Shane Doan?

[PatrickShart]

Lou is not the missing link.



The Hawks played poor defense last year. Plus they lacked a physical game (Last in the league in total hits and just overall lack of physicality) that could compete and our forecheck was awful. Our special teams were very poor (mainly the PP). Luongo is not going to fix any of those 3 problems.

Played poor defense?

Hawks ranked 8th in shots against per game.

Hawks goaltending was 26th in the league. Only better than TOR, NYI, CLB, and TB goaltending. If the save percentage was simply average...the Hawks GAA would move into the top 10.



Great defense is still going to have shots/scoring chances against. Goaltending has to at least be average before the defense gets ripped.



PP/PK...was bad last year, for sure.



Forecheck was poor? They're 7th in SOG. SO top 7 in that...top 8 in shots against. Seems they're spending a bit of time in the other teams zone.



Physical play? Added Bollig, Shaw, Hayes, Brookbank for a full year. Hopefully Montador comes back healthy. That's improved the physical play.



I would say with a team you alleged played poor defense with no forecheck/physicality....but a shitty pp/pk. pathetic goaltending, lost it's captain for 25% of the season, had a 9gm losing streak....still somehow managed 101pts isn't a bad thing.

 

[Ashor-redtribe]

Lou is not the missing link.



The Hawks played poor defense last year. Plus they lacked a physical game (Last in the league in total hits and just overall lack of physicality) that could compete and our forecheck was awful. Our special teams were very poor (mainly the PP). Luongo is not going to fix any of those 3 problems.

Im not saying we don't need to address other issues on the team, but after winning the cup, the projected window to make it back was two years after winning it, we are now going into year three and does not seem anything was addressed from last year, we can not just plug in a one year 40 year old players in hopes to get there. But it seems like teams that are making a deep run are building from the net on. BUt hey we shall see, If this year is a failure, just keep in mind, that another year is waisted from the cores contract in Chicago. Everyone was saying from when we won the cup that this team will win another two or three before its all said and done........but more realisticly it seems like a one and done group unless Rockey and hopfully he has some sort of advisors that look out for him and say ummmm, something smells like shit and we need to get rid of it I think we all know how that is.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Played poor defense?

Hawks ranked 8th in shots against per game.

Hawks goaltending was 26th in the league. Only better than TOR, NYI, CLB, and TB goaltending. If the save percentage was simply average...the Hawks GAA would move into the top 10.



Great defense is still going to have shots/scoring chances against. Goaltending has to at least be average before the defense gets ripped.



PP/PK...was bad last year, for sure.



Forecheck was poor? They're 7th in SOG. SO top 7 in that...top 8 in shots against. Seems they're spending a bit of time in the other teams zone.



Physical play? Added Bollig, Shaw, Hayes, Brookbank for a full year. Hopefully Montador comes back healthy. That's improved the physical play.



I would say with a team you alleged played poor defense with no forecheck/physicality....but a shitty pp/pk. pathetic goaltending, lost it's captain for 25% of the season, had a 9gm losing streak....still somehow managed 101pts isn't a bad thing.

Here's the part where stats don't come into play. Did you watch any games? Did you not see the quality of shots against the opposition had? These weren't shots from the top of the circles, these were inside the "house" untouched, easy looks. Just because we were 8th in the league at shots against, doesn't mean that out of the 28.6 a game that 15 of them weren't quality scoring opportunities. There were plenty of games where you could say out of the 29 shots 20 of them were inside the "house".



I will not disagree that Crawford and Emery had awful games, no doubt, but some games they were left out to dry.



I was wrong on the forecheck, I was thinking in terms of being physical (1st man body, 2nd man puck). Strike that from the record.



Physical play is obviously improved but needs to be there game in and game out.



A better effort from the entire team to defensive play and I think the Hawks would be top contenders, just too many poor decisions were made. Goalies need to be better, but there were plenty of times where you could be Patrick Roy in his prime in net, and he'd still be trying to stand on his head.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

PMX here are 4 of those goals:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kGp87Hxj4&feature=relmfu[/youtube]



1)Bad rebound from Emery (he was screened though). Bad job by Seabs to tie up his guy.

2)Where's Leddy. Nice job by Bolland at tying up his guy.

3)Leddy with a terrible job of tying up THE BEST GOAL SCORER IN THE LEAGUE!

4)PP goal, can't say Seabs was in the best position as him and Hammer took the same guy.

5)With Lepisto pinching, Sharp needed to hang back a bit more. No way Emery had a chance on that.



There's 5 goals that IMO, Emery had zero chance on.



Incase you wanted more proof:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkJl0-xiCs&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

1)PP goal, Brown inside the slot, untouched. No way Crawford has a chance.

2)PP goal, yet Seabs let's his guy go right by with the rebound goal.

3 Breakaway goal. Nice job

4)Frolik is way too deep in his own zone. Seabs and a King are both screening Crawford. Tough goal.



None of those were "soft goals". Poor positioning for sure on the Hawks skaters though.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Because I can:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oHZlkpjl0&feature=relmfu[/youtube]



1)Crawford stopped the first shot, in his pads which is tough to cover up, and it's rebound goal (Hammer is watching it by the way).

2)O'Donnell watching the play instead of his guy who is left all alone behind him with an empty net (blocked shot redirection to him).

3)PP, Crawford is screened.

4)Where's the center or Frolik for that matter. Back door goal.

5) Crawford is down probably the softest goal out of any of the ones I've review in this thread. Then again, it was a goal mouth scramble.



Again, 1 soft goal out of how many I just reviewed?

 

[PatrickShart]

Ok...you picked 5 out of how many ga? I bet you can do that for e try single team in the league...so every team needs to get better defensively.



I bet i can find 50 saves last year on those exact plays by goalies that aren't on any highlight film....because the goalie makes the save.



Just like you can probably find 20+ weak ass goals that went in vs hawks goaltending

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Ok...you picked 5 out of how many ga? I bet you can do that for e try single team in the league...so every team needs to get better defensively.



I bet i can find 50 saves last year on those exact plays by goalies that aren't on any highlight film....because the goalie makes the save.



Just like you can probably find 20+ weak ass goals that went in vs hawks goaltending

No, I found 15 goals. One of which I would blame on the goaltenders. I saw about 9-10 that were poor defensive plays that are just common sense (finding an open guy, tying him up) that could of easily been avoided.



The thing is, you are not wrong on saying the goalies let in softies, but I'm not wrong either on saying our in zone play fucking sucked. I'm not trying to say one of us is more right than the other, but that it wasn't just our goaltending that let us down as you were implying with the stats.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

PMX here are 4 of those goals:



[media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kGp87Hxj4&feature=relmfu[/media[/media]]



1)Bad rebound from Emery (he was screened though). Bad job by Seabs to tie up his guy.

2)Where's Leddy. Nice job by Bolland at tying up his guy.

3)Leddy with a terrible job of tying up THE BEST GOAL SCORER IN THE LEAGUE!

4)PP goal, can't say Seabs was in the best position as him and Hammer took the same guy.

5)With Lepisto pinching, Sharp needed to hang back a bit more. No way Emery had a chance on that.



There's 5 goals that IMO, Emery had zero chance on.



Incase you wanted more proof:

[media][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkJl0-xiCs&feature=relmfu[/media[/media]]

1)PP goal, Brown inside the slot, untouched. No way Crawford has a chance.

2)PP goal, yet Seabs let's his guy go right by with the rebound goal.

3 Breakaway goal. Nice job

4)Frolik is way too deep in his own zone. Seabs and a King are both screening Crawford. Tough goal.



None of those were "soft goals". Poor positioning for sure on the Hawks skaters though.

Not to nitpick (ok I guess I am) but Frolik had very very little to do with that GA.

 

[R K]

No, I found 15 goals. One of which I would blame on the goaltenders. I saw about 9-10 that were poor defensive plays that are just common sense (finding an open guy, tying him up) that could of easily been avoided.



The thing is, you are not wrong on saying the goalies let in softies, but I'm not wrong either on saying our in zone play fucking sucked. I'm not trying to say one of us is more right than the other, but that it wasn't just our goaltending that let us down as you were implying with the stats.

Your on Crack. I can find you 15 soft goals that led to deflating the team. Two of those were in OT during the Playoffs. It was a combination at times but Cory was NOT good for a majority of the season. To defend him is assinine. Why did the team play more confident in front of Emery, explain that one..

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Your on Crack. I can find you 15 soft goals that led to deflating the team. Two of those were in OT during the Playoffs. It was a combination at times but Cory was NOT good for a majority of the season. To defend him is assinine. Why did the team play more confident in front of Emery, explain that one..

I believe thats subjective.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Your on Crack. I can find you 15 soft goals that led to deflating the team. Two of those were in OT during the Playoffs. It was a combination at times but Cory was NOT good for a majority of the season. To defend him is assinine. Why did the team play more confident in front of Emery, explain that one..

Read what I posted before you start making assumptions. Had you read the entire post and not just the bolded part you'd see that I wasn't disagreeing with PMX at all. I was further proving my point that our defense was not the greatest either in their own zone. Crawford did let in soft goals, but he also let in goals that he had ZERO chance on because our defense didn't do THEIR job. It's a two-way street, and nobody is being let off the hook IMO. The quality of shots he faced (as I've shown in a few examples above) are on the defense (Brown's walk in goal is a key example). Better defense=Less Quality shots. Poor Defense=Better quality shots. So just because the Hawks only gave up 28 shots a game does not mean they were all bad quality shots and Corey let in all bad ones (which was being implied by PMX stats post).

 

[R K]

Thanks for teaching me how to read Trev. You blamed the team defense more than you did the goalie. You can't play both sides here. Well you can but your argument is blown to shit if you do. Far too many soft goals went through, which makes your "quality shots" argument go to shit. And in fact there is a "shot stat" out there Eruns had that disagrees with your assesment completely.



You'd think no one knew what "quality shots" were and we all started watching the game yesterday. You can throw all the examples you want out there, those two home playoff games, which ended in OT, in SOFT GOALS says not a fucking chance.

 

[R K]

Heres some great Qaulity shots alright...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C01V7UPr_w



although a breakaway another "Quality Shot"...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCEK7QR8th4

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Thanks for teaching me how to read Trev. You blamed the team defense more than you did the goalie. You can't play both sides here. Well you can but your argument is blown to shit if you do. Far too many soft goals went through, which makes your "quality shots" argument go to shit. And in fact there is a "shot stat" out there Eruns had that disagrees with your assesment completely.



You'd think no one knew what "quality shots" were and we all started watching the game yesterday. You can throw all the examples you want out there, those two home playoff games, which ended in OT, in SOFT GOALS says not a fucking chance.

lol, I'm going to repeat myself again and then I'm done.



The goaltenders did let it some soft goals this season, quite a few. The defense also played pretty poorly in their own zone. To put all the blame on the goaltenders is idiotic.

 

[Variable]

Well imagine if they faced just the league average amount of shots per game. How would they have looked then? Somebody was doing something right on defense for them to face below the average. Crawford himself faced less shots per game this year than he did in his better rookie year, and even during that season, he faced again below the average shots per game. And both those teams finished in top 6 of goals scored. It usually doesn't get better, it's upside down what's happened with him going on from last season and he's on the ugly side of it, where the case is leaning more towards the aberration being his rookie year performance, and this last year's performance being more of what he really is.

 

[EspoForever]

Well imagine if they faced just the league average amount of shots per game. How would they have looked then? Somebody was doing something right on defense for them to face below the average. Crawford himself faced less shots per game this year than he did in his better rookie year, and even during that season, he faced again below the average shots per game. And both those teams finished in top 6 of goals scored. It usually doesn't get better, it's upside down what's happened with him going on from last season and he's on the ugly side of it, where the case is leaning more towards the aberration being his rookie year performance, and this last year's performance being more of what he really is.

Our goaltending was not great last year, but I have to say I'm in the camp that believes our problems were a 6-man effort.



I am not sure if stats exist for this, but from having watched the games the last couple years, I would be willing to bet that the number of HIGH QUALITY chances our goalies faced was not below average. Save pct is not always the measure of who well a goalie played.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Well imagine if they faced just the league average amount of shots per game. How would they have looked then? Somebody was doing something right on defense for them to face below the average. Crawford himself faced less shots per game this year than he did in his better rookie year, and even during that season, he faced again below the average shots per game. And both those teams finished in top 6 of goals scored. It usually doesn't get better, it's upside down what's happened with him going on from last season and he's on the ugly side of it, where the case is leaning more towards the aberration being his rookie year performance, and this last year's performance being more of what he really is.

Believe it or not I'm not sold on Crawford. Last season though I saw poor defensive play as well as crappy goals. It was not as if our defense was best in the league with in zone play.



The only stance that I am disagreeing with was that it Crawfords fault. Yes, he had some awful games, but he also was left out to dry by his defenses poor positioning and lack of clearing rebounds.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Our goaltending was not great last year, but I have to say I'm in the camp that believes our problems were a 6-man effort.



I am not sure if stats exist for this, but from having watched the games the last couple years, I would be willing to bet that the number of HIGH QUALITY chances our goalies faced was not below average. Save pct is not always the measure of who well a goalie played.

I'd be interested in what other goalies like Espo thought. Ton? Klem? Phranck?

 

[R K]

lol, I'm going to repeat myself again and then I'm done.



The goaltenders did let it some soft goals this season, quite a few. The defense also played pretty poorly in their own zone. To put all the blame on the goaltenders is idiotic.

No body is blaming the goalie except the equater guy. Most are saying there are better options than Crawford. Lou is a better goalie. Both in stats and in play.



I defended Crawford all year. But it got to the point where he deflated the team in front of him, IE the being or seeming to be more comfortable in front of Emery. You can put it on the D if you like but I think that's wrong.



Notice the score here 1-1... From here on they got their ass kicked.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWTCpK2PtsM[/media]

 

[Variable]

Our goaltending was not great last year, but I have to say I'm in the camp that believes our problems were a 6-man effort.



I am not sure if stats exist for this, but from having watched the games the last couple years, I would be willing to bet that the number of HIGH QUALITY chances our goalies faced was not below average. Save pct is not always the measure of who well a goalie played.

It exists, and it's been debunked. There have been studies on shot quality, and it looks to be, at even strength, virtually no different if you were to put any goalie on any random team. Some blogger did a study which I can only imagine how long it took him and how mind numbing it was. He collected the data of every goalie for a 10 year period and narrowed it down to goalies who played for the same team 2 years in a row and those who played on different teams each year. Long story short (and here's the link if you want to see all the details http://vhockey.blogs...ty-fantasy.html) it was concluded that those starting goalies showed little to no difference when it comes to save percentages and expected goals. The differences were miniscule, amounting to something like 1-2 goals a year.



So even strength, year to year, hardly a difference when it comes to shot quality, throw it out the window. The penalty kill is what hurt the Hawks obviously, but even looking at that, and I know this flies in the face of the rock solid belief of a league wide conspiracy that the refs have against the Hawks for going on decades now, they were the second least penalized team in the NHL the last 2 seasons in a row. So it's not like Crawford was taxed with having to face more penalties than usual on a game to game basis, which of course could affect his numbers and the entire team's play, it's not like the Hawks were always fighting the refs but last year it was actually the exact opposite of the same old bullshit story everyone likes complain about of Hawks vs the World. Last season they were 11th in the league in power plays given while being the 2nd least penalized team for the second year running. Crawford had more of a luxury and upper-hand than nearly every other goalie in playing for a team that didn't take a lot of penalties and had more than their share of chances against the other team's PK.



Combine that with being on a high scoring team who regularly outshot the other team and you're getting to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to using the team as a fall guy for Crawford. I always say the goalie gets too much blame or too much credit, with exceptions for both. And Crawford is looking to be one of those exceptions.