Well good, that makes it both the fans and the players then who are fed up with the crappy defensive systems or schemes.

Lepisto was a guy I thought would play more regularly here.

Over the last two seasons his numbers weren't bad.

2009-10 66 games played in Phoenix and was +14

2010-11 split between Phoenix and Columbus 70 games +10

Q has only put him in 11 games this season yet John Scott has played in 22 games.

Everyone knew Montador was a good defender if kept within his limits and TOI kept lower towards a 3rd pairing.. Thats not happening.

O'Donnell was supposed to be no more than a 7th dman.. He's playing to much

Brunette has played 80 games a season for the last 10 years!! always scoring more than 18 goals.. This team is to fast for him. Thats a little on Bowman and Q.

Bowman should have known he couldn't keep up with the speed this team plays at but at the same time. It may be time to slow this team down a bit and play a safer style of game. Q wont do that.

Mayers has been fine IMO.
- pri$ey

Yes.

And I mentioned this on an earlier thread, that Lepisto in half as many games as Scott has almost as much total TOI! So obviously when Lepisto plays Q has the confidence to play him more than he does Scott, why does Scott get twice as many starts?

I don't necessarily think Lepisto is the answer, but the fact that 2/3 of the way into the season I don't know for a fact whether he is or not is inexcusable.

It's F'd up.

And that usually starts with winning more faceoffs than you lose.
- RickJ

As a team the Blackhawks are 6th in the league when it comes to faceoff percentage.

Clearly this isn't the problem.

So JJ reads the 300 Level.

http://300level.net/board...?f=3&t=347&p=28366#p28366

http://300level.net/?p=3243

I suggest you read more of the stuff at bleacherreport.com and decide then whether you want your credibility attached to it. Their latest 9 Hawk trade proposals is a real doozy. Ranks up there with the 50 toughest NHL players of all time— that included 22 Hawks like Chris Chelios and Stan Mikita. But not for example a guy like Tiger Williams, among many others.

Emery had his issues. He seems to have grown through adversity. Crawford might too. A lot of these kids, Canadian and American, are spoiled and immature. As are a lot of kids period.
- John Jaeckel

"Then he became a locker room cancer, mediocre goalie and sustained a huge hip injury, an important body part of goalies."
source: http://housethatglanville...-chris-therien-bobby.html

"Ray Emery Fights Team Trainer in Russian League"
http://www.allhabs.net/un...rainer-in-russian-league/

"The words ‘pariah' and ‘bad teammate' were being thrown around by many of the same people that described him as ‘colourful' and ‘a free spirit"
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=292144

"Depending on who you ask, he is either a good teammate or a clubhouse cancer."
http://www.firedforwinning.com/?p=1560

"Murray said. “He’s a good goaltender. He’s a good athlete. He had issues where he tried to do more off the ice than he should have done.”
http://www.csnphilly.com/...&blockID=56999&feedID=717

Well you look for places where locker room dissent and problems have started in the past. There is a reason he hasn't stuck with a team... What does "more off the ice than he should have done" mean? There aren't many times when locker room issues are publicized.

Maybe OD yapped at one of the kids and they got pissy with that so their whole clique got upset and there's a division? Could Bickell, Frolik or Brunette be irritated they have been marginalized or bounced around?

Is Sharp getting irritated the lines change so much again, there were rumors him and Ladd did not see eye to eye? Hossa has said publicly that he prefers consistent line mates...

Lots of places for players to start having issues with coaching staff / other players. Only some have a history with alleged problems and the frequent flyer miles to support that argument.

Love these elite bloggers...and no offense JJ...but when are you guys right? Half the time, the names bandied about are b.s....and Nabokov? PHUCK NO. Isn't he the guy we swept in 4 straight 2 years ago and who San Jose went out and replaced with the first Chicago goalie to win a Cup in 49 years? And you want to take credit for that?

I can see why the players are fed up with the D system. They play a passive system on the pk, 5 on 5 and also on 4 on 4. If you have watched the last couple games that went into OT you can see that they dont attack and almost play a passive box. That has not worked out at all for them as you can see from the past couple OT losses. For example Vancouver, its 4 on 4 why wouldn't you play man on man and put presser on the puck carrier Sedin who sat there in below the goal line just waiting for his brother to find an open spot and sure enough tap in goal. By all means you shouldn't go chasing after him, but you need to put presser on him and not allow him time to create an opportunity. This also comes into play with the hawks PK. Teams seem like they will just pass all around them and the hawks only chance to stop them is if the defense, forward or goalie block the shot. The main problem is that they are thin on defense, there goalies have been below average, and there defense system is not working at all.

As a team the Blackhawks are 6th in the league when it comes to faceoff percentage.

Clearly this isn't the problem.
- HawkFan27

That's a bit skewed cuz Toews is the best in the NHL. But no one else who takes a good amount of faceoffs has been nearly as good....Actually Bolland, Kruger etc are seldom at 50%.

That's a bit skewed cuz Toews is the best in the NHL. But no one else who takes a good amount of faceoffs has been nearly as good....Actually Bolland, Kruger etc are seldom at 50%.
- Al

It isn't skewed though because Toews is part of the team.

I understand what you are trying to say but when you have Toews (who is a stud at the dot) take most of your draws, then overall your team will be doing better. I realize that no one else is that great, but that's why they don't take as many draws as Toews.

If we are complaining about the team not winning enough faceoffs, then you really can't because the Blackhawks are 6th overall as a team. You can complain about a certain player but not when you look at it as a whole.

Mostly what my response was to the person who said that in order to have the puck you have to win faceoffs...well clearly that isn't the issue because the Blackhawks are 6th overall at the dot.

It isn't skewed though because Toews is part of the team.

I understand what you are trying to say but when you have Toews (who is a stud at the dot) take most of your draws, then overall your team will be doing better. I realize that no one else is that great, but that's why they don't take as many draws as Toews.

If we are complaining about the team not winning enough faceoffs, then you really can't because the Blackhawks are 6th overall as a team. You can complain about a certain player but not when you look at it as a whole.
- HawkFan27

I can spin the numbers anyway you want...

If Toews takes 50% of the faceoffs and that s high, and wins 60% that effects the total win % in a big way.

But if the other half of the time players are closer to 40% than 50% it isn't too good.

Lastly I didn't complain about faceoffs but not having anyone on the PK who consitently wins important faceoffs other than Toews is an issue.

Love these elite bloggers...and no offense JJ...but when are you guys right? Half the time, the names bandied about are b.s....and Nabokov? PHUCK NO. Isn't he the guy we swept in 4 straight 2 years ago and who San Jose went out and replaced with the first Chicago goalie to win a Cup in 49 years? And you want to take credit for that?
- philco28

Nabokov's still looking for Buf's game 3 OT winner!

This team all got together and watched the Super Bowl together. I think the main issue were seeing is some of the go to guys are sick of the lack of help the other two lines are providing. How many goals have been scored on this six game losing streak when the big names are not on the ice? That is frustrating and can lead to a lot of frustration on top of the current losing.

If im in the locker room and I see Brunette in the line-up, I shake my head and ask when he is going to retire. The hawks are about speed, he doesnt have any so get him out of the line-up.

I can spin the numbers anyway you want...

If Toews takes 50% of the faceoffs and that s high, and wins 60% that effects the total win % in a big way.

But if the other half of the time players are closer to 40% than 50% it isn't too good.

Lastly I didn't complain about faceoffs but not having anyone on the PK who consitently wins important faceoffs other than Toews is an issue.
- Al

And all that is fine but you have to look at the context of why I posted that.

Someone complained that the Blackhawks don't have the puck because they don't do well at faceoffs.

That is a complaint about the Blackhawks as a team, yet the Blackhawks are 6th overall at the dot as a team.

Clearly as a team, the Blackhawks win plenty of faceoffs.

Ernie Kovisto, may he rest in peace, a somewhat legendary high school basketball coach (and as it happens Doug Wilson's father in law) told me once that defense is 90% getting your ass where it's supposed to be as a play developes. The other 10% is technique. And you can achieve the 90% with simple "want to". The problem with this as it applies to the Hawks is are they correctly coached on where they should be and how much "want to" do they have. IMO, "want to" can be applied to a coachs boot and inserted into players who don't have enough. But that's just me.
- Hal9000y2k

I usually agree, but the lost couple of games the Hawks were trying to play well defensively. I thought their "want to" was fine. It was the fact there's no structure. Whether in the offense, neutral, or defensive zone, I repeatedly see two players both go after the puck carrier at the same time leading to a wide open play/odd man break/back door play.

Even in the defensive zone, when your winger drops way low chasing the puck, the puck gets moved to the point, then you have two forwards rushing to get back to the point, and then its a fire drill from there. It happens sooooooo many times a game. Also, if you watch, its also a common occurrence for two defenseman to be on the same half of the ice in the D zone. That should NEVER EVER happen.

And all that is fine but you have to look at the context of why I posted that.

Someone complained that the Blackhawks don't have the puck because they don't do well at faceoffs.

That is a complaint about the Blackhawks as a team, yet the Blackhawks are 6th overall at the dot as a team.

Clearly as a team, the Blackhawks win plenty of faceoffs.
- HawkFan27

I see where you are coming from but you responded to my post....

Toews is great at the dot so...

They do win plenty of faceoffs 40% of the time or so and they lose the majority of faceoffs the rest of the time by usually a wide margin.

One can argue that's ok and one could say they would be better off with more balance.

I see where you are coming from but you responded to my post....

Toews is great at the dot so...

They do win plenty of faceoffs 40% of the time or so and they lose the majority of faceoffs the rest of the time by usually a wide margin.

One can argue that's ok and one could say they would be better off with more balance.
- Al

Mayers is doing great too...and surprisingly so is Sharp.

There is no point in debating this with you though because we are debating two entirely different points.

I see where you are coming from but you responded to my post....

Toews is great at the dot so...

They do win plenty of faceoffs 40% of the time or so and they lose the majority of faceoffs the rest of the time by usually a wide margin.

One can argue that's ok and one could say they would be better off with more balance.
- Al

Hockey statistics can be massively overvalued. Shots on goal, hits and faceoff % tell a general story but the keepers of those stats in many arenas frequently skew the numbers to the home side.

Faceoffs are very important. Toews is great and the rest of the Hawks mediocre IMO. Where on the ice you win or lose the draw is of even more importance. And the Hawks lose plenty of them in the circle immediately in front of their goaltender, which leads to all kinds of bad things.

Love these elite bloggers...and no offense JJ...but when are you guys right? Half the time, the names bandied about are b.s....and Nabokov? PHUCK NO. Isn't he the guy we swept in 4 straight 2 years ago and who San Jose went out and replaced with the first Chicago goalie to win a Cup in 49 years? And you want to take credit for that?
- philco28

True, we swept the Sharks when he was in net...but looking at his numbers over the last few years, he was a pretty damn good goalie (12W/12L currently this season):
Recent Career
Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO
2008-09 SJ 62 62 3686 41 12 0 8 0 150 2.44 1663 1513 .910 7
2009-10 SJ 71 71 4194 44 16 0 10 2 170 2.43 2168 1998 .922 3

When you are losing its easy to play the name game. Hopefully the TEAM will get back to winning and learn from this experience.

Mayers is doing great too...and surprisingly so is Sharp.

There is no point in debating this with you though because we are debating two entirely different points.
- HawkFan27

I agree and that was my point...Different ways to view the situation.

Hockey statistics can be massively overvalued. Shots on goal, hits and faceoff % tell a general story but the keepers of those stats in many arenas frequently skew the numbers to the home side.

Faceoffs are very important. Toews is great and the rest of the Hawks mediocre IMO. Where on the ice you win or lose the draw is of even more importance. And the Hawks lose plenty of them in the circle immediately in front of their goaltender, which leads to all kinds of bad things.
- RickJ

In this day of overstatification (?what?) I'm surprised face-offs wins / loses aren't broken down by zone. Or at least more readily available if they are kept.

True, we swept the Sharks when he was in net...but looking at his numbers over the last few years, he was a pretty damn good goalie (12W/12L currently this season):
Recent Career
Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO
2008-09 SJ 62 62 3686 41 12 0 8 0 150 2.44 1663 1513 .910 7
2009-10 SJ 71 71 4194 44 16 0 10 2 170 2.43 2168 1998 .922 3
- Murph76

Known for never winning the BIG games when they count. Agree great regular season goalie

So JJ reads the 300 Level.

http://300level.net/board...?f=3&t=347&p=28366#p28366

http://300level.net/?p=3243
- Topher

Or his own thread last night...

I won't comment on all the valid points you made, John, just add a fact.

The players are totally angered and dismayed with their Coach Q.

I will not start taking pot shots at players and their abilities to do the jobs they are paid to do.

But almost the entire line-up is upset with the man on man defensive system that Coach Q refuses to back away from.

If a hawk gets beat in that one to one, it opens the attack as they are not allowed to rotate off.

Maybe the quiet talks from the persons upstairs with the Coach are in fact the higher ups are trying to get him to cahnge things. Maybe the players have decided to try and take their dislike for the system to higher ups, and they are now "letting him know?"

I just know that someone who is a first year Hawk has already let his good friends outside the organization who are working in other NHL organizations that the players are truly unhappy with the scheme.
wiz1901

True, we swept the Sharks when he was in net...but looking at his numbers over the last few years, he was a pretty damn good goalie (12W/12L currently this season):
Recent Career
Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO
2008-09 SJ 62 62 3686 41 12 0 8 0 150 2.44 1663 1513 .910 7
2009-10 SJ 71 71 4194 44 16 0 10 2 170 2.43 2168 1998 .922 3
- Murph76

Stats, smats. The guy gives up bad goals at critical points in the game. Always has, always will. We've had (have?) more than our fair share of those guys in recent years.

Stats, smats. The guy gives up bad goals at critical points in the game. Always has, always will. We've had (have?) more than our fair share of those guys in recent years.
- Hal9000y2k

And the current year....