Skip to content

Blackhawks taking loss to Wild as wake up call

May 8, 2014, 9:04 AM EDT

Mikael Granlund , Corey Crawford , Zach Parise Mikael Granlund , Corey Crawford , Zach Parise

Minnesota snapped Chicago’s six-game winning streak on Tuesday by scoring four unanswered goals in the third period. The Blackhawks still have a 2-1 edge in the second round series, but the Wild’s commanding win has given the team new life.

Still, Blackhawks forward Patrick Kane saw a silver lining in the defeat.

“Winning six games in a row, maybe we were a little overconfident in ourselves and Minnesota did a good job of making it a series last night,” Kane told CSN Chicago. “If anything, it’s a wake up call for us.”

Defenseman Johnny Oduya added that the loss has created a sense of urgency for the Blackhawks.

“We saw it in last series where I think for a lot of parts, they out-battled Colorado a lot,” Oduya said. “Yeah, we have to play better, that’s just the bottom line.”

Chicago beat Minnesota in five contests last year, but going into this series Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville emphasized that this isn’t the same Wild team.

That wasn’t always apparent in the first two contests, but the Wild have an opportunity to build off of their strong third period in Tuesday’s victory. Game 4 will take place on Friday and might mark the return of Minnesota forward Matt Cooke, who has completed his suspension.

  1. McFaddensPulledHammy - May 8, 2014 at 9:05 AM

    As I’ve previously stated, they took the night off……..

    • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

      MN outplayed the Hawks and did a great job of out-battling the Hawks in man on man situations. But yea, Chicago did take the night off and it most likely won’t happen again in this series!

    • spiciercheez - May 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM

      As I’ve previously stated, you are blind……….

      “Since 2003, Blackhawks have been held to 22 or fewer shots in a playoff game 7 times – 3 of those 7 times coming in this series”

      But hey, why give the Wild any credit?

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

        That’s all well and good, but two of those games were 5-2 and 4-1 losses.

      • purpleguy - May 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM

        If we then follow the logic that given the 5-2 and 4-1 scores of the first two games, they weren’t close games, then was Tuesday’s 4-0 game a blow-out? Maybe, just maybe, the Wild don’t suck.

      • spiciercheez - May 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM

        Is that right?!? Gee thanks! All I’m saying is that to just state that Chicago had a ‘night off’ isn’t very telling of how this series has been. Not to mention 3 of those goals in the first two games were empty netters.

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

        Anyone who thinks the Wild sucks is an idiot. Flat out.

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM

        I think the more correct term, even if it’s not from hockey, is prevent defense. Every time the Hawks take their foot off the gas and don’t play their game, they lose.

        St. Louis game 1 is a perfect example of this. They came out, dominated the first period, got the lead, and then sat back for the final 35 minutes, and St. Louis rightfully tied it up to send it to overtime.

        You can’t do that in the playoffs.

      • spiciercheez - May 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM

        Very true. It seems that is happening more often this playoffs with all these late leads evaporating and late tying goals and such. Sure makes it fun to watch though!

      • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM

        Yup… Maybe we should cut the homer a break, though. To some fans–it’s just a little black dot on their TV screen moving around at random until finally–it ends up in this thing they seem to like to call *the net* They couldn’t identify defensive adjustments made from game-to-game any better than their ignorance of the speed of the game in whining about knowing of a player’s intent to injure…

        Their team wins because your team sucks. Your team wins because their team *took the night off* LOL. It’s a product of the casual fan being drawn to the game.

    • guitarisgood4u - May 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM

      Or did the Wild fill in for them? 😉

    • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 6:36 PM

      “Obviously happy that we won the last game, but we’re determined to get better in the series and in this next game. We’re going to come out with a real purpose in how we play. We have to stay strong defensively, but I know that there is another level that we can get to with the puck and how we execute, in particular from coming out of our D zone and through the neutral zone.” ~Mike Yeo

      Ding ding! …and, as some pointed out previously, these are precisely the adjustments made that resulted in the outcome of game 3. For you Hawk fans–this is code speak for your team *taking the night off.*

      You either see it or you don’t–jabroni’s… 😉

  2. tfilarski - May 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM

    The hawks played a shut down game to try and take the crowd out of it…but they also took themselves out of it

  3. ghostof34 - May 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    All the thumbs down to pro-Hawks comments have little understanding how hard it is to beat the hawks 4 out of seven games in a playoff series. They didn’t watch them all season and know what a game taken off for them looks like…Tuesday was exactly that. The Hawks played an all defensive game on Tuesday…and it took their offense away. Friday they will just play how they should play and let their D do what it normally does, block shots and stretch pass out of the zone. It’s been shown 6x this playoff season already, when the Hawks play “their game” puck possession, speed, and pucks on net…they win. Bryzgalov’s shutout was an aberration. Up until that the Hawks were scoring once every 6-10 shots on goal. Bryzgalov will come back to Earth. Hawks in 5.

    • purpleguy - May 8, 2014 at 10:35 AM

      You are right on the Hawks playing a defensive trap game Tuesday and the fact that Bryz is average at best, but no championship team takes a game off in the playoffs. The Wild won because they too have good players, good coaching and played better. The Hawks haven’t had a marked advantage in puck possession all series, nor have they had tons of pucks on net — meaning the Wild aren’t letting them play their “game”. The Hawks may have a better team, and may win the series, but it won’t be in 5 games.

      • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 11:04 AM

        Night off, bad night, poor game…call it what ever you want but it happens. It happens to every team and yes, EVERY CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM had them. I’m not taking anything away from MN. I enjoyed game 3 and thought MN was the better team…on that night. Nothing to gloat about and certainly nothing to get over confidant about. It was one game for each team.

        I hope this goes 7 games. It’s great hockey!

      • ghostof34 - May 8, 2014 at 11:29 AM

        Well said..haven’t needed a ton of pucks on net though with Bryzgalov in there (3 goals on 18 shots last Friday, 4th on the 21st discount the EN on the 22nd)…I never said the Wild weren’t good, however the Blues wouldn’t let them play their game either…As long as they cycle enough to create scoring chances, which they have absolutely done–then they’re playing their game, in saying that it doesn’t mean MN can’t get into their set and also cycle. Say what you want, we are both not wrong, it can absolutely end in 5 games as I said…or not as you said. I will stick with 5.

      • blackhawksdynasty - May 8, 2014 at 11:39 AM

        Minnesota certainly deserves credit for their effort to this point. Those of us that have watched Chicago regularly know that they do in fact take nights off. I hate it, but it is what it is. Judging by their overall success, I’d have to say they still get the job done when it matters most.

        Chicago DOES have the better team. Chicago WILL win this series. It WILL be over in 5.

        You might not like it, but it is what it is.

      • alfredosauce19 - May 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

        why not end it in 4 then idiot?!?!?!?!?

      • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM

        Simple formula. I see it right here in the *Being a Chicago Blackhawk FAN for Dummies* handbook. Chapter 2, Paragraph 6–and I quote in part:

        “…but above all, you can NEVER acknowledge the superior play of your opposition. When the other teams wins–it can ONLY be because you have injuries to star players…or your goalie slipped on a banana peel or any number of other lame excuses you can think of. If you can’t seem to find anything to apply–then just defer to the old stand-by…”our team just took the night off.”

    • tved12 - May 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

      “All the thumbs down to pro-Hawks comments have little understanding how hard it is to beat the hawks 4 out of seven games in a playoff series. They didn’t watch them all season and know what a game taken off for them looks like…”

      You sure know a lot about people based on a little thumb icon on the internet. Thumb whisperer?

      Just because people don’t agree with you, or don’t like your opinion that the Hawks will win in 5 doesn’t mean they know nothing. It’s called being a fan, you believe in your team. Most Wild fans understand how hard it is to beat the Hawks in a 7 game series, we also know that it’s not impossible. If it was they would be the 4 time defending champs.

  4. comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 9:35 AM

    Also: You can’t get cute with the lineup when you don’t have last change.

  5. onlineinsite - May 8, 2014 at 9:40 AM

    Although the Hawks have a better 1st and 2nd line, and a better/more consistent goalie, the Wild have a better 3rd and 4th line. The Wild can win this if they can contain Chicago’s top 2 lines (as the they did in game 3) and can get goals from Haula, Nino, Cooke, Heatley etc.. as in game 3.

    • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

      Those are huge if’s

      • onlineinsite - May 8, 2014 at 10:17 AM

        Hawks fans seem drunk on the punch. They want to believe that game 3 was a loss because their team “took the night off” ??!! Games 1 and 2 were at home against a tired MN team, and aside from some nice plays by Kane and a few nifty breakout passes, I didn’t see a dominant Chicago team. I’m not saying the Wild will win this series, but I’d be more concerned if I were a Hawks fan.

      • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

        Spin however you want, 5-2 & 4-1 wins were pretty clear victories. Winning 50% of the last 4 cups might tend to flavor your punch a little differently than never winning it!

        MN played well, they work hard and play tough hockey.
        But in no way are they the more talented team and certainly not the favorite so why would a Hawks fan be concerned?

        Makes no sense at all.

      • purpleguy - May 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM

        Correct — very big ifs, but then again, our team still has ifs.

      • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

        Ooo. Got me there.

    • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

      So the Wild are deeper now?

      What kind of stuff did you bring back from the Colorado series, and why aren’t you sharing?

      • blackhawksdynasty - May 8, 2014 at 2:00 PM

        Puff, puff, PASS

  6. earpaniac - May 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM

    The Hawks have also lost their first road game in a series something like 6-8 straight times.

  7. luvmnsports2012 - May 8, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Know one said the Wild are the better team dumba$$! In fact, all Wild fans realize that Chicago is probably the better team, but when our Wild are playing good hockey, they are very hard to stop. I hope it’s a great series, and really hope the WILD come out on top! Avscup, why don’t u go caddie for McKinnon instead of trolling and posting nonsense! GO WILD!!!

    • avscup - May 8, 2014 at 11:10 AM

      Why don’t you go back to 3rd grade. It’s No not know…dumb$ss!

      • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM

        Why don’t you two kids take it outside, eh? God almighty… :)

  8. TBaySlim - May 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM

    i dont think the hawks took the nite off, i just think the wild shut them down defensively and found better ways to get pucks to the net then in game one an game 2. Yes Brezgalov is average, but what he also is-known for is being very streaky, one way or another, maybe he gets hot and holds his own against the hawks. I guess time will tell

    • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM

      I think the combination of you and what tfilarski said are perhaps the best description of what happened.

  9. earpaniac - May 8, 2014 at 11:24 AM

    My mistake, this makes 9 series in a row they’ve lost the first road game.

    • ghostof34 - May 8, 2014 at 11:31 AM

      And how did those others turn out??

      • fightingwild - May 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM

        As they say anything can happen. The Wild have a solid team, They are not flashy, they are not superbly skilled. They are however pluggers, Parise outworks everyone & he is not shabby in the skills department too. Granlund is a star in the making, Coyle & Haula are great defensively & starting to blossom offensively. What i mean to say is stranger things have happened. This season is a success already in my opinion, they have made it to the second round, if they win two games against Chicago it is an improvement. Do they win the series? Probably not, but do they & can they make it interesting or difficult? Absolutely. Playing at home the Wild have been lights out, no reason to believe that won’t be the case on Friday. The out come is not determined, that is why they have to play the game.

  10. luvmnsports2012 - May 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    I passed the third grade. Smart phones are the ages and auto correct as well. Thanks for the lesson grammarian. Now go away and get at me next season if your squad makes it an your words actually matter! But for now continue trolling and wishing 2014 wasn’t a repeat of 2003! Lol

  11. illogic87 - May 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM

    watch your back, cookie’s back!

  12. 311sucks - May 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM

    this minnesota team has so many big games and it’ll be really scary if they play the way they could really truly play.

    • 311sucks - May 8, 2014 at 7:20 PM

      i meant names* hahahaha.

  13. onlineinsite - May 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM

    “The Hawks always lose two games before they decide to play their best hockey. Just look at the St. Louis series!”

    – Hawks fans after another loss on Friday

    • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      I think you’re looking for, “The Hawks have come back from 2-1 deficits three times in the past two years, and 3-1 deficits once.”

      • onlineinsite - May 8, 2014 at 1:59 PM

        I think you’re looking for excuses…

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM

        For a game that hasn’t been played yet? OK, there, bub.

    • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

      LOL! Bingo. 😉

  14. lbeezyse - May 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    Professional TEAMS do not take nights off. Individual players may have an off night, but to say a professional athlete takes off a playoff game is just ill-informed and naive. The Wild won many of the small battles in game three which led to the outcome. Chicago won more in games 1-2 and surprise, they won both. Had Koivu won the battle against Toews on the Hossa breakaway rebound, that’s no goal and the series could be 2-1 for the Wild. It’s really moronic to think a whole team just decides to not play and coast around. Like I have previously stated his series is much closer than he final scores have been including the Wilds blowout game 3 win. Any of the games could have gone either way. These two clubs are more evenly matched than most will admit. I look at it as great progress to say the Wild are ALMOST on the Hawks level. Hese two teams are going to re-kindle one of the better rivalries of the 90’s whether the 2009 and newer Hawks fans like it or not. I for one look forward to great hockey.

    • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      It’s really moronic to think a whole team just decides to not play and coast around.

      And yet that’s what happened. The Hawks slowed it down as a playstyle, and that played straight into the Wild’s style. And the Wild won. Crazy.

      • lbeezyse - May 8, 2014 at 2:54 PM

        Maybe they slowed down because the Wild slowed them down? Is it too far fetched to believe that the Wild could play good enough to slow down the mighty Hawks? The Wild played a more physical suffocating game than they did in games 1 &2. That same type of physical play is what did in the Avs. All of us Wild fans get that the Hawks are a phenomenal club and have won some cups, but it’s some fans on these boards that really give their fan base a bad name. How many of you were fans when the Hawks were in the S***er and landing the high picks that became Toews, Can and the like? BHD, you confuse the words could and would. Could = possible, would = more a definitive. Makes a world of a difference, so please don’t twist my words to try to make your rant relative.

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        You’re kidding, right? Not only did the Wild play good enough to win… they won.

        It was made much, much, much easier by the fact that the Hawks clearly played this game not to lose, played conservative, and that played right into the Wild’s game.

        Are you sure you’re not a bad White Sox fan?

    • blackhawksdynasty - May 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM

      The only moron here is the one looking back at you in the mirror…

      I laugh at the “if this would’ve happened our team wins” garbage…

      When the wild win a cup you can say they’re “almost” as good as Chicago. Until then, it’s just a pipe dream

      • tved12 - May 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

        Nice grade school insult there buddy, that really added some credibility to the rest of your comment.

      • lbeezyse - May 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM

        Also, in the present term, your cups don’t mean crap. They don’t give the Hawks any special powers or perks in the 2014 playoffs. Do they?

        By your logic, the Hawks are worse than: The Canadians, Leafs, Bruins, Wings, and are on par with The Oilers. And barely better than the Islanders. So again to correct you, the Wild are almost as good as the Hawks are in the current tense.

      • chicagobtech - May 8, 2014 at 3:29 PM

        Winning two of the last four Stanley Cup tournaments means the current core of the Blackhawks has experience with deep runs in the playoffs. Winning it last year means most everybody on the team has that experience. Are you going to tell me that experience has no value?

      • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

        Really now, Pops… Is that any way for an elder statesman, such as yourself, to behave? Tsk tsk… I expect you to serve as a better role model or I’ll leave you in on the commode tomorrow night during the next game the hawks decide to *take the night off*… :)

  15. comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

    Hearing the lineups today in practice, I apparently spoke to soon



    • parasolmonster - May 8, 2014 at 4:13 PM

      “We’re looking for balance and maybe all lines, a little more threat to score on all the lines.” -Q

      Surprising, but I owe the ‘stache trust until the day I die. Sharp/Zus/Hossa is interesting as a 3rd.

      • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 4:19 PM

        I do trust him. And obviously he’s smart and I’m an idiot. On paper, though, man.

      • clarke16 - May 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM

        You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. Look on the bright side. Your self-awareness is improving, eh? :)

  16. slysipops - May 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    no team takes a night off……so true , but they do get sort of lazy and don’t play up to par . that usually leads to a loss. great teams overcome whatever the opposition tosses at them with intensity. very little is done to change their game . if their game was sub-par, the team would never get to the SCP to begin with. so yes the HAWKS need to wake up and play at the level they can play at ….through intensity ! GO HAWKS GO !

  17. luvmnsports2012 - May 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM

    LOL!! GO WILD!!!

    • comeonnowguys - May 8, 2014 at 4:08 PM

      Well spoken.

      I think.

      Probably not really.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. B. Holtby (2390)
  2. D. Stepan (2113)
  3. G. Bettman (2100)
  4. A. Larsson (2024)
  5. A. Semin (1535)
  1. C. Ehrhoff (1266)
  2. M. Johansson (1231)
  3. L. Couture (1230)
  4. D. Tippett (1219)
  5. P. Datsyuk (1198)