brinoch

he talks about the injuries on the teams the flyers faced, but makes no mention that the flyers were missing their top scorer for all of round two and 3 games of the conference final, and missing simon gagne for a few games in round two. plus the flyers have been playing the entire postseason with backup goalies. he talks about how the teams the flyers played were weak offensively, but makes no mention that the teams the blackhawks beat were weaker defensively (goals against) than the teams the flyers faced. also, it's dumb to say that focusing pronger "and company" on the kane-toews-buff line could be a grave mistake. pronger and carle always play against the other team's top line. if they could play 60 minutes i'm sure they would, but you want your best defensive pairing to go up against the other team's best forwards. timonen and coburn will likely play against the second line most of the time, and some combo of the four will play against the other two lines. krajicek and parent will probably be stapled to the bench for the vast majority of the game. i guess it's a great article if you want to read something written by someone who is clearly rooting for the blackhawks. As Truffle notes, the Flyers have two very good defensive pairings. Their third pairing is fairly suspect and has averaged 18:25 for the playoffs (that includes the plus-up for 3 OT games). Flyer Defense TOI average: Pronger -- 28:48 Carle -- 25:25 Timonen -- 26:34 Coburn -- 24:34 Krajicek -- 10:32 Parent -- 7:53 By comparison, the Hawks kind of roll 3 pairings, but with the extended loss of Johnsson they really play 5 and use Hendry to spell the other Defensemen. Blackhawk Defense TOI average (including 2 OT's): Keith -- 27:52 Seabrook -- 23:49 Campbell -- 19:37 Hjalmarsson -- 21:12 Sopel -- 18:36 Hendry -- 8:15 In terms of TOI for both sets of D-men, note that only Keith spends more TOI than any of the main four Flyers. The Hawks use 1 D-Man on the PP, whereas the Flyers use 2. PHI- Pronger (28:48) CHI- Keith (27:52) PHI- Timonen (26:34) PHI-Carle (25:25) PHI-Coburn (24:34) CHI- Seabrook (23:49) CHI- Hjalmarsson (21:12) CHI- Campbell (19:37) CHI- Sopel (18:36) (Edit: I calculated this all out and then just found it in an article posted while I wrote the post. Bastards.) Basically, the Flyers keep their top two pairings on the ice a whole lot. This is one key reason that they absolutely will not steam up and down the ice -- they just can't do it for 60 minutes. They play a fairly solid backchecking game and make you work it out the zone. They will try to slow the Hawks transition game down and deny puck possession. If the Hawks are physical and force the Flyer D to work in the corners and behind the net, the Flyer D is vulnerable to getting tired and worn out. Cycling effectively will again be critical -- it tires the D out. Getting the 4th line in against either pairing and hitting them and forechecking hard is a great tactic. In addition, the lines as constructed (Toews, Buff, Kane; Sharp, Hossa, Brow; Versteeg, Ladd, Bolland) give a challenge to the Flyer D. They need to choose whether to cover/dig out the screeners (Buff/Brow/Ladd) or chase into the corners with their D. If they try and do both by dropping a winger down, it allows for our D-Men to pinch and jump into the play. If the Hawks keep their commitment to puck possession, backchecking and clean, physical play, I think they will slowly wear the Flyers down over the course of each game.

this might be relevant if fleury didn't play behind a good team The Pens are defensively suspect. They are good, but not great on defense. The Hawks' defense is far, far superior.

Richards.

Agreed. Hold firm for Stanley Cup garb and gear.

AHHHHHH!!!!

So you don't think that Hawks player tipped it on its way behind the net. Buff was short of center. It's legit.

We're going to win it quick.

This has been unbelievably bad officiating.

That was nails by Sharp to get that deep.

Bring on the Dagger!

It's getting ridiculous. Call it evenly.

That was really dumb. And all three periods, we've started out with an early penalty.

Play tough and dig the pucks out, and I think good things will happen in the 3rd.

Nah, I wouldn't worry about it. They're pretty clear that they are using to help bring more focus. Makes sense.

Buff's shot in game 1 is really tough to criticize. Criticize the defense for giving him too much time? Sure. Nabby though? That's a really great save if he makes it -- Buff uncorked a very hard slap shot from the slot at the top of the circles (about 35 feet from the goal), between two defenders.

What a douche.

Good for Dale. I hope all Hawks fans wish him well. And we'll trade him Huet after the playoffs end.

I think the Hawks have a very, very good shot at winning the Cup, but I think the Eastern Conference's craziness/weakness shows that there are just so many factors to consider in determining the "best shot". The Hawks have had a very tough road in the playoffs this year. In many ways, I think they've had the toughest road of the teams still in it. Perhaps I underrate the East, but I think Nashville-Vancouver-San Jose is far more challenging than Washington-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia or New Jersey-Boston-Montreal. I also think Colorado-Detroit-Chicago is pretty tough, but Nashville and Vancouver are tougher than Colorado and Detroit. Montreal has an argument, but ignore the press focus and look at the teams -- Pittsburgh was a #4 in a weak conference, and Washington, though very good, feasted on the SE Division and stylistically just isn't tough enough on defense. (Washington outplayed Montreal and was just unlucky. In contrast, I think Montreal hung tough with Pittsburgh.) Next year, the West could be weak and the Hawks could make the playoffs and end of facing a succession of teams of questionable playoff caliber. First and foremost, though, they need to secure a spot in the SCF. Right now, they are tied with last year's team in terms of this being the best shot. The Sharks are a very good team. And, frankly, in retrospect I think last year's Calgary-Vancouver-Detroit was an easier road to the SCF than this year's Nashville-Vancouver-San Jose. The Hawks are definitely a better team than last year, but then so is the West as a whole. Last year's Pittsburgh, though, was much tougher than either of this year's Philadelphia or Montreal.

The NHL playoffs can be pretty random, and they are very long. Obviously, you want to win the Cup early and often, but this is a team that has made the WCF two years in a row, and the nucleus of that team will be intact for several years. If they fail to win this year, there will be additional opportunities. Is this, perhaps, the best shot? Who knows.

According to Bettman, the cap is slated to go up a bit, but not all that much. Rumors have it going up by as much as $900,000.

Yes. And with the Huet buyout and Barker being moved, we only need to move one of Versteeg/Ladd/Sharp/Byfuglien, etc. Does that include a raise for Niemi this offseason? Because he's an RFA and I'd bet some team with some cap space and a need for goalie, or a need for the Hawks to get more strapped financially would make an offer. Especially if the Hawks won the Cup with him in net. There are a lot of UFA goalies available this offseason -- it's one of the main reasons that Huet will be difficult, if not impossible, to move this offseason. I doubt that someone will spend what it will take to get Niemi in money and draft picks.

We have to do more than just buyout Huet and move one of Buff/Versteeg/Ladd/Sharp. There are raises coming to Hjalmarsson and Niemi that need to be factored in. Eager, Ladd, Fraser, Hendry and a host of Rockville players are all RFAs. Burish is an UFA. Madden is an UFA and needs to be replaced, which begs the question of centers. Bolland isn't a 2nd line center. He's a great 3rd, though. Sharp, who can be the 2nd line center, is a bargain at his salary, so I think he'll stay, fwiw. Who's the 4th? Bring back Fraser? And I really think they can't afford to lose the $2M cap hit to buy out Huet. They need to move him or bury his salary in Rockford.

Not a huge fan of Kljestan, either. Neither he nor Rogers should be there over Adu. That said, I really doubt Adu would make the 23 anyway. Here's what I see for the 23: GK (3): Howard, Hahnemann, Guzan FB (8): Onyewu, Bocanegra, Spector, Cherundolo, DeMerit, Bornstein, Pearce, Goodson MF (8): Donovan, Dempsey, Clark, Bradley, Edu, Torres, Holden, Feilhaber FW (4): Altidore, Ching, Buddle, Gomez Out: Marshall, Rogers, Kljestan, Beasley, Bedoya, Findlay, Johnson Now, I could also see leaving Bedoya in and cutting Ching or Buddle if the intention is to have Dempsey at forward. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about Pearce making the squad, too. I could easily see him being left off. There is adequate cover at left full back among Bocanegra, Bornstein and Spector as far as I'm concerned (I generally prefer Pearce to Bornstein, but I'm trying to think what BB might do). The right side has Spector and Cherundolo. CB has a host with Onyewu, Bocanegra, DeMerit, Goodson and Spector able to cover the middle effectively. I know, though, that Bob wants crossing out of his LB position, and Pearce does cross very well -- probably better than Boca and Bornstein and since Jonny Specs is wrong-footed for the spot, definitely better. My starting 11: -----------Altidore-----Dempsey------- Donovan----Bradley----Edu-----Holden Bocanegra--Gooch--DeMerit--Spector ------------------Howard---------------- Against England, I think some consideration does need to be made about what to do against Lennon on England's right. I don't think Bocanegra can contain him alone. I do think that Landon is at his best when he gets involved defensively, and he's certainly capable of handling Lennon. I bet we try Spain x2 and bunker in, forcing England to the outside for crosses. If I'm Capello and I think that's the case, I start Crouch with Rooney.

Hope he's OK. It's one of those things that evoke immediate empathy, even from fans of the opposition :) Indeed.

Because Johnsson is in Al Gore's lockbox. And, Buff is really inconsistent.