Talk about "loaded"

[Pez68]

What about the back end?

All the posts in this thread above pretty much ignore the defensive core. Defense from the back-end and from the team in general is what wins championships.

I honestly think the forward depth is more important in the NHL nowadays.... It sure as hell looks that way when you look at the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. Look at what Vegas has on defense. Capitals defense isn't all that stellar, either. Pittsburgh's defense is pretty damn pathetic on paper, and they won back-to-back cups. Sharks in 2016? Lightning/Hawks in 2015? Kings/Rangers in 2014? Nashville and LA are really the only outliers who had great defensemen in the last 5 years.

 

[Rolo]

Bickell-Toews-Hossa
Saad-Richards-Kane
Sharp-Vermette-Teravainen
Desjardins-Kruger-Shaw (<- one of the GOATs)
Versteeg

--

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I honestly think the forward depth is more important in the NHL nowadays.... It sure as hell looks that way when you look at the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. Look at what Vegas has on defense. Capitals defense isn't all that stellar, either. Pittsburgh's defense is pretty damn pathetic on paper, and they won back-to-back cups. Sharks in 2016? Lightning/Hawks in 2015? Kings/Rangers in 2014? Nashville and LA are really the only outliers who had great defensemen in the last 5 years.

I don't know. Maybe your right and the game has changed that much, but I feel like there are a lot of different ways to win a cup and it's the narrative changes to fit the teams that won. During the Hawks/Bruins/Kings/Hawks/Kings/Hawks stretch, it was "you cant win a cup without a great 2 way center and a true #1 d". Has the game changed that much in the last 3 years or were there always different ways to build a team and succeed? I sort of lean towards the latter.

For all the talk about Vegas forward depth, they've also gotten Vezina level goaltending which can't be overlooked as well.

 

[Blue Liner]

I don't know. Maybe your right and the game has changed that much, but I feel like there are a lot of different ways to win a cup and it's the narrative changes to fit the teams that won. During the Hawks/Bruins/Kings/Hawks/Kings/Hawks stretch, it was "you cant win a cup without a great 2 way center and a true #1 d". Has the game changed that much in the last 3 years or were there always different ways to build a team and succeed? I sort of lean towards the latter.

For all the talk about Vegas forward depth, they've also gotten Vezina level goaltending which can't be overlooked as well.

It was above that, even. Fleury's SP before the Final was over .95, wasn't it? He was putting up stupid numbers this postseason.

 

[piteus]

I seem to remember before that year started, that some people on here were upset because the Hawks didn't make any changes following the 2012 1st round exit. "Same team, same results."

Do you expect Toews, Keith, Seabrook, and Crow to rebound? I get the idea of the youngsters getting better. My question is our top line players. Our core appears to be declining at an alarming rate.

 

[ClydeLee]

I honestly think the forward depth is more important in the NHL nowadays.... It sure as hell looks that way when you look at the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. Look at what Vegas has on defense. Capitals defense isn't all that stellar, either. Pittsburgh's defense is pretty damn pathetic on paper, and they won back-to-back cups. Sharks in 2016? Lightning/Hawks in 2015? Kings/Rangers in 2014? Nashville and LA are really the only outliers who had great defensemen in the last 5 years.

The narrative I remember, at least on this sites main board, is you need 2 out of 3 of a #1C, #1D, or #1G.

Now the oddity with Pitt is they are a team most fans have said for years have 2 #1Cs. So yet they didn't have the D. But also one might argue they had 2 #1Gs in these last two cups.

Even with the most maglinged view of Crawford hawks always have had 2. And Crow these past seasons has surpassed Toews

 

[Hawkaholic]

Goals are what win games. Not secondary assists. Pittsburgh last season had 18 different players score goals. So, all 4 lines were scoring. I didn't look very hard, but I couldn't find another team that had goals from that many different players in a playoff run any time in recent history.

And, again....their two biggest stars did not have a SINGLE GWG in the playoffs(important goals).

Five of their game winners came from Guentzel(not a star)...

They got 10 goals from defensemen(a lot).

They won 5 of 8 games against Washington and Ottawa by a single goal...

You quite obviously don't understand what "depth scoring" is or how important every single goal in the playoffs is.

I know what depth scoring is, and it's not depth scoring when you have only 4 forwards record over 11pts. It doesn't matter who scored a GWG in the Final. They would have never even got there if there top 4 forwards didn't carry them there.

 

[BobbyJet]

Do you expect Toews, Keith, Seabrook, and Crow to rebound? I get the idea of the youngsters getting better. My question is our top line players. Our core appears to be declining at an alarming rate.

Not appears. It is.

The core is a shadow of its former self. All the more reason for the kids to grow up fast (a good communicative coaching would help a lot).

 

[Blackhawks]

Not winning in 2014 was really huge loss. Q’s choice of players really cost the team the cup, that mixed with Crawford’s bad 4.5 GAA in the last 6 games. Shoulda had that 3 peat, really sucks they didn’t do it as they were the clear favorites IMO.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Nothing clear about it. The Hawks were great. That Kings team was great. It took a game seven overtime to decide the winner.

That was some of the best hockey the NHL has ever seen.

 

[LordKOTL]

Do you expect Toews, Keith, Seabrook, and Crow to rebound? I get the idea of the youngsters getting better. My question is our top line players. Our core appears to be declining at an alarming rate.

Wait...a goaltender putting up a .929 behind one of the worst defenses in the league has to rebound? He got injured, his numbers didn't fall off the cliff like Keith's.

 

[piteus]

Wait...a goaltender putting up a .929 behind one of the worst defenses in the league has to rebound? He got injured, his numbers didn't fall off the cliff like Keith's.

Crow is the biggest question of them all due to injury.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

Do you expect Toews, Keith, Seabrook, and Crow to rebound? I get the idea of the youngsters getting better. My question is our top line players. Our core appears to be declining at an alarming rate.

If Crawford is healthy then I think he'll be fine. I think Keith will be better as well. Not sure about the other two.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

If Crawford is healthy then I think he'll be fine. I think Keith will be better as well. Not sure about the other two.

Agree on all 4.

Crow is just a question of health. While Keith is declining, he's better than he played last year. I'm a huge Toews supporter and he's still a good player, I'm not sure he can get back to what he was 3-4 years ago. Don't think Seabs improves and would settle for, no further decline.

 

[Panzerspitze]

Not sure about Keith getting "better" than last season. His shots might find the net more often, but other than that... In fact, hardly anyone seems to note his fall last season, not only offensively, but defensively as well. He seemed to be laboring just skating to my untrained eyes.

 

[Putt Pirate]

Keith I don't believe is as bad as he was last year. Perhaps Craw makes them all seem that much better.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Not sure about Keith getting "better" than last season. His shots might find the net more often, but other than that... In fact, hardly anyone seems to note his fall last season, not only offensively, but defensively as well. He seemed to be laboring just skating to my untrained eyes.

I tend to think he let go of the reins so to speak after the season was lost. It seemed to me he was a lot worse in the 2nd half of the year.

I also think he would benefit from a slightly reduced minutes (take off PP) and a better partner. Think he has a decent bounce back.

 

[JaegerDice]

I used to believe you couldn't win without depth in the NHL.

I also believed you needed an elite 1C, an elite 1D and a good goalie (or at least, an average goalie playing great).

I don't really believe any of it any more. I think a decade plus of the salary cap has flattened the league to such a degree, every team has holes and no factor is critical. Just get hot at the right time, have a coach that can maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses.

We saw PIT win 2 cups with pretty weak defense. We'll teams with great D win without much scoring, we'll see teams win with any number of different strengths and weaknesses going forward. Right now we're watching a top-heavy offensive team that's pretty meh on D and pretty good in net, against a team that's pretty good on offense, pretty good on defense, and elite (for this season anyway) in net. And they're pretty well matched, in aggregate.


As far as the 2013 team goes, I love that team. I loved watching it. I'm not sure it was the best Blackhawks team on paper, but as far as performance, I don't think I've cheered for a team that played that well, night in, night out, save Jordan's record-setting (at the time) Bulls. It was pretty much perfect hockey. I consider it almost unfair to compare any Blackhawks team since or to come to that team, because so many guys were playing the best hockey of their lives at once. And it was a shortened season, so it felt like everybody was willing to empty the tank every single game, maximum effort on every back-check, every PK, I swear there were games it felt like we always had 3 extra guys in the neutral zone. It probably won't happen again.

 

[LordKOTL]

Crow is the biggest question of them all due to injury.

Based on your quote directly, you said, "Rebound", which to me means that a player had a bad year and has to play better the following year. That's not the case with Crawford since he was in Vezina form and playing the best hockey of his career when he went down. Semantics maybe, but IMHO Crawford doesn't have to get better, he just has to stay healthy.

Keith I don't believe is as bad as he was last year. Perhaps Craw makes them all seem that much better.

I've said many of times that Crawford was masking the issues on D...and honestly Crawford and Darling have been masking them for awhile. Naturally a great goalie is going to make the team D in front of them look that much better, but trying to isolate the defense proper, Keith had a really bad year--like worse than both 2011 and 2006. You compare his D-metrics against every other D-man--and including his partners, and they were significantly less--at every point of the year. Crawford healthy and carrying the team? Keith's D was still the worst of the squad.

While I definitely think @b1e9a8r5s has a good point that at some point Keith let go of the reins (Numbers indicate they really tanked after Kempny got let go--before that they were just bad), I think it did indeed show that as a complete entity, the 'hawks heads and buttholes weren't wired together. It appeared as if different players, the coach, and the GM at different times during the year threw in the towel. That's a problem.

As for Keith, there should definitely be an onus on him to be better. But I think there has to be an onus on Q/Coaching to not run him roughshod anymore. There's no more need for that. At this point we gotta start grooming the new guys--a new PPQB (something Keith hasn't been good at in years), and new guys to be the go-to on the blueline in terms of defensibly responsible and soaking up minutes. Within his deployment Keith has to be better, but part of that also has to be better deployment, which is on Q IMHO. If Keith is still run roughshod but his numbers improve, then good on him. But IMHO both need to happen.

 

[Blue Liner]

I used to believe you couldn't win without depth in the NHL.

I also believed you needed an elite 1C, an elite 1D and a good goalie (or at least, an average goalie playing great).

I don't really believe any of it any more. I think a decade plus of the salary cap has flattened the league to such a degree, every team has holes and no factor is critical. Just get hot at the right time, have a coach that can maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses.

We saw PIT win 2 cups with pretty weak defense. We'll teams with great D win without much scoring, we'll see teams win with any number of different strengths and weaknesses going forward. Right now we're watching a top-heavy offensive team that's pretty meh on D and pretty good in net, against a team that's pretty good on offense, pretty good on defense, and elite (for this season anyway) in net. And they're pretty well matched, in aggregate.

I think this is a good point and I agree with it. I think a few here and elsewhere, in addition to myself, have said that that's part of the reason things may not seem as bleak as this season made things look for the Hawks. There really aren't any teams that are light years ahead of the pack and without holes. Even Vegas, as good as they've been this postseason, are going to come down to Earth a little bit next season when they don't have a goaltender playing out of his mind like Fleury did up to this series. And you're probably not getting 40 goals from certain forwards again, either. Point being, no team is lights out, flat out, a stand alone favorite to win anything. You have a group of teams you could put in that class but even then they aren't invincible. As pointed out, even teams with pretty obvious holes have won Cups the last two years and both teams battling it out now aren't perfect.

"Flattening" the league out is a good way to put it. It's been through enough of a cycle that it's affected every team in some way now to this point. Even teams like Toronto with a bunch of high end, cost-controlled talent is going to be affected big time once those players are due raises in a season or two. Edmonton paying $13 or $14 million to McDavid...you could on and on. Everyone's feeling it and feeling the challenge of having to build a full roster around big money contracts. The cap is doing its thing across the board now, for better or worse.

 

[JaegerDice]

Based on your quote directly, you said, "Rebound", which to me means that a player had a bad year and has to play better the following year. That's not the case with Crawford since he was in Vezina form and playing the best hockey of his career when he went down. Semantics maybe, but IMHO Crawford doesn't have to get better, he just has to stay healthy.



I've said many of times that Crawford was masking the issues on D...and honestly Crawford and Darling have been masking them for awhile. Naturally a great goalie is going to make the team D in front of them look that much better, but trying to isolate the defense proper, Keith had a really bad year--like worse than both 2011 and 2006. You compare his D-metrics against every other D-man--and including his partners, and they were significantly less--at every point of the year. Crawford healthy and carrying the team? Keith's D was still the worst of the squad.

While I definitely think @b1e9a8r5s has a good point that at some point Keith let go of the reins (Numbers indicate they really tanked after Kempny got let go--before that they were just bad), I think it did indeed show that as a complete entity, the 'hawks heads and buttholes weren't wired together. It appeared as if different players, the coach, and the GM at different times during the year threw in the towel. That's a problem.

As for Keith, there should definitely be an onus on him to be better. But I think there has to be an onus on Q/Coaching to not run him roughshod anymore. There's no more need for that. At this point we gotta start grooming the new guys--a new PPQB (something Keith hasn't been good at in years), and new guys to be the go-to on the blueline in terms of defensibly responsible and soaking up minutes. Within his deployment Keith has to be better, but part of that also has to be better deployment, which is on Q IMHO. If Keith is still run roughshod but his numbers improve, then good on him. But IMHO both need to happen.

The Chicago Blackhawks have been a straight up BAD defensive team since 2016. We basically made the playoffs the last two seasons on Corey Crawford's back.

They were actually a pretty bad defensive team during the 2015 season, up til the trade-deadline. After that they tightened up, and were very good defensively in the playoffs.

The composition and deployment of the dcorps is the biggest issue, but the truth is that team defense on the whole has steadily been going down the crapper, and finally went off a cliff last season. The back-checking all season long was between dismal to absent, which suggests some major issues with buy-in from the roster. It doesn't help that we basically have three legit 2-way players left with the departures of Hossa, Teuvo and Kruger - 2 of them play on one line, and the other has had several lower-body injuries slowing him down and cutting into his effectiveness (at least short term after returning from said injury). We have a lot of one-directional forwards right now, along with a defense that our coaching staff seems incapable of deploying in an intelligent manner.

So yeah, we need Crawford to be healthy next season.

 

[piteus]

Based on your quote directly, you said, "Rebound", which to me means that a player had a bad year and has to play better the following year. That's not the case with Crawford since he was in Vezina form and playing the best hockey of his career when he went down. Semantics maybe, but IMHO Crawford doesn't have to get better, he just has to stay healthy.



I've said many of times that Crawford was masking the issues on D...and honestly Crawford and Darling have been masking them for awhile. Naturally a great goalie is going to make the team D in front of them look that much better, but trying to isolate the defense proper, Keith had a really bad year--like worse than both 2011 and 2006. You compare his D-metrics against every other D-man--and including his partners, and they were significantly less--at every point of the year. Crawford healthy and carrying the team? Keith's D was still the worst of the squad.

While I definitely think @b1e9a8r5s has a good point that at some point Keith let go of the reins (Numbers indicate they really tanked after Kempny got let go--before that they were just bad), I think it did indeed show that as a complete entity, the 'hawks heads and buttholes weren't wired together. It appeared as if different players, the coach, and the GM at different times during the year threw in the towel. That's a problem.

As for Keith, there should definitely be an onus on him to be better. But I think there has to be an onus on Q/Coaching to not run him roughshod anymore. There's no more need for that. At this point we gotta start grooming the new guys--a new PPQB (something Keith hasn't been good at in years), and new guys to be the go-to on the blueline in terms of defensibly responsible and soaking up minutes. Within his deployment Keith has to be better, but part of that also has to be better deployment, which is on Q IMHO. If Keith is still run roughshod but his numbers improve, then good on him. But IMHO both need to happen.

Trust me, I'm a huge Crow fan. However, any time there's a head injury ... there's a big question mark in my opinion. It's semantics, but I also consider injuries as the same as the irrelevant performance. You have to play to win the game. That's why I consider durability a skill. It might not be fair, but availability is just as important as performance.

 

[LordKOTL]

The Chicago Blackhawks have been a straight up BAD defensive team since 2016. We basically made the playoffs the last two seasons on Corey Crawford's back.

They were actually a pretty bad defensive team during the 2015 season, up til the trade-deadline. After that they tightened up, and were very good defensively in the playoffs.

The composition and deployment of the dcorps is the biggest issue, but the truth is that team defense on the whole has steadily been going down the crapper, and finally went off a cliff last season. The back-checking all season long was between dismal to absent, which suggests some major issues with buy-in from the roster. It doesn't help that we basically have three legit 2-way players left with the departures of Hossa, Teuvo and Kruger - 2 of them play on one line, and the other has had several lower-body injuries slowing him down and cutting into his effectiveness (at least short term after returning from said injury). We have a lot of one-directional forwards right now, along with a defense that our coaching staff seems incapable of deploying in an intelligent manner.

So yeah, we need Crawford to be healthy next season.

You're preaching to the choir here on the D-regression--from both FWDs and D.

Thing about Crawford though? He was a full .010 over his career standard when he went down and much like Vasilevskiy did chances are at some point his numbers might have came back to earth. In fact, it was likely. If .929+ was keeping the team at the bubble, even a regression to 2015/2016 .924 would have been enough to tank us to also-ran status. Is that on Crawford? Of course not, but I think expectations have to be tempered.

If Crawford pulls a .918/.920 next season of healthy, he's fine. He's at his career level then and we're getting out of him what we can reasonably expect. Expecting him to play at a .929 over 50+ games would be like expecting Kane to break 40G next season. Possible? Sure. Realistically 30 is a reasonable benchmark and if the definition of success hinges on a single player putting up career numbers over the year when a lot of other players are below their career average (fixable or just because they're old), then I think expectations are completely out of whack.

 

[LordKOTL]

Trust me, I'm a huge Crow fan. However, any time there's a head injury ... there's a big question mark in my opinion. It's semantics, but I also consider injuries as the same as the irrelevant performance. You have to play to win the game. That's why I consider durability a skill. It might not be fair, but availability is just as important as performance.

What could you do about concussions, though? Really, I would have loved nothing better than to have had a Probert/Grimson on the team pounding Malkin into borscht for running Crawford, but if you're concussed you're concussed. Its something you don't screw around with and honestly, the 2018 'hawks weren't going anywhere with or without Crawford. I think we played his situation right--they were low-borderline with him. There was no need to rush him back.

As I mentioned for this upcoming year...918-.920 from him is fine. IMHO that's the baseline. If he's back he should be able to hit that irrespective of how bad the D is. If he's not back, the team was screwed anyway.

 

[dk2k]

Not appears. It is.

The core is a shadow of its former self. All the more reason for the kids to grow up fast (a good communicative coaching would help a lot).