Follow JJ on Twitter @jaeckel!
10-9-3 since January 1.
That's the record of the team that was "one bounce away" from the Stanley Cup Finals last Spring. And a lot of those games have been at home, versus not the greatest teams in the league, like last night, when the Blackhawks succumbed to Colorado at the United Center, 4-1.
The evidence continues to mount that the argument that all the pieces were in place last Spring—just a bad piece of puck luck kept the Hawks from repeating as Stanley Cup Champs—is/was flawed.
The other argument was that team was (in the end) too small upfront and weak down the middle, with really only 3 centers on the roster, one of those (Michal Handzus) running on fumes, and were exposed by the LA Kings.
One thing's for sure, while the Hawks looked to be slowly lifting up out of their New Year's funk toward the end of their recent road trip, the last couple of games seem to indicate problems remain.
22 games is over one quarter of the season. The last two teams that won Stanley Cups in Chicago, in 2010 and 2013, didn't look like this club. Ever.
Without some kind of practical change, a miraculous reversal of fortunes in the playoffs could conceivably occur. About as often as the miraculous does. So no, if you're thinking this club is going to turn it around without changing something, anything, you can't be serious.
Let's look at some of the reasons floating around out there for this fall-off.
"It's the officiating."
That's a big part of it. There is ample evidence the league is allowing a lot more clutching, grabbing and whatnot. Great news for teams like the Red Wings and Kings who routinely employ those tactics. Bad news for the Hawks whose game is completely stifled when the refs "let 'em play." So, you have two choices: complain or adapt. So far, based on how the team reacts to calls (and non-calls), the Hawks have just complained.
What would adaptation look like? More shots when you have them, less cutesie passes, more bodies at and in front of the net. But maybe the players necessary to get that done consistently aren't on the roster right now. Which calls for greater adaptation.
"It's Rozsival's (Rundblad's, Oduya's . . .) fault."
Listen, watching David Rundblad play defense in his end is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. But he is a symptom of the problem, not the problem, as is all the focus on Rozsival (who is what he is and always has been since arriving in Chicago).
When this team traded Nick Leddy, they gave up a pretty good (and getting better) third pairing defenseman. Leddy has gone on to be a good Top 4 guy with the Islanders. His would be replacement, Trevor van Riemsdyk, was starting took like he could fill the void, before he went down with a bad injury. This has put more pressure on the entire defense.
So the entire defense is struggling.
And when the Hawk defense struggles, the whole team struggles. Not just in keeping pucks out of their net, but in putting them in the opposing team's net. Because that is the system the Hawks play.
So, you have to choices: adapt or complain.
Fans are complaining. I personally have heard rumblings even the players are none too pleased with the revolving door of prospect auditions.
Adaptation, in this case, looks like acquiring some veteran defensive help—even though, yes, there would be a "cost."
Lately, bloggers and writers "close" to the team have been trumpeting the imminent return of TVR from a patellar tendon tear. Maybe that is the answer.
Maybe we're not really being serious there.
There is another rumor out there, one that is not hard at all to buy into, that with impending cap limitations next year, the Hawks are hesitant to move prospects in order to strengthen the roster this year.
Yet we've seen Jeremy Morin (who was moved for another guy who is not the answer, Tim Erixon), Teuvo Teravainen, Philip Danault, Ryan Hartman, Klas Dahlbeck and Adam Clendening so far this year, Stephen Johns was briefly called up and didn't play, same with Dennis Rasmussen. Any big difference makers there this year? No. So why will they necessarily be that next year?
Or are we not being serious?
Are we serious about what-ifs next year? Or winning a Cup this year?
I'm just asking the question. The answer seems to maybe be more the former than the latter. But there's still time.
And maybe there is something to a recurring rumor that the Hawks are actively shopping 1-2 rostered players to get some immediate help.
You're on the clock, Mr. Bowman.
Seriously.
All for now, Bruins preview tomorrow,
JJ