Sometimes, I need look no further than my own comment thread to find a blog topic. Or two.
Yesterday, in the aftermath of the Hawks' 4-2 win over Minnesota, posters went back and forth over what they had just seen—and which team, between the Hawks and the Wild, is actually the better club.
I don't have all the answers. No one does. This will get played out in the playoffs. Until then, I do have "thoughts."
Yes, the Hawks have won 3 straight against the Wild—all of which were "big" games. You can't discount that. It means something. Both teams definitely had something to prove in those outings. And although the Hawks could point to the scoreboard at the end in all three, there were factors that will encourage the Wild.
Yesterday, the Hawk win very simply came down to their goalie (Corey Crawford) being better than the Wild's goalies (Devan Dubnyk and Darcy Kuemper).
In my opinion, that wasn't just a one-game occurrence. Throw the statistics out. In big games, including a playoff series a lot of people thought the Wild were going to win in 2015, because—"Dubnyk, he's so hhhhhot right now, Dubnyk"—Crawford has shown himself to be a money performer when it counts between these two teams. Dubnyk has not.
Otherwise, the Wild pretty much dominated large stretches of yesterday's game, and no Hawk fan should just brush that off. The Wild are potent and stacked from defense to forward. All game long yesterday, it looked like the Hawks could simply not get the puck any deeper than the circles—hence a pretty anemic shot total, less than half what the Wild put on Crawford, including numerous high percentage chances. You allow that kind of discrepancy game after game, you are playing with fire. And the percentages are against you, no matter how good your goaltending is.
I'm still not completely sure what to make of the 2016-17 Blackhawks. Some games and stretches, they look like a sure-fire Cup Final team. Other games you wonder if they can make it out of the first round. Yeah, I know, that's hockey.
Statistically, this a pretty good defensive club with very good goaltending. I would be remiss if I didn't state that backup Scott Darling is quite capable of delivering the same kind of "big game" performance Crawford did yesterday. He has numerous times.
All that said, this is a highly talented, but mistake prone and inconsistent club. Hallmarks of a young team.
Now, if you look at the average age of the Hawks versus other clubs, you would say they are not a young team. But is skewed by Marian Hossa, Brian Campbell, and Michal Rozsival, not to mention the advancing years of Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook. In some ways, most importantly, with the number of rookies and very young players chewing up some bigger minutes, this is a young team, too.
But full marks to the coaching staff and the likes of Richard Panik, Nick Schmaltz and Michal Kempny, all of whom have come a long way this year. But each of whom is still prone to the odd gaffe (Schmaltz being yesterday's culprit). But for this team, at the rate it has improved this season, another month of regular season hockey and opportunity for further progression remains.
On that note, there are some saying yesterday's signing of Yale forward John Hayden points to Hayden playing some significant role in the bottom 6 going forward.
Like another late season college signee of recent vintage, the now legendary Drew Leblanc, I have no doubt Hayden will get a hot with the Hawks. He's big and plays (college hockey at least) with a heavy dose of nasty. However, there is always—always—an adjustment from college to pro hockey, and the kind of mistakes that come with it are not the kind of things Joel Quenneville has much patience for at the time of year when golf clubs come out of storage.
All of the above, remains to be seen.
I'll have a preview of the Hawks' game in Montreal tomorrow.
JJ