Our definitions of scoring chances must be different then. I saw plenty of opportunities for the Hawks to dent the net on Monday night. They hit the post three separate times. Yeah, Toews does go to that wrap-around a lot but I fail to see how that's a bad idea when it frequently leads to a mad scramble in front of the net. It's better then skating from behind the net to the edge of the faceoff circle and firing a bad-angle shot. And while you discard the Corsi ratings as a "flawed statistic," the fact that five Detroit players were in double digits on the negative side while five Hawks were double digits on the other end tells me that the Hawks were controlling the puck for large periods of time. Detroit's top defensive pairing were the ones with the worse rating. You really think Detroit's D corps is going to play that much better than their putrid regular season performance for an entire 7-game series? You don't think that sustained possession of the puck is going to lead to more chances and more goals, as it did in Game 1?
Not with the way the Hawks are playing, no. And say what you want about the Wings defense, but right now they are out playing the Hawks forwards, a forward group that has as much skill as anybody in the league. If the Wings are playing a strict defensive scheme and playing a team game, they look pretty damn good. If the Hawks keep playing like they have been, amassing a bunch of low percentage shots while there always seems to be at least three Wings back every time they rush the puck, the percentage of a quality chance diminishes just on numbers alone. You saw for a few minutes in the third how the Hawks tried to open it up, and right there Bab's saw his team couldn't keep up, and that stopped once there was a stoppage. The Hawks got lucky in the first game of this series on account of they played a tired Wings team. After rest and Bab's had the time to install his game plan, the Hawks have looked pathetic. That's all on Q, who never seems to adapt in game and just plays his lines hoping to catch lighting in a bottle every shift instead of making changes on the fly. If Bab's, and he isn't stupid, is the coach dictating how both teams play, and no offense, he has been the last two games, the Hawks wont win. Q doesn't have the intelligence Babcock has and its as clear as day. This will be Q's biggest test to another Cup as I don't see any team outside of the Bruins who could give this team a problem and the problem against the Wings is between Q's ears. Babcock knows how to coach, its as simple as that.
If Detroit does that, I'll tip my cap and congratulate them on a nice series. But forgive me if I'm not exactly terrified of guys like Brendan Smith and Kyle Quincey manning the Wings' blue line.
You don't have to be. I would be more worried about how Babcock utilizes them instead of how they actually play on the ice.
Q's had ONE playoff series against Babcock, and that was with an inferior roster at the time. And, yeah, Babcock is a great coach. I just said that. You're beating a dead horse here.
Babcock is a better coach then Q, end of. Even with a half way stacked team this year Q is puppy dog eyed and over his head against possibly one of the crappiest Dead Things team in a long time. Why? Babcock.
Hawks are "on the ropes" in a 2-1 series? Gimme a break. Win Game 4 and this series is fully in Chicago's favor.
Lose game four, asnd the Hawks are done. On the ropes, indeed.
Yes, even in the playoffs. Superior ability can trump the best coaching performances. That happens in every spot, no matter when the game happens.
Tell that to the Sharks and Habs. Or better yet, tell that to the Hawks and Q, I mean, if that was the case, the team that was almost unbeatable during the regular season should be closing out the series against a mediocre Wings team tomorrow. Why aren't they, again? I mean, if Corsi says they are dominating.....
Roast
