Switch Saad and Frolik and that looks great. That 29-19-88 combination I miss.

Wish Handzus could be given more spot duty - take a draw and get off or simply give Bolland or Shaw an extra shift for him occasionally. He really looks completely outclassed too often this series.
- tredbrta

Agree.... I hate the break up of 29-19-88 more than the Stalberg benching.

I would not even consider DC because, while he certainly wouldn't do anything worse than Marchand or Sasquatch infraction wise, the swallow the whistle in the POs philosophy doesn't apply to him. If he so much as looked sideways at a Bruin, he'd draw a whistle. They're not leaving the Hawks with many options. Put Kane and Toews back together with Bicks, the Slovaks with Sharp, scratch Bollig for either Stalberg or Smith and put that guy on the 3rd or 4th line and play the HAWKS' (not Boston's) game.
- Q...argh

If i forgot about Car Bomb, i really forgot about Mayers. He might have something to offer and the refs would give him respect.

So if he we have no edges anywhere as you say... How do we win??
- ilinkhawk

The Hawks do have an edge in skill however because the skill players on the Hawks are expected to be grunt players as well we're not seeing that come to the fore.

I think the 25 benching has less to do with matchup and more to do with something else. He benched him in the wing series and they aren't that physical. Didn't bench him all year. Nor did he bench him last year against Phoenix.
- ilinkhawk

Exactly, whatever he did, if 19, 88 or 36 or any of the "in" crowd did it, they would be held up as hungry competitive guys. It is no secret 25 is not Q;s guy. Should not matter, a coach plays to win, not to teach lessons.

Not for you, but for those critical of me, if I am so wrong, why was 25 brought back at all? Vs Detroit.

I think the 25 benching has less to do with matchup and more to do with something else. He benched him in the wing series and they aren't that physical. Didn't bench him all year. Nor did he bench him last year against Phoenix.
- ilinkhawk

It was about his complaints about lack of PP time that caused the first benching and then his play that caused the 2nd. I know he took 1 very long shift in that last LA game and really got it on the bench when he came back. His speed is missed. Key element of the streak though it has meant nothing these POs because of his decisions on the ice. IMO he gets another chance. If he doesn't it means we take game 3 or Q is just being stubborn.

If it was about matchups he would be out there. Beyond Seguin, no one out there touches his speed on the Bs.

The Hawks do have an edge in skill however because the skill players on the Hawks are expected to be grunt players as well we're not seeing that come to the fore.
- paulr

This is a VERY good point. Many clamored for some help at the trading deadline with Steve Ott being a very fashionable want for Hawks fans.

If Toews/Sharp/Hossa/Kane were playing on a line with a physical force that would take wear off them, give them space, keep them fresh and presumably make them far more effective.

The best the Hawks have looked in post season is when Bickell was playing great, but he has vanished and now we lack any physical presence along the top 6.

Your overall point is well taken. Vik played 47 of 48 games in the regular season and 15 of the 19 in the playoffs where we went 11-4. Only Q really knows why the change was made, but to me...Vik's contribution in the playoffs has been very hard to discern no matter how good the record is...but again....like you say...why was it phucked with ?

- philco28

That is all I am saying. Plus, if Q believed, like many, that 25 would not give him best chance, let him play game 1 and give him a heads up and say, hey, I need this from you. I am sure he already knows that, but you go to your team and say, lets do this our way all hands on deck, but if I see certain patterns vs opponent, I will make a change.

Instead, we weaken our team to adjust to an opponent. If I am wrong, then why did 25 play all year?

Damian Cox of the Toronto Star is saying what JJ has said for ages. The Hawk front office and coaching staff are on different pages.


http://www.thestar.com/sp...l_teams_get_busy_cox.html

It was about his complaints about lack of PP time that caused the first benching and then his play that caused the 2nd. I know he took 1 very long shift in that last LA game and really got it on the bench when he came back. His speed is missed. Key element of the streak though it has meant nothing these POs because of his decisions on the ice. IMO he gets another chance. If he doesn't it means we take game 3 or Q is just being stubborn.

If it was about matchups he would be out there. Beyond Seguin, no one out there touches his speed on the Bs.
- tredbrta

I know the complaining is what was talked about or rumored. I am just not sure that's the whole story. I would welcome guys on my team wanting pp time. Means they care. I agree on the whole teaching lesson bs. Put your ego in the drawer Q...

This is a VERY good point. Many clamored for some help at the trading deadline with Steve Ott being a very fashionable want for Hawks fans.

If Toews/Sharp/Hossa were playing on a line with a physical force that would take wear off them, give them space, keep them fresh and presumably make them far more effective.
- kwolf68

Congratulations, here I thought my Steve Ott reference would sit alone, but no. If we just had him right now, we would already have the cup. Because he was so available. My GOD people.

Check your calendars boys, we are in the finals....

Damian Cox of the Toronto Star is saying what JJ has said for ages. The Hawk front office and coaching staff are on different pages.


http://www.thestar.com/sp...l_teams_get_busy_cox.html
- paulr

While it may be true, can the writer be more vague. That is akin to Viktor Stalberg turns the puck over a lot. Nice catch phrase, no concrete evidence.

OMG, can't believe the guys have courage to get on the ice against these guys.

Wish there was some evidence out there of what works or does not work against the Bruins. Hey lets try to out Bruin the bruins...you know like the Penguins did. That worked out great.

Who gave Bruins biggest test? Leafs, who did what? After sitting their bangers down after the first few games, went with speed and playing THEIR game...and guess what? OMG, it was a series.

But lets keep REACTING to the opposing team, instead of imposing our game and using all of our STRENGTHS, but I know, they just can't work right...we all know this....because...whenever we have tried them....they freaking work...
- TrueGrit

The Hawks tried to "play to their strengths" last night and get checked into submission. if we all accept that this is a "finesse" team as composed, might as well concede. If this team can't get physical in this series, greasy goals, big hits, punishing Boston d and forwards, they are DONE.

It was about his complaints about lack of PP time that caused the first benching and then his play that caused the 2nd. I know he took 1 very long shift in that last LA game and really got it on the bench when he came back. His speed is missed. Key element of the streak though it has meant nothing these POs because of his decisions on the ice. IMO he gets another chance. If he doesn't it means we take game 3 or Q is just being stubborn.

If it was about matchups he would be out there. Beyond Seguin, no one out there touches his speed on the Bs.
- tredbrta

If true, then wow, how dare he criticize the PP. And god how much worse could he make it. Poster boy for half ass long shifts, 88. But again different rules.

Congratulations, here I thought my Steve Ott reference would sit alone, but no. If we just had him right now, we would already have the cup. Because he was so available. My GOD people.

Check your calendars boys, we are in the finals....
- TrueGrit

OTT checked a LOT of boxes

-Big
-Physical
-Center
-Faceoffs

Ott's a pretty good player and if Handzus can slot in between Kane/Hossa/Sharp...then you figure Ott could as well, while adding the tenacity and grit we sorely lack.

We saw a weakness and it was not addressed. Does making the Cup finals and losing be considered as failure? Or success? If success could have been realized by making a credible move to address weaknesses that Boston "could now" be exposing then YES, Bowman blew it. Even if we win, one could still argue Bowman screwed up by not moving on a guy LIKE Ott and the team won in spite of the weakness Bowman didn't address.

While it may be true, can the writer be more vague. That is akin to Viktor Stalberg turns the puck over a lot. Nice catch phrase, no concrete evidence.
- TrueGrit

What "evidence" do you have that they ARE on the same page? None, I suspect.

I heard Stanley talking last Spring about his great regular season team "underachieving" in the playoffs and deflecting tough questions to the coaching staff. That is pretty good "evidence."

And of course, there's more.

While it may be true, can the writer be more vague. That is akin to Viktor Stalberg turns the puck over a lot. Nice catch phrase, no concrete evidence.
- TrueGrit

Stalberg does turn the puck over allot! The evidence is before your eyes, if you're honest with yourself.

If i forgot about Car Bomb, i really forgot about Mayers. He might have something to offer and the refs would give him respect.
- philco28

Personally I'd prefer Smith or Stalberg, but Mayers is certainly a MUCH better option than Bollig.

The Hawks tried to "play to their strengths" last night and get checked into submission. if we all accept that this is a "finesse" team as composed, might as well concede. If this team can't get physical in this series, greasy goals, big hits, punishing Boston d and forwards, they are DONE.
- John Jaeckel

When the Hawks won they were hitting when they lost they tried and failed to play a finesse game.

The Hawks tried to "play to their strengths" last night and get checked into submission. if we all accept that this is a "finesse" team as composed, might as well concede. If this team can't get physical in this series, greasy goals, big hits, punishing Boston d and forwards, they are DONE.
- John Jaeckel

After they tied a half a hand behind their back playing Bollig, to match up with Thorntons 3 mins of ice. Finishing and checks and taking hits to make plays is unaffected by Bollig playing.

Besides, be nice to score more than 1 goal, and as awful as this team was yesterday, it was 1 - 1 in overtime. If the Hawks want to out Bruin the bruins, like Pens, then yes, series over. If they play full game with all hands on deck, chances are good we succeed. My hope is that whatever the outcome, we go to our strengths and play that way win or lose. Instead of the formula of trying to be all things to all people.

Stalberg does turn the puck over allot! The evidence is before your eyes, if you're honest with yourself.
- paulr

Point to me how he stuck out. Point to me all the comments calling for him to be benched. Look at this point it is all funny to me. If the Hawks have a chance to win, they will go back to Stalberg, like they did in Detroit series. But I know it is all in my head.

Again, Does Babcock sit Nyquist for Tootoo? In finals. Not a chance.

After they tied a half a hand behind their back playing Bollig, to match up with Thorntons 3 mins of ice. Finishing and checks and taking hits to make plays is unaffected by Bollig playing.

Besides, be nice to score more than 1 goal, and as awful as this team was yesterday, it was 1 - 1 in overtime. If the Hawks want to out Bruin the bruins, like Pens, then yes, series over. If they play full game with all hands on deck, chances are good we succeed. My hope is that whatever the outcome, we go to our strengths and play that way win or lose. Instead of the formula of trying to be all things to all people.
- TrueGrit

FACT: Hawks won game one when they were playing the Bruin's game and hitting.

FACT: Hawks lost the game when they played their own finesse game and weren't hitting.

FACT: You are ignoring the previous facts!

After they tied a half a hand behind their back playing Bollig, to match up with Thorntons 3 mins of ice. Finishing and checks and taking hits to make plays is unaffected by Bollig playing.

Besides, be nice to score more than 1 goal, and as awful as this team was yesterday, it was 1 - 1 in overtime. If the Hawks want to out Bruin the bruins, like Pens, then yes, series over. If they play full game with all hands on deck, chances are good we succeed. My hope is that whatever the outcome, we go to our strengths and play that way win or lose. Instead of the formula of trying to be all things to all people.
- TrueGrit

1/12th of the forward lineup, playing the least TOI. Weak excuse.

If you think Viktor Stalberg's pure perimeter game is the answer, or would have been last night, you are fooling yourself. Beating Rask means bodies in front of the net. I would put Carcillo in before Stlaberg at ths point. If the Hawks do not respond physically they are done. They tried skating last night, got them a whole mess of first period shots on goal and one goal. Then they get checked into submission and did nto respond with anything but cusie drop passes and avoiding contact. Stalberg would be one more guy like Saad and some others pulling up to avoid contact and losing board battles.

What "evidence" do you have that they ARE on the same page? None, I suspect.

I heard Stanley talking last Spring about his great regular season team "underachieving" in the playoffs and deflecting tough questions to the coaching staff. That is pretty good "evidence."

And of course, there's more.
- John Jaeckel

I do not doubt they are not on the same page. Don't get me wrong. My focus is this is where we are now. The only opponent is Bruins. I read the article and the guy just made a side reference with no details. I was hoping for more was all.

Point to me how he stuck out. Point to me all the comments calling for him to be benched. Look at this point it is all funny to me. If the Hawks have a chance to win, they will go back to Stalberg, like they did in Detroit series. But I know it is all in my head.

Again, Does Babcock sit Nyquist for Tootoo? In finals. Not a chance.
- TrueGrit

TG are you arging for arguments sake once again? If the Babcock were playing the Bruins who do you think would be playing Tootoo or Nyquist? Against the Hawks of course he makes a player movement to play against the Hawks strength.

Debating with you is like playing tennis without the net.

That is all I am saying. Plus, if Q believed, like many, that 25 would not give him best chance, let him play game 1 and give him a heads up and say, hey, I need this from you. I am sure he already knows that, but you go to your team and say, lets do this our way all hands on deck, but if I see certain patterns vs opponent, I will make a change.

Instead, we weaken our team to adjust to an opponent. If I am wrong, then why did 25 play all year?
- TrueGrit

Why don't you pick up your bat phone, call Q and ask.
What is with this self righteous diatribe? Great, you think stals should be in the line up, Q doesn't.
Stfu!