Cory Schneider......ever heard of him?

Sedin was Kane's man. And Keith probably played most of the last 15 minutes of the 3rd and the majority of the OT. Eventually he wears out and what's on the bench to give him a breather? John Scott. Just absurd that they dress #32..
- RickJ

I'm no genius in coverages, but ideally wouldn't you want keith pinching down there, taking away time and space. Seabrook then shifts to front side to stop passes. And either your center or winger takes the backside? If a forward had come down to play the scoring sedin, you end up with two players standing next to each other which means someone is uncovered and if you get the puck back, it makes breakouts more difficult.

Want a tissue tool? Man I love it when the Hawks lose and I get to read all the whining from Hawk fans. Outhit 2 to 1...Hawks are weak. Better get some toughness at the deadline or just keep Scott out there.
- CanUSA17

We got a CUP phucky...what you got

No it doesn't. Since when does Kane camp out in the low slot in the d zone? That's Bolland's domain and he got it stuffed in his face. I love Bolland, but karma is a Beeeeyotch.
- philco28

4 on 4 you play man on man. Bolland tried but he couldn't make there. Sedin skated right past Kane and Kane just watched.

Want a tissue tool? Man I love it when the Hawks lose and I get to read all the whining from Hawk fans. Outhit 2 to 1...Hawks are weak. Better get some toughness at the deadline or just keep Scott out there.
- CanUSA17

Not sure it's whining when your pissed at your own club, which is my take on the game. No excuses...Hawks found a way to lose yet again.

2 and 7 were caught watching. Bolland late coming down, game.

Ugh....tough one. God damn pp should be sponsored by a liquor company, because need a potent drink to survive watching it. Just horrible. Point men suck outside of hossa

I think the hawks may be able to roll 16-36-65 for awhile. Bickell and frolik are expendable.
- SteveRain

The second goal was also on these two. Yes, I realize Stalberg needs to get the puck in deep on the rush, but in a 2-1 game in the third period, you cannot have your top D pairing allow Hodgson to get behind them for a breakaway. You could tell by the way Seabrook turned around and hauled ass as soon as the puck was pushed ahead to Hodgson that he new he f'd up. They got lazy, didn't pay attention to the play and it ended up in the back of our net.

I give up on the PP. As BD said in an earlier post, I cannot remember the last time their PP scored at a critical point in time to either tie or take the lead in a game. The last game against Nashville was another example. It's one thing to have a goalie make some great stops, it's another entirely to not even be able to get the puck in the zone or generate a shot on goal.

John Scott playing 5 minutes. I don't even know what to say about this anymore. Simply one of the biggest mysteries in the NHL as to why Q feels the need to play this guy which in turn causes his other d-men to log more minutes than they should.

Cory Schneider......ever heard of him?
- Boinker

Stanley Cup.. Ever win one?

Seeing many posts about Hawks being outhit. Being outhit is ok. More important is that people are finishing checks. The Hawks aren't the Bruins and aren't going to run people out of the building. They aren't built that way. Now at 2:1, thats a bit concerning, but doesn't VAN have a reputation of inflating their hit totals at home?

I'm no genius in coverages, but ideally wouldn't you want keith pinching down there, taking away time and space. Seabrook then shifts to front side to stop passes. And either your center or winger takes the backside? If a forward had come down to play the scoring sedin, you end up with two players standing next to each other which means someone is uncovered and if you get the puck back, it makes breakouts more difficult.
- Walky

You can let him play below the goal line. He isn't going to score from there as long as you keep him there. When your forward lets the guy on his side walk to the front of the net then you have problems.

Seeing many posts about Hawks being outhit. Being outhit is ok. More important is that people are finishing checks. The Hawks aren't the Bruins and aren't going to run people out of the building. They aren't built that way. Now at 2:1, thats a bit concerning, but doesn't VAN have a reputation of inflating their hit totals at home?
- Walky

Weren't the hawks outhit often during their cup run year?

The second goal was also on these two. Yes, I realize Stalberg needs to get the puck in deep on the rush, but in a 2-1 game in the third period, you cannot have your top D pairing allow Hodgson to get behind them for a breakaway. You could tell by the way Seabrook turned around and hauled ass as soon as the puck was pushed ahead to Hodgson that he new he f'd up. They got lazy, didn't pay attention to the play and it ended up in the back of our net.

I give up on the PP. As BD said in an earlier post, I cannot remember the last time their PP scored at a critical point in time to either tie or take the lead in a game. The last game against Nashville was another example. It's one thing to have a goalie make some great stops, it's another entirely to not even be able to get the puck in the zone or generate a shot on goal.

John Scott playing 5 minutes. I don't even know what to say about this anymore. Simply one of the biggest mysteries in the NHL as to why Q feels the need to play this guy which in turn causes his other d-men to log more minutes than they should.
- RetiredGoalie

I think Hodgson was banking on a turnover, looked like he headed the other way before Stals lost it. 72 was still in "enter the zone" mode.

Want a tissue tool? Man I love it when the Hawks lose and I get to read all the whining from Hawk fans. Outhit 2 to 1...Hawks are weak. Better get some toughness at the deadline or just keep Scott out there.
- CanUSA17

And I love it when I get to read all the bragging and boasting from the fans of a team that has never won anything. Last time I checked the Hawks won when they had their shot at the Cup. The Canucks? Uh . . . well . . . um.

4 on 4 you play man on man. Bolland tried but he couldn't make there. Sedin skated right past Kane and Kane just watched.
- tokked

Keith and Bolland FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE than Kane for the o/t goal. Kane had a great game overall, making stuff happen all night. One of his best games of the year. I refuse to blame 88 for this loss.

Seeing many posts about Hawks being outhit. Being outhit is ok. More important is that people are finishing checks. The Hawks aren't the Bruins and aren't going to run people out of the building. They aren't built that way. Now at 2:1, thats a bit concerning, but doesn't VAN have a reputation of inflating their hit totals at home?
- Walky

Every team has the reputation of inflating their hit totals at home...which makes it all the more disturbing when they consistently get outhit by a wide margin at home.

We got a CUP phucky...what you got

- philco28

Typical Chicago fan living in the past but it doesn't surprise me. Enjoy it because there is no way the Hawks will get another with this soft team. Your team is too small and weak to succeed in playoff hockey. Plus your goaltending is suspect. This Hawks team is going nowhere in the playoffs...deal with it.

Way to go Duncan Keith. Keep waving your stick instead of keeping your body from stopping the obvious pass to from Sedin to Sedin. They never pass to each other.
- coldsteelonice

Yep bad bad mistakes by Keith and Seabs all night. They were on the ice for all three goals.
The first is a half hearted block attempt, more like a screen, by keith that he misdirects in to top it off.
The second I know was a bad turnover by Stahlberg at the blueline but how does a supposed elite tandem let a guy behind them BOTH with a one goal lead.
And the third they are both standing there looking at Henrik behind the net, arguably Henriks favorite area of the ice. While none of them are covering the front.

I know people will say Bolland was late covering or somehow blame it on Kane but 4 on 4 hockey the Dee has the forwards and the forwards cover the Def. That was help coming from Bolland who noticed the two deushbags leaving one of the most dangerous goal scores wide open in front while looking at one of the most dangerous passers behind.

Im really getting sick of the inconsistent play by these two. AND YES SCOTT is a complete waste.

Looks like the "Ya well at least we won the Cup!" dimwitted statement is out in full force tonight. I'm sure the Hawks players are resting easy thinking the same thing tonight.

Stanley Cup.. Ever win one?
- golfbard

Nope I never made it to the NHL. I played Junior B. What about you, where's your ring? Dork.

You can let him play below the goal line. He isn't going to score from there as long as you keep him there. When your forward lets the guy on his side walk to the front of the net then you have problems.
- tokked

I guess it depends on defensive philosophies, but if the forward is all the way down there, the point is completely open. Van has some pretty good point shots so that's pretty dangerous too.

Keith and Bolland FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE than Kane for the o/t goal. Kane had a great game overall, making stuff happen all night. One of his best games of the year. I refuse to blame 88 for this loss.
- philco28

Watch a replay. Sedin was Kane's man. The puck went down low and he sat and watch the puck.

Typical Chicago fan living in the past but it doesn't surprise me. Enjoy it because there is no way the Hawks will get another with this soft team. Your team is too small and weak to succeed in playoff hockey. Plus your goaltending is suspect. This Hawks team is going nowhere in the playoffs...deal with it.
- CanUSA17

Typical Ca PHAG...moaning about whaaaaa...blowing SC G 7 at home...Bruins owned ya..then you knobs tore up your city and embarrassed Canada. Phuggggggggggggggggggggofffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

No it doesn't. Since when does Kane camp out in the low slot in the d zone? That's Bolland's domain and he got it stuffed in his face. I love Bolland, but karma is a Beeeeyotch.
- philco28

You can point the finger at Kane or at Bolland, but again, Keith simply has to block that pass from behind the net. As I said before, if you aren't gonna rush him and force him into making a move, that's fine, but then you can't let him sit back there and put a pass between the post and yourself to his Brother for the tap in. Keith's effort on that was weak to say the least.

The second goal was also on these two. Yes, I realize Stalberg needs to get the puck in deep on the rush, but in a 2-1 game in the third period, you cannot have your top D pairing allow Hodgson to get behind them for a breakaway. You could tell by the way Seabrook turned around and hauled ass as soon as the puck was pushed ahead to Hodgson that he new he f'd up. They got lazy, didn't pay attention to the play and it ended up in the back of our net.

I give up on the PP. As BD said in an earlier post, I cannot remember the last time their PP scored at a critical point in time to either tie or take the lead in a game. The last game against Nashville was another example. It's one thing to have a goalie make some great stops, it's another entirely to not even be able to get the puck in the zone or generate a shot on goal.

John Scott playing 5 minutes. I don't even know what to say about this anymore. Simply one of the biggest mysteries in the NHL as to why Q feels the need to play this guy which in turn causes his other d-men to log more minutes than they should.
- RetiredGoalie

Nice summary...agree completely. And to think they stayed out of the box completely, yet managed to crap the bed again. No mojo for the club this year. Just hope SB doesn't do something rash. Plan for the post CBA era since this year just ain't right.

The second goal was also on these two. Yes, I realize Stalberg needs to get the puck in deep on the rush, but in a 2-1 game in the third period, you cannot have your top D pairing allow Hodgson to get behind them for a breakaway. You could tell by the way Seabrook turned around and hauled ass as soon as the puck was pushed ahead to Hodgson that he new he f'd up. They got lazy, didn't pay attention to the play and it ended up in the back of our net.I give up on the PP. As BD said in an earlier post, I cannot remember the last time their PP scored at a critical point in time to either tie or take the lead in a game. The last game against Nashville was another example. It's one thing to have a goalie make some great stops, it's another entirely to not even be able to get the puck in the zone or generate a shot on goal.

John Scott playing 5 minutes. I don't even know what to say about this anymore. Simply one of the biggest mysteries in the NHL as to why Q feels the need to play this guy which in turn causes his other d-men to log more minutes than they should.
- RetiredGoalie

That's fairly accurate but the minutes eventually add up. Keith was over 30 (43 shifts) and Seabrook pretty close to that. Way too much against a team like Vancouver and just illustrates why 1 Dman if not 2 are required. Nobody in the league except Nashville plays their top pairing 30 minutes.

Need at least 1 defenceman, preferably 2.

Keith and Bolland FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE than Kane for the o/t goal. Kane had a great game overall, making stuff happen all night. One of his best games of the year. I refuse to blame 88 for this loss.
- philco28

Why do we have to blame someone for the loss? The other goalie stood on his head and gave his team a chance to win the game. Efforts like that will give the Hawks a pretty good record the rest of the year.