|
Better, But Not Good Enough |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said yesterday on the blog thread: when you're beaten by a superior foe, you tip your cap, regroup and work to be better next time.
That's about all that can be said in the wake of the Hawks' 4-3 loss in Game 2 of their first round playoff series with Vancouver.
Wait, no. There's more that can be said, and will be said.
But at least the Hawks and their fans have the consolation of knowing they weren't physically blown out as they were in the first ten minutes of Game 1. In fact, last night's game was one that truly could have gone either way. Both teams had lots of good chances, neither goalie was great, the Hawks won the majority of faceoffs, the hits were about even—with Michal Frolik and Nik Hjalmarsson finally stepping up and delivering some bombs in the game's closing minutes.
But moral victories are usually losses in terms of what really matters. Vancouver leads the series 2-0.
Last night, the Hawks, to their credit, rose (for the most part) to the physical challenge of the Canucks.
In fact, the game was close enough that the loss for the Hawks probably came down to its top defensive pairing's failure to stop Vancouver's top line. More specifically, if Duncan Keith, a team worse -2, had played anything like the current Norris Trophy winner, the Hawks might have won the game.
Full marks, on the other hand, to Vancouver's top pairing of Dan Hamhuis and Keith Ballard, who slowed the Hawks' top line down all night. The absence of Dave Bolland at even strength and on the penalty kill is showing in a tired Jonathan Toews, who nonetheless won 14 draws (81%).
As is often the case after a disappointing Hawk loss, fans will go after this Hawk forward or that.
Frolik, Ben Smith and Viktor Stalberg were all outstanding. Troy Brouwer had 5 hits, playing with a shoulder injury. Patrick Sharp was a man on fire, if not able to make the scoresheet. Marian Hossa had five hits.
Patrick Kane, a $6 million a year player, had one phantom, secondary assist (on a goal that was all Michal Frolik and Ben Smith)— and was otherwise taken out of the game with an early big hit by Alex Edler. The Kane Apologists will say I am (and others are) picking on him. But it's simple physics: physical hockey wins in the playoffs, and Kane (and Keith for that matter) seem to choose not to be physical players.
Other small players, like Martin St. Louis and Danny Briere, choose to be physical players.
Hockey is a physical game. Especially in the playoffs, where no players can be exempt. It's not, as the old adage goes, the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the heart in the dog.
Hossa, Sharp and Toews have to kill penalties, Kane doesn't.
Some will say the lower line players have to do their jobs; they did.
I receive PMs, tweets and board posts all the time from Hawk fans—almost all of whom are not long-term fans—who say they're "tired" of hearing me pick on Kane. It's a free country.
And here are some basic facts of hockey that these fans need to understand. Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin are not any more talented than Patrick Kane is. In fact, Kane's hands and vision are maybe better. But both Sid and OV are immensely more physical and physically competitive. Because they choose to be.
This, and this alone, is why those players are perennial Hart Trophy candidates. And why on the other hand, whenever Kane has another off-ice escapade, his dogged supporters are rolling out the argument that he's a "point a game player" or he scored the (fluky) winning goal in the Stanley Cup Finals last year— an opportunity bought and paid for by the physical hockey played by Jonathan Toews, Dustin Byfuglien, and others.
Some will plead Kane's age. That's a fair argument.
But then the clock is ticking for Kane to step up and perhaps get very serious about his offseason work—perhaps better in the prolonged absence of his large entourage.
And Kane's date with the trainer(s) is fast approaching.
At this point, with Tomas Kopecky likely concussed and possibly out for the series, Bryan Bickell now injured, the cavalry (such as it is) might be Dave Bolland. If Bolland can play Sunday, it will take immense pressure off Toews at even strength and on the PK. And it could create the line mismatches that helped the Hawks win the series last year.
Though at this point, it's likely not about winning the series, but just extending it. Barring a minor miracle, the Canucks are going to win the series.
But through pain comes humility. And through humility comes hard work and improvement. This is the point of this blog.
For many fans and season ticket holders, not to mention Blackhawk executives who've mugged in the Stanley Cup spotlight on CSN broadcasts all season, the next 2-3 games could prove very helpful in terms of bursting a well-crafted bubble of self-delusion.
All is not rosy. Work needs to be done. Either the players who are here need to be much better, or new players—and not just swapping our Fernando Pisani for another body from Rockford— need to be acquired.
I'm betting dollars to donuts—I'll take anyone's action—when this season winds to its whimpering end in the next week or so, you're going to hear the following from 1901 W. Madison:
- "we had to sell off a lot of talent"
(a reasonable excuse—but one that in no way absolves Stan Bowman of his decision to bring in John Scott and Jack Skille, instead of legitimate, lower line all-terrain forwards. Or for not recognzing the need later in the season, and dealing for that kind of (affordable) player at the deadline— as Vancouver's GM and Anaheim GM Bob Murray, for example, did in spades).
- "there was a Stanley Cup Hangover"
(sorry, fans, I'm calling b.s. here. What this is, is a catch-all, vague excuse that allows everyone to avoid individual accountability. Certain, individual, highly paid and celebrated players need to be held accountable, period)
- "we have our core in place and great prospects on the way"
(fact: this is a core that played a lot better with a better supporting cast, not a core that plays well regardless. Teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have locked up "cores," and two of those teams have recent Stanley Cup rings. And those teams seem to perennially contend, regardless of injury. Fact: Rockford finished last in its conference this year. Fact: Marcus Kruger, next year's candidate 1A for the 2nd line center job, according to Bowman, looks like a decent prospect but 2-3 years away—if ever—from being a legitimate NHL 2nd line C. Kevin Hayes is a sophomore in college. Dylan Olsen has a handful of pro games. Kyle Beach remains, at best, an enigma.)
Hawk fans, if you want to see a truly competitive team you can be proud to watch for the next ten years—as you deserve after enduring the organizational malfeasance of the previous two decades— do not give these guys a pass.
Demand better. Don't buy the excuses, or make more of them yourselves.
Just as the organization should of itself.
Thanks for reading,
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»