I guess I see that: Maybe you don’t burn a year off Dach’s deal...if he isn’t gonna get close to a playoff team...let him wait until Mitchell and Boqvist are ready to add speed to the back line.
maybe they let JC stay -The fact that Nylander Dach and Kubalik are sudden big leaguers tells me they know they are in transition so the firing of the coach may not be wise with the opportunities they handed out via acquisitions. Don’t fault SB for trying JC, but rushed him with no AHL success. JC still the link to the swedes -the old goon coach intern (until Babcock gets fired) or permanent offers little. I wouldn’t be surprised that a 3 ring winning team dismisses a young coach. Even though they had success with #8 on that 3rd line you gotta see how he does with skilled top wings...

Don’t fault SB for trying via trades, on JC, but rushed him with no AHL success. (not sure)

what can goon coach Crawford offer this group?
- wiz1901

JC needs to be accountable and will take the fall if they miss the playoffs. But at this level the coach shouldn't need to motivate the veteran core. Q lost the group and couldn't get them going, it's not reasonable to expect a rookie coach to do it.

the kings fired gumby and lombardi 2 years ago and on their 3rd coach since then and they still suck...

firing stanbow and JC ain't gonna solve the reality that once was great will become bad...
- bogiedoc

Lombardi emptied the Kings cupboards before he was relieved and they've been trying to build it back up ever since. Bowman has at least stocked the Hawks a little better over time - not great but better.

I mean, who under 25 on the Kings right now is worth poop? Kempe is pretty much it. They've got some good players in their prospect pool now (Turcotte, Kaliyev, Kupari, Clague, Durzi, Bjornfot) but most of those came after Lombardi was gone.

As least with the Hawks, you have some impact young players in Debrincat, Kubalik, Strome, Nylander, and potentially Dach. Obvs the latter is all luck but still. I'd throw Caggiula and Kampf in there because their good role players.

https://twitter.com/AtoZSports/status/1189374756010762240

rinne: “I haven’t been part of that kind of game, I don’t think, in my career...”

meh just a pedestrian 3-0 win...
- bogiedoc

He's not wrong.

I understand "blame the coach" is the low hanging fruit many disgruntled fans grab at but it seems a little far fetched to believe Colliton wants his team to look like a Chinese fire drill in their d-zone. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's more likely the other teams are quicker, stronger and better disciplined than the Hawks players. I suppose the discipline part can be hung on the coach but even then - is it his coaching or the inability and/or the unwillingness of the players to play a more disciplined defensive game? I tend to think the latter. Is it the coach's design for players to miss passes? I doubt it. But their passing is atrocious. Is it the coach's design for them to lose board battles all game long? Probably not.

Blaming the coach is the easy out and sometimes the coach pays the price whether he deserves it or not - part of the business. But I think the reason for the poor play should be laid squarely at the feet of the players. They simply aren't good enough to win the battles that need to be won to be a successful team.

So fire the coach ... I guess.
- EbonyRaptor

Man-to-man is a difficult scheme to run in the NHL with how quick teams are now. Once coverage is lost or there is a scramble, it's difficult to get back to the correct assignment. A team has to be really quick to pull it off decently well, like the Canes, but even they have had some of the worst rush-against and pick-off numbers that are just a part of when a man-to-man coverage breakdown.

I understand "blame the coach" is the low hanging fruit many disgruntled fans grab at but it seems a little far fetched to believe Colliton wants his team to look like a Chinese fire drill in their d-zone. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's more likely the other teams are quicker, stronger and better disciplined than the Hawks players. I suppose the discipline part can be hung on the coach but even then - is it his coaching or the inability and/or the unwillingness of the players to play a more disciplined defensive game? I tend to think the latter. Is it the coach's design for players to miss passes? I doubt it. But their passing is atrocious. Is it the coach's design for them to lose board battles all game long? Probably not.

Blaming the coach is the easy out and sometimes the coach pays the price whether he deserves it or not - part of the business. But I think the reason for the poor play should be laid squarely at the feet of the players. They simply aren't good enough to win the battles that need to be won to be a successful team.

So fire the coach ... I guess.
- EbonyRaptor

If they'd never shown they CAN play the game he is apparently preaching, then it would be easier to say it's all on him. But, they did show that they're capable with WSH and LVK. So, that they can't consistently or won't consistently means it's also another issue.

If Stan wants Lehner around beyond this season he should lock him up right now. I doubt #40 will want to return after a full season of this.

There is a locker room cancer. Period. This team played well last year and looked like they could manage 100 points. SB went out made some deals got us better d-men, carpenter, Lehner, Shaw. We got lucky and drafted #3 getting Dach.

So I ask myself, you get better during the off-season from last year, but somehow the results are worse? That makes no sense. Unless there is a common denominator. The team has had some real crap games even before JC, in fact a majority of the games they played under Q, they seemed to not show up for a period or periods at a time. Even when they had better talent. How does this happen? It’s not the coach, the GM, the players. It’s attitude. If a player(s) are coming into that locker room and bringing it down, then they need to be rooted out and expunged. I would start with the C, A, A. Mr. Seabrook wasn’t in the lineup again tonight and Keith appears to be condescending during a presser. So is this game a rebuttal against JC for benching Seabrook?

To me it appears it is. Benched him one game ok, they play better. Bench him again, well certain players decide to not show up. That’s the definition of locker room cancer. Keith based on his presser becomes my first target. Maybe he needs to reunite with Q.

We need to get the players out of here who don’t want to play.

Man-to-man is a difficult scheme to run in the NHL with how quick teams are now. Once coverage is lost or there is a scramble, it's difficult to get back to the correct assignment. A team has to be really quick to pull it off decently well, like the Canes, but even they have had some of the worst rush-against and pick-off numbers that are just a part of when a man-to-man coverage breakdown.
- L_B_R

Maybe they are being overcoached? Thinking more about where they need to be instead of just playing the game? They do seem to lack spontaneity.

Isn’t gonna matter they’re done such a shame gonna miss playoffs again no heart

If Stan wants Lehner around beyond this season he should lock him up right now. I doubt #40 will want to return after a full season of this.
- DarthKane

I agree with this ... although it may already be too late for Lehner to consider coming back to this clown show.

This team is not as good as the LA game and not as bad as they showed tonight, we are somewhere in between. This team is better than last year’s team, we have more talent on defense, we added Nylander, Kubalik, and Carpenter to our forward group, however if they don’t turn it around soon, they will have to make changes.

Man-to-man is a difficult scheme to run in the NHL with how quick teams are now. Once coverage is lost or there is a scramble, it's difficult to get back to the correct assignment. A team has to be really quick to pull it off decently well, like the Canes, but even they have had some of the worst rush-against and pick-off numbers that are just a part of when a man-to-man coverage breakdown.
- L_B_R

By the way L_B_R - welcome back. Missed the analysis you provide. Stick around would ya?

If they'd never shown they CAN play the game he is apparently preaching, then it would be easier to say it's all on him. But, they did show that they're capable with WSH and LVK. So, that they can't consistently or won't consistently means it's also another issue.
- pdx2ord

Did they really play it well against Washington and Vegas?

Washington is a team that is almost always just a so-so shot share team that relies on it's offensive talent and good goaltending to win games. They're a team that tends to score quickly once in the OZ - either off the rush, with quick elite passing plays, and just high quality shooting.

And Vegas was on the second night of a b2b so there is some tiredness at play and the Hawks were pretty weak in the 3rd. Like don't get me wrong, that was the Hawks best game by far but other factors plus a drop in play towards the end (obvs some score effects there) makes it a "was it a fluke" kind of situation.

Some quotes:

Ben Pope
@BenPopeCST
Toews: "We were losing battles, we were second to races all the time and just everything just kind of compounds. We're fighting to find our confidence as a team."

Awkward Q&A about the Seabs situation - clarified that, no, they didn't talk before this game
(sounds like a right mess)

Rinne complimenting Lehner and slamming the rest of the team: https://twitter.com/AtoZS.../1189374756010762240?s=20

Lehner: “They were toying with us today.”

There is a locker room cancer. Period. This team played well last year and looked like they could manage 100 points. SB went out made some deals got us better d-men, carpenter, Lehner, Shaw. We got lucky and drafted #3 getting Dach.

So I ask myself, you get better during the off-season from last year, but somehow the results are worse? That makes no sense. Unless there is a common denominator. The team has had some real crap games even before JC, in fact a majority of the games they played under Q, they seemed to not show up for a period or periods at a time. Even when they had better talent. How does this happen? It’s not the coach, the GM, the players. It’s attitude. If a player(s) are coming into that locker room and bringing it down, then they need to be rooted out and expunged. I would start with the C, A, A. Mr. Seabrook wasn’t in the lineup again tonight and Keith appears to be condescending during a presser. So is this game a rebuttal against JC for benching Seabrook?

To me it appears it is. Benched him one game ok, they play better. Bench him again, well certain players decide to not show up. That’s the definition of locker room cancer. Keith based on his presser becomes my first target. Maybe he needs to reunite with Q.

We need to get the players out of here who don’t want to play.
- gifman

keith can't stand to talk to the press...and he rarely has done those inter period interviews...kinda wonder why he was chosen..

Ron Francis is the Seattle Gm
- Colbyboy

Yes I think Hunter head of scouting

Maybe they are being overcoached? Thinking more about where they need to be instead of just playing the game? They do seem to lack spontaneity.
- 67hawks

Keith said as much in his Spittin' Chiclets interview. That you used to be able to play on instinct and adapt to situations on the fly. Now, every scenario is mapped out and you have to remember what you are supposed to do in each. [paraphrasing obviously]

Maybe they are being overcoached? Thinking more about where they need to be instead of just playing the game? They do seem to lack spontaneity.
- 67hawks

Personally, I just don't think that JC's system/scheme really works for the personnel on this team. A mistake in zone coverage is more lenient but not man-to-man, so it probably does feel much more restrictive. I feel like if even some of the best defensive guys on the team are still struggling to get it game to game, then maybe it's not the best for this particular team.

Adjustments needs to be made imo.

Did they really play it well against Washington and Vegas?

Washington is a team that is almost always just a so-so shot share team that relies on it's offensive talent and good goaltending to win games. They're a team that tends to score quickly once in the OZ - either off the rush, with quick elite passing plays, and just high quality shooting.

And Vegas was on the second night of a b2b so there is some tiredness at play and the Hawks were pretty weak in the 3rd. Like don't get me wrong, that was the Hawks best game by far but other factors plus a drop in play towards the end (obvs some score effects there) makes it a "was it a fluke" kind of situation.
- L_B_R

Damn sight better than they have the rest of the year, but saw someone call it a dead cat bounce. Maybe that was all it was.

Damn sight better than they have the rest of the year, but saw someone call it a dead cat bounce. Maybe that was all it was.
- pdx2ord

I do think the team played better - I'm just not sure it had much to do with the defensive scheme, which is the issue. They rolled up on team that are less puck possession hound and/or tired so they didn't have to have so much DZ coverage. Does that make sense? Idk lol.

I'm usually not one of those "told ya so" guys and it's obviously way too soon to predict this - but I've posted it a bunch of times and I'll do it again now - the Hawks will mirror what they did in in 2006/2007 by taking Toews at #3 and Kane at #1 only thins time it will be Dach at #3 and Lafreniere at #1 in the 2020 draft. Dach will go back to JRs like Toews went back to North Dakota and then Dach and Lafraniere will start their NHL career in 2020/21.

If Dach goes back to Saskatoon there's a very good chance he would be the top center for Canada in World JRs with Lafreniere his LW. I believe they played some shifts together for Canada last year. (btw - Lafreniere is leading the CHL in scoring with 39 points in 16 games).

It's looking more likely now isn't it?

Personally, I just don't think that JC's system/scheme really works for the personnel on this team. A mistake in zone coverage is more lenient but not man-to-man, so it probably does feel much more restrictive. I feel like if even some of the best defensive guys on the team are still struggling to get it game to game, then maybe it's not the best for this particular team.

Adjustments needs to be made imo.
- L_B_R

If the system doesn't match the talent, why did the GM put the coach in charge of the talent in place? And then go out and get more talent that doesn't seem to fit? He got two slower defensemen to play in a system that requires speed. Why?

I do think the team played better - I'm just not sure it had much to do with the defensive scheme, which is the issue. They rolled up on team that are less puck possession hound and/or tired so they didn't have to have so much DZ coverage. Does that make sense? Idk lol.
- L_B_R

And this is where your expertise and insights far exceed mine (as a mostly eye test person). Very glad you're back to learn from again.

By the way L_B_R - welcome back. Missed the analysis you provide. Stick around would ya?
- EbonyRaptor

I'll try but promotions and baking make it hard to comment too many places lol.

It is a conundrum with JC, because I look at what he has been able to do for and with Nylander, Strome, DBC, and even Saad. That's where you see the "player whisperer" development coach skills bear fruit.

But then the system overall and, it appears on the surface, his motivation and coaching of the vets is lacking.

Which is more critical for this team going forward, assuming he adapts his system to the players he has (will he? who knows?)