NHL: Anaheim Ducks at Chicago Blackhawks

That’s The Way That One Went: Ducks 2 – Hawks 2 (Ducks win fart-lighting contest)

Sometimes, you tie.

This is my point with shootouts. Tonight was probably as even as you get, with both teams carrying some play and each benefiting for being harmed by a couple bounces here and there. But because we have to flip a coin to see who wins, the Hawks don’t get as many points as the Ducks. That’s how that goes.

The big point will be the Hawks power play, and that’s a valid one. Aside from Leddy’s goal, the Hawks barely threatened on the rest. And the gremlins from last year are creeping into it. Right now, it has about as much movement as a goth dance party, and that has to stop. It also wouldn’t hurt to try and create off the rush more than it is. Just because it’s a power play doesn’t mean you have to set up a system if something else is there.

The 4-on-3s on the OT were painful, as Q opted for four forwards for the entirety of the second one. But that misses the point. Though he scores from there on occasion, Hossa’s biggest attribute on such an advantage is his puck-retrieval and movement. If you’re going to have someone just blast from the point, Seabrook would be the better option. If you need someone to run it, Leddy would be the better option. Still, totally fixable if they diagnose the problem as we see it.

-Secondly, it’s been lost in the avalanche of points, but the Hawks have only held narrow 3rd period leads in four games. The first time was when they were doing their best to blow a three-goal lead to St. Louis. The second was losing a one-goal lead to a Wings team begging to be gassed. The third was in Calgary, but that was such an abhorrent effort on all levels it might be its own case. The fourth was tonight. And outside of St. Louis — because that lead was so big — they’ve blown them all. I suppose you could count the Columbus game, but that didn’t feel as in doubt and we’re talking about the fucking Jackets anyway.

Why? For sure in the Blues, Wings, and tonight, the Hawks got too passive. They restricted themselves to a 1-2-2 for a majority of the 3rd, and that’s not what they are. Until the last minute, the Hawks really should be trying to win every game by three or four goals. Considering how bad they were blistering the Ducks D on chases and to the outside, there was no reason to give that up.

Still, both Ducks goals came off deflected pucks to an open man or a Hawks stick. Kane probably needed to move that puck quicker for the equalizer, but that’s going to happen when he’s being asked to skate with Bolland when Bolland is matched against the other top threat.

Observations

-While we’re on that, it didn’t seem like Q was matching up to be fair. He was just rolling his lines and letting the chips tumble to Earth as such. That’s fine.

-Someone is going to have to explain how the Hawks got a second goal, because I couldn’t figure it out.

-Are people going to yell at me now about Saad taking the third attempt in the shootout? Please don’t.

-Andrew Cogliano deserved his goal, because he was everywhere tonight. Really unleashed under Boudreau.

-So was Daniel Winnik, strangely.

-Dave Bolland’s only successful strategy on draws right now is to let the other guy win it so cleanly it goes out of the zone.

-Thank you Brad Staubitz for perfectly showcasing just how stupid it is to start a fight after a perfectly clean hit, especially when it’s on the quite sizable Getzlaf who doesn’t need protection.

-Patrick Kane and Patrick Sharp combined for five shots tonight. You can keep telling me it doesn’t matter that his line doesn’t have the puck enough, and I’ll keep not believing you.

-On the other side, Brandon Saad had six shots and was the best player on either team.

-Marcus Kruger won 7 of 10 draws, and was a stone bitch on the kill. It seems that having a role where he doesn’t really have to worry about offense settles well with him.

-That was actually as solid as Crow has looked all year with his angles, but I don’t think you have to fall on your face every time you make a glove save.

Nothing to panic about, but just a couple things to keep an eye on as we move along here.

  • 10thMountainFire

    Lost in much of the angst of blowing a late lead and just straight up fucking ourselves with two 4 on 3′s in OT is Crow’s continued outstanding play. Yes, ‘outstanding’. Going into the season, taking into account the amount of back-to-backs, I assessed that Crow was going to have to steal us some games. I admit that I lacked confidence in his ability to do so. No longer. Crow looks like a serious top-tier goaltender right now and, though I’d like to get through 30 games before anointing him the caliber that we can ride to a Cup (knowing a hot goaltender often makes all the difference in the world in a Stanley Cup Playoff season…), I’m tempted to feel very, very, VERY comfortable with he and Razor in net.

    Now, the PP… it’s fucking disgusting. It’s filthy. It’s so obviously a disaster at this point that even tossing an entirely new Q set out there couldn’t be worse. If he wants to run Shaw, Bollig, the assistant equipment kid, and a can of dip out there I wouldn’t argue at the moment. It simply has to be fixed. Anaheim’s PK performance against us tonight should embarrass every last player and coach in that lockerroom. We’re fortunate to have a huge cushion on which to rest our undefeated heads at the moment… but eventually that PP is going to look like a cold sore on our fucking eye. Address it now or be prepared to be stunned later as it costs us a series of games when a shortened season allows us no such luxury as a losing streak.

    • QCBlackhawk

      Was in the process of typing a reply, but pretty much everything 10th said covered it. In addition, I’m with the ToS in hoping that if and when Carbomb gets better, they throw him on the 3rd or 4th, because Saad is a goddamned monster of a newb, and I have a man crush on him. Not so great on the shootout, but neither are a lot of top guys.

      • Accipiter

        How many shoot out chances did Saad get before he was given the title of “not so great” ?

        • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

          “If I were not Brandon Saad, I should wish to be.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Faker/558555424 John Faker

      Anaheims PK was something like 67% kill rate coming into this game. its awful. Shooting one timers with no traffic or screens in front of a goaltender is dumb.

    • Sparky_The_Barbarian

      It resembled not so much a Power Play, as a still life from the 17th century Dutch School.

    • raditzzzz

      im with you on all except one point: razor.

      despite his excellent start to the season, i am very uncomfortable with him as back up. sam may highlight his troubles moving laterally, but honestly, i find his recovery to his feet to be abominable. i don’t remember it being this bad last year, but i get a severe sinking feeling when i watch his play this year. not trying to take away anything from what he has done so far, but in the back of my head, i think it will be unsustainable. he is just going to be a guy that is down, and thats it, no chance of a timely recovery to his feet to respond to any play development. its only a matter of time before the good puck bounces cease, and guys start taking advantage of it.

      i promise, if you watch his next appearance and count mississippi’s between when he drops into the butterfly and recovers to his feet, your stomach will start to do loops.

  • capra

    Regarding the Hawks 2nd goal, I was watching the Ducks broadcast and the announcers said that the word from Toronto was that the puck crossed the line before the net came completely dislodged.

    • QCBlackhawk

      Foley passed on the same thing. If the tubes or moorings or whatever the shit they’re called are still in the net and in the holes, it’s still allowed.

    • guest

      Fiancee was pretty sure they just saw Saad’s superman shot and were like “oh come on that’s GOTTA be a goal!”

      The puck was also totally dribbling in, and the ducks defensemen came in to push the net off its moorings like the cheating cheaters they are. I’ll take that goal any day of the week.

      If it was against us, of course, I would be livid… but here we are.

    • Sparky_The_Barbarian

      Apparently the rule is that the net has to be completely off, and even if it is, the Ref can still award a goal. We are lucky we did not run up against the ‘Intent to Blow’ rule.

      And I hereby nominate ‘Intent to Blow’ as the new nick name for the Hawks PP, as we are clearly well past Clown Shoes.

      • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

        Exactly. “Intent to blow” was the larger concern, not whether it was a goal.

      • raditzzzz

        somebody has a good joke for that one…

    • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

      78.4 Scoring a Goal

      The goal frame shall be considered in its proper position when at least a
      portion of the flexible peg(s) are still inside both the goal post and
      the hole in the ice.

      The flexible pegs could be bent, but as long at
      least a portion of the flexible peg(s) are still in the hole in the ice
      and the goal post, the goal frame shall be deemed to be in its proper
      position.

      The goal frame could be raised somewhat on one post (or both),
      but as long as the flexible pegs are still in contact with the holes in
      the ice and the goal posts, the goal frame shall not be deemed to be
      displaced.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Faker/558555424 John Faker

    On the Hawks second goal, how that is scored depends on what the definition of “the net is on or off the moorings” Someone posted it to twitter, but since the yellow rubber things were still touching the ice holes and the goalposts, the net is still “technically” on the moorings. the puck was over the line on the replay for a split second, so it was actually the right call, should have been a goal according to the rulebook.

    EDIT: its kind of a dumb rule, but ill take it.

    • Toews still makes funny faces!

      The rule kinda has to be on the moorings are still in place or the net is totally on the ice. Imagine the amount of puppies that would be killed if the rule books went like this “If the net is kinda on its moorings, but not totally off but the net is not totally on the ice the goal should be allowed”. The rule has to have a definitive line (or should at least) to know clearly when it is a goal. Based on how it is written now, the mooring pegs are in contact with the mooring holes AND the net at the same time, the goal should be allowed. That WAS the case here, the puck was clearly over the goal line, while the mooring pegs were still in contact with the net AND mooring holes in the ice. By rule, that is a goal.

      I do not think it was exactly what is ideal, but I would rather have a hard firm line with no “personal judgement” on goals. I think the net being 100% in contact with the ice would be a bad rule and anything in between that and what the rule is now would be a judgement call and would certainly cause lots more problems than the rare goal like the Hawks got tonight.

      • Tyler Simmons

        There is no personal judgement. The net is not considered dislodged until it has come completely off on one of it’s pegs, or one of the pegs has come completely out of it’s hole. The puck was across the line before the peg came completely out.

    • raditzzzz

      honestly, over and above where the puck went, i thought the guy on the ducks intentionally covered the puck and it should’ve been a penalty shot. it looked to me that he just straight up tried to sit on the puck.

      • Accipiter

        That would be a delay of game penalty, no ? If he put his hand over the puck it would be a PS.

        • Toews still makes funny faces!

          If the puck is in the crease, ANY means of covering the puck is a PS if it is a player NOT the goalie on the defensive team, whether it is by hand or laying on it, it does not need to be only by hand. Example would be the Winter Classic (NYR vs PHI), Late in the game a player fell onto the puck in the crease, and a PS was correctly awarded.

          NHL Rule 67.4 Penalty Shot – If a defending player, except a goalkeeper, while play is in progress, falls on the puck, holds the puck, picks up the puck, or gathers the puck into his body or hands from the ice in the goal crease area, the play shall be stopped immediately and a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending team.

          • Accipiter

            Hmmm, I saw the opposite in a game the other day, seems like the ref made the wrong call.

          • Toews still makes funny faces!

            That NEVER happens

          • Accipiter

            I figured it would be a little more black and white in this instance, less chance of a mistake. They (refs) are only human.

          • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

            This.

            It’s often amazing to me when listening to broadcasters how little they understand of the rules of the sport they’re covering.

    • biscuitbasket

      This is a photo of the replay that I took last night on GCL. It does have the flexible yellow pegs in both holes at once, and the puck is over the line.

      • ahnfire

        hm?

        did you have an image attached to your comment that didn’t post? or is it just my computer?

  • TheFullAmonte

    Does anyone have stats for penalties drawn by players? I would love to see where Saad ranks.

  • hipcheck

    Instead of having 2 PP groups, why not just roll out the top 2 lines? Cant be any worse than the clown shoes we got going now…

  • Bwana

    Away Bolland: 4-0-1, Home Hjalmarsson: 0-0-1, WC Kane: 4-0-1, Socks: 1-0-0, Hat: 1-0-0

    Time to break out the fake, straight from china (literally, my dad bought it when he went to china), “Black Ice” Toews jersey.

    • Accipiter

      No pants 10-0-3.

  • cliffkoroll

    Totally agree on the sitting on a lead thing. Not their style.

    Give the Ducks credit- the Hawks are fortunate to have gotten one point, considering.

    Statues on the 4 on 3s. Pathetic.

    Still undefeated in actual hockey games.

    Here’s a riddle: what do Hjalmarsson, Oduya, Stalberg, Kruger, and the Blackhawks so far this year have in common?

    • cliffkoroll

      Hint: All Swedish…

      • Accipiter

        The Blackhawks are Swedish ?

        • cliffkoroll

          No Finnish.

          • Joe Banks

            Cannot Finnish?

    • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

      They’re the “Swedest”?

    • http://twitter.com/neo873 Neo

      They all have “Swiss cheese holes” in their game.

    • Accipiter

      Stockholm syndrome

    • rhodes

      Ok, I give. What’s the answer?

  • Sparky_The_Barbarian

    Observations from the Den:

    Much of the standing around on the PP seems to be an attempt to set up the one timer through a screen. Worked on Leddy’s goal, the rest of the night the passes just weren’t in the wheel house or the shooter shanked the shot. This PP needs a plan B, make that a plan C, as plan B is probably the back door play. The Ducks clearly knew this, given how they jammed that one passing lane continually during the 4 on 3.

    Brandon Saad and Nick Leddy are going to cause no end of wailing and gnashing of teeth… when their entry level contracts are up and Stan resigns to long term deals that while equitable, cause us to rotate out one or two older core players, to make room for younger core players, namely Saad and Leddy.

    As bad as the PP looked, aside from Leddy’s goal, it’s even worse, considering Anaheim’s poor PK.

    • nextgame

      If they’re going to insist on the one timer through a screen on the PP then actually screening the goalie would be a good idea. Most times they managed to get the one timer off, and on net, Fasth had a clean line of sight and made the save.

      • Bullitt315

        Or actually take the one timer. I noticed a couple times where the pass was the Keith or Seabs and they were ready to take it, didn’t, then fired it into a shinpad half a second later.

    • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

      Bolland and Hjammer are the only guys that have been around since the Cup that are probably in danger of not returning. Likely contracts of Frolik and/or Montador will be moved to make space.

      • cliffkoroll

        This again? We like our people.

        Until somebody’s provides some capgeek math to the contrary, I’ma assume this ain’t a problem. Leddy and Saad are nice players, but just what do you think they’ll cost?

        • http://twitter.com/ChiNativeSon ChicagoNativeSon

          Not even worried about it myself. I meant “in the future.”

          Hjammer and Bolland are signed for another season. Leddy will either get paid this summer, or he won’t and they’ll put that off for a year. And Saad isn’t getting paid for 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 years from now.

          I doubt the complexion of this team changes much until after the 2014 season. Contracts will be expiring and the 2nd amnesty buyout (if the Hawks choose to utilize) will also expire that summer.

          I’m more than content to contemplate who is the lesser Satan: Bollig, Mayers or Carbomb, at the present.

  • wardrums

    You still have the magic Sam. A great recap. I missed the first two periods and felt like I had watched them after your analysis.
    Line of the week – “as much movement as a Goth dance party.” that visual image struck me as hilarious.
    great observation on Saad,
    tried to pick up Fasth in my Fantasy League lthis morning only to find my rat bastard friend had beat me to the punch.
    Did the hawks get a shot on goal in the third period. I stopped by a local watering hole for a Fat Tuesday bre-ha-ha and I swear, I can’t remember the hawks mounting any threat. I did contemplate giving up imported beers for Lent, again. I was wondering if drinking a local micro-brew would be cheating.
    If Corey wants to fall on his face, let him – don’t change anything now!
    We needed a meatball in front of Fasth on the PP. We got three pretty boys passing the puck around the perimeter. In fact, I think we should put twop meatballs in front of the net.

    • zacked
      • Wardrums

        “Everybody was Gothic dancing,
        Those boys were slow as (?)”

        • Accipiter

          Andrew Brunette ?

          • wardrums

            Think of that kid that gets his first paycheck commercial – yoy know when he sits down and get the lobster tossed in front of him- your comment was “excellent”

  • Tom S

    The PP is looking eerily like last year. One long passing drill with a point shot hitting a shin and out of the zone. The ‘streak’ has masked, this but a trend nonetheless

    • DesertHawk

      I don’t think it’s been masked at all… but we’re winning and that’s all that matters. The team that wins the cup, generally doesn’t have the BEST goalie, Highest scoring Forwards, and Best +/- Dmen, in addition to the BEST PK and PP, it’s usually some combination of those, with other things being fair to middlin’.

  • rhodes

    I’ll say one thing positive about the Hawks PP. They are better than last year at getting the puck across the blue line and getting setup. So at least there’s that.

    I also though Saad played an inspired game. But, I don’t know how Q can look down the bench past Hossa and pick Saad (or Leddy?!) to go out in the top 3 in the shootout.

    And why did Boland take that offensive zone face off in the last 9 seconds of the 3rd with a man advantage? Would have liked to see Toews in that situation.

    Nitpicking done. Now I can move on with my morning….

    • ahnfire

      Hossa isn’t that much better at the shootout than Sharpy. So I think Q was going with the guy who was all over the ice – Saad deserved a look, IMO.

    • Joe Banks

      It was his first shootout attempt. I thought he did a damn good job.

    • http://twitter.com/LBlissettUSA Luther Blissett

      True, at least they’re getting the puck in and setting up in the zone this year.

    • Accipiter

      Winning a FO is not as important as you think it is.

  • Accipiter

    Did anyone else notice Sharp pull Lydman’s stick into his own face to draw that penalty in OT ? If he didn’t do it, it certainly appeared that way.

    • Joe Banks

      It seemed at the very least, some embellishment was involved.

  • nextgame

    My two most aggravating things from last night’s game:

    > Why the hell didn’t Leddy see the ice for what seemed like the last 10 minutes of the game and OT? The kid had a goal earlier in this game, the OT game winner against Scum, and would have been a welcome relief from the confused meanderings of Marlboro 72 late in the game, especially on the PP. (I swear, I could see Q’s brain throbbing from the 300 level.)

    > Please stop trying to sit on one goal leads for half of the damned third period. I knew it was going to lead to the tying goal late in the game. You knew it was going to lead to the tying goal late in the game. Everybody in the building knew it was going to lead to the tying goal late in the game. Why didn’t Q know this? (Oops, there’s that throbbing brain again.)

  • laaarmer

    Still laughing at the fart lighting contest. Gold.

    I am in complete agreement with you regarding Kane and Hossa using additional energy to win the puck back after they lose a faceoff. 33% is not going to cut it. What’s the difference between 33% and 50%? Anyone?………………..

    If I may use some numbers that were thrown around from yesterday. Bolland was 6-18 at the dot – 33%. He needed to win 3 more to be 50%. 3 more at the 17 SECONDS per (because that is what a team with the lower faceoff percentage does, right?) that was thrown out there by somebody yesterday and the Hawks have the puck 51 seconds more than they did, and obviously, the Duck has it 51 seconds less. 51 seconds of puck time with Kane on the ice is a good thing.

    When is it time to move Kruger to 2C?

    • 10thMountainFire

      I agree that Kruger should get a shot at 2C… but I’m also wondering when it is we’ll see some speed and touch from guys in the system in place of apes like Bollig. Then I stop wondering because this is the GM that kept Scott on the roster for year(s).

      I’ve posted about a few times already, but I’d love to see Morin or Pirri get a shot up here.

  • http://twitter.com/LBlissettUSA Luther Blissett

    Watching the Hawks on the power play is like watching an NBA game from about ’99-’04… a bunch of guys standing around doing nothing, then an iso the leads to a bad shot. Brutal.

    The Hawks PP struggling makes no sense seeing that 5v5, the team skates and moves and stakes and moves… then they go up a man and they decide to no longer skate? Can that really only be the coaching?

  • Sports In Briefs

    Now that Ryan O’Reilly is being made available, might it make sense to move Bolland for a 2nd line center that can actually win faceoffs and create some offense? Sure, it’d hurt to lose Bolland’s defense, but it’s just not working with him on the 2nd line, and $3.375 million is a lot to pay for a checking center. O’Reilly is a gamble, but he’s young and could certainly reproduce the same offense, two-way play, and faceoff wins that he did last year on an inferior team. The Hawks could afford to give him 5 mildo a year and have prospects to burn that could possibly entice the Avs, who are in a bad negotiation position. Bolland + Morin or someone of that ilk might be enough. As long as the 3rd and 4th lines seem capable without Bolland (especially with Kruger looking like a defensive monster), I think he’s expendable at this point. Thoughts?

    • Joe Banks

      Well, the stats say that Ryan O’Reilly is that second line center that Hawks fans have been hoping to see under the Christmas tree for years now. Not only the 52.8 faceoff %, but the quantity (1443). Add 55 points and wow!
      But the reason he’s available is he is holding out for “Mo Money”…
      That does not sound like the type of player StanBow wants to deal with…

  • FakeASeizure

    HAHAHA “…you don’t have to fall on your face every time you make a glove save”.

  • 334Rules

    That 4 on 3 reminded me of a 1970′s era college basketball game with the coach going into the 4 corners stall. It was that fucking pathetic. Even Foley was wondering why there was absolutely NO movement. Not north-south. Not east-west. Nothing.

    • 10thMountainFire

      The only word for those 4 on 3′s is ‘embarrassing’.

    • http://whatisthebestadverb.wordpress.com/ I am not Chico Maki

      This PP kills me, it fucking kills me. You get some of the most creative players in the league out there against THREE defenders and they fucking look like they’re wearing tennis shoes. It’s grotesque, it makes me want to break things. It’s so bad that I completely overlook the 0 regulation losses. I don’t even care. Honestly, I can barely bring myself to watch the game when we get a power play.

      I would pay serious money to hear Q/Komp/Kitch talk in non-media sentences about this thing, because the more it’s not addressed, whatever our point total, the more I think they must be brain damaged. It’s the kind of thing that you can change up, for god’s sake, without chagning ANY OTHER ASPECT Of THE GAME!!! It’s not like theyd be instituting game-wide changes.