- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
-
Posts
-
Great comment — and honestly, you’re touching on something that goes beyond just last night’s game. What you described about the Blackhawks is very similar to what we’re seeing with the Montreal Canadiens this season, and that’s why the comparison works so well.
Yes, the Canadiens are missing several regulars, but when they face bigger, more mature teams like LA, Minnesota, or Washington, the same issues show up: lack of sustained offensive-zone presence, limited physicality, and inconsistency. That’s not just a systems problem — it’s an immaturity problem.
The final score doesn’t fully reflect how much control Montreal had last night. Knight probably saved two or three goals, and there were multiple disallowed goals as well. Still, your main point stands: size, strength on the puck, and forecheck pressure matter, especially when games tighten up.
What you’re describing — big forwards who can hold pucks, absorb contact, and establish a real offensive-zone presence — is exactly what both organizations are missing at times. And no, Roman Kantserov alone isn’t the answer to that issue.
Without Bedard in the lineup, this is where veterans have to step up. Guys like Bertuzzi, Donato, and Mikheyev need to set the tone physically and emotionally. Young players can’t be the ones taking all the punishment every night.
At the end of the day, the Blackhawks — like the Canadiens — need to get bigger, stronger, and harder to play against. Skill is there. The next step is maturity and edge. Time will tell, but management has to recognize it moving forward.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment — and FYI, I apologize if I missed replies lately, I’m no longer receiving email notifications.
No, not at all, L A HAWK, (AND Frenchy.)
Playing them here but not yet having that big possession physical guy, that glues his possessions to his stick and not six goot and under.
Yeah, I like to think winning in Montreal tonight starts with a strong attack zone presence” that couldn’t never really emerged.
It would be lovelier to already be benefitting from past draft picks,
and I wish that there already were useful possibilities precolating in Rockford that they could draw in for games like this one tonight.You know another an off-puck defender type forward, and you could’ve added in that size out there playing a Dach-like in establishes. And you want that guy to have Frondell-like upside, but moreover, that you are showing the Montreal advance-takers don’t just see those same not even Nazar-like enough to be asked to occupy long clock and take those beat’ns, over & over, heck, if we had a few more this would be a perfect time to use them.
It always bothers me when games finally see a team desperate to score, the more they are pushing leading to them to becoming receivers of over-physical
“defense” that has no chance of seeing an arm go up.Habs realize the ‘hawks are fast, but at this juncture they didn’t have a big pushy then likes of who maybe one of their other selections, he bigger boys.
Yeah, I like to think winning in Montreal tonight starts with a “strong attack zone presence” that emerges in the likes of Behn, Bosivert, West, Nestrasil, or Vanacher. A strong attack zone presence means big, quick-stick forwards, grabbing pucks and establish more physicality than our lines could adequately provide for us, given they are no giants who possess the match-up against them tonight. No wonder if Foligno felt it too, so wanting to play.
Well, I, the poor sport doesn’t think Roman Kantserov is the answer to “strong attack zone presence” either.
No, not at all, L A HAWK, (AND Frenchy.)
Playing them here but not yet having that big possession physical guy, that glues his possessions to his stic and not six goot and under.
Yeah, I like to think winning in Montreal tonight starts with a strong attack zone presence” that couldn’t never really emerged.
It would be lovelier to already be benefitting from past draft picks,
and I wish that there already were useful possibilities precolating in Rockford that they could draw in for games like this one tonight.You know another an off-puck defender type forward, and you could’ve added in that size out there playing a Dach-like in establishes. And you want that guy to have Frondell-like upside, but moreover, that you are showing the Montreal advance-takers don’t just see those same not even Nazar-like enough to be asked to occupy long clock and take those beat’ns, over & over, heck, if we had a few more this would be a perfect time to use them.
It always bothers me when games finally see a team desperate to score, the more they are pushing leading to them to becoming receivers of over-physical
“defense” that has no chance of seeing an arm go up.Habs realize the ‘hawks are fast, but at this juncture they didn’t have a big pushy then likes of who maybe one of their other selections, he bigger boys.
Yeah, I like to think winning in Montreal tonight starts with a “strong attack zone presence” that emerges in the likes of Behn, Bosivert, West, Nestrasil, or Vanacher. A strong attack zone presence means big, quick-stick forwards, grabbing pucks and establish more physicality than our lines could adequately provide for us, given they are no giants who possess the match-up against them tonight. No wonder if Foligno felt it too, so wanting to play.
Well, I, the poor sport doesn’t think Roman Kantserov is the answer to strong attack zone presence” either.
From complimenting the rookie line last game, the trio all looked like they belong back in Rockford tonight.
So what is the trade return for a guy making $5 mil and the other making 4.2 mil, each with 3 goals apiece? Might as well keep them and give them slightly less than an overpay next year as even if Bedard gets $11 million, they will still be approximately $17 million under the cap floor.
