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.