Theo, I liken what is happening now in the NHL to what happened in NBA after Jordan. The play setting and playmaking, tic-tac-toe, etc gave way to highlight real dunks, alley-oops, and long bombs in attempt to make the ESPN highlight reel. The fundamentals aren’t there.

The kids like Dach who have come into the league in past few years have grown up on Kane’s YouTube highlights videos, ETA sports games, etc and they all try too hard to replicate those plays. DBC, Boqvist, Dach, Nylander, all seem to do that. I’m sure they were able to pull it off at lower levels, and aren’t recognizing that skill like Kane’s came from a natural gift and years of painstaking work.

Not sure how to reverse that course, as while it does lead to more “WOW!” plays, it also gives you a lot of sloppy hockey.

That would be true under the normal case of "winning is the main objective", but is it under the case of "getting the young players experience so we can be better prepared to win in a few years"? In my opinion it would be better to have at least 2 if not 3 young d-men in the lineup on a regular basis. Seabrook is a "yesterday player" - the emphasis should be on players of the future.
- EbonyRaptor

To use a baseball analogy, "if you have 9 defensemen, you don't have 6 defensemen."

Get rid of Toews, Kane, Keith, Murphy, Shaw DeHaan too?
- powerenforcer

No, at least not yet. There has to be a blending of vets and rooks for the rooks to get maximum mentorship and growth - ya can't just through out a team of inexperienced players to get clobbered and expect them to improve at the same level as they would by playing with high quality veteran players.

Yes, the emphasis should be on the future, but you don't give a kid who just learned how to ride a bike a driver's license. Additionally, a healthy, strong, effective Seabrook moves from being a liability (and cap strain) to an actual asset. The more viable assets on the team the better they are (both functionally and in terms of overall capital).

If he is playing to his standards and people still don't want to trade for him due to salary, you can trade de Haan or Murphy and still be competitive instead of throwing a kid in there just because there is a spot open.
- Chunk

Right, the point isn't to not play Seabrook - it's to play Boqvist, Mitchell and Carlsson. I'm not against playing Seabrook - I'm against playing playing more than one of Seabrook, Murphy and deHaan at a time. With Keith and Zadorov along with Boqvist, Mitchell and Carlsson in the lineup - there is only one slot available for Seabrook or Murphy or deHaan. It doesn't have to be every game - a rotation might work well - but there should be at least 2 and often times 3 of the young d-men in the lineup.

I bet you're against TD celebrations too.

Great stuff as always Theo. As the game slows down a bit for Dach, my guess is you'll see him making the right call more often than not whatever the situation dictates.

He was still passing up good shots in the playoffs but mentioned how he was committing to working on his shot in the offseason. Based on early returns I have no doubt that's what he's been working on in addition to the behind the back kick pass.
- HawkintheD

You outted me! My day job is working in the NFL commissioner's office, aka the No Fun League as players often critically call it.

Yes, I do recall a recent Dach interview where he talked about working on his shot this offseason. Let's hope that work pays dividends this season and beyond.

This is why, if we are going to be passing the torch I would try a line of Dach, Nylander, Kubalik. The 3 might not be what fits as a first or second line based on current Hawk personnel, but if these 3 are going to be in your top 6, you have 2 guys who currently refuse to shoot and one guy who will shoot it from anywhere. Your other 2 lines have Toews/Kane and Strome(????) /ADB and hopefully any 2 of the rest of the roster can fill out the rest (Hagel, Suter,Shaw? The “Marks”?
- LAHawk

Yes, and to generalize, each line would benefit by having a playmaker, a shooter, and a space creator. If a forward can create space while playmaking and/or shooting, then even better and have that line have 2 playmakers or 2 shooters instead.

“Don’t make passes that aren’t there” and “make quicker and shorter passes” - absolutely - I’ve been female doging about these two for a while.

But those two things require teammates being in position to create passing lanes that are there, and that help the passer make the quick, short pass.

Most of the time, the stretch pass or pass through sticks and skates comes because the passer has no other option.
- StLBravesFan

Most definitely. Making a crisp, accurate pass is half the battle. The other half is as you described which is something the Hawks have struggled with just as much.

Theo, I liken what is happening now in the NHL to what happened in NBA after Jordan. The play setting and playmaking, tic-tac-toe, etc gave way to highlight real dunks, alley-oops, and long bombs in attempt to make the ESPN highlight reel. The fundamentals aren’t there.

The kids like Dach who have come into the league in past few years have grown up on Kane’s YouTube highlights videos, ETA sports games, etc and they all try too hard to replicate those plays. DBC, Boqvist, Dach, Nylander, all seem to do that. I’m sure they were able to pull it off at lower levels, and aren’t recognizing that skill like Kane’s came from a natural gift and years of painstaking work.

Not sure how to reverse that course, as while it does lead to more “WOW!” plays, it also gives you a lot of sloppy hockey.
- pdx2ord

They all could get away with those moves in Juniors - they think the Show is the same.

That course used to get reversed by a couple of years in the minors, against a higher QOC than they were used to. AdB - straight to Chicago; Boqvist - half of a season in Rockfish; Dach - straight to Chicago; Nylander - a little over a season in Rochester in total....So they’re going to have to learn abruptly playing against the best in the world, instead of gradually learning how to play the pro game in the “A”.

When you say know your options that is really important, the league is so fast in a way they have to know their options before they even get the puck. Always anticipating where the puck is, where it's going to be and what do i do with it if i end up with it.

With me and driving, i always believe I'm a moment away from being in an accident. I always try to anticipate what if scenarios. It's helped me avoid quite a few accidents over time.
- BetweenTheDots

I like the defensive driving analogy. The other analogy I like is every play in baseball. Before every pitch and no matter where the ball is hit, everyone on the field needs to be activated and know where to go and what to do if X, Y, or Z happens.

In Game 4 of the World Series when the Dodgers gave up 2 runs to the Rays in the 9th to lose the game, reliever Kenley Jansen was criticized for not covering home plate like he should have to at least prevent the game winning run.

Theo, for all you kept quoting Edzo earlier, I thought for sure you would have some version of “move the puck, move yourself”.

Realistically, I’d just like to see more movement overall (not just on the PP). Too often you see most of the players just stagnant.
- Chunk

I knew I forgot something! Yes, the "move the puck, move yourself" mantra is a must!

Agree, the team from the blueliners to the forwards need to exhibit more motion and dynamism to keep the opponent on its heels and guessing.

With the youth movement, one would assume that the fresh legs can play a factor in jump starting this.

Block shots

Shoot the Darn Puck

Not only "Take it hard to the net" but "Go to the front of the net without the puck". Screen the goalie. Occupy a defensemen. Position yourself for a rebound.

Take the body. Use the "you can get by me or the puck can get by me but not both" mentality.

One other thing. (Bolland and Kruger were very good at this) After their man passed the puck they would just bump, elbow, shoulder, hack, interfere, or impede the guys progress so that he could not join the play. It wasn't always a big hit. But just enough to knock them off stride.

Regarding Dach. When you think of Toews when he was younger he tried some pretty slick stickhandling, and was often successful. Defenders were less likely to be as aggressive. He does not try that much anymore. Defnders do not respect his stick handling. I think Dach needs to keep that "slick/wicked" move in his repertoire, but overall I agree he needs to go hard to the net and shoot more often.

Everyone on the team needs to avoid getting the "Patrick Kane syndrome". Drive into the zone hard, but then pull up on the half boards and try to find someone. It works for Kane, not so much for others. It is like the opposing defenders know the Hawks forwards are going to do that. Shake it up. Take it hard to the net. Take it behind the net.
- -Doh-

Great additions to the list. No argument here!

I'll play some devil's advocate and say, give the skilled young guys the green light to do things they are comfortable with, even if flashy at times. I want to see the team gain confidence, swagger and play a bit more creative out there. I'm not saying taking unnecessary risk...make the safe plays when appropriate, but there is something to be said about getting your team energized with your play. I think it goes for the Dmen too, carrying the puck end to end if they can skate or like Brian Campbell giving a bit of a spin-o-rama to get space and go up the ice.

Again, not saying this is something to strive for shift after shift, but the best players have a good enough feel for the game and know when to keep it simple vs when to go a bit unconventional.

Now that I've said that part, I want to add that if too many mistakes are happening or if they aren't doing enough of the "right thing" the rope should be short on making some slick moves. The team needs to have clean clean clean breakouts, don't give up possession easy, and pressure 200 feet to get it back when they lose the puck. If they are chasing the game too much, they will have to reign it in.
- breadbag

Great post. I'm totally fine with the first half of your post as long as the players prioritize what you said in the second half. Doing it the other way around makes it more about the individual than the team.

Theo, I liken what is happening now in the NHL to what happened in NBA after Jordan. The play setting and playmaking, tic-tac-toe, etc gave way to highlight real dunks, alley-oops, and long bombs in attempt to make the ESPN highlight reel. The fundamentals aren’t there.

The kids like Dach who have come into the league in past few years have grown up on Kane’s YouTube highlights videos, ETA sports games, etc and they all try too hard to replicate those plays. DBC, Boqvist, Dach, Nylander, all seem to do that. I’m sure they were able to pull it off at lower levels, and aren’t recognizing that skill like Kane’s came from a natural gift and years of painstaking work.

Not sure how to reverse that course, as while it does lead to more “WOW!” plays, it also gives you a lot of sloppy hockey.
- pdx2ord

Nice analogy with the NBA. Similar to breadbag's comments, I'm fine with the dazzle as long as it doesn't come at the expense of smart fundamental playing.

Look no further than Gustafsson. He cared more about the flair and exciting play than with taking care of his end first.

Not saying the Hawks should be a boring trap/dump-n-chase team. But prioritize the team and defense first, then let loose with the creativity.

No, at least not yet. There has to be a blending of vets and rooks for the rooks to get maximum mentorship and growth - ya can't just through out a team of inexperienced players to get clobbered and expect them to improve at the same level as they would by playing with high quality veteran players.
- EbonyRaptor

Right on with striking the right mix of veterans and youngsters. As Chunk shared, if it's all youth with no veterans to lead, then you have the Oilers and Sabres.

Having an optimal mix is also what Bowman and Colliton have also stated in their offseason interviews.

What I will say, though, is Colliton has alluded to erring towards the youth in a sink-or-swim manner of gaining experience which means some veterans will be healthy scratches.

I'm going to conitnue beating this drum, while I support the youth movement, I also can't see Colliton's deployment strategy sitting well with some veterans in the long run.

Right on with striking the right mix of veterans and youngsters. As Chunk shared, if it's all youth with no veterans to lead, then you have the Oilers and Sabres.

Having an optimal mix is also what Bowman and Colliton have also stated in their offseason interviews.

What I will say, though, is Colliton has alluded to erring towards the youth in a sink-or-swim manner of gaining experience which means some veterans will be healthy scratches.

I'm going to conitnue beating this drum, while I support the youth movement, I also can't see Colliton's deployment strategy sitting well with some veterans in the long run.
- Theo Fox

Yes, I worry that he is so focused on how to manage the dynamic and communicate with his younger players, thinking that generation is different, that he overlooks the fact that some of his veterans also need that same approach more than they would admit. Look no further than The Core’s “Why didn’t you tell us we were rebuilding?”

Right, the point isn't to not play Seabrook - it's to play Boqvist, Mitchell and Carlsson. I'm not against playing Seabrook - I'm against playing playing more than one of Seabrook, Murphy and deHaan at a time. With Keith and Zadorov along with Boqvist, Mitchell and Carlsson in the lineup - there is only one slot available for Seabrook or Murphy or deHaan. It doesn't have to be every game - a rotation might work well - but there should be at least 2 and often times 3 of the young d-men in the lineup.
- EbonyRaptor

This I guess is where we disagree. The point is to play the young guys... if they are ready for it. You don't just throw rookies out there if they can't handle it. Otherwise, you get the previous 7 years of the Oilers.

If Boqvist turns into Forsling, Mitchell can't keep up, and Carlsson is just a guy that we all seem to like, but doesn't actually improve then it doesn't make sense for them to play over the vets - regardless of the plan. Do I think that will happen,? No, but I don't think they should dump too many guys before they know what they have in the kids.

There will inevitably be injuries. You don't want to end up too thin simply because you wanted to play the kids. Just my philosophy on how to build a team...

This I guess is where we disagree. The point is to play the young guys... if they are ready for it. You don't just throw rookies out there if they can't handle it. Otherwise, you get the previous 7 years of the Oilers.

If Boqvist turns into Forsling, Mitchell can't keep up, and Carlsson is just a guy that we all seem to like, but doesn't actually improve then it doesn't make sense for them to play over the vets - regardless of the plan. Do I think that will happen,? No, but I don't think they should dump too many guys before they know what they have in the kids.

There will inevitably be injuries. You don't want to end up too thin simply because you wanted to play the kids. Just my philosophy on how to build a team...
- Chunk

Then we send them down and bring up Beaudin, Kalynuk and Regula up and give them a shot. Playing Seabrook, deHaan and Murphy serves no purpose other than to provide a steadying force to help the kids grow.

Right on with striking the right mix of veterans and youngsters. As Chunk shared, if it's all youth with no veterans to lead, then you have the Oilers and Sabres.

Having an optimal mix is also what Bowman and Colliton have also stated in their offseason interviews.

What I will say, though, is Colliton has alluded to erring towards the youth in a sink-or-swim manner of gaining experience which means some veterans will be healthy scratches.

I'm going to conitnue beating this drum, while I support the youth movement, I also can't see Colliton's deployment strategy sitting well with some veterans in the long run.
- Theo Fox

OK, but should that matter? Or to be more precise - should that matter enough to change the plan? Stick with the plan regardless.

OK, but should that matter? Or to be more precise - should that matter enough to change the plan? Stick with the plan regardless.
- EbonyRaptor

Bowman, Colliton, and crew seem resolute with carrying out the plan and at face value I support that and am actually excited about it.

However, there are always consequences (good and bad) with everything we do. In this case, whether they want to admit it or not, they may have to manage disgruntledness with the core to some degree or other at some point.

Some say that the core have earned that right to be catered to. Some say they don't and need to fall into line. Some are somewhere in the middle.

Either way, IMO, Colliton can't be all "oh well" if he ticks off veterans with his decision making and think things will be fine in the grander scheme of the Blackhawks world.

In his mind, he is staying the course. Again, that's well and good at face value. But he doesn't have to clean up PR fiascos that he may be the source of.

So hopefully he does both: stay the course while also communicating with and managing the veterans effectively. They don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Bowman, Colliton, and crew seem resolute with carrying out the plan and at face value I support that and am actually excited about it.

However, there are always consequences (good and bad) with everything we do. In this case, whether they want to admit it or not, they may have to manage disgruntledness with the core to some degree or other at some point.

Some say that the core have earned that right to be catered to. Some say they don't and need to fall into line. Some are somewhere in the middle.

Either way, IMO, Colliton can't be all "oh well" if he ticks off veterans with his decision making and think things will be fine in the grander scheme of the Blackhawks world.

In his mind, he is staying the course. Again, that's well and good at face value. But he doesn't have to clean up PR fiascos that he may be the source of.

So hopefully he does both: stay the course while also communicating with and managing the veterans effectively. They don't need to be mutually exclusive.
- Theo Fox

Admittedly I'm more of a hard ass when it comes to hierarchical chain of command than most people. I see things as more black and white and less grey. I realize that puts me in the ever shrinking minority opinion on that topic ... but I'm also stubborn so I ain't changing my mind.

Bowman, Colliton, and crew seem resolute with carrying out the plan and at face value I support that and am actually excited about it.

However, there are always consequences (good and bad) with everything we do. In this case, whether they want to admit it or not, they may have to manage disgruntledness with the core to some degree or other at some point.

Some say that the core have earned that right to be catered to. Some say they don't and need to fall into line. Some are somewhere in the middle.

Either way, IMO, Colliton can't be all "oh well" if he ticks off veterans with his decision making and think things will be fine in the grander scheme of the Blackhawks world.

In his mind, he is staying the course. Again, that's well and good at face value. But he doesn't have to clean up PR fiascos that he may be the source of.

So hopefully he does both: stay the course while also communicating with and managing the veterans effectively. They don't need to be mutually exclusive.
- Theo Fox

For what they've done, and how good they still are, yes, you at least include Kane, Toews, Keith and to a degree Seabrook on the discussions regarding the lineup and the play on the ice.

The problem will come if those four all get salty because one or two of them aren't getting what they want (Keith PP time, Seabrook ice time). At that point, you have to make the choice that is best for the team, egos be damned.

I like the defensive driving analogy. The other analogy I like is every play in baseball. Before every pitch and no matter where the ball is hit, everyone on the field needs to be activated and know where to go and what to do if X, Y, or Z happens.

In Game 4 of the World Series when the Dodgers gave up 2 runs to the Rays in the 9th to lose the game, reliever Kenley Jansen was criticized for not covering home plate like he should have to at least prevent the game winning run.
- Theo Fox

The only reason i don't bring up the baseball reference is because it's before the pitch happens. For me the driving reference fits better because while driving i have to anticipate these things happening. I know tomato, tehmato

The only reason i don't bring up the baseball reference is because it's before the pitch happens. For me the driving reference fits better because while driving i have to anticipate these things happening. I know tomato, tehmato
- BetweenTheDots

In flying there’s a saying:

Don’t let the airplane take you somewhere your brain didn’t already arrive .

In flying there’s a saying:

Don’t let the airplane take you somewhere your brain didn’t already arrive .
- Ogilthorpe2

"What goes up must come down."

"What goes up must come down."
- rpeters01

Also true. Or to put it slightly more scientifically...gravity always wins....or, takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory.