GDT: Game 3, Hawks @ Leafs: 6PM Central on NBCS-CHI and NHLN-US--Don't Upset Evil Saad!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rooh

GENERATIONAL TANK COMMANDER
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2017
3,757
9,252
I think you guys are pretty harsh and critical on your team - they thoroughly dominated 1st 2 games and kept this one pretty close (and got a point out of it)

I have always looked up at this Chicago and used to wish to have a team like Black Hawks - nothing but a praise for a franchise like Hawks
HF Hawks after a loss
Almmy_s-200x150.gif
 

deytookerjaabs

Johnny Paycheck's Tank Advisor
Sep 26, 2010
13,297
5,261
Eastern Shore
I don't mean to be extra harsh on the Leafs, they're one dumb GM away from being the best team in the league, look at what happened to Los Angeles, two or three key talents would make them sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daddy

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
This was not the case at all. The Hawks effort after the first was not there. Anyone with eyes could see this. I ascribe it to a lack of effort because it is very obvious that is what it was. The Leafs were fines but the team that showed up the two prior games would have fared much different. You can't track effort with numbers but it shows up in how they compete and very much in the how they backcheck. This game our backcheck was terrible for lines 2 and 3.

I haven't even looked at any numbers beyond the chart that Modry posted yet, lol.

I think some people just have problem admitting that when both teams put in full effort, sometimes the Blackhawks are the worse team. Sometimes by a lot. Sometimes they're beaten not for lack of effort, but for lack of execution, or even, because they're on the wrong side of the talent gap between the two rosters.

It's just easier to ascribe it to effort because a Blackhawks team that isn't putting in full effort isn't the 'real' Blackhawks, and that provides hope they'll magically be better with 'more effort' next time.

Just like they were magically going to be better when they put 'more effort' in for games 2, 3 and 4 of the playoffs last year.

More times than not, if a team looks really bad, most of it is because of the other guys on the ice MAKING them look bad.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,921
21,144
Chicago 'Burbs
Nah. They tried, the other guys were better.

People seem to ascribe a lack of effort every time our guys get soundly outplayed. Heard the same nonsense during the Nashville series.

It was primarily the other guys making the Blackhawks look bad, simply by playing so much better around and through them. The Leafs werent given anything. They simply took what they wanted from players that didnt have the ability to stop them.

No.

The Hawks played fine in the 1st period. The Leafs top guys were an absolute non-factor through the vast majority of the 1st period. In the second they were complete garbage. Missed passes. Looked slow. Blown coverage and assignments by wingers, particularly Kane. No hard back-checking. The entire 2nd and 3rd period the vast majority of the team looked like they had no desire to play anymore, or had no legs left, or both. Keith must have literally had his brains leak out of his f***ing ears because he looked like Norris Keith in the 1st, and then looked like AHL Keith through the next two. Doesn't help when the refs are just tossing people out of the faceoffs for seemingly no reason, to the point your captain starts to visibly get agitated. Then throw in the amount of soft ass penalties that take the entire flow out of the game... Like 75% of the penalties weren't a penalty last year... And I'm talking about them on both teams. It was a disgustingly bad officiated game that seemingly was reffed by f***ing mite refs.

That Leafs team wasn't a world beater, by any means. If you think Toronto clowned the Hawks that bad in the 2nd and 3rd because they're SO MUCH BETTER to the point that the Hawks just "didn't have the ability to stop them", after what the Hawks did to the Pens and the Jackets, then IDK what to tell you JD.

This entire post is ridiculous to read, tbh.

Talk about a hot take.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
I haven't even looked at any numbers beyond the chart that Modry posted yet, lol.

I think some people just have problem admitting that when both teams put in full effort, sometimes the Blackhawks are the worse team. Sometimes by a lot. Sometimes they're beaten not for lack of effort, but for lack of execution, of even, because they're on the wrong side of the talent gap between the two rosters.

It's just easier to ascribe it to effort because a Blackhawks team that isn't putting in full effort isn't the 'real' Blackhawks, and that provides hope they'll magically be better with 'more effort' next time.

Just like they were magically going to be better when they put 'more effort' in for games 2, 3 and 4 of the playoffs last year.

More times than not, if a team looks really bad, most of it is because of the other guys on the ice MAKING them look bad.

You are missing the point.

The Hawks effort was the issue. Check their defensive missed assignments, lack of effort in the backcheck, their lack of aggressiveness on the forecheck, and their lack of effort in front of the net. These were all very obvious.

I know when a team puts in a good effort and is just outplayed, this was nowhere close to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortyfives

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
No.

The Hawks played fine in the 1st period. In the second they were complete garbage. Missed passes. Looked slow. Blown coverage and assignments by wingers, particularly Kane. No hard back-checking. The entire 2nd and 3rd period the vast majority of the team looked like they had no desire to play anymore, or had no legs left, or both. Doesn't help when the refs are just tossing people out of the faceoffs for seemingly no reason, to the point your captain starts to visibly get agitated. Then throw in the amount of soft ass penalties that take the entire flow out of the game... Like 75% of the penalties weren't a penalty last year...

That Leafs team wasn't a world beater, by any means. If you think Toronto clowned the Hawks that bad in the 2nd and 3rd because they're SO MUCH BETTER to the point that the Hawks just "didn't have the ability to stop them", after what the Hawks did to the Pens and the Jackets, then IDK what to tell you JD.

This entire post is ridiculous to read, tbh.

Talk about a hot take.

Nonsense.

A team can play and execute very well on night and fail the next, and effort need not be the reason for the dip. Execution and effort are not tied 1:1. A team can try really hard and still flub passes, shots, miss assignments, etc.

I don't think the Maple Leafs from a raw talent perspective are so much better than the Blackhawks, but I think they played SO MUCH better than the Blackhawks, and I don't think it's cause they tried harder.

You have two teams working towards opposite ends, one team playing well can and will negatively impact the other team's ability to perform towards the end of winning. The Leafs played well enough that the Blackhawks best effort wasn't good enough. And not by a long shot. They were out-performed, simple as that.

It's lazy to chalk bad losses up to 'effort' every damn time, or at least as many times as members of this forum like to.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
The Hawks didn't have an aggressive forecheck because they couldn't even get there before the Leafs got it out of the zone.

There were certainly moments where there was lack of effort, but I don't know how a 23-3 ES shot advantage over the final 40 minutes can be defined as anything but a clowning. Its not like they sat there in the first intermission and were like 'okay, time to stop trying until tomorrow night'
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
The Hawks looked too good in the first period to say that the Leafs are a better team. Again, I don't know what happened after intermission. It's very confusing.

That first goal against was kinda weak on Forsberg IMHO and the tying goal was a wonky deflection but those can be explained away as just normal parts of hockey. The Chicago Blackhawks getting out-skated and out-shot 33-7 (or whatever it was) is not something easily explained away
 

looseneditforyou

Registered User
Apr 30, 2011
673
39
I dont think any of the Blackhawks lacked effort, I just think they were soundly outplayed.

Leafs are going to make a lot of teams look really bad this year and many years to come.

I do think the Schmaltz absence hurt because the domino effect down the lineup as guys have been moved around is the Blackhawks basically have one great line and 3 weak lines.
The Leafs look a lot like the Blackhawks of 6-8 years ago and I think that's where their timeline is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaegerDice

TorMenT

Go Blackhawks!
Sponsor
Oct 24, 2011
6,229
225
Rockford, IL
You are missing the point.

The Hawks effort was the issue. Check their defensive missed assignments, lack of effort in the backcheck, their lack of aggressiveness on the forecheck, and their lack of effort in front of the net. These were all very obvious.

I know when a team puts in a good effort and is just outplayed, this was nowhere close to that.

You're literally arguing the Hawks effort tonight with a guy who admitted he wasn't going to watch the game tonight because of superstition and not watching the last 2 games. I don't know why you are arguing something that has to be SEEN with someone who admitted he wasn't going to watch...
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
The Hawks didn't have an aggressive forecheck because they couldn't even get there before the Leafs got it out of the zone.

There were certainly moments where there was lack of effort, but I don't know how a 23-3 ES shot advantage over the final 40 minutes can be defined as anything but a clowning. Its not like they sat there in the first intermission and were like 'okay, time to stop trying until tomorrow night'

In the first period the Hawks owned the puck completely. The Leafs had no sustained offense and were certainly capable of being contained by Chicago
 

deytookerjaabs

Johnny Paycheck's Tank Advisor
Sep 26, 2010
13,297
5,261
Eastern Shore
Yep, thanks for the translation Jaeger.

If the leafs can make a splash watch out, until then they're just a good team with as much a shot as anyone else (not that there's anything wrong with that).


I remember being "pretty" excited for the you stacked Hawks roster and then we managed to score Campbell, Huet, and (Havlat) to Hossa....(not that the Huet part worked particularly well). That put it over the top.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
The Leafs are good, but they better win in the next two years, especially since the days of relatively reasonable second contracts or outright cap circumvention are gone now.
 

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
The Hawks looked too good in the first period to say that the Leafs are a better team. Again, I don't know what happened after intermission. It's very confusing.

That first goal against was kinda weak on Forsberg IMHO and the tying goal was a wonky deflection but those can be explained away as just normal parts of hockey. The Chicago Blackhawks getting out-skated and out-shot 33-7 (or whatever it was) is not something easily explained away

I get the confusion, but by the logic people are putting forth, couldn't one just as easily argue the Leafs 'weren't trying' in the first, and then started trying? Under such thinking, the Blackhawks looking good in the first would only be a result of the Leafs lack of effort, rather than truly reflective of the Blackhawks own performance.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
Nonsense.

A team can play and execute very well on night and fail the next, and effort need not be the reason for the dip. Execution and effort are not tied 1:1. A team can try really hard and still flub passes, shots, miss assignments, etc.

I don't think the Maple Leafs from a raw talent perspective are so much better than the Blackhawks, but I think they played SO MUCH better than the Blackhawks, and I don't think it's cause they tried harder.

You have two teams working towards opposite ends, one team playing well can and will negatively impact the other team's ability to perform towards the end of winning. The Leafs played well enough that the Blackhawks best effort wasn't good enough. And not by a long shot. They were out-performed, simple as that.

It's lazy to chalk bad losses up to 'effort' every damn time, or at least as many times as members of this forum like to.

It's only lazy to chalk it up to effort if you refuse to look at other factors. I did and watched the whole game, it was a lack of effort and it was very obvious. It is lazy of you just to assume that lack of effort is a lazy excuse.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,921
21,144
Chicago 'Burbs
Nonsense.

A team can play and execute very well on night and fail the next, and effort need not be the reason for the dip. Execution and effort are not tied 1:1. A team can try really hard and still flub passes, shots, miss assignments, etc.

I don't think the Maple Leafs from a raw talent perspective are so much better than the Blackhawks, but I think they played SO MUCH better than the Blackhawks, and I don't think it's cause they tried harder.

You have two teams working towards opposite ends, one team playing well can and will negatively impact the other team's ability to perform towards the end of winning. The Leafs played well enough that the Blackhawks best effort wasn't good enough. And not by a long shot. They were out-performed, simple as that.

It's lazy to chalk bad losses up to 'effort' every damn time, or at least as many times as members of this forum like to.

I'm not saying that they lost entirely based on effort, but it definitely looked like a huge factor in my eyes. There was something definitely missing from the 1st period to the 2nd and 3rd period. Call it endurance. Call it drive. Call it interest. Call it effort. Something wasn't there that was in the 1st period. The Hawks played like shit in the 2nd and 3rd. Period. They played like a bunch of house league level players. If the Hawks play the entire game like period one, they probably win that game like 6-2, or better, particularly with the way that Forsberg played.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BK

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
In the first period the Hawks owned the puck completely. The Leafs had no sustained offense and were certainly capable of being contained by Chicago

See I'd argue that was more the anomaly.

They barely touched the puck the first four minutes, then scored against the run of play and all of the sudden five minutes later it should've been 4-0. I agree it made no sense.

But to circle back to a post I made in here eight hours ago, the only thing the Leafs outplaying the Hawks tonight means is that they...outplayed them tonight. If they played again tomorrow it would probably be an entirely different game. Both teams are real good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaegerDice

looseneditforyou

Registered User
Apr 30, 2011
673
39
No.

The Hawks played fine in the 1st period. The Leafs top guys were an absolute non-factor through the vast majority of the 1st period. In the second they were complete garbage. Missed passes. Looked slow. Blown coverage and assignments by wingers, particularly Kane. No hard back-checking. The entire 2nd and 3rd period the vast majority of the team looked like they had no desire to play anymore, or had no legs left, or both. Keith must have literally had his brains leak out of his ****ing ears because he looked like Norris Keith in the 1st, and then looked like AHL Keith through the next two. Doesn't help when the refs are just tossing people out of the faceoffs for seemingly no reason, to the point your captain starts to visibly get agitated. Then throw in the amount of soft ass penalties that take the entire flow out of the game... Like 75% of the penalties weren't a penalty last year... And I'm talking about them on both teams. It was a disgustingly bad officiated game that seemingly was reffed by ****ing mite refs.

That Leafs team wasn't a world beater, by any means. If you think Toronto clowned the Hawks that bad in the 2nd and 3rd because they're SO MUCH BETTER to the point that the Hawks just "didn't have the ability to stop them", after what the Hawks did to the Pens and the Jackets, then IDK what to tell you JD.

This entire post is ridiculous to read, tbh.

Talk about a hot take.
When a team "looks" better it's generally because they are better. What looks like a lack of effort is usually just the result of actual, tangible shortcomings on the part of individual players. These guys are trying as hard as they can pretty much all the time. Keith didn't suddenly decide to play worse. He was matched up against good players and often couldn't outplay them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaegerDice

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
The Leafs are good, but they better win in the next two years, especially since the days of relatively reasonable second contracts or outright cap circumvention are gone now.

I agree with this.

It's good timing for them though, with an expansion team further diluting the talent pool of the NHL, there are no amazing teams top to bottom in the league any more. Every roster has significant holes somewhere. The Leafs, in an ideal world, find a way to score a Trouba or something, but honestly, if they went into the playoffs with that offense and a less than optimal defense, they'd be playing other teams with weaknesses just as large.

And they have the best coach to deal with that.
 

Blackhawks

Registered User
Jul 25, 2007
5,678
1,134
Have to admit, Anisimov was looking a lot like Handzus tonight. Was having flashbacks.


Thats why I was screaming bad trade when it happened, I wonder if Columbus would trade him for Panarin now??? LOL I am sure Stan tried to trade Anisimov for Saad back int he summer and they laughed in his face...
 

looseneditforyou

Registered User
Apr 30, 2011
673
39
I'm not saying that they lost entirely based on effort, but it definitely looked like a huge factor in my eyes. There was something definitely missing from the 1st period to the 2nd and 3rd period. Call it endurance. Call it drive. Call it interest. Call it effort. Something wasn't there that was in the 1st period. The Hawks played like **** in the 2nd and 3rd. Period. They played like a bunch of house league level players. If the Hawks play the entire game like period one, they probably win that game like 6-2, or better, particularly with the way that Forsberg played.
All the things you think the Hawks were missing are generally proxies for ability relative to whoever a team is playing. Toronto is a very good team. The Hawks will beat them on many nights, but they didn't tonight, and it's because the Leafs have a ton of speed and young legs and consistently made skill plays to get possession and drive the puck up ice.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,921
21,144
Chicago 'Burbs
When a team "looks" better it's generally because they are better. What looks like a lack of effort is usually just the result of actual, tangible shortcomings on the part of individual players. These guys are trying as hard as they can pretty much all the time. Keith didn't suddenly decide to play worse. He was matched up against good players and often couldn't outplay them.

By that logic the Hawks are 10 times better than the Pens and the Jackets because they made both teams look like lottery teams.

If you honestly think Kane's play tonight was the result of "actual, tangible shortcomings" then idk what to tell you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->