Theo Fox: Deferred Payout A summary of the Blackhawks 5th consecutive loss to start the season as the Canucks downed them 4-1 on Patrick Kane's postponed 1,000 game celebration.

Plus, thoughts on Seth Jones, Mike Hardman's roster spot, and the IceHogs starting goalies for this weekend's matches vs the Wild.

good blog Theo. I like your use of clips as well. Keep i up.

If you’re convinced this is on the players and not the coach then what does that say about the GM and the roster he’s assembled? Must be pretty awful to be winless with hardly any 5v5 goals and never once holding a lead…

So either the coach/system isn’t working.

Or the GM has assembled such a pathetic roster that it doesn’t even matter who coaches.

Either way someone needs to go.

IMO the roster/talent is underachieving. We should be MUCH better than what we show on the ice. This roster should be capable of making the playoffs. And if you think otherwise then I’d expect you to be extremely unhappy with our GM/front office.

Well the irony is hearing JC in the presser talk about how you can't give up a goal that easily, the 2nd goal against, yet he continues to play this moronic system where 3 guys go to the boards, Toews follows Hughes along the blue line, 19s stick is no where near the shooting lane, There is no kind of defensive pressure on the puck because its at center ice, then you have deHaan not taking away the stick of the guy who's in front of the net? These are all coaching points, if you give up 4 points a game you can't win in this league, but you're just stuck on offense, what are you JCs cousin
- BetweenTheDots


I said he should be fired, or did I type that in a language that you do not understand. So if Toews stick is no where near the shooting lane, Is that a system problem, or a mistake by the Hawk player, because you are insinuating that he was in position to get his stick in the shooting lane. Same with deHaan's stick. Yes they are coaching points, but probably more so execution by the players failure.

The logical decision here is to remove JC with a veteran coach who can play a common sense D zone system. Problem is Stan placed all his chips in the JC basket after removing Q. I don't really see a change coming since Stan is on the hook as well. JC has no business coaching an NHL team. None!!!!

Well the irony is hearing JC in the presser talk about how you can't give up a goal that easily, the 2nd goal against, yet he continues to play this moronic system where 3 guys go to the boards, Toews follows Hughes along the blue line, 19s stick is no where near the shooting lane, There is no kind of defensive pressure on the puck because its at center ice, then you have deHaan not taking away the stick of the guy who's in front of the net? These are all coaching points, if you give up 4 points a game you can't win in this league, but you're just stuck on offense, what are you JCs cousin
- BetweenTheDots


I said he should be fired, or did I type that in a language that you do not understand. So if Toews stick is no where near the shooting lane, Is that a system problem, or a mistake by the Hawk player, because you are insinuating that he was in position to get his stick in the shooting lane. Same with deHaan's stick. Yes they are coaching points, but probably more so execution by the players failure.
- LAHawk

I am all in for executing Dylan Strome.

Have to agree despite your abundance of exclamation points. A vanilla zone defense would look better than this experiment.

A good coach could turn our average stay at home guys into something actually somewhat stifling. Murphy de Haan McCabe and Stillman are all D zone guys who occasionally swim in the deep end as the coach pops another Excedrin. We could utilize them well and have forwards do most of the breakout heavy lifting. Why Colliton refuses to alter his setup is simply baffling.

* Dylan Strome's hooking penalty on Jack Rathbone was a good example of a lower-than-needed compete level as he stopped moving his feet and water skiied to keep up with the puck handler.

I noticed this as well Theo, and that can’t happen. He stopped skating and reached for the puck handler 200’ away from his goal, I’ve seen enough, he doesn’t get it. I know that Strome gets beat up on this board, but that example is one of the reasons as to why.

Shouldn’t defensemen “protect the net” in the D zone instead of chasing forwards all the way up to the blue line?

Seen it multiple times in every game this season ….

If that happens on my kids team that player would get benched….

Yet it’s coached for this team, it seems….

Exhale….

Have to agree despite your abundance of exclamation points. A vanilla zone defense would look better than this experiment.

A good coach could turn our average stay at home guys into something actually somewhat stifling. Murphy de Haan McCabe and Stillman are all D zone guys who occasionally swim in the deep end as the coach pops another Excedrin. We could utilize them well and have forwards do most of the breakout heavy lifting. Why Colliton refuses to alter his setup is simply baffling.
- ObeseOprah

Yeah, they need to examine closely why the PK is working so well (um...forced zone approach) yet the whole thing descends into chaos and confusion when that 5th player is added back into the mix.

That is Strome’s modus operandi. Get close enough where the blade of your stick can touch the other player. But slow down or stop skating instead of getting any closer or God forbid make physical contact.

Yeah, they need to examine closely why the PK is working so well (um...forced zone approach) yet the whole thing descends into chaos and confusion when that 5th player is added back into the mix.
- pdx2ord

PK success is due to small sample size. They will revert to the norm.

Yeah, they need to examine closely why the PK is working so well (um...forced zone approach) yet the whole thing descends into chaos and confusion when that 5th player is added back into the mix.
- pdx2ord

That chaos and confusion gave up three high danger scoring chances the whole game. And a low number the night before.

Hopefully these numbers mean something in all the games, not just those that they make the team or the coach look bad.

PK success is due to small sample size. They will revert to the norm.
- Ztra

As will all aspects of the game.

I know no one will take post seriously, but to me it almost seems like the players are purposely making mistakes, not catching passes cleanly, and shooting wide of the net all the time. Tell me these guys forgot how to play the game they have been playing their entire lives?

That chaos and confusion gave up three high danger scoring chances the whole game. And a low number the night before.

Hopefully these numbers mean something in all the games, not just those that they make the team or the coach look bad.
- mohel

Geez Mohel, you mean players make mistakes?, Or heaven sakes the opposing team makes a good play? Or has better players?

Geez Mohel, you mean players make mistakes?, Or heaven sakes the opposing team makes a good play? Or has better players?
- LAHawk

All (so far short year and most of last year), there has been broad concern on this board about the players not seeming to know what they are supposed to be doing in our own end, leading to multiple mistakes and rushes the other way. Has that changed suddenly now that they've had a couple of games' success in holding the other team to fewer high-danger chances? Even though that's true, we're still being outscored quite substantially.

Yes, it's a shared responsibility between players and coaches, but could they not glean some insight from the relative success of the PK in order to somehow simplify the 5-on-5 scheme?

All (so far short year and most of last year), there has been broad concern on this board about the players not seeming to know what they are supposed to be doing in our own end, leading to multiple mistakes and rushes the other way. Has that changed suddenly now that they've had a couple of games' success in holding the other team to fewer high-danger chances? Even though that's true, we're still being outscored quite substantially.

Yes, it's a shared responsibility between players and coaches, but could they not glean some insight from the relative success of the PK in order to somehow simplify the 5-on-5 scheme?
- pdx2ord

Did they change the PK scheme from last year? I believe it was second worst last year. Or change the personnel around? No Keith, Kampf, Carpenter rarely on the PK from last year.

And, while I'm thinking of the sub-posts (of the nature of a sub-tweet) on the last blog:

It's quite possible to both believe that a player, regardless of stature, should have to take responsibility for their lapses or their poor play

AND

Worry that, depending on who the player is and how strongly he reacts, it could have a detrimental effect on the locker room dynamics

People and situations are multi-dimensional and worrying only about their play on the ice fails to recognize that fact.

Geez Mohel, you mean players make mistakes?, Or heaven sakes the opposing team makes a good play? Or has better players?
- LAHawk

It's been known to happen!

Careful, we're both going to be accused of writing that the coach has never done anything wrong.

Shouldn’t defensemen “protect the net” in the D zone instead of chasing forwards all the way up to the blue line?

Seen it multiple times in every game this season ….

If that happens on my kids team that player would get benched….

Yet it’s coached for this team, it seems….

Exhale….
- mike7076

Here is the issue (or one of them). This ridiculous "man and 1/2 on man" or whatever he calls it that JC seems to want to stick to regardless of the results leads to several problems. First off, as we have seen over JC's tenure, the defensive breakdowns and high danger chances consistently allowed are not conducive to a winning team. Whether the system just outright sucks, the players can't grasp or execute it, or a combination of all of the above, it doesn't matter, it's not working consistently.

Secondly, and maybe more important thru the first few games of this season, that even if the system is working on the defensive side and limiting chances like it has the last 2 games, it is also serving to stifle the offensive side of the game.

I think the reason is that the man-to-man chasing by everyone on the ice, means that when pucks are retrieved, players are no longer in desired spots to execute good breakouts and transition. It means wingers are not in traditional areas to receive passes, they are receiving passes on the backhand side instead of forehand side (hence as someone said previously so many passes being mis-handled), being forced to make passes backhanded because of it, etc. All of these things lead to poor transition and poor 5-on-5 structure and pressure.

Scrap the system. Go back to the vanilla d-zone coverage that everyone has more or less been playing since they were mites. Once they build some consistency in coverage and generate offensive pressure you can add wrinkles.

I know no one will take post seriously, but to me it almost seems like the players are purposely making mistakes, not catching passes cleanly, and shooting wide of the net all the time. Tell me these guys forgot how to play the game they have been playing their entire lives?
- powerenforcer

Sorry PE, no way in hell are any of them doing that intentionally. If the vets on this Team like Kane and Toews want JC fired all they need to do is go to management and say get this fool out of here.

I am all in for executing Dylan Strome.
- RickJ

I have to admit he's so soft, he's a healthy scratch last year, can't get on the ice this year, finally gets a chance to play and he does his patented move on the forecheck where he's headed at the puck carrier and peels off at the last minute to intercept a pass along the boards that never happens. So (frank)ing soft, i guess he doesn't really want to play.

All (so far short year and most of last year), there has been broad concern on this board about the players not seeming to know what they are supposed to be doing in our own end, leading to multiple mistakes and rushes the other way. Has that changed suddenly now that they've had a couple of games' success in holding the other team to fewer high-danger chances? Even though that's true, we're still being outscored quite substantially.

Yes, it's a shared responsibility between players and coaches, but could they not glean some insight from the relative success of the PK in order to somehow simplify the 5-on-5 scheme?
- pdx2ord

Could be. Maybe the herd mentality of "the coach is an idiot" is overblown. You say that the players don't know where to be, yet for a couple straight games the results suggest that they do know where to be. Do we ignore these "inconvenient" facts? Maybe the real question should be "if they can limit high danger scoring chance for a couple games, why doesn't it happen much more often"? Maybe the "players don't know where to be" is excuse making?

Did they change the PK scheme from last year? I believe it was second worst last year. Or change the personnel around? No Keith, Kampf, Carpenter rarely on the PK from last year.
- LAHawk

Nah, seems like the same scheme. Small sample size so far. It will regress to the norm soon enough. I think at the end of last year and to start this year they have guys like Dach, ADB, Hagel who do a good job of hustling and pressuring the puck. The bad habit of being passive and pulling 4 guys back below the dots and/or letting the other team establish a presence down low is still there. Just a matter of time before they give up a few.