And if you don't win the faceoff or have possession what do you propose the team does?
- paulr

Really Paul, a man of your High Hockey IQ?

Must play some tight man to man defense. Did not think that had to be said. Toews doing a fly by and leaving Gus with a 2 on 1..

I am sure you can punch it up on your computer, but I recall at least 5 of the last 6 OT.s the hawks did not start with the puck. I believe at least 3 ended without them touching the puck.

The biggest problem is we know what Gus is. He's an offensive minded D man who is an elite talent. The defensive side no question he is lacking on.

The other side of this coin is the inability of fans, coaches, management to realize that 2 is done. Done as in a top pair defensemen and he's arguably a 2nd pair on a cup contending team.

For all the nitpicking we do about 56, maybe we should start to nitpick 2's game and watch the parade of back door goals, that he gives up, or his lack of size, stick checking that doesn't work in today's game?

The smart move is shopping him this offseason and getting him out of here because nobody is taking 7 with that asinine cap hit.

Otherwise this team is locking up way too many spots for has been/inferior d men and will not take the next step back up any time soon
- SteveRain

You are not wrong here. Let's say for arguments sake, that Keith is your #3. Maybe you make the assumption that Jokiharju is going to come back as a 1st pairing defenseman and stay there (growing pains, and there will be some, be damned). If you move Keith (assuming he agrees) you now have a defense with 1 top pairing guy, one maybe 2nd pairing guy (Murphy), and the rest 3rd pairing or worse guys.

What do you get for Keith? You would probably have to add in something of value (or perceived value) to get either a top 6 forward or a top 4 d-man. In either case, removing Keith without replacing him by signing a top 4 D leaves a HUGE hole in an already bad defense.

Really Paul, a man of your High Hockey IQ?

Must play some tight man to man defense. Did not think that had to be said. Toews doing a fly by and leaving Gus with a 2 on 1..

I am sure you can punch it up on your computer, but I recall at least 5 of the last 6 OT.s the hawks did not start with the puck. I believe at least 3 ended without them touching the puck.
- TrueGrit

So what your saying is they need to touch the puck?

Wouldn't stealing the puck be considered playing defensive hockey? There is no room for 3 on 3 hockey to play defense so I'm curious what a team is supposed to do if it doesn't have possession?

I'm not happy aboooot you mocking Canadians.
- paulr

Ok, goalie make save, give puck to teammate, teammate score goal.

Wait, the save could be defense, too. Never mind.

You are not wrong here. Let's say for arguments sake, that Keith is your #3. Maybe you make the assumption that Jokiharju is going to come back as a 1st pairing defenseman and stay there (growing pains, and there will be some, be damned). If you move Keith (assuming he agrees) you now have a defense with 1 top pairing guy, one maybe 2nd pairing guy (Murphy), and the rest 3rd pairing or worse guys.

What do you get for Keith? You would probably have to add in something of value (or perceived value) to get either a top 6 forward or a top 4 d-man. In either case, removing Keith without replacing him by signing a top 4 D leaves a HUGE hole in an already bad defense.
- TheTrob

ROR and Trob-

I was all about shopping Keith to Toronto. They have cap issues but they also have a core ready to win NOW and their issue is their defense. They arent' coming out of the east any time soon with that defense no matter how much the folks in Canada want to anoint Babcock as the 2nd coming.

Keith going to the hockey capital, getting a chance to bring a cup to Toronto in decades, that alone should sell him on moving there. How Toronto fits him I have no idea, but I would think if the idea was proposed by Bowman, leafs brass would get creative. I do find it hilarious they are still paying Phil Kessel. God, do I despise the leafs.

Problem is Bowman will want the farm to move him to appease the t shirt mafia who will be floored they dare trade keith as they zero clue about hockey.

Really Paul, a man of your High Hockey IQ?

Must play some tight man to man defense. Did not think that had to be said. Toews doing a fly by and leaving Gus with a 2 on 1..

I am sure you can punch it up on your computer, but I recall at least 5 of the last 6 OT.s the hawks did not start with the puck. I believe at least 3 ended without them touching the puck.
- TrueGrit

100% agree. Toews did a fly by, Kane was also hanging high and slow to get down.

I do like Burish on the postgame as he at least is somewhat critical.

Hawks continue to give away points so all the wins against Montreal or Toronto real;y don't add up when you give 2 points to an awful Vancouver team because you mailed it in effort wise for 2 periods.

But this veteran leadership...……….

Ok, goalie make save, give puck to teammate, teammate score goal.

Wait, the save could be defense, too. Never mind.
- mohel

Crawford should have had that....and I noticed Kane gave him the stink eye when they showed the replay.

Without CC they don't get to OT...….I'm guessing the Hawks finish around 85 points and miss the playoffs by 4pts.

Experience is nice but this team would get massacred come playoff time. No matter how badly Pat Foley pimps them up on air......

There is a range of risk taking in 3v3. You can throw caution to the wind, or you can play a tight man on man when you lose possession and capitalize on offensive opportunities.

Last night we lost the draw and then floated. You need a plan that if you lose the draw the center (Toews) takes his opposite, the dman (Gus) takes their other forward and our other forward (Kane) takes there dman. When they lost the draw last night they just looked at each other like there was no plan if they lost the draw and floated all the way to our net.
- -Doh-

I thought the exact same thing, it was like they didn’t even consider the possibility of losing the draw.

Really Paul, a man of your High Hockey IQ?

Must play some tight man to man defense. Did not think that had to be said. Toews doing a fly by and leaving Gus with a 2 on 1..

I am sure you can punch it up on your computer, but I recall at least 5 of the last 6 OT.s the hawks did not start with the puck. I believe at least 3 ended without them touching the puck.
- TrueGrit

True Grit - "There is no such thing as defensive hockey 3 on 3"

Of course there is such a thing as defensive hockey 3 on 3. But I'm curious why the concept of defensive hockey always irritates you? You are always dismissive of defense. Defensive hockey is parmount to a good team regardless of the number of men on the ice. So on 3 on 3 and you don't have puck possession then there is such a thing as defense is there not?

Crawford should have had that....and I noticed Kane gave him the stink eye when they showed the replay.

Without CC they don't get to OT...….I'm guessing the Hawks finish around 85 points and miss the playoffs by 4pts.

Experience is nice but this team would get massacred come playoff time. No matter how badly Pat Foley pimps them up on air......
- SteveRain

Should have been the other way around Crawford should have given Kane the stink eye! He did absolutely nothing on that play, it was like he was just a spectator, he barely moved just glided and watched!

I rewatched that goal a number of times and still can’t believe what I saw. All you need to watch is the first ten seconds:

https://www.nhl.com/video...ot/t-277350912/c-67023503

Exactly and when they can't pot 4-5 a night they have a tough time winning unless Crawford stands on his head. This defense is a joke. Just awful. High quality chance after high quality chance with an AHL caliber defense or old has beens.

So many including those who used to run this blog can rip 56 all day long, but at least he gives you offense. Im looking at 2 and 7 who look like hell and really need to be a 4 at best but most likely a 5 or 6 on a cup contending team playing with somebody who can cover their mistakes.

has some ridiculous double push off going on with 1 leg and looks extremely uncomfortable skating.
- SteveRain

Always picture him saying, “vroom, vroom” in his head when he does that. Has been doing that as long as I can remember.

What has Jokiharju done that makes you so certain he can run a powerplay as effectively as Gus? Maybe one day he can but I have seen nothing so far that would indicate that. Hopefully he can because for all his offensive prowess Gus is a disaster in other aspects of the game which we have all discussed a million times. And right now Boqvist isn't much better defensively than Gus. Another season in London will hopefully see Boqvist improve his defense and other parts of his game so he's ready for the Hawks the following year.
- paulr

Gus is not running the powerplay kane is

Gus is not running the powerplay kane is
- Scott1977

Exactly correct. Gus can get his shot past the shin guards unlike Keith, and can move laterally to create passing lanes unlike Seabrook. Jokiharju has been running PP1 for years, and will do so next year for the Hawks once Gus is traded to South Florida with Uncle Dale.

Toews and Kane didnt look shot playing together...but they had to get Sikura more ice time

Now Saad and Toews have to work twice as hard because they have a mite playing on the RW
- PatShart

Well there it is - it's all Sikura's fault. Everyone can stop analyzing the game last night because now we have the definitive diagnosis - Sikura. That is really good news because now we know that if Colliton just gets rid of Sikura the Hawks will waltz into the playoffs. I'll be back later, I'm going to plan the parade.

Thing is, the season doesn't come down to one game and one play. The Hawks gave up points all season long and they weren't going to win them all down the stretch.

The Hawks got beat in OT. The Canucks made a nice give and go play and the Hawks didn't cover it completely. I wouldn't over think it. They got a point at least and need to move on to the next game until they are out of it.

The team likely needs 16 points in the next 10 games. 8-2, 8-1-1, 7-1-2 and they might be in.

From today’s The Athletic, teams on the playoff bubble.

The team: Chicago Blackhawks

The race: The Hawks are chasing the same teams that the Wild are, but with more ground to make up. They’re sitting three points back of Minnesota and are four back of the Coyotes, but do hold a game in hand on both teams.

Their odds: 18 percent, down from 20 percent after last night’s loss to the Canucks.

Why they’ll make it: Their schedule looks a little better than Minnesota’s, especially over the next week or so. They’ve got winnable games coming up against the Flyers and Avalanche (twice) and then they get the Coyotes in a must-win. There are no gimmes at this time of year, but if the Hawks can get six or seven points out of those four games, there’s a chance they’ll be in decent shape heading down the stretch when the schedule gets tougher with teams like the Sharks, Jets and Predators.

Maybe more importantly, Chicago is hot right now, having won five straight before picking up a point in last night’s OT loss to Vancouver. And Corey Crawford has been fantastic, stealing a few games that the Hawks probably didn’t deserve to win. Over the long haul, you never want to have to rely on a hot goalie to carry a team. But for a few weeks with the season on the line? You’ll take it.

Why they won’t: It’s been a frustrating season for a Blackhawks’ team that’s shown flashes down the stretch – this recent five-game winning streak was their second in the last two months. But some brutal stretches in the first half means they’ve probably left themselves with just too much ground to make up.

Parting words of optimism: If I understand my narratives correctly, all the Blackhawks veterans can hold their Stanley Cup rings together and yell “Know how to win!” and magic powers will shoot out of their hearts or something.

Just catching up here .Sure it was a tough disappointing loss ,but moved up a point . Lot hand ringing and dumping on players . I don't get it team playing top hockey since the new year ,not going to win every game . They have had a couple bad periods over the string and a lousy OT last night ,but for the most part good hockey .
I think Keith had abad game last night ,and believe Kane is fighting something showed him on the bench against Montreal look sore .
Nobody I guess expected the HAWKS to be chasing Playoff spot this late ,and some don't want them to be .But they are ,and it fun watching games that count . Little luck they get in ,and the HAWKS have played well against their foe in the Central .Like to see this team in the playoff as a big underdog

True Grit - "There is no such thing as defensive hockey 3 on 3"

Of course there is such a thing as defensive hockey 3 on 3. But I'm curious why the concept of defensive hockey always irritates you? You are always dismissive of defense. Defensive hockey is parmount to a good team regardless of the number of men on the ice. So on 3 on 3 and you don't have puck possession then there is such a thing as defense is there not?
- paulr

Oh you are the curious type.

Do you think NHL teams spend hours of practice drawing up x's and o's on 3 on 3 hockey? No, the whole reason there is 3 on 3 hockey is to open the ice up and have someone score a goal and win a game.

Do I really need to go on record and explain the obvious? Man to man defense, needs no explanation. It requires effort and intelligence and keeping yourself between your guy and your goal. You hope the opponent loses the puck, gets trapped, makes a bad pass or your team gains the puck via a rebound. I am sure you can put it far more eloquently.

While you, Q, Kruger, Desjardin, Handjuice and Mr. Sequin can (while sitting together sipping cocktails with umbrellas and gnawing on swedish meatballs, in the ivory tower of hockey stratagem, turning your noses up at the unwashed and unsophisticated), debate defensive tactics, like old WWII generals, but I am hard pressed to locate a doctoral thesis on 3 on 3 defense.

Please enlighten on on the various styles of 3 on 3 defense. Please, for those of us with a less refined taste and appreciation for 3 on 3 defense, please explain what most of us can not see with the naked eye.

Gus is not running the powerplay kane is
- Scott1977

Yet somehow, when Kane was running his PP for 8 years without GUS it sucked Balls....must be a coincidence?

These are statements of fact and requires a logical interpretation....

Well there it is - it's all Sikura's fault. Everyone can stop analyzing the game last night because now we have the definitive diagnosis - Sikura. That is really good news because now we know that if Colliton just gets rid of Sikura the Hawks will waltz into the playoffs. I'll be back later, I'm going to plan the parade.
- EbonyRaptor

Sweet. Go away then until the parade plans are finalized

For all the Kruger bashers. From Lazerus today.

So it was no surprise that Colliton had Kruger on the ice for a defensive-zone draw with 19.6 seconds left in Toronto, after the Leafs had turned a 5-0 deficit into a 5-4 nail-biter. And when Jonathan Toews — the team’s best faceoff guy, particularly on his backhand — was tossed out of the faceoff circle, Kruger calmly stepped in and won the draw.

“You want to be out there in those moments,” Kruger said. “I’ve always taken pride in being out there and getting to jump on. Nineteen-point-something seconds left, we just want to survive. And when Tazer got kicked out, I knew it was obviously an important faceoff.”

Kruger quickly sized up the situation and knew what he had to do — win the faceoff toward the boards, where it was safest.

“They had (Mitch) Marner on the inside, and they had (Auston) Matthews as the wide guy,” he said. “He’s a good passer and he’s a righty, so he could shoot or pass right away. I didn’t want to lose it to the inside, so I wanted to make sure I could get it to the boards. I was lucky enough to get it pretty clean.”

Kruger’s never had the sexiest job, but he’s always done it well.

“That’s why he’s on the ice,” Colliton said.

It’ll be someone else next season, probably Kampf. And while they’re not the most glamorous shoes to fill, they’re big ones.

For all the Kruger bashers. From Lazerus today.

So it was no surprise that Colliton had Kruger on the ice for a defensive-zone draw with 19.6 seconds left in Toronto, after the Leafs had turned a 5-0 deficit into a 5-4 nail-biter. And when Jonathan Toews — the team’s best faceoff guy, particularly on his backhand — was tossed out of the faceoff circle, Kruger calmly stepped in and won the draw.

“You want to be out there in those moments,” Kruger said. “I’ve always taken pride in being out there and getting to jump on. Nineteen-point-something seconds left, we just want to survive. And when Tazer got kicked out, I knew it was obviously an important faceoff.”

Kruger quickly sized up the situation and knew what he had to do — win the faceoff toward the boards, where it was safest.

“They had (Mitch) Marner on the inside, and they had (Auston) Matthews as the wide guy,” he said. “He’s a good passer and he’s a righty, so he could shoot or pass right away. I didn’t want to lose it to the inside, so I wanted to make sure I could get it to the boards. I was lucky enough to get it pretty clean.”

Kruger’s never had the sexiest job, but he’s always done it well.

“That’s why he’s on the ice,” Colliton said.

It’ll be someone else next season, probably Kampf. And while they’re not the most glamorous shoes to fill, they’re big ones.
- scottak

But you said Colliton is an idiot?

Yet somehow, when Kane was running his PP for 8 years without GUS it sucked Balls....must be a coincidence?

These are statements of fact and requires a logical interpretation....
- TrueGrit

Love all your points. Hawks biggest problem is a lack of a #1 and #2 D-man. If they found the right players to fill those holes, then the rest of their blue line would settle in. DK would be significantly better in a role that was reduced and not asking him to play heavy(ier) minutes. If they can figure out their blue line this summer and add a little more scoring on the bottom lines, I think they will come out blazing next year.

Love all your points. Hawks biggest problem is a lack of a #1 and #2 D-man. If they found the right players to fill those holes, then the rest of their blue line would settle in. DK would be significantly better in a role that was reduced and not asking him to play heavy(ier) minutes. If they can figure out their blue line this summer and add a little more scoring on the bottom lines, I think they will come out blazing next year.
- frafra

Exactly, I wonder about many here on the board, who I assume have boy band posters all over their walls, as they fawn over pre pubescent defense men all day long.

Some can't go 10 minutes without trading Gus and craving other Swedish meatballs.

Agree with your defense assessment, though Paul may not officially give me credit, and will likely post my linkedin resume to caution everyone so they are not misled....

He is working on a documentary of my historical posts. Its a dark and sad story....

Well there it is - it's all Sikura's fault. Everyone can stop analyzing the game last night because now we have the definitive diagnosis - Sikura. That is really good news because now we know that if Colliton just gets rid of Sikura the Hawks will waltz into the playoffs. I'll be back later, I'm going to plan the parade.
- EbonyRaptor

Its like Clue....so Sikura did it, behind the net with Kruger's rolled up newspaper.