Issue #1 that is causing the team to struggle...the Power play coming up with pretty much nothing. Since Nov 1st, the Hawks are 30th on the PP and under 10%. That has meant 5 PPG in 51 attempts.

As JJ mentioned, the team is a bit of a one line show offensively and that is where the Hawks lean on the PP to fill in the gaps. I am sure they are missing Shaw right now and his ability to get in front of the net and cause some problems for the opposing PK. Remember him battling with Dmen, tipping pucks in and using his small frame to cast a big screen on the goalie.

The Hawks didn't threaten the net very well against the Jets. The Jets had a number of chances from good scoring areas in close and the Hawks...not so much.

It will be interesting to see what change, but for me right now, the Hawks aren't playing with urgency in their game. They don't look hungry to win and they don't look like a pissed off team when they are down and off to a poor start. I think they could use a spark plug of energy and something to light a bit more fire under their them. I think they need someone to step up and really give a damn out there.

The Hawks have been getting outshot and outplayed too often, but I think most of that is between the ears. By that, I mean they aren't as weak as they look at times and they are able to crank it up and play better. They just need something to get them going early and playing more consistent hockey.

I have to give some kudos to Panik. While the guy doesn't have the skill of a top player, he has been working his butt off trying at least.
- breadbag

Bread, let me ask has this current core looked hungry in November, December, January or February in the last 4-5 years? Or in 1st or 2nd periods of most any month?

Call it lazy, call it veteran savvy conserving energy for games with meaning in the Spring, call it whatever you want but this is a years over pattern and in no way a coincidence considering the sample size. ......This is a Hawk core that has won 3 in 7 and just can't get excited for a WPG or MN midseason or the 1st or 2nd period.

Not likely to happen, but I've always liked Holland.

Peter Holland not on the ice at #leafs practice. He continues to wait on a trade.

— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) December 5, 2016

Yep, and maybe add a piece at the TDL. I think we as fans can take solace in that this was the plan going in and they all knew it all the way down to Q. Having said that and with all on board keep the core healthy, manage the rookies so they improve as months go by, find combos that fit, realize the season won't be linear, lean on defense and goaltending and don't deviate.

The fast start, early schedule (practice time) and points earned are nothing less than a Godsend. The anxiety level was kept in check as the plan and process is allowed to play out.
- Mr Ricochet

The standings point buildup has really turned out to be a big deal because that left everybody else in the division in chase mode. And the Blues are the only team doing that effectively while they play a lot of home games - Nashville, Minnesota, Winnipeg and Dallas haven't been very good or consistent at all. To narrow the gap, those teams have to win a lot of games now while the Hawks lose a bunch.

And while the team hasn't looked very good lately, they are playing Motte, Hinostroza, Kempny, Forsling and Hartman pretty much every night - and Schmaltz too until Q decided he had seen enough already for awhile. These guys are learning the big difference between the NHL and the AHL, KHL or SEL.

I know, I know this team is in first, they've hit a bump in the road, I hate saying this but to my eye this team is a year away, rookies need experience and a weight room in the off season, they magically aren't going to get stronger on the puck during the the season. I enjoy how they fly around the ice but unfortunately they can't sustain any net front presence or win a board battle. The only way they'll be able to advance is Corey is going to have to play out of his mind. Defense is going to have to be responsible with the puck in their own end and limit opponent to half the ice. They won't be able to take any penalties and the forwards are going to have to be patient and wait for the opponent to make a mistake so we can score in transition. I can't remember the last time we scored a goal with 6 players from the competing team in their own zone. Actually I can last one I remember is when we pulled our own goalie.
- BetweenTheDots

I think you are right about them maybe being another year away. I think the rookies will get better with more time and seasoning and maybe the Hawks making some more tweaks. I think the question will be how they manage the cap. Still, they should make the playoffs this year and who knows what could happen.

Bread, let me ask has this current core looked hungry in November, December, January or February in the last 4-5 years? Or in 1st or 2nd periods of most any month?

Call it lazy, call it veteran savvy conserving energy for games with meaning in the Spring, call it whatever you want but this is a years over pattern and in no way a coincidence considering the sample size. ......This is a Hawk core that has won 3 in 7 and just can't get excited for a WPG or MN midseason or the 1st or 2nd period.
- Mr Ricochet

I thought in previous years the lack luster effort didn't usually hit until late Jan or early Feb IMO. Often the Nov road trip is more of a time where they play with a purpose and ride that into a strong December where they dominate a lot. That is what I typically remember...

Whats going on with Toews? Concussion? Is it his back? Does anyone even know for sure?

Whats going on with Toews? Concussion? Is it his back? Does anyone even know for sure?
- SimpleJack

Backussion

Dano was offside when he got the puck, but then exited the zone. I think the challenge would only apply to the re-entry, which was onside.
- tvetter

If he was off-side when he got the puck, the play should have stopped right at that point. He never should have been allowed to carry it back onside.

If he was off-side when he got the puck, the play should have stopped right at that point. He never should have been allowed to carry it back onside.
- powerenforcer

While that is true...the Hawks didn't deserve to win that one anyway. The Jets had many chances to put the Hawks down by a few and really the Hawks have nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. They need to play better.

Disagree. His stick and skates were still in the o-zone when he received the pass. Offsides that should've been challenged. Not to mention, even if it isn't overturned, what do you have to lose challenging the call? Q, Dineen and Co need to go back to the drawing board on both the PP, PK and line combos with Toews out.
- EnzoD

Had Dano stayed in the zone with the puck (offsides not called) and the goal been scored, it would have been reviewable.

But he left the zone with the puck - offsides play and reviewability ended - new play started - he is now onsides legally - came back into the zone legally - goal was scored.

Not reviewable.

While that is true...the Hawks didn't deserve to win that one anyway. The Jets had many chances to put the Hawks down by a few and really the Hawks have nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. They need to play better.
- breadbag

Of course they deserved to lose, but Q had a challenge/timeout and did not use it when it looked (WAS) offside in both real time and the replay. Just exemplifies the lack of focus/attention to detail from the ENTIRE team this weekend.

Not likely to happen, but I've always liked Holland.

Peter Holland not on the ice at #leafs practice. He continues to wait on a trade.

— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) December 5, 2016

- DarthKane

So have some in the Hawk FO in the past. But I have heard nothing on him recently

Had Dano stayed in the zone with the puck (offsides not called) and the goal been scored, it would have been reviewable.

But he left the zone with the puck - offsides play and reviewability ended - new play started - he is now onsides legally - came back into the zone legally - goal was scored.

Not reviewable.
- StLBravesFan

I don't doubt that you are correct, but his stick and skates were still in the o-zone when he received the pass from the neutral zone. That is offsides that led directly to the GWG. How is that play not reviewable/challenge-able?

Whats going on with Toews? Concussion? Is it his back? Does anyone even know for sure?
- SimpleJack

All signs pointing to back, but with all the secrecy the other alternative is possible.

I thought in previous years the lack luster effort didn't usually hit until late Jan or early Feb IMO. Often the Nov road trip is more of a time where they play with a purpose and ride that into a strong December where they dominate a lot. That is what I typically remember...
- breadbag

Ok and maybe so, but you get the point. The Hawks come with full effort as the weather warms up. Watching the core labor through "meaningless" games in their eyes is something I've come to expect. Watching them do just enough never surprises me anymore.

While that is true...the Hawks didn't deserve to win that one anyway. The Jets had many chances to put the Hawks down by a few and really the Hawks have nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. They need to play better.
- breadbag

Games need to be officiated properly, not depending on the scoreboard or the play. Call penalties when penalties happen, off-sides when off-sides happen.

The linesman on that play could not make that call, his eyes cannot look at the puck, the blue-line, the stick, and the skates all at the same time. It wasn't the same type of play where he just had to watch the blueline and see what crossed first. HE should have asked for a review.

Had Dano stayed in the zone with the puck (offsides not called) and the goal been scored, it would have been reviewable.

But he left the zone with the puck - offsides play and reviewability ended - new play started - he is now onsides legally - came back into the zone legally - goal was scored.

Not reviewable.
- StLBravesFan

Sorry, once he touches the puck in the ozone, the play is dead. That is what offsides is.

Games need to be officiated properly, not depending on the scoreboard or the play. Call penalties when penalties happen, off-sides when off-sides happen.

The linesman on that play could not make that call, his eyes cannot look at the puck, the blue-line, the stick, and the skates all at the same time. It wasn't the same type of play where he just had to watch the blueline and see what crossed first. HE should have asked for a review.
- powerenforcer

I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't think anyone should get too bent out of shape because of this goal. It wasn't like the Hawks were robbed of some well deserved win because of the linesman. I totally agree they should have challenged it, but the game was a trainwreck all together.

I don't doubt that you are correct, but his stick and skates were still in the o-zone when he received the pass from the neutral zone. That is offsides that led directly to the GWG. How is that play not reviewable/challenge-able?
- EnzoD

Last try here - I have work to do.

That offsides DID NOT lead directly to the GWG: he exited the zone with the puck - now he IS legally onsides and DID legally enter the zone, which is the play that directly led to the GWG.

Refs missed the call - tough poop - that play ended when Dano left the zone.

Sorry, once he touches the puck in the ozone, the play is dead. That is what offsides is.
- powerenforcer

But it wasn't called -the refs missed it - they (frank)ed up - it wasn't called - you're right.

Doesn't matter.

When Dano left the zone with the puck - because of the ref's screw-up - he was legally on-side.

Last try here - I have work to do.

That offsides DID NOT lead directly to the GWG: he exited the zone with the puck - now he IS legally onsides and DID legally enter the zone, which is the play that directly led to the GWG.

Refs missed the call - tough poop - that play ended when Dano left the zone.
- StLBravesFan

If we base the game on your logic, why is there any plays that are whistled for off-sides then? Think about what you are saying........

If we base the game on your logic, why is there any plays that are whistled for off-sides then? Think about what you are saying........
- powerenforcer

Scenario #1: Dano receives puck clearly offside, ref correctly blows whistle, play stops - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #2: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, puck stays in zone, goal is scored, coaches challenge - goal is correctly overturned - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #3: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, Dano exits zone with puck - play continues for several minutes with puck going up and down ice several times - after 5 minutes with no whistle, Jets enter the zone legally and score - should there be a coaches challenge after so many different plays and so much time passed?

If you agree with me that a coach's challenge should not be allowed in my Scenario #3, then how much time needs to pass before the coach loses his right to a challenge - 30 seconds? One minute? Two? Five? How many times must the puck go back and forth up and down the ice zone to zone? How many passes, how many TOs?

I suggest you think about what YOU'RE saying there.

Scenario #1: Dano receives puck clearly offside, ref correctly blows whistle, play stops - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #2: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, puck stays in zone, goal is scored, coaches challenge - goal is correctly overturned - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #3: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, Dano exits zone with puck - play continues for several minutes with puck going up and down ice several times - after 5 minutes with no whistle, Jets enter the zone legally and score - should there be a coaches challenge after so many different plays and so much time passed?

If you agree with me that a coach's challenge should not be allowed in my Scenario #3, then how much time needs to pass before the coach loses his right to a challenge - 30 seconds? One minute? Two? Five? How many times must the puck go back and forth up and down the ice zone to zone? How many passes, how many TOs?

I suggest you think about what YOU'RE saying there.
- StLBravesFan

I'd say the challenge should only be usable for that team's current entry and possession in the zone. If they re enter the zone (keeping possession still), can't challenge the prior entry if a goal was then scored... same if the other team would take the puck and then have a clean entry on the other side.

Scenario #1: Dano receives puck clearly offside, ref correctly blows whistle, play stops - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #2: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, puck stays in zone, goal is scored, coaches challenge - goal is correctly overturned - you're OK with this, no?

Scenario #3: Dano receives puck, clearly offside, ref incorrectly signals good play, Dano exits zone with puck - play continues for several minutes with puck going up and down ice several times - after 5 minutes with no whistle, Jets enter the zone legally and score - should there be a coaches challenge after so many different plays and so much time passed?

If you agree with me that a coach's challenge should not be allowed in my Scenario #3, then how much time needs to pass before the coach loses his right to a challenge - 30 seconds? One minute? Two? Five? How many times must the puck go back and forth up and down the ice zone to zone? How many passes, how many TOs?

I suggest you think about what YOU'RE saying there.
- StLBravesFan

Well, they do that now. Review a non-goal when there is a stoppage of play. If the play reviewed results in a goal, then the time is put back o n the clock. Look, the challenge is there to correct missed calls. If Q (or any other coach)wanted to challenge an obvious off-side play, they should have the right to do that, no matter how long ago the play happened. At the first stoppage of play after questionable play, a coach should be able to challenge a call.

Bread, let me ask has this current core looked hungry in November, December, January or February in the last 4-5 years? Or in 1st or 2nd periods of most any month?

Call it lazy, call it veteran savvy conserving energy for games with meaning in the Spring, call it whatever you want but this is a years over pattern and in no way a coincidence considering the sample size. ......This is a Hawk core that has won 3 in 7 and just can't get excited for a WPG or MN midseason or the 1st or 2nd period.
- Mr Ricochet

I'd say that attitude/approach, while understandable, is a bigger risk this year because 1) with this many new and inexperienced faces, I'd think the vets need to lead by example, and 2) their ability to "come back" in the 3rd after getting down, while not completely gone has diminished. I also don't see or hear the unwavering confidence, like was so obvious in the past, in the vets when they are interviewed after the games. They say the standard things, but their frustration is evident.