GDT: Game 66: Another One | Blackhawks at Bruins | March 3, 2016 | 6:00 PM CT | CSN

[BK]

Went down early, coverage was poor. Announcers and pretty much everyone else in here were calling it weakish. I think your in the minority. Anyway, who cares its over. Darling did not have a good game howver you slice it.

That is how you play that situation, you take away the bottom 75% of the net. Crow plays this situation the exact same way. If you stay up you can't react fast enough to get down and having a puck in your feet is not good. This is not the 60's where goalies play stand up. I don't recall anyone saying it was weak. I recall them saying it was unfortunate because of the tip. He played it perfectly. I doubt I am in the minority on this and if I am I will take my 20 years of playing goalie at a high level over posters who did not.

Do I think Darling played well? No he was off in the first but he was good in the 2nd and 3rd.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

I had a dream that Darling was sent to Rockford.
Damnit, HF. Look what all your negativity has done.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

That is how you play that situation, you take away the bottom 75% of the net. Crow plays this situation the exact same way. If you stay up you can't react fast enough to get down and having a puck in your feet is not good. This is not the 60's where goalies play stand up. I don't recall anyone saying it was weak. I recall them saying it was unfortunate because of the tip. He played it perfectly. I doubt I am in the minority on this and if I am I will take my 20 years of playing goalie at a high level over posters who did not.

Joel Quenneville:

Scott Darling had a tough night, allowing four goals on 25 shots. Coach Joel Quenneville said Darling “wasn’t very good tonight,” but wasn’t overly concerned about the outing.

Q is not going to say he "wasn't very good tonight" if in his opinion he let in only one soft goal. I agree with Q, Darling was not good and it wasn't just one bad goal. He was slow to react all night, every shot they took the first half of the game you thought was going in. Gave up loads of juicy rebounds. Whatever, its over. I love 33, he was way off last night.

 

[BK]

I had a dream that Darling was sent to Rockford.
Damnit, HF. Look what all your negativity has done.

Depending on our practice schedule and if he is on a two-way it would not be a bad idea if we are not practicing much to get him more games and reward Leighton with some cash.

 

[BK]

Joel Quenneville:

Scott Darling had a tough night, allowing four goals on 25 shots. Coach Joel Quenneville said Darling “wasn’t very good tonight,” but wasn’t overly concerned about the outing. 1 weak goal for an NHL goal is not the norm so yes 1 goal will cause Q to say that.

Q is not going to say he "wasn't very good tonight" if in his opinion he let in only one soft goal. I agree with Q, Darling was not good and it wasn't just one bad goal. He was slow to react all night, every shot they took the first half of the game you thought was going in. Gave up loads of juicy rebounds. Whatever, its over. I love 33, he was way off last night.

So he said he let in 1 soft goal and nothing more than that. You are reading into Q too much. He said nothing about multiple weak goals.

FYI those slow reaction you are talking about are correct BUT there is a difference between slow and late and that is because the Bruins did a great job creating traffic in front of the net. This causes the late reactions because you can't see the puck when it is shot. Darling was much more late than slow.

I also agree his rebound control was rough in the 1st but screens had something to do with that, not all but some. He got better as the game went on.

If you think every shot is going in then you need to step back from the ledge.

Again I do think he needs to be better but to say that the first goal was weak is just incorrect.

 

[hawksfan50]

When Norris Keith goes minus and -2 at that...you cannot expect we win the game...Take last 5 games. ..We won when he did not go minus in the +/- stat (2 wins out of 5) and we lost all 3 where he went minus (2 games he went -2 and the other -1)...

It is fashion able to blame other d-men for our weakness defending our own zone but the truth is there is a high co-rekation (at least in the 2016 part of the season) between Keith having good games and positive ES numbers and him stinking and having poor ES numbers in the +/-....Seabrook looks bad defending the d-zone all the time ..but so often this season he has been bailed out by our goalies..KEITH when he plays well either dominates the direction of play or at least is an unspectacular efficient defender in that you do not notice any lousy play...But when he is "off" ...you notice ..and it usually results in goals to the back of our net and an add to the Stinker pile of games we play. Last night he made 2 egregious errors and it cost us because he did not have the want to recover and stifle the scoring chance that resulted even though he had ample time to do do. ..half-hearted non-urgent make up effort does not cut it when you goof..you had better give it all in your fierce. checking attempts to prevent scor
Ing after your gaffes..Instead last night he was not enthusiastic about his checking after the gaffes..KIND-OF DISINTERESTED...TOTAL country Club..and if that is the example st by a key leader then the rest of the team also will slack off.

Norris Keith needs to find his MOJO of interest in the game back...last night it went MIA.

 

[BobbyJet]

That is how you play that situation, you take away the bottom 75% of the net. Crow plays this situation the exact same way. If you stay up you can't react fast enough to get down and having a puck in your feet is not good. This is not the 60's where goalies play stand up. I don't recall anyone saying it was weak. I recall them saying it was unfortunate because of the tip. He played it perfectly. I doubt I am in the minority on this and if I am I will take my 20 years of playing goalie at a high level over posters who did not.

Do I think Darling played well? No he was off in the first but he was good in the 2nd and 3rd.

Exactly. The reactions around here are perfectly predictable.

Even the Marchand goal wasn't shabby - from a Bruins perspective it was a nice snipe. I've seen him score a few from that very spot this season.

As for the new guys: I thought Weise didn't have a great game and Flash continues to look like a steal. Ehrhoff looks okay as well ... and Ladd and Toews are going to be a formidable pair to stop, especially when Hossa returns. Fatigue was likely a factor this time around for Hawks, but as I said after the Wings game (despite the score) they are allowing too many quality chances against. I look for a good bounce back game on Sunday.

 

[BK]

Exactly. The reactions around here are perfectly predictable.

Even the Marchand goal wasn't shabby - from a Bruins perspective it was a nice snipe. I've seen him score a few from that very spot this season.

As for the new guys: I thought Weise didn't have a great game and Flash continues to look like a steal. Ehrhoff looks okay as well ... and Ladd and Toews are going to be a formidable pair to stop, especially when Hossa returns. Fatigue was likely a factor this time around for Hawks, but as I said after the Wings game (despite the score) they are allowing too many quality chances against. I look for a good bounce back game on Sunday.

On the 2nd goal Darling what 6" to a 1' off on his angle (to the right). Hence his reaction on the save. He looked like he thought if it did not hit his shoulder it would go wide. His reaction indicated this because he looked down and realized where he was. Not a excuse but that is the cause for the goal. It was not a good goal. It was a snipe from the BB side because 63 hit his spot.

 

[Honey Bear]

The more I've thought about what I said earlier, the more worried I am now. This defense just isn't the same nor is the PK. It's just really that which scares me when it comes to the playoffs. Those are the two things the Hawks used to fall back on when the scoring wasn't there or if it was tight opposing goaltending. Next week will be so telling on how the scores are against 3 of the top 5 teams in the west. There's a good chance we are going to play 2 of those 3 if we are to make it out of the west.

 

[ndgt10]

Yhe d won't get it done cant beliebe it wasn't addressed

 

[ndgt10]

Bruins are favored in this game. Very suspect. Must be assuming country club out tonight. I will too Bruins 3 hawks 2

Another winner making money 5dimes

 

[Backyard Hockey]

Yes 3/4 were bad for Darling. The defense was terrible though overall. This is why having a 4th Dman helps. Stan didn't go out and get one. I get that it was a back to back and they got in at 3 AM supposedly. But that was just so sluggish, and if we're going to keep 1st place in the West we are going to need to win games like those to make up some ground. Still a good 20 games left or so, but we can't be losing to opponents like Boston. Next week is pretty brutal -- @Stl, @Dallas, and then home against the Kings. Have to find a way and win all 3 if we want to start creating some margin between the teams. First things first though, they need to take care of Detroit on Sunday.

Here's somewhat of a concern for me going forward (and I may just be reading too much into this), but I can't remember a year where we got blown out so much in some of these losses. I mean granted this was a 2 goal deficit in the 3rd, but it felt like a guy we were dominated in and the margin should've been bigger. We played Florida, Carolina, Dallas TWICE (the 4-2 game seemed worse than 4-2), Minnesota (Stadium series), Philly (very early on in the season), Colorado (3-0), and Washington (early on the season as well 4-1) all in blowouts. I can't remember a year in the last 5 years where we've had so many. It's concerning because our defense hasn't been this inconsistent in a while. If they play like this in the playoffs, it will end up costing them a series.

Have to agree with you there. There have been many stinkers. And those stinkers were usually a result of the bad defense. We know that the second line is going to be a defensive nightmare. That's ok.

This is really the first season where I can see a glaring hole. Sure, the 2C has been an issue until now, but Kane was always going to get his.

This team DRASTICALLY misses Johnny Oduya. Not having a proper 4th dman could be the difference between Cup or no Cup. Look at how close all of the series were last year except MN. Even Nashville and Tampa at 4-2 were much closer than the final victory count tallied. Imagine that Tampa team from last year playing against THIS defensive team. We all talked about Keith's minutes because the Hawks didn't have a 5th and 6th dman and how that wasn't sustainable. That they won despite that.

Now, that 'missing D' is the 4th dman - a critical spot.

I don't think we'll see the Hawks winning 2-1 games ala TB. I'm thinking it will be more like 4-3. Games in which the offense will need to click, as well as the PP and Crow will have to stand on his head - like he did against Detroit the other night and most of the season.

I've seen enough to know that I don't want Darling in net for games that matter. Remember, even in the playoffs, he was solid in the first two games, but terrible after that.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

I like what Ehrhoff has shown, he looks way better then what I anticipated. I also liked what Weise was doing out there, very aggressive and even gave a solid hit to Chara. I feel reasonably confident we will improve greatly on D come playoff time, its very similar to last year. My biggest concern in the PK, and this has to be miles better or we are in trouble. It stinks. Can't win a faceoff, can't get control of the puck. And I disagree with some posters who imply that all we need is Hossa and Kruger back. The PK is the most passive in the entire NHL and I don't get the strategy. We never challenge entry at the blue line, never aggressively challenge the point men. We just sit in that little box and try to block shots. I can see how our players will get gun shy when the strategy seems to be letting the point men fire away and the D men have to get in the way and take cannon shots to the body. Its so damn congested in our little box we end up screening our own goalie and on top of that we still allow opposing players to stand right in front of the net. The strategy stinks and getting Hossa and Kruger back isn't magically going to make this awful PK good enough. Something needs to change

This. And remember, Kruger was sub 50% on the FO before he got hurt.

I've seen enough to know that I never want to see 15 taking a FO in the d zone on a PK ever again.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

You mean 1 of the 4 right? He only let in 1 bad goal.

Steve Konroyd said he should have had the first - deflection or not. Said his technique was bad - down too early - and you just can't allow the first shot of the game to go in. We all know the stats - 75% of games are won by the team who scores first.

I know we can make up all sorts of rationalizations about 3 am arrivals and a lack of starts and bad d in front, but at the end of the day, the goalie gave up 4 goals on 15 shots through a period and a half.

That simply cannot happen.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

That is how you play that situation, you take away the bottom 75% of the net. Crow plays this situation the exact same way. If you stay up you can't react fast enough to get down and having a puck in your feet is not good. This is not the 60's where goalies play stand up. I don't recall anyone saying it was weak. I recall them saying it was unfortunate because of the tip. He played it perfectly. I doubt I am in the minority on this and if I am I will take my 20 years of playing goalie at a high level over posters who did not.

Do I think Darling played well? No he was off in the first but he was good in the 2nd and 3rd.

Steve Konroyd, for example, said it was a bad goal (particularly being first shot of the game) and was down too early. I'll trust his opinion as a long time NHL player and analyst over your 20 years.

Joel Quennevhlle - who kinda sorta knows hockey - said Darling was bad last night. I'll trust his opinion.

His soft way of saying it 'he'd like to have that one back'.

We can argue this all day long. He let in the first shot he saw and a terrible goal at the end of the period that effective broke the Hawks back. He let in 4 goals on 15 shots through a period and a half. Won't beat anyone doing that.

 

[scarchelli]

Another winner making money 5dimes

I cannot imagine the amount of money you've lost with your 90% of the time wrong predictions.

 

[BK]

Steve Konroyd said he should have had the first - deflection or not. Said his technique was bad - down too early - and you just can't allow the first shot of the game to go in. We all know the stats - 75% of games are won by the team who scores first.

I know we can make up all sorts of rationalizations about 3 am arrivals and a lack of starts and bad d in front, but at the end of the day, the goalie gave up 4 goals on 15 shots through a period and a half.

That simply cannot happen.

Steve Konroyd, for example, said it was a bad goal (particularly being first shot of the game) and was down too early. I'll trust his opinion as a long time NHL player and analyst over your 20 years.

Joel Quennevhlle - who kinda sorta knows hockey - said Darling was bad last night. I'll trust his opinion.

His soft way of saying it 'he'd like to have that one back'.

We can argue this all day long. He let in the first shot he saw and a terrible goal at the end of the period that effective broke the Hawks back. He let in 4 goals on 15 shots through a period and a half. Won't beat anyone doing that.

When did he say that? Intermission? because Eddie said the same THEN he realized it was deflected. You are right SK was an NHL defenseman for a long time but he is not that knowledgeable about goalies. If Darling stays up and the puck goes low he does not have the time to react and it is a goal. The proper technique is to take away the bottom 75% and then try and get to puck up top. We can argue this all day and you will be wrong all day. 3 of the 4 goals were good goals so even if he stops the one at the end of the first we lose.

Damn right he wanted the 2nd goal back. Q said it was a bad goal but no where does he say the others 3 are bad. 1/4 goals being weak is a bad game for an NHL goalie.

I do agree he needs to play better and have said that all along.

 

[piteus]

Depending on our practice schedule and if he is on a two-way it would not be a bad idea if we are not practicing much to get him more games and reward Leighton with some cash.

He let in some soft goals, but the kid never plays. Once he let that 2nd goal in, he lost confidence. It even affected his puck play. Everytime he came out of the net, it was an adventure. Thankfully, he played much better in the third.

I noticed that when the Hawks give up a lot of tips around the net this year, they are not ready to play.

 

[BK]

He let in some soft goals, but the kid never plays. Once he let that 2nd goal in, he lost confidence. It even affected his puck play. Everytime he came out of the net, it was an adventure. Thankfully, he played much better in the third.

That is kind of my point. It would not be bad for him to get some game time. He played 30+ games last year.

 

[piteus]

Steve Konroyd, for example, said it was a bad goal (particularly being first shot of the game) and was down too early. I'll trust his opinion as a long time NHL player and analyst over your 20 years.

Joel Quennevhlle - who kinda sorta knows hockey - said Darling was bad last night. I'll trust his opinion.

His soft way of saying it 'he'd like to have that one back'.

We can argue this all day long. He let in the first shot he saw and a terrible goal at the end of the period that effective broke the Hawks back. He let in 4 goals on 15 shots through a period and a half. Won't beat anyone doing that.

That entire sequence of the second goal was bad. I couldn't believe Panarin tried to go through Bergeron in the neutral zone AGAIN. That's not reading your scouting report. Then we didn't recover well ... and Darling let in a soft goal. Not egregious ... but you can tell from Darlng's reaction that he should have had it.

 

[piteus]

That is kind of my point. It would not be bad for him to get some game time. He played 30+ games last year.

We're comparing his play to Crow. That's unfair.
*'I didn't see the first goal ... but reading this board, it was not good.
* The second goal was a terrible play by Panarin and a soft goal.
* The third goal Darling was shielded on the power play. A play Crawford would make ... but not a backup.
* The fourth goal was just bad defense and a better pass and tip by Boston.

What concerned me the most was his lackadaisical play outside of the net. Darling needs to help his defense. He put them in some bad spots. The early problems ... I'll chalk it off as rust.

 

[BK]

We're comparing his play to Crow. That's unfair.
*'I didn't see the first goal ... but reading this board, it was not good.
* The second goal was a terrible play by Panarin and a soft goal.
* The third goal Darling was shielded on the power play. A play Crawford would make ... but not a backup.
* The fourth goal was just bad defense and a better pass and tip by Boston.

What concerned me the most was his lackadaisical play outside of the net. Darling needs to help his defense. He put them in some bad spots. The early problems ... I'll chalk it off as rust.

Go watch the first goal. It was a low snap-shot from 5 feet out that was tipped by Hammer and went top cheddar. Not weak at all. NO goalie saves that unless they get lucky and it hits them.

 

[JaegerDice]

Darling would get more starts if Q trusted him.

At this point, you just have to hope its the standard sophmore slump and Darling's true potential is somewhere between the unsustainable 25 game sample last season, and how he's performed this season.

If his play continues at this level...well, he's not particularly expensive.

 

[piteus]

It says that they are what they always have been...Q Country Clubbers...tge only urgency that counts is in playoffs where Flipping The Switch to ON is required else you get eliminated ...In regular season the Country Club that is loaded with talent can take short cuts...like not showing g up at all and their coach actually tolerates this for 20-25% of the games ..Hawks have now reached the 20% stinkers level expected for County try Club lazy players ahead of the a lot tent for stinkers for th..e season....Q will tolerate another 3-4 no show games I the last 16.. Trotz would never tolerate that ...Hitch will never tolerate this many stinkers from his group in a season. Yet Q allows his talent bucket to spill out 20+ stinkers a season ...not just losses ..but stinkers in terms of really no show could care less play. The average NHL team in mid-pack plays maybe 16 such a season over 82 games .Contender teams OUGHT to play far fewer than that ..Maybe 5-6 stinkers..Bottom teams should play More than 16 ...Probably 20-25 stinker no shows ..Hawks ..being Country Clubbers have the
talent as contenders to only play 5-6 absolute stinkers a season of 82 ...But instead they repair to the Country Club to enjoy not showing up 20+ times in 82 ...acting as a bottom feeder would .That is what it says about this club after another game like this that we have see too often this season from such a collection of talent. The behave this way so often despite being contenders because their Coach tolerates it..All he really cares about is that their switch goes on a lot more in playoffs. BUT non-contenders club coaches like Trot and Hitch with their contender teams DO NOT tolerate such a high level of feces from their "elite" contender squads..It is just that their squads in. Playoffs do not have tge ability to flip the switch to a higher level.Q knows this about our Hawks. .So he tolerates their too often lazy games that embarrass the Hawks fans no end.He tolerates this garbage ..this lazy no show neo effort..no care games..because he "trusts" =they will flip the switch to "ON" when it counts for real..To me...this unprofesdional attitude.. .after all :

.Cutomers (fans)pay big bucks to watch what they expect will be a competition and that they will see effort and talent displayed...they do not expect short-cut no shows..

But Q allows it to hapoen...way too much..because he "knows" they will flip that darn switch to on when it counts for real..because..they can do that..they can elevate their game when they WANT TO do it.


But when Norris Keith goes through the motions like Joe Bum...when Kane and his starry line decide this is not the night to play tge game with purpose...when the idea of trying extra hard to protect the back-up goalie is treated as a pre-postetous idea....when nobody sacrifices to block shots let alone work up a sweat ..when they let the other team's stars shine while our stars look like they are skating in cement. ..when all this happens. .you know it is just another day at the Country Club Q operates.

.

I'm applying for Popovich's Country Club. I hope I get in.

The old 20-60-20 rule. Yes, I heard of it before ... sort of. It was just said by Fran Franchilla of ESPN regarding college basketball. Fran claimed that every team has 5 great games, 5 awful games, and 20 normal games. A team determines its season by what they do in those 20 normal games. Well, the Hawks have the 2nd best record in the NHL. We're doing okay.

But note, college basketball has no trading deadline. And their post season is a one and done format. It's not the grind of playing every other day of intense playoff hockey for 20+ games.

We all know the Hawks don't practice much to save their legs for the post season. It makes for some uneven performances in Feb and March ... especially when you add 3 new players to the lineup on a back to back with a backup goalie.

I like Q's Country Club because it closes for the spring right before the playoffs. Most Hawk fans have graduated from the President's Trophy to the Stanley Cup. If you want the President's Cup, I suggest you jump on the Washington bandwagon.

 

[tdfxman]

Joel Quenneville:

Scott Darling had a tough night, allowing four goals on 25 shots. Coach Joel Quenneville said Darling “wasn’t very good tonight,†but wasn’t overly concerned about the outing.

Q is not going to say he "wasn't very good tonight" if in his opinion he let in only one soft goal. I agree with Q, Darling was not good and it wasn't just one bad goal. He was slow to react all night, every shot they took the first half of the game you thought was going in. Gave up loads of juicy rebounds. Whatever, its over. I love 33, he was way off last night.

Wow as I was reading posts, this is exactly what I was going to post. He doesn't say all that, Q, without being pissed. He also was like well I can't remember the last time he had a game like this. He just said lets move on. So the Col game and this game where he is just bad, look bad, all you said. Anyway, good post with explanation.