Aethernum

He got us into the playoffs. That's the same thing Babcock managed to do in his last year with almost an identical roster. He obviously has a lot to learn and I think he is our best option moving forward - he's certainly smarter than anyone on these forums when it comes to hockey decisions, and I trust him to make the right calls. The only thing I found disappointing with Blashill this year was that he didn't seem to show a lot of respect to fans or media who had questions about his coaching decisions. The Andersson/Mantha debate is an excellent example - he told media people who asked that Andersson was being brought up to fill a grinder role on the PK and play physical minutes. Andersson ended up playing only a few minutes per game, and almost none on special teams. Now, if Blashill had come out and said "I want Andersson up because I like his play better than Mantha's" I would have respected that and moved on. I disagree, but I'm not an NHL-caliber coach. Instead, he fed the media some PR-firm line about grit and dismissed the legitimate question with something that obviously wasn't true. If he had pulled the "Because I'm the coach and I say so" card, I honestly wouldn't mind. But at least be honest with people who want to know why things are the way they are. Fans and media deserve that respect from their coach. That being said, I hope he is back next year. The difference between our team's play in Game 2 to Game 3 was entirely due to his being able to capitalize on home ice match-ups. That game showed me, and should have shown everyone, how much his coaching mattered. He still has a lot of room to grow, but I think he can be an extremely valuable strength for this team moving forward, assuming he takes away a lot from this season.

And Andersson less than two minutes total for the game. But he was an important grinder for the team's PK - with his 0:00 on special teams. Definitely couldn't have brought up Mantha in his stead. So are you ignoring the fact that Tatar had the most points for Detroit in the series, or are you just mad and don't care? I get it, it sucks that they lost. But can we at least be reasonable and informed with our criticism?

I agree AND disagree. Nyquist and Tatar need to join them as the focus of the next core. This year they were relegated to secondary scoring roles, and that just doesn't make sense for their styles of play and talent level. Tatar was one of the only two players on the squad to reach 20 goals this season (Larkin being the other). He was tied for third in points in the regular season, and he had the most points for us (albeit only three) in the postseason. He needs to be playing top line minutes. Nyquist is a trickier case, because obviously we know he has the talent to be a top line scorer for us. But something happened to him this season. Based on his last two years of production, I think you have to give him another shot, but with the knowledge in the back of your head that maybe his best seasons were flukes. A core of Nyquist, Tatar, and Glendening providing a bridge between new core members Larkin, AA, and Mantha and older vets Dats, Z, and Abby (yeah I know he's only 29 but still...) is what we need right now. At the moment we're either too young OR too old. It's time to give the young kids a chance, and that includes making Nyquist and Tatar a central part of the plan, not just leftovers. A top six next year of: Larkin, AA, Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Glendening, with Z/Dats/Abby as a third line and whoever else on the fourth line. That will show us who can actually produce when their names are called.

Whoops, I misread the stat sheet. Richards had one point and went -3 - I was looking at Green's two points. That said, Richards had more shots on net than anyone not named Datsyuk. I still don't think his contribution was insufficient for his role - it was our top line that needed to show up. But can we keep the discussion to Mantha? He needs to be full time next year. What are the odds Blashill actually gives him that chance?

Here's the thing: A stupid mental error caused us to give up a chance that ended up going in. Meanwhile, we couldn't find the back of the net. That's how we lost, and that's also our entire season in a nutshell.

The kids played fine, but they never had a chance to make or break this series. I know Blashill is smarter than me when it comes to this stuff, but man, I like our chances if it's our kids against theirs. I guess we wait until next season when that's all we have.

I completely agree with you. I'm just saying Chicago fans won't feel that way. I also think that would apply to early 2000s Detroit.

Agreed, but that won't soothe the anger of bandwagon Blackhawks fans if those contracts start to look as bad as some of ours. The wolves will be a'howling no matter how many Cups they win between now and then. It's $10.5M all the way through; not something that's exactly easy to get rid of. Toews and Kane will be Blackhawks for their entire careers.

In a few years Toews/Kane hit 30 and Keith/Seabrook will be 35, all with another five years on their contracts. We'll see then.

I completely agree. My point, however, was that people generally view Holland/management with disdain because they won't bring in strong depth players like Yandle, Backes, or Lucic. If only we did that, I hear, then we would be cup contenders, and it's only because Bowman and others have the stones to make trades that they're so good. The issue is, we could make the exact same moves that Chicago makes (acquiring the same players, that is) and we still wouldn't be anywhere near their level. Just as, ten years ago, they weren't anywhere near ours. The moves they make in free agency aren't what keep them contenders - it's the two $10.5M contracts that does. Their depth only matters as far as making them contenders because of their top-level guys. Those top-level types of players that you need to truly be competitive for the Cup year in and year out are not the types of players you can get in free agency anymore. There are only a handful of players in today's NHL with that kind of impact - Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane/Toews, Karlsson, Tarasenko, Kopitar, etc. - and whether or not your team has one of those players is almost entirely up to chance and luck of the draft. Nobody knows who those players will be coming out of the draft, once you find out who they are they're locked up with a team for life, and you will almost never see them hit the free agency market. It's all about finding gems in the draft now, and cultivating that talent. Our success/failure has nothing to do with what our management does or doesn't do as far as signing free agents or making trades - it's entirely based on whether we happen to be fortunate enough to have a handful of superstar level players in their prime. Right now, we don't. Chicago does. Give it a few years and I think we will (Larkin/Mrazek) and they won't. So sure, would I love it if we signed some depth guys? You bet. But let's not pretend like we're only one or two minor signings away from a championship here. Unless Stamkos becomes a free agent - and I'd bet almost anything that he doesn't - and we can get him, there isn't an available player in the entire NHL who could make our team competitive right now. And mortgaging our future in the hopes of finding one isn't the path for long-term, sustainable success.

He said it to an official; there's the difference. The league is tasked with keeping officials out-of-bounds for the players, and also with maintaining a pro-family image that sells tickets. This suspension is important in keeping with both of those goals. Yes. I saw it immediately and I'm fairly certain the announcers commented on it, as well.

Sure, they shuffle a lot of players in and out and get replacement depth. But they are competitive year in and year out, no matter who their depth is, because of the common elements that come back year after year, and that's Toews, Keith, and Kane. If you swapped Toews/Kane for Z/Dats, and replaced Kronwall with Keith, our roster would be the hands-down favorite to win the Cup this year. We would have the President's Trophy instead of Washington, and we would have already eliminated Tampa. It's not our depth that is the problem, and it's not Chicago's depth that keeps them successful.

The fact that Shaw was throwing post-game sucker punches probably didn't help his case. The kid is a goon and I'm glad he'll have a comfortable seat from which to watch his team get eliminated.

Alternatively: Ouch. Not that I give the Hawks much chance of a comeback anyway, but Shaw has been huge for them. Suspending a high profile player for the defending champs for an elimination game? This is the NHL sending a league-wide message, loud and clear. I'm all for it - and not just because it hurts Chicago - but I do wish they would show these guts consistently (see: Duncan Keith). Still, credit where credit is due. Huge statement by the NHL.

Call it lucky flukes, call it a champion's instinct...Chicago always gets goals like that when they need them. I hate it.

I would be (pleasantly) surprised if they can string two efforts in a row as good as the last one. But I also don't think they need it in order to win - use the matchups we like and play largely mistake-free, and I see this being a close game that we can win. If we tie them up 2-2 and Abby keeps doing what he has been doing, we'll be in their heads in a powerful way. I think tonight's game may decide the series.

I said from the beginning this would be a fast series for the Caps. The only question would be how many players they lose to Philly's boneheaded and dirty hits. Looks like that's panning out exactly as planned.

How great would it be if the LA Kings AND Blackhawks were knocked out of the first round?

Take care of the future, and the future will take care of the present.

I am confused on this point, too. I always thought it was the team with the most points played the team with the fewest points - so in your scenario we would play Washington. However, with the NHL Bracket Challenge thing going on, it has us playing the winner of the Islanders/Florida series no matter what. Then we would play the winner of Pens/Washington.

Wouldn't surprise me if he only plays a few minutes in the third. We will probably be seeing a lot of Glendening, Helm, Shehean, and the defensive forwards to try and protect the lead. I wouldn't disagree with that approach, either. Keep some pressure on, obviously, but don't make any dumb mistakes. Then give AA 15 minutes next game.

That's what it was all about. He knew there was no interference.

If we can go into the intermission with the lead, I'll be cautiously optimistic. A few games ago, I made a comment about this team not playing to its strengths. We were trying to get physical instead of exploiting our speed and skill, especially in the younger players. That wasn't our game, but now it seems like they're committed to imposing their will on Tampa and making this the fast-paced, skill-based game that we can win. I'm glad. That said, to only be up 1-0 with all the chances we've had is still concerning. Our style of hockey requires the ability to finish, and right now there's a lot of hesitancy to step up and fill that role. --- I wrote that and was about to hit post when Z scored. HAH! Go Zetterbeard! This should count.

Those players wouldn't produce much offense anyway. Their top line is the difference in this series. Take them out of the equation and who we have left outscores who they have left. I understand the frustration with the strategy - it would be great if we had a top line with grit and scoring ability - but Game Two showed us that we do not and that we have to try something new.

Mrazek starting. That was said earlier but ESPN confirms it.