For what it's worth, with Stalberg's speed I would try and spread the offense around even more to create match-up problems:

10-19-25
29-36-88
65-26-81
20-16-67

If your top 3 lines get about 50 minutes combined, that likely means 20-25 minutes of Toews, Kane/Sharp or Hossa on the ice without Chara/Bergeron.
- andru2797

Fixed. The 10-19-25 line was really good last season before Toews got hurt

Hanging your hat on Carcillo...

Might as well just hang yourself instead if you think he's any sort of answer. Hoping he'll do anything effective against the Bruins is an insult to the Bruins. Matt Cooke is twice the hockey player #13 is and he didn't exactly work wonders for the Penguins, did he?

But beyond just ripping Carcillo (which is old hat by now), my point is any player can play tough. It's nothing more than a decision that a player has to make. If the Hawks aren't making that commitment, adding in a guy who's a legitimate liability on the ice (for the 6 minutes or less that he usually plays) is not going to help. Everyone needs to step up.
- AceRatbang

Yeah, still gladhanding yourself over how great a job your hero Stanley did constructing a playoff team?

Any player can play tough? No. Wrong. Completely. I'll taker a hit from a guy who weighs 175 over a guy who weighs 225 ANY DAY of the week. Motivation enters into it somewhat, but . . .

Yeah, still gladhanding yourself over how great a job your hero Stanley did constructing a playoff team?

Any player can play tough? No. Wrong. Completely. I'll taker a hit from a guy who weighs 175 over a guy who weighs 225 ANY DAY of the week. Motivation enters into it somewhat, but . . .
- John Jaeckel

Spot on. Have to have a credible answer for the Lucic's of the world. Who is that on the Hawks' top six today?

Oh that's right - can't hit what you can't catch.

Stalberg IN tonight
- FourFeathers773

he better deliver

Yeah, still gladhanding yourself over how great a job your hero Stanley did constructing a playoff team?

Any player can play tough? No. Wrong. Completely. I'll taker a hit from a guy who weighs 175 over a guy who weighs 225 ANY DAY of the week. Motivation enters into it somewhat, but . . .
- John Jaeckel

Playing tough is more mental than physical. I'll take a Stalberg hit over a Shaw hit any day of the week.

Which is to say I agree with the bolded comment above.

What time did the game actually end, 11:20 Eastern?
- John Jaeckel

I would say 11:27 but then I win. I would not do that!

Spot on. Have to have a credible answer for the Lucic's of the world. Who is that on the Hawks' top six today?

Oh that's right - can't hit what you can't catch.
- Return of the Roar

Lucic is so far and away the best power forward in the NHL it makes no sense to say the Hawks don't have a guy that can answer that.

You and I, along with roughly 50% of the regulars here were begging for two physical type players at the TDL. What's going on in the series isn't a shock.
- Beaver-Warrior

This is not so much directed at you but just in general, but can we leave the narratives carried into the playoffs from the regular season and actually analyze what is happening on the ice? There were a lot of people that acknowledged that the Hawks were not the most physically strong team in the NHL. But...

A) After Game 1 everyone was happy about the Hawks level of physical play, so its a bit disingenuous to go back after Game 2 and talk about what a big difference the physical play has been between the two teams because Boston got the better of the hitting in Game 2.

B) The Hawks lost Saturday because they scored one goal in regulation. They didn't lose because they were ran out of the building by the big, mean Bruins. Were there turnovers created from their tough forecheck? Sure. Was that the reason the lost the game? No. For all of these turnovers the Hawks defensemen were scared into, they allowed one goal in regulation. Is Boston more physical than the Hawks? Absolutely. Will that wear the Hawks down and impact the backend of the series? Probably. But its not necessary to push this physical narrative on what has happened so far in this series just because it was something a lot of people were concerned about two months ago. The things aren't mutually exclusive. Every Hawks loss isn't a referendum on team toughness.

C) The stars need to show up. Its not enough anymore for 19 to get by on the all around game. 9 points just isn't good enough. 88 can't show up every other night. Skating him next to 26 is just a killer for 88's game. Put him back with 19, its the only way to get 88 going. 26 is just an anchor on 88 and 10. 26-10-81 is a much better fit, get 88 with linemates that won't slow him down. Regardless though, the stars need to produce. You have to win games where you hold the opposition to one goal.

This series isn't 1-1 because the Hawks didn't trade for the mythical PF people think grow in Jerry Angelo's vineyard with offensive linemen. Its 1-1 because Boston is a good team and the Hawks aren't getting enough impact on the score sheet from the guys getting paid to get on there.

i don't see why you'd hit the panic button with clowncillo right now. you won an epic game 1 and tuukka stole the first period of game 2.

b's might wear themselves out only rolling 3 lines most of the time. they're not used to that. claude's double shifting seguin, kelly, and paille with pevs and skipping thornton and doggy. also, krejci has taken campbell's place with paille on the pk.
- yinzer_nation

I still think that the longer this series goes, the more it benefits the Hawks because of that depth and Boston's extra shifts. That makes it imperative to take at least 1 of the next two games.

Lucic is so far and away the best power forward in the NHL it makes no sense to say the Hawks don't have a guy that can answer that.
- rollpards19

Agreed...28 other teams have no answer for him. The only answer really, is his teammate...Chara.

That said, Montreal contains his impact in the games by having the puck more and by making him skate for it.

My point is if a team like Montreal can beat Boston using their speed advantage, the Hawks, a bigger and more physical team than MTL, should be able to do the same.

This is not so much directed at you but just in general, but can we leave the narratives carried into the playoffs from the regular season and actually analyze what is happening on the ice? There were a lot of people that acknowledged that the Hawks were not the most physically strong team in the NHL. But...

A) After Game 1 everyone was happy about the Hawks level of physical play, so its a bit disingenuous to go back after Game 2 and talk about what a big difference the physical play has been between the two teams because Boston got the better of the hitting in Game 2.

B) The Hawks lost Saturday because they scored one goal in regulation. They didn't lose because they were ran out of the building by the big, mean Bruins. Were there turnovers created from their tough forecheck? Sure. Was that the reason the lost the game? No. For all of these turnovers the Hawks defensemen were scared into, they allowed one goal in regulation. Is Boston more physical than the Hawks? Absolutely. Will that wear the Hawks down and impact the backend of the series? Probably. But its not necessary to push this physical narrative on what has happened so far in this series just because it was something a lot of people were concerned about two months ago. The things aren't mutually exclusive. Every Hawks loss isn't a referendum on team toughness.

C) The stars need to show up. Its not enough anymore for 19 to get by on the all around game. 9 points just isn't good enough. 88 can't show up every other night. Skating him next to 26 is just a killer for 88's game. Put him back with 19, its the only way to get 88 going. 26 is just an anchor on 88 and 10. 26-10-81 is a much better fit, get 88 with linemates that won't slow him down. Regardless though, the stars need to produce. You have to win games where you hold the opposition to one goal.

This series isn't 1-1 because the Hawks didn't trade for the mythical PF people think grow in Jerry Angelo's vineyard with offensive linemen. Its 1-1 because Boston is a good team and the Hawks aren't getting enough impact on the score sheet from the guys getting paid to get on there.
- PhatJoeSki

Great post

Not true - if the goal was allowed to stand (which it should have been if they went to review it), then Rask lost the game in the first.

Think about it, the "in the act to blow the whistle" is the only way a Ref can stand by his bad call. If the league was to review the play and see that the puck crossed the line, even though the Ref didn't call it a goal, they can always say they intended to blow the play dead and there is no discussion about the right or wrong call. It is a joke of a situation that the refs know they have in thir back pocket to screw a team. Why even review a play if the ref blew it dead? Think about the logic. No way any team should allow a ref to use this excuse. Either blow the play dead or don't, but don't come back after the fact and say you were going to blow it dead. It's too late!
- powerenforcer

What's changed in the past few years regarding goal calls in the playoffs? I remember in 2010 the league had said it wanted to make sure all goals (or non-goals) were called properly, regardless of what a ref called or when he blew the whistle. In the Hawks-Sharks series of that year there was a game where a Shark shot seemingly hit the crossbar and bounced out. Play continued for another two minutes before there was a whistle. At the whistle, they looked at replays, saw it was a goal, and not only credited San Jose with the goal but also reset the game clock back to the time that the goal was scored. That shows a lot of dedication to getting the call right no matter what. With all of the disallowed goals this playoff year, is the only difference that the league no longer cares if they get it right? Sounds like bad PR to me.

Agreed...28 other teams have no answer for him. The only answer really, is his teammate...Chara.

That said, Montreal contains his impact in the games by having the puck more and by making him skate for it.

My point is if a team like Montreal can beat Boston using their speed advantage, the Hawks, a bigger and more physical team than MTL, should be able to do the same.
- andru2797

The Hawks have had the puck considerably more than the Bruins so far, difference was they couldn't score the second one when they were annihilating the B's in the first (and the no goal call). When you're outplaying the opposition that much, you need to get some separation so the comedy of errors that was the first goal doesn't force an overtime

This is not so much directed at you but just in general, but can we leave the narratives carried into the playoffs from the regular season and actually analyze what is happening on the ice? There were a lot of people that acknowledged that the Hawks were not the most physically strong team in the NHL. But...

A) After Game 1 everyone was happy about the Hawks level of physical play, so its a bit disingenuous to go back after Game 2 and talk about what a big difference the physical play has been between the two teams because Boston got the better of the hitting in Game 2.

B) The Hawks lost Saturday because they scored one goal in regulation. They didn't lose because they were ran out of the building by the big, mean Bruins. Were there turnovers created from their tough forecheck? Sure. Was that the reason the lost the game? No. For all of these turnovers the Hawks defensemen were scared into, they allowed one goal in regulation. Is Boston more physical than the Hawks? Absolutely. Will that wear the Hawks down and impact the backend of the series? Probably. But its not necessary to push this physical narrative on what has happened so far in this series just because it was something a lot of people were concerned about two months ago. The things aren't mutually exclusive. Every Hawks loss isn't a referendum on team toughness.

C) The stars need to show up. Its not enough anymore for 19 to get by on the all around game. 9 points just isn't good enough. 88 can't show up every other night. Skating him next to 26 is just a killer for 88's game. Put him back with 19, its the only way to get 88 going. 26 is just an anchor on 88 and 10. 26-10-81 is a much better fit, get 88 with linemates that won't slow him down. Regardless though, the stars need to produce. You have to win games where you hold the opposition to one goal.

This series isn't 1-1 because the Hawks didn't trade for the mythical PF people think grow in Jerry Angelo's vineyard with offensive linemen. Its 1-1 because Boston is a good team and the Hawks aren't getting enough impact on the score sheet from the guys getting paid to get on there.
- PhatJoeSki

I'll second (or, third) that!

Lucic is so far and away the best power forward in the NHL it makes no sense to say the Hawks don't have a guy that can answer that.
- rollpards19

He's so damn good. Very jealous...but until this series is over F' him, i know hes big and tough but he can be baited into dumb penalties. Its difficult to do though because most of the time any kind of attack on him just bounces off harmlessly haha

GO HAWKS'

A) After Game 1 everyone was happy about the Hawks level of physical play, so its a bit disingenuous to go back after Game 2 and talk about what a big difference the physical play has been between the two teams because Boston got the better of the hitting in Game 2.

B) The Hawks lost Saturday because they scored one goal in regulation. They didn't lose because they were ran out of the building by the big, mean Bruins. Were there turnovers created from their tough forecheck? Sure. Was that the reason the lost the game? No. For all of these turnovers the Hawks defensemen were scared into, they allowed one goal in regulation. Is Boston more physical than the Hawks? Absolutely. Will that wear the Hawks down and impact the backend of the series? Probably. But its not necessary to push this physical narrative on what has happened so far in this series just because it was something a lot of people were concerned about two months ago. The things aren't mutually exclusive. Every Hawks loss isn't a referendum on team toughness.

C) The stars need to show up. Its not enough anymore for 19 to get by on the all around game. 9 points just isn't good enough. 88 can't show up every other night. Skating him next to 26 is just a killer for 88's game. Put him back with 19, its the only way to get 88 going. 26 is just an anchor on 88 and 10. 26-10-81 is a much better fit, get 88 with linemates that won't slow him down. Regardless though, the stars need to produce. You have to win games where you hold the opposition to one goal.

This series isn't 1-1 because the Hawks didn't trade for the mythical PF people think grow in Jerry Angelo's vineyard with offensive linemen. Its 1-1 because Boston is a good team and the Hawks aren't getting enough impact on the score sheet from the guys getting paid to get on there.
- PhatJoeSki

The problem with your analysis is that you have contradicted yourself. They scored one goal in regulation (which is why they lost) because they got forechecked out of the building for the entire game after period one. This will be a recurrent theme as you admit, wearing them down in the latter games of the series.

It is not about how many goals were not given up in the face of the opponents' forecheck - it is about how many you get in the other team's net.

The stars are failing to produce because they have no physical punch to their game to compliment the skill and speed. This narrative is necessary, because if this series boils down to a simple war of physical attrition, those calling for more of a power game up front will have been correct.

Add to this Al's observation that the withstanding of punishment style of game favors the Bruins.

For those of you who believe in these trends:

Teams winning Game 3 after splitting the first two games of the Final have gone on to win the Stanley Cup 21 of 25 times.

Whoever plays with Hossa and Toews is going to get a ton of minutes, they're the best line and the best 2 forwards. Also, with Sharp's declining defensive play, and Kane's lack of defensive play, its hard to match that line up against Bergeron or Krejci without feeling you're going to get killed. It's a tough spot for Q to be in
- rollpards19

Shaw, Bolland and Saad are also not playing with separated shoulders, as far as we know. Maybe Sharp is seeing fewer minutes because he's in pain and needs to take an occasional shift off.

For those of you who believe in these trends:

Teams winning Game 3 after splitting the first two games of the Final have gone on to win the Stanley Cup 21 of 25 times.
- golfbard

These stats are killing me....the more games you win the better chance you have of winning the Cup, but nothing is guaranteed.

These stats are killing me....the more games you win the better chance you have of winning the Cup, but nothing is guaranteed.
- DarthKane

I know.. The Bruins have bucked a lot of trends that have normally held serve (i.e. going down 0-2 on the road and winning the series).

He's so damn good. Very jealous...but until this series is over F' him, i know hes big and tough but he can be baited into dumb penalties. Its difficult to do though because most of the time any kind of attack on him just bounces off harmlessly haha

GO HAWKS'
- BlazinMike

I don't care how big he is or how hard he checks, someone has to hit back instead of running away from him and I don't see anyone in tonight's lineup with the balls to do it

I don't care how big he is or how hard he checks, someone has to hit back instead of running away from him and I don't see anyone in tonight's lineup with the balls to do it
- Maggie

Sounds like Pronger in 2010. Whether he's too big to knock over or not, you can't be afraid of the guy.

I don't care how big he is or how hard he checks, someone has to hit back instead of running away from him and I don't see anyone in tonight's lineup with the balls to do it
- Maggie

Also are you kidding me that no-one ran Horton on Saturday knowing he was probably one hit away from sitting out the series

The problem with your analysis is that you have contradicted yourself. They scored one goal in regulation (which is why they lost) because they got forechecked out of the building for the entire game after period one. This will be a recurrent theme as you admit, wearing them down in the latter games of the series.

It is not about how many goals were not given up in the face of the opponents' forecheck - it is about how many you get in the other team's net.

The stars are failing to produce because they have no physical punch to their game to compliment the skill and speed. This narrative is necessary, because if this series boils down to a simple war of physical attrition, those calling for more of a power game up front will have been correct.

Add to this Al's observation that the withstanding of punishment style of game favors the Bruins.
- Return of the Roar

I also think simply saying the Bruins won game 2 because of their power game is selling them a little short. That's a skilled team over there as well.

Sounds like Pronger in 2010. Whether he's too big to knock over or not, you can't be afraid of the guy.
- Lash8

One big check from Buff and Pronger disappeared