As we all know, there would be more scoring, checking, flow, give-and-go, passing, skating, speed, news-reel highlights, one-timers, deking, open-ice hitting, and unbelievable saves if there was more fighting and no instigator rule. Let them drop the gloves more often, and the goals will flow like water from an endless spring. : -P

I will say this for the game. It had the best fight I'd ever seen in person. A guy was literaly dropped with one punch. That was pretty cool. There was one pretty goal scored by L.A. and the Blackhawks had a five on three for one full minute and didn't take a single shot. Those are the three things I'll take from the game. Pitiful.

Part of the problem is the Blackhawks. We are lucky down here to have the Tampa Bay Lightning, who win or lose are at least very entertaining. We almost went to the Colorado game this past Monday, but decided we'd better hold onto the money. I wish we hadn't. It was an awesome game. At least it was on tv!

Mike and I have been discussing the pros and cons of fighting in the NHL. It is interesting to me that the two most exciting games I have ever seen live consisted of one game that had THREE fights, and one game that had NONE.

It's not normally the Blackhawks. I went to the Colorado game, and it was really exciting. The Detroit games are usually pretty good. St. Louis games are exciting. Maybe it has to do with the Hawks rising or sinking to the level and type of play of their opponents. Who knows. This game was not typical of games I've seen in person.

Often with the crappy teams you see them step it up against a good team, while the good team lets down. Detroit is an EXCELLENT example. They've got a losing record against a handful of the worst teams in the league this year, including Chicago.

Back to the the Hawks, throw on top of that the fact that Detroit and Colorado are very offensive teams, while St. Louis has serious issues on their blueline aside of Pronger, and it will appear to inflate the abilities of a team like Chicago. They can't sit back when Milan Hejduk is followed by Sakic, Kariya, Selanne, Blake, and/or Forsberg. So I still think it's the Blackhawks to a point. I, for one, predicted from the beginning of the season they'd be the worst team in the Western Conference. I wasn't alone.

So watch them play teams like Detroit, Vancouver, Colorado, and St. Louis and you'll likely get an entertaining game. Watch them against just about anyone else, and it is not as likely.

Funny. I thought I posted a message JUST like that one. Of course, now this message will be obsolete and look foolish if and when it is fixed.

(The above posted at this moment that I am reading it says it is posted by "mike.")

You stole my name!!

Anyway, I think we're saying the same thing: the opponent is what matters. Right? However you want to put it.

Now that I mention it, maybe it's me. When I'm there, they ordinarily don't want to disappoint me. Their record in games I've attended is a hell of a lot better than their overall record. They need to start paying me.

I used to feel that way about the minor-league Flint Spirits when I was a kid. One year I went to three games and they won all three!! In all seriousness, those were three of the only four home games they won that year, and one of them was against the first place Muskegon Lumberjacks who beat them 8-1 the next time they played. The Spirits folded two years later.

Interestingly, their coach at the time was Rick Dudley, who is now the general manager of the Florida Panthers. So he has a history of being in charge of crappy teams.