Can somebody please explain to me what the hell 2 and 7 were doing on Hodgson's goal? Bad turnover by Stalberg, but how the hell does Hodgson get THAT far behind Keith? Why is Keith pressing when he's up by 1 goal?

I said it last night. He was very good anticipating the cross ice passes last night, but his little BS finese flips/clearing attempts nearly resulted in 2-3 goals. I thought Seabrook was great physically. Seperating guys from the puck. Hammer was steady.

I also don't think the decision to play Scott was strickly Q's call. odd that it comes after the all star break, when the GM who lobbied for this wasted of a roster space to be a defenseman after last spring, had to time to meet with the coaching staff. O'donnel can't be an every day guy. Scott should be a bouncer in a club somewhere, and Lepisto.....has been banished.

I'm going on record that 3 of 4 points vs Calgary and Edmonton is a MUST. I was hoping for 4 of 6 heading into Western Canada...meanwhile Detroit, and Nashville keep humming along.....

And you are giving Seabrook a free pass on this play? And Keith as well?

Last time that I looked, it's near-impossible to score from behind the net so why go back there? Cover the guys out front and let Crawford deal with any attempted wrap-around.

From the looks of things to me, that top pairing of 2 & 7 fell asleep once again on that play and placing blame on Kane and/or Bolland is easy to do but flat out wrong.

Let's call a spade a spade -- poor decision making by the "top" D pairing makes for an easy Canucks goal. I'm blaming both of them, in particular Seabrook. He had his "man" covered like glue (that man being the invisible ghost just off Crawford's left post . . . didn't you all see that with your 3D glasses? Seabs was draped all over ghost man and made sure he wouldn't score).

There was no reason for Seabrook to be picking his nose, watching Keith play patty-cake with the Sedin sister behind the net.
- savvyone-1

I guess you missed last years playoffs when Luongo let in 8 goals from behind the net

I wouldn't say that Keith took Henrik behind the net. Keith never moved. It makes no sense to have a forward covering a forward in the slot, with a defenseman standing right next to him. I didn't even know Kane was on the ice at the end of the game until reading here. I'm not making excuses but talking about whose coverage is whose. If Keith isn't going behind the net, he needs to take the guy that comes to the slot, he did neither and Henrik made a great pass. It looked like one of those beauties from the ASG skills comp. I'm no fan of Kane's recent efforts especially on defense, but your tone this morning sounds very angry at him. It was a well played game and more efforts like that will get plenty of wins for the hawks.
- Walky

When the attacking team is moving in close, below the top of the rings and especially below the dots and hash marks, the defencive forwards must watch the attacking team's offencive guys more. If the attacking team is playing more perimeter, the defencive forwards move out closer to the points, half boards or deep slot. Kane let his guy go when his defenders were not clearing the crease. Also an issue the 'Hawks did not have anyone clearing the crease. Big mistake too.

I guess you missed last years playoffs when Luongo let in 8 goals from behind the net
- VANTEL

Well, no sense to rub salt in someone's wound, right?
Besides, we saw enough of that with good ol' Cristo Huet! We know how it feels.

But in all seriousness, if/when that happens, at least you can pin it clearly on 1 player as that should NEVER happen. I just never understand the tepid response of our team when players have the puck behind our net.

Either go after them HARD and pound the crap out of them so they can't make a pass out front or cover the freaking players in front of the goalie that would have a chance to score with a pass coming to them. And while you're at it, clear the damn front of the net so the goalie has clear vision of any pucks coming his way.

Sheesh!

Who was Kane covering? Who was he making any effort to cover? He should have taken Sedin.

He was drifting up ice, thinking only about breaking out, not playing defense. End of story.
- John Jaeckel

Kane always does this. If it is an issue, when does it stop becoming Kane's fault and start becoming the coach’s fault? Is that what Q wants? If not he needs to send a message. Until Kane is in the doghouse I'm assuming he is playing up to Q's expectations.

Oh, and dressing Scott to play 5 minutes is a horrible decision. I'm assuming he is meeting expectations as well....

Can somebody please explain to me what the hell 2 and 7 were doing on Hodgson's goal? Bad turnover by Stalberg, but how the hell does Hodgson get THAT far behind Keith? Why is Keith pressing when he's up by 1 goal?

I said it last night. He was very good anticipating the cross ice passes last night, but his little BS finese flips/clearing attempts nearly resulted in 2-3 goals. I thought Seabrook was great physically. Seperating guys from the puck. Hammer was steady.

I also don't think the decision to play Scott was strickly Q's call. odd that it comes after the all star break, when the GM who lobbied for this wasted of a roster space to be a defenseman after last spring, had to time to meet with the coaching staff. O'donnel can't be an every day guy. Scott should be a bouncer in a club somewhere, and Lepisto.....has been banished.

I'm going on record that 3 of 4 points vs Calgary and Edmonton is a MUST. I was hoping for 4 of 6 heading into Western Canada...meanwhile Detroit, and Nashville keep humming along.....
- SteveRain

Great thoughts Steve,

I think the appropriate way for us to evaluate for a bit regarding what everyone else is doing, is to not worry how well the top does, but that the bottom keeps losing and beating one another. Gaining a point is a positive.

Secondly, all in all played a great game overall last night. We all tend to micro analyze everything, but in a game there are gonna be a few bad bounces, mistakes etc...its the nature of the game. On balance, we had as many opportunities as they did. If we continue to (as Q says) trend this way. We will be fine.

Third, Crawford played well. Made a few huge saves for the Hawks, as did Schnieder.

Shaw played great again, Bolland played well.

And you are giving Seabrook a free pass on this play? And Keith as well?

Last time that I looked, it's near-impossible to score from behind the net so why go back there? Cover the guys out front and let Crawford deal with any attempted wrap-around.

From the looks of things to me, that top pairing of 2 & 7 fell asleep once again on that play and placing blame on Kane and/or Bolland is easy to do but flat out wrong.

Let's call a spade a spade -- poor decision making by the "top" D pairing makes for an easy Canucks goal. I'm blaming both of them, in particular Seabrook. He had his "man" covered like glue (that man being the invisible ghost just off Crawford's left post . . . didn't you all see that with your 3D glasses? Seabs was draped all over ghost man and made sure he wouldn't score).

There was no reason for Seabrook to be picking his nose, watching Keith play patty-cake with the Sedin sister behind the net.
- savvyone-1

Who . . . was . . . Kane . . . covering?

it doesn't matter that Keith went down there. Kane saw it. What did he do? NOTHING.

Henrik didn't score, did he?

Problem is not how bad Scott is, it's that a) the team is soft as jello without him in the lineup and b) he is not that much worse than the alternatives.
- John Jaeckel

I think the team is just as soft with Scott in the lineup. The guy can barely throw a hit because he can't skate well enough to do so. He really doesn't provide any more muscle because he barely finds a dance partner...the only thing Scott can really do.

I think the biggest issue with Scott in the lineup is that it leaves the other 5 guys to do the work of 6 basically. Keith playing over 30 minutes last night just shouldn't happen but it has to because Scott can't be anywhere near the ice in a close game.

Great thoughts Steve,

I think the appropriate way for us to evaluate for a bit regarding what everyone else is doing, is to not worry how well the top does, but that the bottom keeps losing and beating one another. Gaining a point is a positive.

Secondly, all in all played a great game overall last night. We all tend to micro analyze everything, but in a game there are gonna be a few bad bounces, mistakes etc...its the nature of the game. On balance, we had as many opportunities as they did. If we continue to (as Q says) trend this way. We will be fine.

Third, Crawford played well. Made a few huge saves for the Hawks, as did Schnieder.

Shaw played great again, Bolland played well.
- TrueGrit

Agreed. I was glad to see Crawford play well. Hopefully, that's a big confidence boost for him. Can't fault him on any goal.

Shaw got absolutely tossed around, but the kid just keeps coming and coming. Give him some muscle, and he's going to be a top flight agitator. Loved the little lay down on Schneider in the 3rd.

I don't think we have to worry about a let down game, because all they have to do is look back to November.

Apparently, they were scouting Carolina last night...OR....the Islanders.

Who . . . was . . . Kane . . . covering?

it doesn't matter that Keith went down there. Kane saw it. What did he do? NOTHING.

Henrik didn't score, did he?
- John Jaeckel

Honestly, who gives a crap anymore? All 4 of them you could make a point against:

Seabrook for covering NOBODY
Keith for not pressing Sedin with Seabrook covering the other side, so where was Sedin going?
Bolland for giving a weak attempt at tying up the stick...
Kane for being his typical self in the defensive end...

Honestly, out of the 4 are we shocked that Kane was lost in his own end? Plus, even if Bolland ties up that stick, that puck goes out to the point and Edler or Salo walk down to the hash marks and blasts one through traffic.

if you're going to roll out people who aren't responsible defensively then this is the price the Hawks pay....

Agreed. I was glad to see Crawford play well. Hopefully, that's a big confidence boost for him. Can't fault him on any goal.

Shaw got absolutely tossed around, but the kid just keeps coming and coming. Give him some muscle, and he's going to be a top flight agitator. Loved the little lay down on Schneider in the 3rd.

I don't think we have to worry about a let down game, because all they have to do is look back to November.

Apparently, they were scouting Carolina last night...OR....the Islanders.
- SteveRain

...and the way Kesler picked him up off Schneider with one hand!

Kane always does this.
- tecumseh

Red flag...

If it is an issue, when does it stop becoming Kane's fault and start becoming the coach’s fault?
- tecumseh

It never stops becoming Kane's fault and if its not corrected, it's also now on the coaching staff

Is that what Q wants? If not he needs to send a message. Until Kane is in the doghouse I'm assuming he is playing up to Q's expectations.
- tecumseh

Want? What, his forwards not acknowledging coverage? No. He wants defencive zone responsibility.

Oh, and dressing Scott to play 5 minutes is a horrible decision. I'm assuming he is meeting expectations as well....
- tecumseh

Agreed, horrible decision. Put's more TOI on the top 4 D-men. What kind of weed is Q smoking and will he be willing to share.

...and the way Kesler picked him up off Schneider with one hand!
- rdfred

Don't worry....we play you goofs again in the spring, he'll goat them into a few penalties.

i think Edler's jock is still laying on the ice after Toews damn near broke his ankles.

Who . . . was . . . Kane . . . covering?

it doesn't matter that Keith went down there. Kane saw it. What did he do? NOTHING.

Henrik didn't score, did he?
- John Jaeckel

Oh, I think it DOES matter. You made the point for me -- HENRIK DIDN'T SCORE. The chances of Henrik scoring from in back of the net are almost nil. Again, 4 on 4, D has the forwards, forwards cover the D.

All of you would have been all over Bolland/Kane had either of the point men scored had Bolland/Kane left their coverage of the D to cover a FORWARD in the slot. I really don't care what Troy Murray railed on about -- maybe he's got a hair up his a$$ about Kane as well.

Fact is, and has always been, in 4 on 4 hockey, D covers the Forwards, Forwards cover the D. That didn't happen. You can blame Kane (and Bolland) all you want. Keith and Seabrook collectively blew that coverage last night to end the game.

Problem is not how bad Scott is, it's that a) the team is soft as jello without him in the lineup and b) he is not that much worse than the alternatives.
- John Jaeckel

Disagree somewhat. Basically the Hawks were playing with 5 d-men all game last night against one of the better teams in the league. Even if OD and Lepisto (who may never see the ice again on this team) aren't that good, they're better then Scott and can give the Hawks more minutes. I'm starting to question alot of Q's decisions now.

Honestly, who gives a crap anymore? All 4 of them you could make a point against:

Seabrook for covering NOBODY
Keith for not pressing Sedin with Seabrook covering the other side, so where was Sedin going?
Bolland for giving a weak attempt at tying up the stick...
Kane for being his typical self in the defensive end...

Honestly, out of the 4 are we shocked that Kane was lost in his own end? Plus, even if Bolland ties up that stick, that puck goes out to the point and Edler or Salo walk down to the hash marks and blasts one through traffic.

if you're going to roll out people who aren't responsible defensively then this is the price the Hawks pay....
- SteveRain

Thank you -- articulated very well.

So many seem to have a hair up their butts over Kane's D coverage. All of them could be blamed but you clearly made my point about leaving D uncovered and them having an open blast and likely scoring anyway.

The play was f'd up from the beginning with Keith's original decision to chase Henrik behind the net with Seabrook thinking he was at the theater watching a movie off to Crawford's left side covering the ghost of Canucks past.

Thank you -- articulated very well.

So many seem to have a hair up their butts over Kane's D coverage. All of them could be blamed but you clearly made my point about leaving D uncovered and them having an open blast and likely scoring anyway.

The play was f'd up from the beginning with Keith's original decision to chase Henrik behind the net with Seabrook thinking he was at the theater watching a movie off to Crawford's left side covering the ghost of Canucks past.
- savvyone-1

Keith owned up to it last night postgame. Love the NHL network. Closest thing I'll ever get to TSN.

More importantly, they need 3 points by Friday night when I tune in to watch Spartacus.

If they focus on getting 4 of 6 on this trip, in 3 game cycles, that should appease us all. I'll take 10 points today, if I could....

Honestly, who gives a crap anymore? All 4 of them you could make a point against:

Seabrook for covering NOBODY
Keith for not pressing Sedin with Seabrook covering the other side, so where was Sedin going?
Bolland for giving a weak attempt at tying up the stick...
Kane for being his typical self in the defensive end...

Honestly, out of the 4 are we shocked that Kane was lost in his own end? Plus, even if Bolland ties up that stick, that puck goes out to the point and Edler or Salo walk down to the hash marks and blasts one through traffic.

if you're going to roll out people who aren't responsible defensively then this is the price the Hawks pay....
- SteveRain

This is my point he was playing as if it were 5 on 5 and covering an AREA on the ice which is WRONG Now Kane should have helped I agree. But i guarantee if he came off and left Edler wide open to cover Danial and Hank slung it out to Edler and he scored because Kane was down low the same group would be saying. "whats a matter with Kane in 4 on 4 his responsibility is the point man. why didnt he let Danial release to Keith and stay on his coverage, etc etc,"

Don't worry....we play you goofs again in the spring, he'll goat them into a few penalties.

i think Edler's jock is still laying on the ice after Toews damn near broke his ankles.
- SteveRain

Yes probably...right beside Kane's after Edler knocked him out of it. In last night's game Edler was the best D on the ice for either team -- even though he doesn't get physically wasted like Keith (30+ minutes) and Seabrook (over 27). That's gonna hurt the Hawks in the long run.

I like Shaw from the little he's been around, but the Hawks are going nowhere deep if he continues to be their forward with the most ice time. I assume that was just a one game thing. No way he should be playing more than Sharp, Toews, Hossa. The way Kane is playing his time should be cut. How selfish is the guy?