|
Loss in Columbus exposes flaws again |
|
|
|
|
|
Over the last ten years, I've seen a lot of Blackhawks-Blue Jackets game in person. Never have I seen one that should be more discouraging for Hawk fans than last night's contest.
Sure, the Hawks have lost some games to the Jackets over the years. But I can't recall them looking so anemic in so many key areas as they looked last night.
Before I delve into the negative (and some things I've heard and read since last night that are just completely inaccurate), the positives:
RICHARD PANIK
Another classic Panik game. Dynamic, noticeable, a couple of great plays including his fifth goal of the season—and a kind of dumb penalty. But, on the penalty, you'll take it only because it showed some passion and snarl on a team mostly full of sleepwalkers at this point.
JONATHAN TOEWS
The captain did everything you could possibly ask except will a puck past the very capable Sergei Bobrovsky. The only lines generating anything 5-on-5 last night were Toews' and Marcus Kruger's.
When Joel Quenneville loaded Toews up with Patrick Kane and Artemi Panarin (freeing those two up from the boat anchor known as Artem Anisimov), that line was virtually unstoppable, except for the brilliance of Bobrovsky and a lucky post on a Brent Seabrook bomb that finally got through the pads of the Columbus netminder.
The Hawks got mixed results from Kruger and Kane.
Everywhere except the face-off dot, Kruger was very good and his line generated a lot of pressure, especially in the first period. Kruger's 18% in the dot was about as bad as he's been in several seasons. Maybe just an off night, maybe something to watch.
Kane was invisible or ineffective until being paired with Toews later in the game.
Negatives?
ANISIMOV
I want to be fair and allow that he could be hurt or fighting a virus or something. But for all the endless moaning about the $3 million a year contract awarded to Kruger, it is getting harder and harder to see how Anisimov is worth 25% more—and a no-movement clause.
As bad as Kruger (uncharacteristically, I might add) was in the dot last night, Anisimov, while better, was at his usual 38%. The PAK line, while together, was stymied. Anisimov looked slow, behind the play and uninterested all night.
NICK SCHMALTZ
Again, I will caveat that the actual defensive coverage assignment for William Karlsson on the game-winning goal may not have been Schmaltz. But Karlsson was Columbus center on that shift and Schmaltz was Chicago's. And where was Schmaltz on that goal? Aimlessly floating at the top of the left circle, sort of looking around for something—covering no one and making no effort to do so. What was he circling around looking for? A breakout pass from someone else? Someone to cover? There was a man—ostensibly Schmaltz' assignment—sitting uncovered at the top of the crease 30 feet away. And he was able to tip a fairly lazy point shot past the night's real victim, Corey Crawford.
Go look at the tape.
Later Schmaltz missed a one-timer of the heel of his blade, and sent a pass to no one (and out of the zone) late in the game when the Hawks were desperately trying to take the game to OT, effectively ending the threat.
How anyone can point to Tyler Motte as the problem (as I heard last night) or give Schmaltz' performance a "C" is mind-boggling.
Talk about grading on a curve.
Now, all that said, I am not here to bury Schmaltz. But I am sure not here to force a narrative that he will lead the Hawks to the promised land this year. Schmaltz has talent. He's just not mentally ready for the speed and physicality of the NHL. At all.
The argument that the rookies aren't to blame because a 25 year old Richard Panik (who is not really a rookie) and Motte scored is kind of silly, and misses the real point. It's not necessarily the "kids" nor the "vets." It's a glaring lack of chemistry—instead of pieces in place, the places are in pieces.
The Hawks did maintain some great offensive zone time last night—can't fault that. But they also crumbled all too often under the Columbus forecheck, with horribly sloppy breakouts and puck management.
And as good as Crawford was (and typically is) between the pipes, man, is he bad handling the puck outside the net.
The Hawks are getting inconsistent or poor performances from players nearly every night, and much more so than they have in previous years.
So, sure, you can point to all the new faces being assimilated and say: "it takes time."
It does. But how much time do you have? This part of the schedule is the easier part for Chicago. They should be making hay the first 30 games or so.
They are 2-3 this morning, with Toronto coming to town tonight (gametime 8 Eastern/7 Central, TV on WGN and CBC).
The last time the Hawks played back-to-back, home after being away, they beat Nashville at the UC. They need a similar (or better) performance tonight. And they need to develop some consistency and fundamental solidity going forward. Whatever that takes—coaching, personnel moves, rapid growth—or it's going to be a long and frustrating season.
Hopefully, the tone is different tomorrow. But these are games a serious Cup contender should be winning.
All I have for now.
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»