As far as to who is to blame......

1. I think this is a GREAT wake up call for an organization that has been sky high since 2009, and rightfully so. In 2012 they could rebuild on the fly and tweak this or that. Now? Cap is real, room is not there, and you will have subtract a significant piece to get complaint and HOPE you have an internal solutions or targeted CHEAP eternal solutions to get "right".

2. Look at legit young talent that has gone elsewhere. Why? Playing woulda, coulda, shoudla is dangerous, but Kevin Hayes or Vesey would like nice right now over a Schamltz or Rasmussen or even Hartman (who laid a fat turd the past 4 games). Was it being blocked? Was it something else?

3. Decisions on SHaw, Leddy, and Saad. Saad and Leddy wanted money, but decisions were made to keep OUR guy vs THAT guy and it's left them older and slower. panarin subs for Saad, but for all his bonus money, 72 was one of the most disengaged players on the ice all 4 games his quote post game was pure BS.

THis team had zero guys willing to go to the net and score the "hard" playoff goals that advance you deep in the spring.......

4. Bowman/Q are both accountable. If 1 goes, the other should go, but he power struggle games will begin shortly.

5. Players....to a man something stinks in that locker room. IS it wages and guys in middle of pack or lower knowing they are expendable thanks to heavy top end dollars? Is it leadership? Have they tuned out Q? I don't know what it is but since they got their "rest" all have been pure dog poop and that can't be ignored. Coaches are to blame but players after all that talk gave nothing back or showed zero heart or character that my friends.....is the most ALARMING thing I see right now as this season has come crashing to an end.
- SteveRain

I agree with everything here (almost) - my only comment would be to your #5 - maybe you're right - but we said the same things after 2012's loss to Phoenix - adding in meddling by McDonough and his front office in on-ice business, etc.

I look at it as after the two year run to the Cup in 2010, they lost a lot of talent - Ladd, Byfuglien, Versteeg because of the cap, because of the play-off bonus ,is-up, etc. It took 2 years of first round outs before Stan and Q could put it back together for a terrific Cup-WCF-Cup three year run.

Then - lost Sharp, Shaw, Saad, Bickel, Oduya, TT, Leddy - all with only Anisimov in return, hoping that the likes of Rasmussen, Desi, Schmaltz, Hartman, TVR would be ready for another run. But - not quite - too much lostntalent, two more first round outs while this "rebuild" continues.

Is there another good run starting next year (with some moves by Bowman, etc.)?

Two great years followed by two not good followed by three great followed by two not good....

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that office.

Bowman had a plan for this offseason, and now wonder if that plan is crapped entirely over what happened this past week. That's the game changer.

Its not about panicking but I don't think you can ignore this series and pretend it was a fluke. This was a systematical @ss whipping.
- SteveRain

There is no need to panic, at all. Decide what you need to do and do it. 100% business. Players know it. Coaches know it. Plenty of skill on this team. Just lacking the other part. We have that in Hartman, Hayden and others. We need a coaching staff to turn them loose. It was embarassing watching the Preds rag dolls us on the boards.

The lack of push back comes back to Q. If I was behind the bench wathcing my team take it over and over.. there would be a do something about it or sit type of comment. Or maybe some screaming during timeouts. Telling you... Q has no idea what to do or how to do it unless he has a stable full of race horses.

As usual you are spot on.

We can all sit and contemplate whether the roster is too top heavy, who should be traded away, what so-and-so's "value" is in relation to his contract, etc. etc, etc. but the bottom line when you break it all down, is that in the last 8 years, since Q took over the reins, the Hawks have done very little to adapt their style of play.

They are NEVER going to be a physical team, even if they had the bodies to do it, it is not their style.

Under several different PP coaches, the approach has never really changed. Blame Dineen, Kompon, Torchetti or whomever you want, the style (or lack thereof) has never changed and thats because it is being dictated by Q.

You can trade Crow, Seabrook, Kruger, Panarin, Anisimov or anyone else on the roster but if the new additions play the same system, why expect different results?

I think the one thing this series did was maybe open Q's eyes a bit. Maybe it forces him to make changes finally in the approach. I still think he is one of the premier coaches in the league, but maybe he has gotten stale or complacent. Adapt to the roster and the style needed to win these days or be replaced.

Maybe the Hawks needed to adjust a little to the players on the roster. Look at some of the D-corps on the remaining teams. The Pens D is not great, but they have a philosophy to just get the puck out and let their forwards go get it and create. Fewer D to D passes and re-cycles, less standing and waiting, more up ice pressure. They know they don't defend well in their own zone, so they move the puck out quickly. They have a top heavy roster also, with 8 forwards making $750K or less.

You can win in this league a whole bunch of different ways, but the "way" changes and you have to be able to adjust and adapt when it does.
- TheTrob

Well said, and it wasn't D that killed them this series....they couldn't create chances or even sustained pressure. They don't use the flip pass from D to opposing blue line and let guys chase. THey are stuck in a stretch pass or bust mentality. Guys looked dumbfounded at times as to when or how to dump it in as Foley pointed out with 51....

They need to find an Adam Oates and get a ramped up PP that converts close to a 25% clip and put guys in the position to do so. NOt put guys who are top earning guys just because. Sorry 2 has no shot from Point that warrants top line minutes.

I truly wonder if Q may be relieved or moved upstairs......I think he feels he has more to give coaching, so I think he would leave before taking a role upstairs.....but if he goes, I think Stan goes with him. THey are tied together. BOth have failed to adapt and that;s a hockey ops thing, not just a GM or coaching thing.

There is no need to panic, at all. Decide what you need to do and do it. 100% business. Players know it. Coaches know it. Plenty of skill on this team. Just lacking the other part. We have that in Hartman, Hayden and others. We need a coaching staff to turn them loose. It was embarassing watching the Preds rag dolls us on the boards.

The lack of push back comes back to Q. If I was behind the bench wathcing my team take it over and over.. there would be a do something about it or sit type of comment. Or maybe some screaming during timeouts. Telling you... Q has no idea what to do or how to do it unless he has a stable full of race horses.
- z1990z

Back in that 5-0 drubbing in game 2, I would have benched 2/7/19 and sent a message. Bench my leaders that wasn't good enough and see if that riled up this team. Maybe you lose them, maybe you don't. But I agree.....doing nothing like his players, led to an early exit.

Very keen observation. Now here is a question. If the league is going to drift back and forth on style of play, a team can't change wholesale to be a bruising team/ swift team every few years. So a team has to decide what it wants to be. The Blackhawks have moved to a skill team that doesn't punish opponents. I think that is the Stan/Q formula. I would like the Blackhawks to be a punishing team first, with added speed here and there (meaning a few small skilled guys). If you are not going to win every year, I would much rather see a team that hit and was tough to play against (even in defeat) that a team that just lost round 1.
- powerenforcer

We dont need whole sale changes. Just better balance on the lines and the mentality to go after people. Q does not advocate the physical part. Has to be there. You have to have the team make up to play either way. Preds can play either way and they played with a fire we could not match. That can be fixed by finding the right guys.

Like hungry youngsters in Rockford ready to make a name for them selves.

Sure will be interesting offseason i think Q is at his end and bowman should not be that far be behind.
Need more size grit speed and the willingness to go to the front of the net and it a living hell for the goalie and d men of opposing team.
Possible trades crawford for hellibuk and trobua from Winnipeg kruger to vegas parin and aa to jersey for zajac and hall sign a center who win faceoffs consistently over 50% just spitballing

I agree with everything here (almost) - my only comment would be to your #5 - maybe you're right - but we said the same things after 2012's loss to Phoenix - adding in meddling by McDonough and his front office in on-ice business, etc.

I look at it as after the two year run to the Cup in 2010, they lost a lot of talent - Ladd, Byfuglien, Versteeg because of the cap, because of the play-off bonus ,is-up, etc. It took 2 years of first round outs before Stan and Q could put it back together for a terrific Cup-WCF-Cup three year run.

Then - lost Sharp, Shaw, Saad, Bickel, Oduya, TT, Leddy - all with only Anisimov in return, hoping that the likes of Rasmussen, Desi, Schmaltz, Hartman, TVR would be ready for another run. But - not quite - too much lostntalent, two more first round outs while this "rebuild" continues.

Is there another good run starting next year (with some moves by Bowman, etc.)?

Two great years followed by two not good followed by three great followed by two not good....
- StLBravesFan

Problem is he has to subtract again cap wise to be compliant and maybe 57 like 27 in early 2013 is taking the next step. I don't know.......

THey are older, they are more expensive, and their complimentary players aren't just good enough. 14 is legit. Maybe 38....but lots of questions on 8/70/6. 67 is a nice bottom guy but hes not going to be an offensive threat.

I think they have more holes like no other bad year or early exit with little money to fix and little READY prospects to plug those holes.

I was just about to post something similar. The Pens have kind of the same make up yet they have seen a resurgence...the difference? New coach. I'm not saying the 'hawks should absolutely replace Q, but to my eye, the same star players are on the team (+Kessel) but only the coach is different.
- CanOCorn

Sullivan was a huge part of this, but the infusion of youth was equally as big. The Pens have been fortunate enough to hit on late round guys (Murray, Rust, Kuhnhackl, Sheary) last year, and this year (Guentzel, Wilson). Being able to get production from guys making under 1M helps tremendously.

To be fair:

Toews was terrible. Abhorrent. One of the worst players on the ice for the Hawks. Not going to win a lot if he is getting clocked by the other teams best player which hasn't been the case since Zetterberg owned him a few years ago in Detroit.

Keith looked slow and less than graceful trying to turn and get up the ice. The Hawks success the last 3 years especially has rested mostly on Keith disrupting plays before they start in the neutral zone and quickly flipping the ice. He was incapable of doing that during the regular season and did not do it in the playoffs.

AA was obviously playing on one leg and injured. Kruger was injured to the point where he couldn't take a lot of draws.

If Toews and Keith are in 2013 form then its a 2-2 or 3-1 series with the Hawks having the better play and I don't think the kids being kids factors in as much.

When 2/3 dominant core pieces are crap then its going to be a tough result. Either Keith and Toews recover or they're going to have to get creative backfilling supporting roles. That Toews deal can get awful ugly awfully quickly if there is no bounce back. And by bounce back I mean consistent 70 point seasons or at least an animal like Bergeron is every night. With a smaller frame if you believe the player cards.

This guy looks like he could make some playoff adjustments. Maybe Bernie Nichols can help us out on the power play.

via GIPHY

The overall level of disrespect to the Preds by the majority of the posters was and is incredible. An intelligent post is as rare as a Chicago sweater at Bridgestone in 2009

What a beat down, total domination. Revenge in part for 2010, 2015, series that you got all the breaks, you got the goals in double and triple OT that easily could have swung the series the other way.

Really going to enjoy this. When does a team ever lose as bad as you did. Historical. Not even a goal on your home ice.

Time to realize the only way the "Hocks" get good again is to get as bad as you were throughout the 2000s to get the #1 picks

Enjoy your ride to the basement and have a Great summer!




- VopatsRash

You're not used to winning and it shows.

It was a dumb incentive...for all reasons stated. Basically it came down to his incentive was tied to Evgeni Malkin resting the last couple games for Pittsburgh.

They were not willing to give Saad 6 million, but they give this guy 6 million + a bonus. Saad had played a couple years at below market value and was instrumental in winning Cups. I guess the timing is different so I'll give them some leeway on this, but that's what many will see.
- kwolf68

I'm just saying that appearing to deny a player a chance at an incentive bonus would look incredibly petty. Comparing his value to that of Saad (or comparing Saad to Anisimov plus Panik), that's a separate issue.

I'm just saying that appearing to deny a player a chance at an incentive bonus would look incredibly petty. Comparing his value to that of Saad (or comparing Saad to Anisimov plus Panik), that's a separate issue.
- 333inthe3rd

I don't disagree. I don't think the Hawks had much choice. It was their idiotic incentive. I am FINE with incentives like the Conn Smythe, because that is tied directly to team success. Offering Panarin a cash incentive to load up points did two things I saw in his game this year:

-He had very little interest in physical engagement
-He was weaker in his own zone as he was mostly focused on scoring

Maybe he NEEDED a little rest toward the end to recharge his batteries for a playoff run, but because so much of what goes on with Blackhawks, Inc. revolves around money that's where the wind blew and they had to keep him playing (even if was BETTER for the team to give him a little rest) because of how it would look against his paycheck.

I don't disagree. I don't think the Hawks had much choice. It was their idiotic incentive. I am FINE with incentives like the Conn Smythe, because that is tied directly to team success. Offering Panarin a cash incentive to load up points did two things I saw in his game this year:

-He had very little interest in physical engagement
-He was weaker in his own zone as he was mostly focused on scoring

Maybe he NEEDED a little rest toward the end to recharge his batteries for a playoff run, but because so much of what goes on with Blackhawks, Inc. revolves around money that's where the wind blew.
- kwolf68

Well, he doesn't have that cushion any more. So maybe next year is a better gauge?

I don't disagree. I don't think the Hawks had much choice. It was their idiotic incentive. I am FINE with incentives like the Conn Smythe, because that is tied directly to team success. Offering Panarin a cash incentive to load up points did two things I saw in his game this year:

-He had very little interest in physical engagement
-He was weaker in his own zone as he was mostly focused on scoring

Maybe he NEEDED a little rest toward the end to recharge his batteries for a playoff run, but because so much of what goes on with Blackhawks, Inc. revolves around money that's where the wind blew and they had to keep him playing (even if was BETTER for the team) because of how it would look against his paycheck.
- kwolf68

A new coach with a "Get After 'Em" cattle prod will do wonders.

Thoughts about a Panarin for Saad swap?

I like Panarin a lot, but he disappears in the playoffs and Kane has shown that he can carry his line without a competent left wing. Maybe this swap would mix things up for both teams, providing them with new energy? Similar to what the Preds and the Canadiens did.

Does Debrincat play left wing? Insert him next to Kane?
- RedRevenge

Not happening for numerous reasons, not least of which is Saad is very happy where he's at.

Everyone plays "what if". So do I. What if Shaw had not gotten traded and was still here. If he didn't get suspended during the series, and was not thrown out during the last game, I have to believe he suckers someone in the handshake line. Not that all that is right, but he wouldn't take a ass whooping without doing something. All their attitude seemed to leave with Andrew Shaw.

If they wait to extend him, what happens to his value in season as he was centering two guys who won hardware that season? How should they have handled extending him? And if they don't have him locked up, how does that affect negotiations with Panarin? I don't see an easy answer here.
- 333inthe3rd

I don't buy that rationale. They paid him as much as they would have if they'd waited, if not more.

Everyone plays "what if". So do I. What if Shaw had not gotten traded and was still here. If he didn't get suspended during the series, and was not thrown out during the last game, I have to believe he suckers someone in the handshake line. Not that all that is right, but he wouldn't take a ass whooping without doing something. All their attitude seemed to leave with Andrew Shaw.
- 6628

I remember Q sitting Hartman after he got fired up in one of the last games. Hartman has that Shaw vibe in him. One of the few guys on this team that plays with visible on ice passion.

As much as I dislike Reaves with the Blues, he has a job and does it very well. Brings the wood and po's the other team.

I don't buy that rationale. They paid him as much as they would have if they'd waited, if not more.
- John Jaeckel

No question the Hawks overvalue/overvalued AA. Nice player, but guy is a fringe top 6 forward.

I remember Q sitting Hartman after he got fired up in one of the last games. Hartman has that Shaw vibe in him. One of the few guys on this team that plays with visible on ice passion.
- z1990z

Hartman is a weasel. Shaw is an in your face guy no matter the size of the opponent. They might have the same roll, but they are as different as night and day.

Some great posts haven't had a chance to read them all yet.
But was wondering if anyone thinks if the Hawks are unable to move anyone making big money (which I believe they won't be able to do) what are the chances they might buy out a contract or two. I know we would still have to pay a portion but it may be the only way to free up cap space.

Hartman is a weasel. Shaw is an in your face guy no matter the size of the opponent. They might have the same roll, but they are as different as night and day.
- 6628

They are similar, but yes Shaw has more crazy in him. Need that element.

To be fair:

Toews was terrible. Abhorrent. One of the worst players on the ice for the Hawks. Not going to win a lot if he is getting clocked by the other teams best player which hasn't been the case since Zetterberg owned him a few years ago in Detroit.

Keith looked slow and less than graceful trying to turn and get up the ice. The Hawks success the last 3 years especially has rested mostly on Keith disrupting plays before they start in the neutral zone and quickly flipping the ice. He was incapable of doing that during the regular season and did not do it in the playoffs.

AA was obviously playing on one leg and injured. Kruger was injured to the point where he couldn't take a lot of draws.

If Toews and Keith are in 2013 form then its a 2-2 or 3-1 series with the Hawks having the better play and I don't think the kids being kids factors in as much.

When 2/3 dominant core pieces are crap then its going to be a tough result. Either Keith and Toews recover or they're going to have to get creative backfilling supporting roles. That Toews deal can get awful ugly awfully quickly if there is no bounce back. And by bounce back I mean consistent 70 point seasons or at least an animal like Bergeron is every night. With a smaller frame if you believe the player cards.
- fattybeef

Don't disagree, but I am not sure they are up in the series if we have 2015 or even last year's Keith or Toews. Both who weren't horrible.

You bring up some good points, but I think we need some young guys to rise up quickly because you aren't going to be able to rely on 2/19 to do it by themselves.

That's why 72s non engagement is a major red flag to me.

Accountability in response to failure - should logically lead to a change in your approach.

Every option should be on the table and viewed through the prism of "does this make us better?"

Replace Q? Trade Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, Anisimov, etc...?

There should be no sacred cows based on sentimentality - or the notion that "it can't be done." No movement clauses are NOT absolute bars to trading a player - but requires that player to agree to the trade.

During the end of season interviews - the Hawks should absolutely discuss with each player who has a NMC how they'd would feel about being traded and under what circumstances would they possibly agree to a trade. Plant that seed in their head.

No one has "tenure" here - wearing the Indian Head is a privledge - and this series showed that many "stars" apparently have grown to take it for granted.
- Chief4Feathers

This, and include Bowman in "no sacred cows."

IF IT WERE ME . . . I would ask the smartest hockey mind I could find OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION to provide a top to bottom assessment. And then I'd think long and hard about that assessment, and act judiciously and courageously.