Yeah but Stalberg actually is an offense of threat. There is no reason they should have Bollig out there instead of Stalberg. Every player has turnovers so you cant use Stalberg turns the pucks over as a legit reason to not play him.
- bhawks86

If Stalberg is an offensive threat point to his point toals. Fact is Stalberg was a warm body taking up a roster spot and nothing else.

admit the issues, that is great. it is fun to talk about. people are smart, other people know more. some people dont enjoy wins. they are immediately talking about what is wrong. sick of it. and to many people's happiness i wont be on here again until we win.
- jsabey

LOL. But this wasn't a win. You are projecting what people do after a win here in a thread after a loss. That's fail in itself. If you want to critique people's responses after a win, go to that thread and do so.

It's a loss...there are serious issue at play that contributed to that loss. Issues that Hawks fans are discussing here on a discussion website. Shocking how that works isnt' it?

If you want a thread full of pixie dust and rainbows then this probably isn't the thread for you.

After two gruelling overtime games (over 10 periods) with travel and only one day off heading into game 3, I believe the Hawks could gain an edge by using their depth. Handzus is tiring, becoming ineffective. Bollig doesn't make a difference. Bring in some fresh legs, balance out your lines and go into Boston and play a fast, north south road game. Forget about matchups let the Bruins worry about that. The Hawks were the best road team this year because they rolled 4 lines with speed in all three zones. The Bruins have ran a shorter bench than the Hawks in the last two games and they have played hard minutes. The Leafs proved that a fast north south game can wear the Bruins down. The Bruins are a structured team that plays in 5 man units, you have to spread them out like we did in the first last night.

Bickell Toews Kane
Sharp Bolland Hossa
Saad Shaw Stalberg
Frolick Kruger Smith
- hawksbuzz

is smith not, hasnt been injured?

LOL. But this wasn't a win. You are projecting what people do after a win here in a thread after a loss. That's fail in itself. If you want to critique people's responses after a win, go to that thread and do so.

It's a loss...there are serious issue at play that contributed to that loss. Issues that Hawks fans are discussing here on a discussion website. Shocking how that works isnt' it?

If you want a thread full of pixie dust and rainbows then this probably isn't the thread for you.
- kwolf68

u are right but it gets overdone.

Is anyone else wondering why in OT the Hawks only sent 1 man in for a soft forcheck and just played a trap? They pressure teams all the time but for some reason Q has them playing passive and trapping in OT and we all saw how that turned out. In the first period they had non stop pressure on Boston and that worked out great but then in OT they sit back and let them break out and get pucks deep.

I saw some pretty big holes in that first period. They are tough. But we are pretty solid too....
- ilinkhawk

The fact Boston then dominated the rest of the game gives credence to the first period being an aberration.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between...I don't think the Hawks are as good as that first period (as compared to the Bs) but certainly not as bad as the third and OT.

LOL. But this wasn't a win. You are projecting what people do after a win here in a thread after a loss. That's fail in itself. If you want to critique people's responses after a win, go to that thread and do so.

It's a loss...there are serious issue at play that contributed to that loss. Issues that Hawks fans are discussing here on a discussion website. Shocking how that works isnt' it?

If you want a thread full of pixie dust and rainbows then this probably isn't the thread for you.
- kwolf68

Is anyone else wondering why in OT the Hawks only sent 1 man in for a soft forcheck and just played a trap? They pressure teams all the time but for some reason Q has them playing passive and trapping in OT and we all saw how that turned out. In the first period they had non stop pressure on Boston and that worked out great but then in OT they sit back and let them break out and get pucks deep.
- bhawks86

They seemed to do the same as the game wore on in the last period too.
Maybe fatigue...


Inredible start, no finish as the Blackhawks drop Game 2 in OT - My Fox Chicago- FOX 32 News http://bit.ly/11IESN5

Is anyone else wondering why in OT the Hawks only sent 1 man in for a soft forcheck and just played a trap? They pressure teams all the time but for some reason Q has them playing passive and trapping in OT and we all saw how that turned out. In the first period they had non stop pressure on Boston and that worked out great but then in OT they sit back and let them break out and get pucks deep.
- bhawks86

Because Boston was actually out working and out skating the Hawks later in the game. When you are 'stronger' than your opponent you can play a 2-man forecheck or a 3-2 defensive system, but when you aren't as good you go safer (1 man forecheck, box/1 d system).

The way the Hawks attacked last night was telling me Q was scared the game was gonna end quick, so the Hawks simply went safe to prolong the game/slow it down and just hope for some flukey goal.

Captain Jonathan Toews tells Scott Powers of ESPNChicago.com that the Bruins penalty kill has plenty to do with their power play failure.

“They’ve got a good penalty kill and so do we,” Toews said. “It’s tough to go out there and do everything that you want to do every single time you get the chance. We had a good first power play. We created some chances there.”

Toews attributes some bad luck and bad breaks to coming up empty. Broken sticks will happen sometimes. Truth is, the Blackhawks have enough talent on their power play to do better than they have. Not scoring in 15 straight power plays, however, shows that it may be more than the Bruins’ PK that’s making things happen.
- Kingsrit

And this comment by Toews, along with the proverbial "We had some good looks" comments by Q is why this PP has been God awful for the last three years. The coaching staff and the players set the bar incredibly low on the PP. It just amazes me at how delusional this team is regarding their PP. The closest anyone got to being truthful about it was when Keith was interviewed after a loss to Detroit (may have been game 4) and he said "Nothing is working on the PP right now." There is simply no excuse for this team to be so inept on the PP. Forget about scoring, hell this team can't even get the puck in the zone, can't get set up, and when they do, it's just five guys standing stationary, passing the puck around the perimeter. I agree with Al. The Hawks should just stick with their normal 4 line and defensive rotations while on the PP. Seriously, how much worse can it be at this point? I have felt for a long time that unless the coaching staff and the players admit they have a problem on the PP - which in my opinion they still refuse to do and continue to make excuses for why it didn't work - nothing will change on the PP. I honestly hope the Hawks don't get a single PP opportunity in either game in Boston. I'd rather not watch the inevitable ineptitude and the loss of momentum that is sure to come from yet another awful PP. I expect the typical coach speak from Q, as we've been hearing it for 3 years now, but I'm disappointed that our captain is now making excuses for what is a clueless PP.

And this comment by Toews, along with the proverbial "We had some good looks" comments by Q is why this PP has been God awful for the last three years. The coaching staff and the players set the bar incredibly low on the PP. It just amazes me at how delusional this team is regarding their PP. The closest anyone got to being truthful about it was when Keith was interviewed after a lose to Detroit (may have been game 4) and he said "Nothing is working on the PP right now." There is simply no excuse for this team to be so inept on the PP. Forget about scoring, hell this team can't even get the puck in the zone, can't get set up, and when they do, it's just five guys standing stationary, passing the puck around the perimeter. I agree with Al. The Hawks should just stick with their normal 4 line and defensive rotations while on the PP. Seriously, how much worse can it be at this point? I have felt for a long time that unless the coaching staff and the players admit they have a problem on the PP - which in my opinion they still refuse to do and continue to make excuses for why it didn't work - nothing will change on the PP. I honestly hope the Hawks don't get a single PP opportunity in either game in Boston. I'd rather not watch the inevitable ineptitude and the loss of momentum that is sure to come from yet another awful PP
- RetiredGoalie

u said it.

BUMPHUCK DUMBASS PHUCKTARD reporter to Sharp after the game:

"Did their first goal give them life ? "

BUMPHUCK DUMBASS PHUCKTARD reporter report to STUPIDVILLE...their missing their leader

Now that I've had some time to reflect......

I REALLY strongly believe that the Hawks team we saw in the 2nd/3rd and OT period last night was incredibly fatigued. It looked like they were keystone cops on ice in the 2nd and 3rd periods and they still got the game to OT.The first game was a very evenly matched game and the first period the Hawks might have played the best period of hockey I've seen this organization play in years.

Very simple.. if the Hawks can get traffic in front of Rask and play as physical as they did in Game 1 they are winning this series in 6 games. Color me stupid.. I honestly do believe that.

I don't believe for a second this bullpoop I'm reading on some sites where the Bruins have "clearly" been the better team in these first two games.

Yes, 1 goal loss...5 goal loss, doesn't matter.

Carcillo I think they are worried will take too many dumb penalties. Don't know...he is a better skater than Bollig and hits just as much. But it's a good question to pose.
- kwolf68

Only reason why I bring up Carcillo is because you can have Shaw then Carcillo going consecutive shifts against Chara. Also, I remember when there was a time where he was considered a potential 20 goal scorer.

Now that I've had some time to reflect......

I REALLY strongly believe that the Hawks team we saw in the 2nd/3rd and OT period last night was incredibly fatigued. It looked like they were keystone cops on ice in the 2nd and 3rd periods and they still got the game to OT.The first game was a very evenly matched game and the first period the Hawks might have played the best period of hockey I've seen this organization play in years.

Very simple.. if the Hawks can get traffic in front of Rask and play as physical as they did in Game 1 they are winning this series in 6 games. Color me stupid.. I honestly do believe that.

I don't believe for a second this bullpoop I'm reading on some sites where the Bruins have "clearly" been the better team in these first two games.
- CaptainBlackhawk

I hope you're right. I'm poolside right now and we need to win game 3. Flip the pressure back to them.

This team needs its big boys to give it all. 5 games, win 3. Staring right at the captain who is choking. His performance is sedin like and I love jt.

Only reason why I bring up Carcillo is because you can have Shaw then Carcillo going consecutive shifts against Chara. Also, I remember when there was a time where he was considered a potential 20 goal scorer.
- faustus1500

Geezus Peace...i completely forgot about CAR BOMB. Love to see him get a shot at some point.

The fact Boston then dominated the rest of the game gives credence to the first period being an aberration.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between...I don't think the Hawks are as good as that first period (as compared to the Bs) but certainly not as bad as the third and OT.
- kwolf68

It can be done. And my guess is it will be done again. Boston is far from perfect as we are. Equal teams. 1-1. Two games OT. Both teams are solid.

Geezus Peace...i completely forgot about CAR BOMB. Love to see him get a shot at some point.
- philco28

If he can keep a lid on things I'd prefer him over Bollig and Stalberg. Trouble is in an emotional series can he be trusted?

It can be done. And my guess is it will be done again. Boston is far from perfect as we are. Equal teams. 1-1. Two games OT. Both teams are solid.
- ilinkhawk

I think both teams are GREAT actually. The trouble I see is Boston is a more balanced team. They have speed, skill, defense, enough offense, great goalie and can bring a dominant physical presence to the table.

The Hawks have the exact above except they lack that last part, although the Hawks have more dynamic offensive skilled players.

Did the Bruins start to turn this series with a strong forecheck? Or did the Hawks "just play poorly"?

I don't know, but the Bruins have no real weakness to expose like the Hawks have as we have suggested here many times. The way Hammer, Leds, Seabs handled boston pressure last night was extremely worrisome. Bollig was not an issue in my mind as I watched those 3 d-men make horrible play after horrible play...because if Bollig sucks, we can bench him. If those 3 d-men stink we have nowhere to turn...it's them or bust. Seabrook is the one I am most upset about because Leddy played poorly last night simply because he got outmuscled by bigger, stronger guys. Hammer played stupid, but Seabrook played with very little 'desire'...that ticks me off.

Other than the physical element and the Hawks inability to handle pressure in their own zone last night this series is a coin flip...and I've seen the Hawks beat much more physical teams in the past, but none were as good as the bruins.

Now that I've had some time to reflect......

I REALLY strongly believe that the Hawks team we saw in the 2nd/3rd and OT period last night was incredibly fatigued. It looked like they were keystone cops on ice in the 2nd and 3rd periods and they still got the game to OT.The first game was a very evenly matched game and the first period the Hawks might have played the best period of hockey I've seen this organization play in years.

Very simple.. if the Hawks can get traffic in front of Rask and play as physical as they did in Game 1 they are winning this series in 6 games. Color me stupid.. I honestly do believe that.

I don't believe for a second this bullpoop I'm reading on some sites where the Bruins have "clearly" been the better team in these first two games.
- CaptainBlackhawk

I think it was more than fatigue - which there is no excuse for when the Bs are shortening their bench. IMO the Hawks, particularly the D, looked like the contact was getting to them. Perhaps the game 1 plan to hit was the way to go instead of back to pure puck possession? Who knows.

Bickell has made a few decent plays but is a ghost of the player we saw in the last 2 rounds. He needs to start dishing it out more. JJ was dead on about Saad. Totally absent last night.

Kane has also reverted from the player we saw in games 4-5 of the WCF. If the only way he brings it is to play with Toews then put him there.

The Hawks may be setting up to be destroyed in Boston if they do not get back to the net no matter what punishment the officials are allowing the Bruins to get away with in front. Toews is getting destroyed without any calls. That said, Toews also had his share of bad plays last night.

It would be interesting to see what Stalberg would do with Kruger and Frolik. That line would be fast.

Now that I've had some time to reflect......

I REALLY strongly believe that the Hawks team we saw in the 2nd/3rd and OT period last night was incredibly fatigued. It looked like they were keystone cops on ice in the 2nd and 3rd periods and they still got the game to OT.The first game was a very evenly matched game and the first period the Hawks might have played the best period of hockey I've seen this organization play in years.

Very simple.. if the Hawks can get traffic in front of Rask and play as physical as they did in Game 1 they are winning this series in 6 games. Color me stupid.. I honestly do believe that.

I don't believe for a second this bullpoop I'm reading on some sites where the Bruins have "clearly" been the better team in these first two games.
- CaptainBlackhawk

They were definitely tired yesterday. And I thougt they looked more tired than Boston for most of the OTs in game 1. I guess getting hit does wear you down. Hawks are deeper and played more of their players more. They should have been more fresh.

Calling it like I see it. I see team that has shown up for 25% of the games and now heads to Boston, scared, and w/o favorable matchups. Toews and Kane couldn't score with matchups...now what?

No pp.

No size.

Yet, all this board will talk about is the great stalberg and blah, blah, blah. Guy sucks and will be the most overpaid ufa this summer and will be bought out in 2 years. He's Tim Connolly.

Tell me how you see this team winning in Boston and taking 3 of 5. How? Pp? No. Out grinding the bs? No. Core showing up? No.

So how does it happen? I'm curious.
- SteveRain

Actually I can tell you that inside the players room its Carcillo they want in not Bollig or Vik

Actually I can tell you that inside the players room its Carcillo they want in not Bollig or Vik

- Maggie

I have no use for Vic in this series.

If Boston's defense was undisciplined and another speed guy was needed to cut through their defense, then sure, but beating that defense isn't easy and you don't do it with straight line speed. The Bs play too disciplined as a hockey team, ANYONE who knows hockey knows that.

You beat Boston by scratching and clawing, deflections, rebounds, an occasional tick tac toe play...but you aren't beating them with just a one trick pony...

Carcillo IS a guy who can get to the net and skates much better than Bollig. Why hasn't he been given a look? Well, he has played sparingly so far...I wonder if Q is scared to have him out there, because lets face it Carbomb doesn't always do the 'right thing' on the ice...

...BUT a guy who can skate and hit like a truck who doesn't fear getting to the net couldn't hurt.

I'd be totally fine with Carbomb in there and he would give our forecheck a needed boost which could help the Hawks retain possession in the neutral zone, instead of deep in, which could 'save' wear on our soft defensive players and their bodies.

I have no use for Vic in this series.

If Boston's defense was undisciplined and another speed guy was needed to cut through their defense, then sure, but beating that defense isn't easy and you don't do it with straight line speed. The Bs play too disciplined as a hockey team, ANYONE who knows hockey knows that.

You beat Boston by scratching and clawing, deflections, rebounds, an occasional tick tac toe play...but you aren't beating them with just a one trick pony...

Carcillo IS a guy who can get to the net and skates much better than Bollig. Why hasn't he been given a look? Well, he has played sparingly so far...I wonder if Q is scared to have him out there, because lets face it Carbomb doesn't always do the 'right thing' on the ice...

...BUT a guy who can skate and hit like a truck who doesn't fear getting to the net couldn't hurt.

I'd be totally fine with Carbomb in there, but we can't have him doing dumb chit either.
- kwolf68

I really doubt you see Carcillo out there. Has it been reported somewhere? All I heard was something on the radio that he was not at one of the practices last week.

OK...list of worst excuses for the loss last night

1-Stalberg didn't play
2-Refs cheated
3-Blackhawks were tired

Holy cow.