Do not discount motivation as well. There were whispers of commitment issues (whether those were accurate or just pr) and the trade could have acted as a wake-up call as well. Proper deployment, supportive coaching, and additional motivation.
- Revco38

The classic case of change of scenery woke him up.

The classic case of change of scenery woke him up.
- LAHawk

Change of scenery and different role.

As you mentioned several times, you thought he was a wing not a center. He struggled at center in Montreal as well. Then they put him on a wing with guys where he doesn't have to be "the guy" and he has some success.

Will be interesting to see if he maintains it and what happens if they try to move him back to a pivot.

I liked Nazar and was happy they drafted him. Too bad he is already on LTIR hopefully he makes a full recovery and can be a big part of the teams rebuild. Dach was mishandled in his short history with the HAWKS. I have been watching a lot of Canadian games of late and Dach looks like a different player. He is thriving under a solid coaching system he is being deployed in. It's sad he was not given a chance under a real coach in Chicago. I will need to live with it and move on and hope for the best for both players
- oldduffman

Did we ever get any details on Nazar’s injury? Not sure if that was communicated here or not.

On Carolina’s first goal, it was pretty clear it was deflected by a high stick. All the players saw it, however no challenge.

50/50 at best it’s overturned.

Guess they’d rather be down 1-0.

Tank is on.

Exhale.

Did we ever get any details on Nazar’s injury? Not sure if that was communicated here or not.
- Angotti

Don't think so I have never seen anything other than it was long term .

On Carolina’s first goal, it was pretty clear it was deflected by a high stick. All the players saw it, however no challenge.

50/50 at best it’s overturned.

Guess they’d rather be down 1-0.

Tank is on.

Exhale.
- mike7076

YA it was called a goal by the on-ice officials pretty slim they would overturn it on what I seen. TANK ON !!

On Carolina’s first goal, it was pretty clear it was deflected by a high stick. All the players saw it, however no challenge.

50/50 at best it’s overturned.

Guess they’d rather be down 1-0.

Tank is on.

Exhale.
- mike7076

If it is 50/50, and the call on the ice is a good goal, the odds on it being overturned becomes significantly less, so unless the Hawks video tape person had a definitive angle that showed the puck being hit with a stick above the crossbar. Per the rule it is where the puck hits the stick, if that portion of the stick is below the crossbar, and the rest of the stick above the crossbar, it is still a good goal.

When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

Toews not being a ghost helps immensely as well.

Couple of other observations:
1) Hawks probably have better center depth on this team than they have in a while. Sucks that so many other positions dropped off.
2) I know Dach is doing much better right now, but between the two, I like Domi better (especially as a center).
- Chunk

kane has disappeared

If it is 50/50, and the call on the ice is a good goal, the odds on it being overturned becomes significantly less, so unless the Hawks video tape person had a definitive angle that showed the puck being hit with a stick above the crossbar. Per the rule it is where the puck hits the stick, if that portion of the stick is below the crossbar, and the rest of the stick above the crossbar, it is still a good goal.

When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

- LAHawk

Not that it would have mattered much, but the puck contacted the stick up by the guys shoulder. And I don't think the guy is a midget. So no goal in my book, but I'm guessing since it was early they didn't want to go 2 down after giving up another PP. Didn't matter anyway.

Not that it would have mattered much, but the puck contacted the stick up by the guys shoulder. And I don't think the guy is a midget. So no goal in my book, but I'm guessing since it was early they didn't want to go 2 down after giving up another PP. Didn't matter anyway.
- 6628

Probably, my biggest point was it was called a good goal on the ice, so evidence would have had to be irrefutable that it wasn't. Obviously there was a question in the mind of the Hawks video review guy, and like you said it was early, and the Hawks did not want to risk the penalty.

Don't think so I have never seen anything other than it was long term .
- oldduffman

Got you. Thanks

New Blog
Hawks vs Canes Takeaways
Blues Preview
Interview with Jeremy Roenick
https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=119553