Location: Solidly grounded in reality, IL Joined: 07.27.2009
May 11 @ 1:34 PM ET
ABR is not to be.....
The weakness of both teams is defense, but for two different reasons.
ANA's D corps is big, tough.....and slow. If The Hawk forwards can get deep and behind their D BEFORE getting engaged on the boards, good things can happen. The risk here is the punishment the Hawk forwards could have to endure if they are not fast enough.
The CHI D corps is faster (top 4 anyway), and when firing on all cylinders get quick outs and fast transition. The risk here is the punishment the rather non-physical Hawk blueliners will endure from the much more physical ANA forwards, which over time, can really expose the absolute lack of a servicable bottom D pairing.
I think starting Rundblad is a huge mistake. Valuing a player's side of shot over their actual empirical performance in their role on the ice smacks to me of stupidity. Rundblad is a weak player with a good shot. Maybe in a role on the #2 PP unit is his only value.
We had better hope that the top four D have the legs and the constitution to carry 95% of the load and come out of this series healthy.
I am thinking it is a seven game series where an always fast and healthy Hawk team prevails, and a beaten down Hawk team gets eliminated sooner.
If ANA gets an early lead and clogs the neutral zone to eliminate stretch passes from the Hawk D, the top four D will fatigue much faster and ANA could make this series very difficult.
The weakness of both teams is defense, but for two different reasons.
ANA's D corps is big, tough.....and slow. If The Hawk forwards can get deep and behind their D BEFORE getting engaged on the boards, good things can happen. The risk here is the punishment the Hawk forwards could have to endure if they are not fast enough.
The CHI D corps is faster (top 4 anyway), and when firing on all cylinders get quick outs and fast transition. The risk here is the punishment the rather non-physical Hawk blueliners will endure from the much more physical ANA forwards, which over time, can really expose the absolute lack of a servicable bottom D pairing.
I think starting Rundblad is a huge mistake. Valuing a player's side of shot over their actual empirical performance in their role on the ice smacks to me of stupidity. Rundblad is a weak player with a good shot. Maybe in a role on the #2 PP unit is his only value.
We had better hope that the top four D have the legs and the constitution to carry 95% of the load and come out of this series healthy.
I am thinking it is a seven game series where an always fast and healthy Hawk team prevails, and a beaten down Hawk team gets eliminated sooner.
If ANA gets an early lead and clogs the neutral zone to eliminate stretch passes from the Hawk D, the top four D will fatigue much faster and ANA could make this series very difficult. - Return of the Roar
Historically, it seems like the hawks have always matched up pretty well stylistically with Anaheim. Stop the top 2, they're stopped. pretty much. Easier said than done and Andersen is a tough solve. But the Hawks have shown they can do all of the above.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting really tired of the lazy journalism that passes from the supposed "experts".
The NSH blogger today, made some comments about a game that he clearly never watched based on what he presented.
I was listening to NHL Radio yesterday as I was driving around, and they were talking about the Rosival injury and how it effects the Hawks going forward. The so called "expert" (I cant remember who it was) when asked how the Hawks would compensate for his loss, talked about TVR getting a shot. So no homework done, didn't know he was injured, not playing for Rockford, not a Black Ace. No Comments about Rundblad or Cumiskey or even Paliotta. Just Lazy.
I see it way to much now. I would prefer that if you really don't know, than make no comment about it. In addition, if you didn't see something, don't offer your opinion based on what someone else said or wrote, because you have no idea whether it is correct or not.
The weakness of both teams is defense, but for two different reasons.
ANA's D corps is big, tough.....and slow. If The Hawk forwards can get deep and behind their D BEFORE getting engaged on the boards, good things can happen. The risk here is the punishment the Hawk forwards could have to endure if they are not fast enough.
The CHI D corps is faster (top 4 anyway), and when firing on all cylinders get quick outs and fast transition. The risk here is the punishment the rather non-physical Hawk blueliners will endure from the much more physical ANA forwards, which over time, can really expose the absolute lack of a servicable bottom D pairing.
I think starting Rundblad is a huge mistake. Valuing a player's side of shot over their actual empirical performance in their role on the ice smacks to me of stupidity. Rundblad is a weak player with a good shot. Maybe in a role on the #2 PP unit is his only value.
We had better hope that the top four D have the legs and the constitution to carry 95% of the load and come out of this series healthy.
I am thinking it is a seven game series where an always fast and healthy Hawk team prevails, and a beaten down Hawk team gets eliminated sooner.
If ANA gets an early lead and clogs the neutral zone to eliminate stretch passes from the Hawk D, the top four D will fatigue much faster and ANA could make this series very difficult. - Return of the Roar
Awesome, thanks Return! Definitely looking forward to this series and hopefully speed will win out.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting really tired of the lazy journalism that passes from the supposed "experts".
The NSH blogger today, made some comments about a game that he clearly never watched based on what he presented.
I was listening to NHL Radio yesterday as I was driving around, and they were talking about the Rosival injury and how it effects the Hawks going forward. The so called "expert" (I cant remember who it was) when asked how the Hawks would compensate for his loss, talked about TVR getting a shot. So no homework done, didn't know he was injured, not playing for Rockford, not a Black Ace. No Comments about Rundblad or Cumiskey or even Paliotta. Just Lazy.
I see it way to much now. I would prefer that if you really don't know, than make no comment about it. In addition, if you didn't see something, don't offer your opinion based on what someone else said or wrote, because you have no idea whether it is correct or not. - TheTrob
i think where scribes get into trouble is when they start talking about teams from conferences or divisions they don't normally cover. I have heard the BEST in the business make this mistake at times. Don't ask me about the Eastern Conference. I can tell you some things. But I know how much I don't know.
JJ, great writeup. Didn't see you rate the coaching match up. Obviously favors Q. Boudreau doesn't seem to be one for chasing matchups. Couldn't handle Sutter on that front at all the last few seasons.
BB is basically running 3 lines. Jackman, Rackell and whoever (Fleischman or Etem) are getting single digits almost every night.
I would think he goes for Kesler on Toews if he engages Q in matching. Kesler has been a beast but can they match 4 lines against the Hawks?
Their D is more mobile than years past. Wondering if that helps the Ducks or are the Hawks ready based on the mobile Ds they have dealt with the last 2 rounds?
The secondary scoring the Ducks are seeing makes this a tossup to me... and I'm not saying that because I called the last 2 rounds toss ups and the Hawks won.... I promise.
After the Kings had two seasons in the trenches with the Blackhawks I have gained a ton of respect for this team. I dont see anyone to stand in your way of another cup.
Location: But it wouldn't have looked nearly as bad if the dam partition was secure. Joined: 01.18.2008
May 11 @ 1:54 PM ET
The Preds box score blogger (he does not watch games - only reads box scores) is calling the Ducks the "prohibitive favorite".... So the Hawks have that to overcome.
I really think the guy needs hits so bad he simply posts this stuff to get Chicago fans to post on his thread. Sort of a get "the red in" campaign. - tredbrta
He needs to stop blogging on this site. He works for the Preds and is ridiculously biased towards them. Paul has made it very apparent that he doesn't know the game well enough to write about it. They should have never let Brandon Felder stop blogging.
Quick question on the sheltering of the bottom D pair. Putting Runblah with Keith and KT with Seabs seems counter-intuitive to me. KT's weakness is speed (Keith's strength) and Runblah's weakness is physicality (Seab's strength) so wouldn't it make more sense to pair up the weak links with the partner who has the strength to offset that weakness?
I will caveat that with the fact I have coached 0 games at any level so there may be an obvious reason for the pairings I just don't see. Then again I'd put 26 in my lineup before 5 any day of the week so what do I know.
The weakness of both teams is defense, but for two different reasons.
ANA's D corps is big, tough.....and slow. If The Hawk forwards can get deep and behind their D BEFORE getting engaged on the boards, good things can happen. The risk here is the punishment the Hawk forwards could have to endure if they are not fast enough.
The CHI D corps is faster (top 4 anyway), and when firing on all cylinders get quick outs and fast transition. The risk here is the punishment the rather non-physical Hawk blueliners will endure from the much more physical ANA forwards, which over time, can really expose the absolute lack of a servicable bottom D pairing.
I think starting Rundblad is a huge mistake. Valuing a player's side of shot over their actual empirical performance in their role on the ice smacks to me of stupidity. Rundblad is a weak player with a good shot. Maybe in a role on the #2 PP unit is his only value.
We had better hope that the top four D have the legs and the constitution to carry 95% of the load and come out of this series healthy.
I am thinking it is a seven game series where an always fast and healthy Hawk team prevails, and a beaten down Hawk team gets eliminated sooner.
If ANA gets an early lead and clogs the neutral zone to eliminate stretch passes from the Hawk D, the top four D will fatigue much faster and ANA could make this series very difficult. - Return of the Roar
Great post. I think the longer the series goes it favors Anaheim, though. Chicago has four defenseman for all intents and purposes, and the fatigue on those top 4 will give the Ducks a slight edge. Anaheim in 7.
Patrick Kane has a ridiculous 104 points in 103 playoff games. I'm surprised the NHL isn't pumping that more, especially since he is marketable and from 'Merica.
Anyway, I'd expect this series to last 5 games. The sooner the Hawks can end it, the better it is for their blue line and I think they have to know that. This should also be a fairly open series and a lot of the players on the Ducks are idiots. The Hawks should get plenty of chances to make Andersen look stupid. I don't care what the narrative is and how depleted the Hawks blue line is they should be definite favorites to take the West.
Crawford will need to carry them for stretches but it looks like he is back in the zone.
i think where scribes get into trouble is when they start talking about teams from conferences or divisions they don't normally cover. I have heard the BEST in the business make this mistake at times. Don't ask me about the Eastern Conference. I can tell you some things. But I know how much I don't know. - John Jaeckel
JJ, that's the point. If it is something you don't know, you at least have the sense to state that fact, or say something along the lines of "from what little I have seen", "from what I know or observe", etc.
To spew facts when they are clearly not based on first hand knowledge is just irresponsible reporting.
Quick question on the sheltering of the bottom D pair. Putting Runblah with Keith and KT with Seabs seems counter-intuitive to me. KT's weakness is speed (Keith's strength) and Runblah's weakness is physicality (Seab's strength) so wouldn't it make more sense to pair up the weak links with the partner who has the strength to offset that weakness?
I will caveat that with the fact I have coached 0 games at any level so there may be an obvious reason for the pairings I just don't see. Then again I'd put 26 in my lineup before 5 any day of the week so what do I know. - blackhawks30
Rundblad has some offensive instinct and a bomb of a shot. I expect it to look like the regular season where he gets very very very very limited D zone and neutral zone starts. If he can eat 10 minutes with out doing anything terribly stupid and bang a few hard ones on goal to make the Ducks answer a question or two then mission accomplished. Can't expect much more than that though.
The weakness of both teams is defense, but for two different reasons.
ANA's D corps is big, tough.....and slow. If The Hawk forwards can get deep and behind their D BEFORE getting engaged on the boards, good things can happen. The risk here is the punishment the Hawk forwards could have to endure if they are not fast enough.
The CHI D corps is faster (top 4 anyway), and when firing on all cylinders get quick outs and fast transition. The risk here is the punishment the rather non-physical Hawk blueliners will endure from the much more physical ANA forwards, which over time, can really expose the absolute lack of a servicable bottom D pairing.
I think starting Rundblad is a huge mistake. Valuing a player's side of shot over their actual empirical performance in their role on the ice smacks to me of stupidity. Rundblad is a weak player with a good shot. Maybe in a role on the #2 PP unit is his only value.
We had better hope that the top four D have the legs and the constitution to carry 95% of the load and come out of this series healthy.
I am thinking it is a seven game series where an always fast and healthy Hawk team prevails, and a beaten down Hawk team gets eliminated sooner.
If ANA gets an early lead and clogs the neutral zone to eliminate stretch passes from the Hawk D, the top four D will fatigue much faster and ANA could make this series very difficult. - Return of the Roar
Anaheim's D now has Lindholm, Despres, Vatanen, and Fowler. Stoner isn't really mobile but the rest of that group can move. Beauchemin is older now but still mobile. Certainly more legs than the last few years. I guess we will see how much of a difference it makes.
Quick question on the sheltering of the bottom D pair. Putting Runblah with Keith and KT with Seabs seems counter-intuitive to me. KT's weakness is speed (Keith's strength) and Runblah's weakness is physicality (Seab's strength) so wouldn't it make more sense to pair up the weak links with the partner who has the strength to offset that weakness?
I will caveat that with the fact I have coached 0 games at any level so there may be an obvious reason for the pairings I just don't see. Then again I'd put 26 in my lineup before 5 any day of the week so what do I know. - blackhawks30
While that is the case, most coaches like one Lefty and one Righty in a pairing... so doing Seabs/Rundblad is 2 rightys and KT and Keith is 2 lefties.
I expect blended pairings roughly broken out to something like this
27/4- 21 minutes a game
2/7- 16 minutes a game
2/5- 8 minutes a game
44/7- 7 minutes a game
2/4- 4 minutes a game
27/7- 2 minutes a game
44/5- 2 minutes a game
28 for Keith
25 for Hammer
25 for Seabs
23 for Oduya
10 for Runblad
9 for Timonen
Off topic, but I saw. Lazerus tweeted how Saad reiterated how he wants to stay in Chicago, and Bowman has made it clear he will go to any length to re-sign him
The Clayton Stoner love is borderline hilarious. Yes, he can throw the occasional big hit but otherwise he is an awful defenseman. The only team that is helped by him being in the lineup is Chicago.
He needs to stop blogging on this site. He works for the Preds and is ridiculously biased towards them. Paul has made it very apparent that he doesn't know the game well enough to write about it. They should have never let Brandon Felder stop blogging. - nikoli1206
