So watching CC this year, it seems that the word it out to shoot at his glove side. It looks like almost all of the goals agianst this year have been glove side high, and teams keep ripping them that direction.

So watching CC this year, it seems that the word it out to shoot at his glove side. It looks like almost all of the goals agianst this year have been glove side high, and teams keep ripping them that direction.
- Fooseshark

We are in huge trouble. I mean if both goals he gives up are glove side, then it is over.

Almost all the goals last night were on the glove side. Except 2 of the 3.

Wish we had one of those elite goalies with a 2.0 GAA who gives up 2 or less 80 to 90% of the time.


Oh wait......

We are in huge trouble. I mean if both goals he gives up are glove side, then it is over.

Almost all the goals last night were on the glove side. Except 2 of the 3.

Wish we had one of those elite goalies with a 2.0 GAA who gives up 2 or less 80 to 90% of the time.


Oh wait......
- TrueGrit

Let's see - most goalies are butterfly goalies, so that explains why most players shoot high when they go down....two years ago the complaint on C2 was he had a weak blocker side...

Last night: Watch. The. Freaking. Replays. Please. MOST (if not all) goalies don't stop goal #3, let alone a perfectly aimed #2.

Just really tired of the C2 bashing.... This Hawk team did not come to play last night, and after they tie the game with four minutes left, you could tell they were playing to get to OT, and not to win in regulation. No urgency from the guys in front of C2 - certainly not enough to match the intensity of a very hard working CAL team.

I think I'm with TG on this one. Q's moves, especially last night, were just infuriating. 2nd game of a back-to-back, against an inferior team, what better game to just roll 4 lines. and he shortens his bench. What was he doing? Was he sending a message about defensive play? Because if he did it failed as the defensive lapses that led to the 2nd goal and winning goal happened while his benched players were benched. Was he worried about not getting goals. The current lines had produced 5 goals a game for the past three games. What was the point? Did Q feel he sent the right message? Would he do it again? These would be great questions to ask Q after the game......you know....if we didn't have a bunch of horn playing seals for beat writers ( Al excluded, of course.)

What helped last year more than anything was the 24 game winning streak. It meant that Q didn't have to point chase the entire season. Now we have games like this ( games that were littered in '11 and '12 as well) where Q goes full throttle playing Toews Sharp, Kane and the like well over 20 minutes in an attempt to get 1 or two extra points. ( I know someone is tempted to respond that every point is important and that a win now will only help in March.....Don't. You make up points during the season all the time by winning games you shouldn't and vice versa so pointing to this one game is beyond silly). Roll your four lines. do your "coaching" during between game skates...

Let's see - most goalies are butterfly goalies, so that explains why most players shoot high when they go down....two years ago the complaint on C2 was he had a weak blocker side...

Last night: Watch. The. Freaking. Replays. Please. MOST (if not all) goalies don't stop goal #3, let alone a perfectly aimed #2.

Just really tired of the C2 bashing.... This Hawk team did not come to play last night, and after they tie the game with four minutes left, you could tell they were playing to get to OT, and not to win in regulation. No urgency from the guys in front of C2 - certainly not enough to match the intensity of a very hard woring CAL team.
- Return of the Roar

In late game and OT situations, Q plays not to lose, rather than to win. Last night's final RT minutes and the OT were perfect examples. When you play not to lose, you usually do. Is it realy "genius" to aim for an OT point at home against an inferior team???

Let's see - most goalies are butterfly goalies, so that explains why most players shoot high when they go down....two years ago the complaint on C2 was he had a weak blocker side...

Last night: Watch. The. Freaking. Replays. Please. MOST (if not all) goalies don't stop goal #3, let alone a perfectly aimed #2.

Just really tired of the C2 bashing.... This Hawk team did not come to play last night, and after they tie the game with four minutes left, you could tell they were playing to get to OT, and not to win in regulation. No urgency from the guys in front of C2 - certainly not enough to match the intensity of a very hard working CAL team.
- Return of the Roar

How many Stanley Cups will it take for people to lay off Crawford? 2? 3? 4? Sure, he may not be the best goalie in the league but he's top 10 and he's good enough for us to win a Cup with.

This season he has a GAA of 2.19 and ave % of .918 yet people still rag on him. Crawford is the least of this team's concerns, by a wide margin. Enough of the "weak glove side" or "Raanta is the goalie of the future" type comments. I'm all for playing the best players who give us the best change to win and right now (and for the foreseeable future) that's Crawford between the pipes.

I think I'm with TG on this one. Q's moves, especially last night, were just infuriating. 2nd game of a back-to-back, against an inferior team, what better game to just roll 4 lines. and he shortens his bench. What was he doing? Was he sending a message about defensive play? Because if he did it failed as the defensive lapses that led to the 2nd goal and winning goal happened while his benched players were benched. Was he worried about not getting goals. The current lines had produced 5 goals a game for the past three games. What was the point? Did Q feel he sent the right message? Would he do it again? These would be great questions to ask Q after the game......you know....if we didn't have a bunch of horn playing seals for beat writers ( Al excluded, of course.)

What helped last year more than anything was the 24 game winning streak. It meant that Q didn't have to point chase the entire season. Now we have games like this ( games that were littered in '11 and '12 as well) where Q goes full throttle playing Toews Sharp, Kane and the like well over 20 minutes in an attempt to get 1 or two extra points. ( I know someone is tempted to respond that every point is important and that a win now will only help in March.....Don't. You make up points during the season all the time by winning games you shouldn't and vice versa so pointing to this one game is beyond silly). Roll your four lines. do your "coaching" during between game skates...
- yahoodi

Better than I stated it.

You know if you are a young player making your way, you can understand/accept benching as is reflected by your play. When it is not. it is baffling.

Q likes to play hot hand stuff. Pirri has a handful of good looks during the first part of the game yesterday. Puck was following him.

Oh and for the bi polar crowd, questioning/criticizing Q does not = Fire Q or win in spite etc.

Today's article......

Calgary surprises Hawks 3-2. Goalie Reto Berra was vg but Flames caught the Hawks at the right time.

My Fox Chicago:http://bit.ly/Hwurcf

On Twitter@AlCimaglia

Classic Chicago...

Many may have seen this, but just ran across it again today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqrtoFWglMY
- TrueGrit

Try this TG,

http://calumet412.com/

In late game and OT situations, Q plays not to lose, rather than to win. Last night's final RT minutes and the OT were perfect examples. When you play not to lose, you usually do. Is it realy "genius" to aim for an OT point at home against an inferior team???
- Q...argh

Hawks ran out of juice after the opening 5 mins of the second period in a lot of ways...Don't think there was a plan to hold back.

Calgary surprises Hawks 3-2. Goalie Reto Berra was vg but Flames caught the Hawks at the right time. My Fox Chicago:http://bit.ly/Hwurcf

Let's see - most goalies are butterfly goalies, so that explains why most players shoot high when they go down....two years ago the complaint on C2 was he had a weak blocker side...

Last night: Watch. The. Freaking. Replays. Please. MOST (if not all) goalies don't stop goal #3, let alone a perfectly aimed #2.

Just really tired of the C2 bashing.... This Hawk team did not come to play last night, and after they tie the game with four minutes left, you could tell they were playing to get to OT, and not to win in regulation. No urgency from the guys in front of C2 - certainly not enough to match the intensity of a very hard working CAL team.
- Return of the Roar

Except for Fivenese (or whatever his name is), I don't see much Crawford bashing here.

Most of us say:

(1) He is a very good goalie
(2) They won one Cup with him, can certainly win some more
(3) He's played very well this year
(4) But: he has weaknesses

We certainly should be allowed to comment on his weaknesses, especially since (apparently) the league is aware of them, and (apparently) they will exploit them when possible.

Please try to read the posts instead of sarcastically putting down those of us who comment on Crawford's weaknesses (aimed at TG more than you).

EDIT to add: If it's ok to criticize Q for perceived weaknesses - a coach who led the team to 2 Cups - it is certainly ok to criticize Crawford for perceived weaknesses.

How many Stanley Cups will it take for people to lay off Crawford? 2? 3? 4? Sure, he may not be the best goalie in the league but he's top 10 and he's good enough for us to win a Cup with.

This season he has a GAA of 2.19 and ave % of .918 yet people still rag on him. Crawford is the least of this team's concerns, by a wide margin. Enough of the "weak glove side" or "Raanta is the goalie of the future" type comments. I'm all for playing the best players who give us the best change to win and right now (and for the foreseeable future) that's Crawford between the pipes.
- DarthKane

How many Cups will it take for people to lay off Q? 2 (oh - he has those). 3? 4?

If it's OK to criticize Q, it's ok to criticize Crawford - or Toews or Kane or Hossa or....

Hawks ran out of juice after the opening 5 mins of the second period in a lot of ways...Don't think there was a plan to hold back.

Calgary surprises Hawks 3-2. Goalie Reto Berra was vg but Flames caught the Hawks at the right time. My Fox Chicago:http://bit.ly/Hwurcf
- Al

Did look like there was a plan to hold back playing all four lines though....If they were tired, doesn't it make even more sense to roll all of the lines rather than shorten the bench as the game goes on?

Did look like there was a plan to hold back playing all four lines though....If they were tired, doesn't it make even more sense to roll all of the lines rather than shorten the bench as the game goes on?
- Return of the Roar

It doesn't take much to throw off the balance....Morin was benched after the Glencross goal...He played only 7 mins.

The 3rd and 4th lines played a lot in Winnipeg so he went with the top two lines late.

They just didn't play with conviction throughout and if you discount the shot total and look at scoring chances especially 2nd chances there was not enough.

As Q. said his team was okay....Not as good as previous games.

They took the Flames lightly and they got two breaks on deflections and their goalie was good...

Calgary surprises Hawks 3-2. Goalie Reto Berra was vg but Flames caught the Hawks at the right time. My Fox Chicago:http://bit.ly/Hwurcf

per Bob Mac...NJ puts Rostislav Olesz on waivers

White House visit, @ Walter Reed?

Except for Fivenese (or whatever his name is), I don't see much Crawford bashing here.

Most of us say:

(1) He is a very good goalie
(2) They won one Cup with him, can certainly win some more
(3) He's played very well this year
(4) But: he has weaknesses

We certainly should be allowed to comment on his weaknesses, especially since (apparently) the league is aware of them, and (apparently) they will exploit them when possible.

Please try to read the posts instead of sarcastically putting down those of us who comment on Crawford's weaknesses (aimed at TG more than you).

EDIT to add: If it's ok to criticize Q for perceived weaknesses - a coach who led the team to 2 Cups - it is certainly ok to criticize Crawford for perceived weaknesses.
- StLBravesFan

this....perfectly said!

They are 9-2-4. Could they be better? OF course. Could they be worse? You betcha.

Crawford got beat on 3 perfectly placed deflections/shots last night. The game wasn't on him. It's pretty obvious listening to Eddie O that he has a major ax to grind with Crawford. In fact, if you catch the Hawks on NBCSN you can hear Eddie O not being all bubbly.

As far as Q riding Toews and Hossa, and Kane last night....really? I noticed a lot of guys taking the night off. Did the 3rd line even show up? I have no problem with it....they are off until Wednesday, and regardless of what you think all the points matter. Especially at home vs Calgary who was starting a rookie goaltender. I love all these people who think early games don't mean as much as late games....it's a season folks. All 82 games are just as important.

Piri on the 2nd line looks good....glad Q is giving him a chance to play a period of games there, and not listening to the resident know it alls who had him destined for Rockford all season long, and the immortal Jimmy Hayes, and Nordstrom destined for the Calder race.....

2 numbers that are alarming to me as this team approaches the end to the 1st quarter.....-2 and -9. Keith and Kane's +/-. The only regulars who are negative on this team. Especially with a team that is +10 in goal differential.

Sorry guys, this one's on Q.

I'm going to point to the most critical part of the game -- 3rd period when the Hawks were on the PP and then the 2nd Calgary penalty was called.

Does anyone remember that sequence? I do.

At the time of the 1st PP, you had the 2nd unit out there with Leddy and Seabrook on the points. As soon as the 2nd penalty was called, it seemed like forever before the faceoff. And lo and behold, who should magically appear on the ice but the beloved 1st unit PP with none other than #2 at the point.

I watched in horror and wanted to put my foot through the set -- watching Keith stand literally motionless passing the puck laterally back and forth to/from Hossa. I could not believe my eyes.

That sonofab i t c h stood almost motionless passing the puck back and forth wasting precious seconds while on the 2 man advantage. Yes, Hossa finally did score, but that was only after over a minute being wasted with this nonsense. And the G came after the 1st penalty had expired.

If Keith had any brains and any ability to be a true PP QB, he would have been moving, going to an open area and rotating with the other 4 Hawks out there to create a true goal-scoring opportunity while on the 2 man advantage. Instead, all of that time was literally wasted.

And instead of the Hawks having a chance to get 2 PP goals, one while up 2 men and while while up 1 man, the time was wasted.

That, to me, is solely on Q for his belief that Duncan Keith in any way, shape or form belongs as the primary go-to QB for the PP.

Absolute idiocy. Someone described Keith earlier in this thread or the previous perfectly -- like a rat on crack.

Except for Fivenese (or whatever his name is), I don't see much Crawford bashing here.

Most of us say:

(1) He is a very good goalie
(2) They won one Cup with him, can certainly win some more
(3) He's played very well this year
(4) But: he has weaknesses

We certainly should be allowed to comment on his weaknesses, especially since (apparently) the league is aware of them, and (apparently) they will exploit them when possible.

Please try to read the posts instead of sarcastically putting down those of us who comment on Crawford's weaknesses (aimed at TG more than you).

EDIT to add: If it's ok to criticize Q for perceived weaknesses - a coach who led the team to 2 Cups - it is certainly ok to criticize Crawford for perceived weaknesses.
- StLBravesFan

Everyone is free to criticize as they see fit.

All I sarcastically point out is that pointing out the weakness of a goalie, who gives up 2 goals a game or less 80 plus % of the time is a little myopic.

Furthermore, as we are fairly presented with CC criticism, following 95% of his goals every night, I, and others, have to point out the fact that he is a butterfly goalie. A goalie that takes away the bottom of the net and challenges shooters to hit the top corners. Guess what...occasionally they do.

I mock the compulsion many have in pointing out the obvious. night after night after night. When, 80 to 90% of the time he is a 2 goal or less guy. Nobody wants to reconcile the two thoughts. And come to the common sense conclusion, that if his style occasionally gives up a top corner/post in shot high glove, I will gladly accept that risk given his overall performance.

I do not argue your take on the high shots/going down analysis. I am simply shocked that after 4 years anyone is surprised by it. Ask any coach/GM if they would take a goalie that keeps his team in the game and allows 2 or less 80 plus percent of the time and they will likely say......

Especially if you have the high powered offense the hawks have. That is the formula for success.

BTW, it looks like the league is exploiting this weakness at a 2 goal a game clip. I am not sure how much longer CC has in the league. Wonder how all the elite goalies, with no weaknesses give up more goals. Again Red Font Irony.

Sorry guys, this one's on Q.

I'm going to point to the most critical part of the game -- 3rd period when the Hawks were on the PP and then the 2nd Calgary penalty was called.

Does anyone remember that sequence? I do.

At the time of the 1st PP, you had the 2nd unit out there with Leddy and Seabrook on the points. As soon as the 2nd penalty was called, it seemed like forever before the faceoff. And lo and behold, who should magically appear on the ice but the beloved 1st unit PP with none other than #2 at the point.

I watched in horror and wanted to put my foot through the set -- watching Keith stand literally motionless passing the puck laterally back and forth to/from Hossa. I could not believe my eyes.

That sonofafemale dog stood almost motionless passing the puck back and forth wasting precious seconds while on the 2 man advantage. Yes, Hossa finally did score, but that was only after over a minute being wasted with this nonsense. And the G came after the 1st penalty had expired.

If Keith had any brains and any ability to be a true PP QB, he would have been moving, going to an open area and rotating with the other 4 Hawks out there to create a true goal-scoring opportunity while on the 2 man advantage. Instead, all of that time was literally wasted.

And instead of the Hawks having a chance to get 2 PP goals, one while up 2 men and while while up 1 man, the time was wasted.

That, to me, is solely on Q for his belief that Duncan Keith in any way, shape or form belongs as the primary go-to QB for the PP.

Absolute idiocy. Someone described Keith earlier in this thread or the previous perfectly -- like a rat on crack.
- savvyone-1

He has no business on the PP. He's also a -2, with 0 goals. I wonder how much of the ego thing goes into Keith being locked into that point on the PP. He also failed to hold in a puck just before Hossa scored.

Not a Keith fan...At. All.

He has no business on the PP. He's also a -2, with 0 goals. I wonder how much of the ego thing goes into Keith being locked into that point on the PP. He also failed to hold in a puck just before Hossa scored.

Not a Keith fan...At. All.
- SteveRain

Well, the thing that just grinds my gears (as it were) is this club was desperately in need of a jolt at that point and the 2 man advantage was exactly what they needed. Leddy has proven his ability to move with the puck and put some heat on the goalie with his shot.

I can guarantee you had he been left out there, at a minimum they would have had at least a few scoring chances during the 2 man, if not had been able to score. Of course that would still leave a PP and time to get another.

I don't know that it's an ego thing as much as it is that Keith must have some really good pics of Q in a compromising situation. Never seen a coach stick with what doesn't work for so long. Going back to my thought about the guy being hard-headed. Well, we've seen that out of Q before, have we not???

Try this TG,

http://calumet412.com/
- Beaver-Warrior

Good Stuff....

Eklund saying the Hawks kicking tires on Steve Ott

That should make some people on here happy to be hearing that

They are 9-2-4. Could they be better? OF course. Could they be worse? You betcha.

Crawford got beat on 3 perfectly placed deflections/shots last night. The game wasn't on him. It's pretty obvious listening to Eddie O that he has a major ax to grind with Crawford. In fact, if you catch the Hawks on NBCSN you can hear Eddie O not being all bubbly.

As far as Q riding Toews and Hossa, and Kane last night....really? I noticed a lot of guys taking the night off. Did the 3rd line even show up? I have no problem with it....they are off until Wednesday, and regardless of what you think all the points matter. Especially at home vs Calgary who was starting a rookie goaltender. I love all these people who think early games don't mean as much as late games....it's a season folks. All 82 games are just as important.

Piri on the 2nd line looks good....glad Q is giving him a chance to play a period of games there, and not listening to the resident know it alls who had him destined for Rockford all season long, and the immortal Jimmy Hayes, and Nordstrom destined for the Calder race.....

2 numbers that are alarming to me as this team approaches the end to the 1st quarter.....-2 and -9. Keith and Kane's +/-. The only regulars who are negative on this team. Especially with a team that is +10 in goal differential.
- SteveRain

Kane's number was affected a lot by two games I believe...Still stands out.

Calgary surprises Hawks 3-2. Goalie Reto Berra was vg but Flames caught the Hawks at the right time. My Fox Chicago:http://bit.ly/Hwurcf