drawing their attention and a penalty and scored in the shootout. Solid day.

– Outstanding work from Tuukka Rask in goal for Boston and Corey Crawford for Chicago. Rask had a couple of flashier stops to keep the ‘Hawks off the board.

– Rask would like one of them back though. Brandon Bollig‘s goal from the goal line near the corner with no angle doesn’t look pretty, but it counted nonetheless.

Matt Bartkowski might want a do-over on his hit on Ben Smith with 4.6 seconds left that put Chicago on the power play to start overtime. At least it didn’t cost Boston the game. Silver linings, people.

Here are the highlights from today’s game:

  1. stratomaticfan - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM

    Another great hockey game ruined by the dreaded shootout. NBA doesn’t play horse after 1 OT…..MLB doesn’t do HR derby after 1 inning. No reason not to play 4×4 OT till winner….so much open ice, it would be shocking to see one go a full OT period.

    • hazlydose - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:46 PM

      There is a reason not to play 4×4 until there is a winner. Its the same reason there used to be ties. You can’t play overtime until a winner when you have a game the next day. The NHL will never go to continuous OT in the regular season, even though it would provide the best entertainment.

      • slysipops - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM

        DOESN’T HAVE TO GO CONTINUOUS..one preiod and a W or a tie ….end of game !

      • hazlydose - Jan 19, 2014 at 8:54 PM

        I was responding to the statement: “NO REASON NOT TO PLAY 4X4 OT TILL WINNER” (since you like to use caps to emphasize). I’m aware that there are other options…

      • slysipops - Jan 20, 2014 at 1:35 AM

        aplogy for the caps didn’t realize they bothered people so much . we all know the reason the NHL ( ok?) went to the OT and shootout….. stir up interest for the trendies thusly selling more tickets

    • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:46 PM

      Firstly, I don’t see how 65 mins of hockey is ruined by the SO. If you think so then you must have a miserable life and must get depressed a lot. Secondly, think about what you are suggesting. How can two teams play 4 on 4 until there is a winner? During the regular season teams often play 2 games in 24 hours in 2 different cities. At what time will an evening game finish if it’s an 8pm start and you have to play 3 OT periods? Teams often arrive at their second destination at 2am and play a game at 8pm (18 hours later). What will 3 OT periods do to a team’s travel plans and how will it affect their ability to be effective the next day.

      • stratomaticfan - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM

        The shootout is a glorified penalty shot competition. If you’re not going to settle it on the ice, you should have ties.

      • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:05 PM

        The only reason we don’t have ties is because we the fans didn’t like ties. We wanted a winner, and the only way to do that without compromising the hectic schedule was by adding a SO.

      • shortsxit34 - Jan 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM

        “We” the fans or simply fans.

        At least initially, almost all the true hockey fans hated the idea of shootouts. They were meant to bring in the casual fan.

        I’d like to see a breakdown of hockey fans and casual fans before and after thoughts.

      • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 7:21 PM

        who cares. it’s really about revenues and net profits.

  2. hammerhead5573 - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM

    Those are the 2 goalies who showed up in last years Stanley Cup. They both kept their teams in the game today. And finally the Hawks realize it’s ok to win in OT or shoot out.

  3. comeonnowguys - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM

    Glad to see the Hawks pick up 2 points, but this was too good of a game to be decided by a shootout. Fix it this summer.

    • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM

      And what do you propose?

      • comeonnowguys - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:01 PM

        3 points for regulation win. If it’s tied, two five minute periods of 4 on 4. 2 points for overtime win, 1 point for overtime loss (or tie after 70 minutes.)

    • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM

      So, this game could have ended in a tie based on your suggestion. Was this game too good of a game to end in a tie?

      • comeonnowguys - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM

        I used to hate ties. I really did.

        Now I hate the fact that winning this gains you the same amount of points as a win.

        If they want to keep them, fine. Just make regulation wins 3 points. I’ve seen plenty of games where it was clear one or both of the teams were just holding on late in the third for a Pity Point. This kind of game is more of the exception, where two heavyweights slug it out, trading chances late.

      • joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 7:19 PM

        the so called pitty point was usually in play when the game involved two teams from different conferences. anyway. we’ll see what happens with the shootouts if anything next year.

  4. govtminion - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM

    Great game, both teams played well. I was surprised by Toews’ penalty in the second period- I’ve never seen that happen before, so I didn’t realize that was a ten-minute penalty. You learn something new every day, I guess.

    Two great teams collide, one comes out on top after overtime and a good shootout. We can ask for a lot worse Finals matchup than to see these two meet again at the end.

  5. Wineshard - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    Make a win worth 3 points, an OT win worth 2 and a tie after 5 minutes worth 1. Currently teams play safe if tied late in the 3rd as well as OT.

    Then you could get rid of the shootout and make for a more entertaining ending to games with the added urgency.

  6. shaundre93 - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM

    Yeah, that was an awesome game to watch. Nothing to complain about. Yeah, the shootout kinda stinks but its that or tie games. The teams will never agree to do continuous OT in the regular season. It was nice to see Boston show up for a big game like this considering how they’ve been playing of late. Then again Chi hasn’t exactly been their best… Maybe this will snap both teams outta their funks

  7. slysipops - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:17 PM

    WOW! the HAWKS win in a shootout for a change ! 2 W’s against two top teams….way to go! keep it flowing boys ! GO HAWKS GO !

    • blackhawksdynasty - Jan 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM

      I was about to give a thumbs up until I saw the “go hawks go”

      • slysipops - Jan 20, 2014 at 1:39 AM

        ?

  8. dan46778 - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM

    A shoot out is for the Sunday after noon game who does not know hockey if they had sex with bobby orr

  9. amityvillefun - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM

    Julien pulled a bonehead move putting in Spooner first for the shootout and it cost the B’s the game. The Bruins have proven scorers in Krejci, Iginla, Eriksson…and he puts out Ryan (I haven’t scored an NHL goal yet!!!) Spooner.

    Claude, there is a reason the guys I mentioned make a HELL OF A LOT MORE MONEY THAN SPOONER.

    Neely should rip into him for this decision. It was really stupid and cost the Bruins a big game that would have done much for momentum and morale.

    BTW, this isn’t a knock on Spooner. This is all on Claude.

Featured video

Eakins on his way out of Edmonton?

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (2863)
  2. V. Hedman (2835)
  3. P. Datsyuk (2516)
  4. D. Krejci (2316)
  5. P. Sharp (2267)
  1. B. Elliott (2067)
  2. Z. Chara (1905)
  3. S. Varlamov (1838)
  4. R. McDonagh (1812)
  5. B. Dubinsky (1737)