The Chicago Blackhawks are now 40 games into the 2025–26 season, and the overall picture has become much clearer — and far more challenging. After opening the year with two competitive 10-game segments, Chicago has now posted back-to-back losing stretches, including a 2-7-1 record in Games 31–40, dropping the team to 31st in the NHL with a 14-18-7 record and 35 points.
The season’s momentum shifted after Game 20. Through the first two segments, the Blackhawks averaged 3.30 goals per game and remained competitive despite inconsistencies. Since then, offensive production has steadily declined, falling to 2.30 goals per game in Games 21–30 and 2.10 in the most recent stretch. Shot volume remains among the lowest in the league, faceoffs rank last overall, and five-on-five scoring has become increasingly difficult to generate — all signs of a team spending too much time without the puck.
Defensively, the trends have moved in the wrong direction as well. Goals against spiked in Games 21–30 and have remained elevated, with the Blackhawks giving up a high volume of quality chances. The advanced metrics reinforce the concern: Chicago ranks near the bottom of the NHL in Corsi For percentage, expected goals share, and high-danger chance share, while being heavily outscored in prime scoring areas. Even in stretches where shot totals improve slightly, the underlying chance quality continues to work against them.
Personnel has played a role in this downturn, particularly on the offensive side. Connor Bedard and Frank Nazar both missed time during this stretch, and the impact showed up clearly in the numbers. Goals for declined, five-on-five production slowed, and the power play — previously one of the team’s few reliable sources of offense — lost its rhythm. Without their speed, creativity, and puck-carrying ability, Chicago struggled with zone entries, sustaining pressure, and creating high-danger looks, making it easier for opponents to control play.
Special teams remain one of the few stabilizing elements. The penalty kill continues to rank among the league’s best, while the power play has shown flashes but lacked consistency during the most recent segment. At five-on-five, however, the story is clear: the Blackhawks are being out-possessed, out-chanced, and outscored.
In this edition of our 10-game trenches series, we break down how these trends developed and what they mean moving forward. We analyze team performance, advanced metrics, and individual contributions, grading each player from A to D while tracking their progress across every segment of the season to identify who is trending up, who is slipping, and where the Blackhawks stand at this stage of the rebuild.
Team Stats
| Category | Season 2025-26 | Game 1–10 | Game 11–20 | Game 21–30 | Game 31-40 | NHL Rank |
| Record | 14-18-7 35pts | 5-3-2 | 5-3-2 | 3-5-2 | 2-7-1 | 31st |
| GF (Goals For) | 107 | 30 | 33 | 23 | 21 | 26th |
| GF/GP | 2.74 | 3.30 | 3.30 | 2.30 | 2.10 | 26th |
| GA (Goals Against) | 124 | 23 | 27 | 39 | 35 | 20th |
| GA/GP | 3.26 | 2.50 | 2.55 | 3.90 | 3.50 | 24th |
| GD (Goal Differential) | -17 | 8 | 5 | -16 | -14 | 25th |
| PP (Power Play %) | 20.0% | 18.2% | 32.0% | 18.8% | 8.7% | 12th |
| PK (Penalty Kill %) | 83.56% | 86.4% | 79.4% | 84.4% | 83.9% | 5th |
| FOW (Faceoff %) | 46.4% | 47.6% | 45.2% | 46.3% | 44.6% | 31st |
| S/GP (Shots per Game) | 25.1 | 24.5 | 25.5 | 26.1 | 24.1 | 30th |
| SA/GP (Shots Against per Game) | 30.1 | 29.4 | 32.6 | 29.7 | 27.5 | 29th |
| Shots % | 10.9 | 11.2 | 12.9 | 8.8 | 8.7 | 13th |
| NETPEN (Net Penalties) | -24 | -12 | -4 | 0 | -8 | 30th |
| MINOR (Minor Penalties) | 138 | 48 | 27 | 33 | 32 | 25th |
| GF 5v5 | 75 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 16 | 26th |
| GA 5v5 | 91 | 17 | 17 | 32 | 25 | 27th |
| CF% (Corsi For %) | 47.1% | 46.7% | 44.1% | 46.87% | 26th | |
| xGF% (Expected Goals For %) | 44.72% | 45.3% | 43.4% | 42.45% | 31st | |
| HDCF% (High-Danger Scoring Chances For %) | 42.43% | 43.3% | 41.5% | 40.63% | 31st | |
| HDCF-HDCA (Differential) | 308-418 | 95-137 | 78-81 | 57-105 | —— |
All Situations
Records
| Situation | Overall | Home | Away |
| Record | 13-11-6 | 7-5-3 | 6-6-3 |
| When Scoring First | 14-6-3 | 7-3-3 | 7-3-0 |
| When Opponent Scores First | 1-12-4 | 1-5-1 | 0-7-3 |
| When Outshooting Opponent | 6-4-3 | 3-2-2 | 3-2-1 |
| When Outshot by Opponent | 9-13-4 | 5-5-2 | 4-8-2 |
| 1-Goal Games | 6-7-7 | 3-4-4 | 3-3-3 |
| After 1st Period – Lead | 4-3-2 | 2-2-2 | 2-1-0 |
| After 1st Period – Trail | 1-9-1 | 1-3-1 | 0-6-0 |
| After 1st Period – Tie | 10-6-4 | 5-3-1 | 5-3-3 |
| After 2nd Period – Lead | 9-2-1 | 5-1-1 | 4-1-0 |
| After 2nd Period – Trail | 1-12-1 | 1-6-0 | 0-6-1 |
| After 2nd Period – Tie | 5-4-5 | 2-1-3 | 3-3-2 |
Scoring by Period
| OVERALL | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 27 | 37 | 46 | 1 | 111 |
| Opponent | 32 | 46 | 45 | 4 | 127 |
| HOME | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 12 | 21 | 20 | 1 | 54 |
| Opponent | 14 | 22 | 17 | 2 | 55 |
| AWAY | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 15 | 16 | 26 | 0 | 57 |
| Opponent | 18 | 24 | 28 | 2 | 72 |
Shots by Period
| Overall | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 342 | 320 | 318 | 20 | 1000 |
| Opponent | 388 | 403 | 385 | 22 | 1198 |
| Home | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 179 | 144 | 156 | 8 | 487 |
| Opponent | 168 | 184 | 166 | 13 | 531 |
| Away | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | OT | Total |
| Team | 163 | 176 | 162 | 12 | 513 |
| Opponent | 220 | 219 | 219 | 9 | 667 |
What the Numbers Tell Us
When we break the season down by periods, location, and shot volume, the trends line up closely with the standings and the underlying analytics. Overall, the Blackhawks have been outscored 127–111, with the gap widening as games progress. The third period stands out in particular, where Chicago has allowed 46 goals against while scoring 46, showing how difficult it has been for the team to protect leads or mount consistent late-game pushes. Overtime has also leaned toward opponents, another sign that Chicago has struggled to close out tight games.
Shot volume paints an even clearer picture. Through 40 games, the Blackhawks have generated 1,000 shots, while allowing 1,198, a significant deficit that reflects ongoing puck-possession issues. The problem is consistent across all three periods, with Chicago being outshot in every frame, reinforcing what the Corsi and expected-goals numbers already show — this team spends too much time defending.
Home and road splits further underline the issue. At home, the Blackhawks are relatively competitive, getting outshot 531–487, a manageable margin that matches their more structured play and better results in Chicago. On the road, however, the gap becomes severe. Opponents have outshot the Blackhawks 667–513, including heavy shot advantages in all three periods. That disparity helps explain why road games have consistently tilted out of reach, especially as games wear on.
Taken together, these numbers highlight a recurring theme throughout the season: Chicago struggles to control play, particularly away from home and late in games. Without sustained possession, shot volume, and offensive zone time, the margin for error becomes extremely small — and over time, those small gaps have added up in both goals against and losses.
Players Stats
Connor Bedard
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Connor Bedard | C | 32 | 20 | 26 | 46 | 10 | 44.7 | 53.57 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 18 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
Frank Nazar
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Frank Nazar | C | 34 | 6 | 15 | 21 | -7 | 40.93 | 44.44 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | -6 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -6 |
Ryan Donato
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ryan Donato | RW | 40 | 9 | 6 | 15 | -11 | 46.47 | 41.86 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 2 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -5 |
Teuvo Teravainen
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Teuvo Teravainen | RW | 39 | 7 | 11 | 18 | -9 | 38.53 | 38.89 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 6 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -10 |
Andrei Burakovsky
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Andrei Burakovsky | LW | 35 | 9 | 15 | 24 | -11 | 46.89 | 45.45 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 6 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 5 | -11 |
Tyler Bertuzzi
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Tyler Bertuzzi | LW | 36 | 20 | 10 | 30 | -9 | 47.94 | 45.61 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 9 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 4 | -8 |
Ilya Mikheyev
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ilya Mikheyev | RW | 36 | 6 | 4 | 10 | -4 | 42.64 | 38.71 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -9 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
Louis Crevier
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Louis Crevier | D | 39 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 5 | 44.84 | 45.45 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 4 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -2 |
Nick Foligno
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Nick Foligno | RW | 17 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 43.43 | 46.67 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | |||||||
| Game 31-40 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
Colton Dach
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Colton Dach | LW | 40 | 3 | 4 | 7 | -15 | 37.60 | 27.59 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -4 |
Jason Dickinson
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Jason Dickinson | C | 27 | 4 | 5 | 9 | -2 | 49.06 | 41.67 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -6 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
Sam Rinzel
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Sam Rinzel | D | 28 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 44.51 | 50.0 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -5 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Alex Vlasic
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Alex Vlasic | D | 39 | 2 | 6 | 8 | -10 | 44.24 | 37.04 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -7 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -3 |
Artyom Levshunov
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Artyom Levshunov | D | 38 | 1 | 17 | 18 | -8 | 43.52 | 43.14 |
| Game 1–10 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 8 | -3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -8 |
Ryan Greene
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Ryan Greene | C | 40 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 2 | 44.31 | 51.02 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | -4 |
Matt Grzelcyk
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Matt Grzelcyk | D | 40 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 47.44 | 52.63 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -2 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -4 |
Wyatt Kaiser
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Wyatt Kaiser | D | 40 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 47.44 | 49.12 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -8 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 4 | -2 |
Connor Murphy
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Connor Murphy | D | 40 | 0 | 5 | 53 | -5 | 45.0 | 45.45 |
| Game 1–10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Landon Slaggert
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Landon Slaggert | LW | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 51.35 | 62.50 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Sam Lafferty
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Sam Lafferty | C | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 51.02 | 58.33 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Oliver Moore
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Oliver Moore | C | 28 | 3 | 8 | 11 | -4 | 48.12 | 45.16 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -4 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -2 |
Nick Lardis
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Nick Lardis | RW | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -1 | 44.92 | 50.0 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -1 |
Dominic Toninato
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| Dominic Toninato | RW | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62.61 | 100 |
| Game 1–10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Ethan Del Mastro
| Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | xGF% | GF% |
| EDM | LD | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 27.75 | 0.00 |
| Game 1–10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | |||
| Game 11–20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 21-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Game 31-40 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Goaltenders
| Player | Pos | GP | Record | GAA | SV% |
| Spencer Knight | G | 28 | 11-11-6 | 2.63 | 0.909 |
| Game 1–10 | 7 | 4-2-1 | 2.11 | 0.930 | |
| Game 11–20 | 7 | 3-2-2 | 2.83 | 0.915 | |
| Game 21-30 | 7 | 3-2-2 | 2.55 | 0.902 | |
| Game 31-40 | 7 | 1-5-1 | 2.61 | 0.896 | |
| A.Söderblom | G | 9 | 4-7-1 | 4.02 | 0.873 |
| Game 1–10 | 3 | 1-1-1 | 3.01 | 0.888 | |
| Game 11–20 | 3 | 2-1-0 | 2.03 | 0.932 | |
| Game 21-30 | 3 | 0-3-0 | 6.71 | 0.823 | |
| Game 31-40 | 3 | 1-2-0 | 4.28 | 0.862 |
How Player Grades Are Determined
Each player’s grade is based on a combination of individual performance, consistency, impact on the team, and role execution through the first 10 games of the 2025–26 season.
Here’s how the evaluation works:
• Statistics & Analytics: Goals, assists, points, plus/minus, time on ice, faceoff %, possession numbers (CF%, xGF%), and situational play such as power play and penalty kill usage.
• Role & Expectation: Players are judged relative to their role — a rookie or third-pair defenseman won’t be evaluated the same way as a top-line center or starting goalie.
• Consistency & Game Impact: Effort, decision-making, and performance shift to shift. Players who make key plays or respond in big moments earn higher marks.
• Coaching Trust & Usage: Ice time, matchups, and the coach’s confidence in the player during key situations reflect how reliable they’ve been.
• Growth & Development: For younger players, improvement, adaptation to the NHL pace, and maturity are important factors.
Grades range from A (Outstanding) to D (Poor) — with B representing solid, reliable play and C meaning room for improvemen
Players Ranking
| Player | Game 31-40 | Game 21 – 30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Connor Bedard | A+ | A+ | A+ | A+ |
| Frank Nazar | C | C+ | B- | A |
| Tyler Bertuzzi | B | A | A | B |
| Ryan Donato | C- | C | B- | B+ |
| Ilya Mikheyev | C+ | C | B- | A- |
| Andrei Burakovsky | B | B | A | B |
| Teuvo Teravainen | C- | B- | B | B+ |
| Colton Dach | C | C | C | C |
| Jason Dickinson | C+ | C+ | C | C |
| Ryan Greene | B | B | B | C |
| Nick Foligno | C | —— INJURY | C | C |
| Sam Lafferty | C- | C- | C | D |
| Landon Slaggert | C- | C- | C- | C- |
| Oliver Moore | B- | B- | B | —- AHL |
| Nick Lardis | C | |||
| Dominic Toninato | C | |||
| Defensemen | Game 31-40 | Game 21 – 30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Alex Vlasic | B | B | B | B+ |
| Sam Rinzel | AHL | C- | C | B |
| Wyatt Kaiser | B | B- | B | B- |
| Connor Murphy | C | C | C+ | C |
| Matt Grzelchyk | C+ | C | B- | C |
| Artyom Levshunov | C+ | B- | B | C |
| Louis Crevier | B | B | B- | C+ |
| Player | Game 31-40 | Game 21-30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 |
| Spencer Knight | A- | A | A | A+ |
| Arvid Soderblom | D | D | B- | C |
| COACH | ||||
| Name | Game 21 – 30 | Game 11 – 20 | Game 1 – 10 | |
| Jeff Blashill | C | B- | B+ | B+ |
Player Performance Assessment – Last 10 Games
Despite the team’s struggles during this 10-game stretch, a few players clearly stood out and carried the load, while others were heavily impacted by the defensive breakdowns and blowout losses.
Top Performers
André Burakovsky spent most of the season skating alongside Connor Bedard, and the absence of the Blackhawks’ top center was clearly felt during this 10-game stretch. Even so, Burakovsky found ways to contribute offensively, finishing the segment tied for the team lead in points with five, alongside Greene.
Burakovsky recorded two goals and three assists, including one power-play goal, showing flashes of offensive leadership despite the challenging circumstances. With fewer quality looks and less puck possession without Bedard driving play, generating offense became more difficult, yet Burakovsky remained involved and productive on the scoresheet.
That said, the expectations shift when a team’s primary offensive driver is out of the lineup. Without Bedard, Burakovsky needs to elevate his overall impact, particularly at five-on-five, to help create more consistent scoring chances and give the Blackhawks a better opportunity to win games. As the season moves forward, his ability to take on a larger role will be an important factor in how the team navigates the next 10-game segment.
Tyler Bertuzzi continued to be one of the few steady offensive contributors during a difficult stretch for the Blackhawks. With both Connor Bedard and Frank Nazar missing time, the team’s overall offense clearly struggled, but Bertuzzi still managed to produce, scoring four goals over the 10-game span.
While his overall point production dipped compared to earlier segments, Bertuzzi’s impact remained noticeable. He continued to work hard every shift, consistently driving to the net and creating offense in high-traffic areas. Most of his goals during this stretch came from in tight, where he remains most effective, using his positioning, strength, and willingness to battle in front of the crease.
That effort was rewarded when Bertuzzi reached the 20-goal mark on the season during this segment, an important milestone given the offensive challenges around him. Even as the Blackhawks struggled to generate chances at five-on-five, Bertuzzi’s net-front presence and work ethic helped provide some much-needed scoring and set an example during a tough stretch of the schedule.
Spencer Knight was outstanding between the pipes. He won all three of his starts, keeping the Blackhawks competitive in games where defensive coverage broke down. Given the volume and quality of chances he faced, his performance was one of the main reasons the record was not worse.
Ryan Greene finished the 10-game segment with five points, all assists, while being asked to fill a major role in Connor Bedard’s absence. Thrust into a difficult spot, Greene took on heavy responsibility, often matching up against top opposing lines on a nightly basis.
Despite the team’s defensive struggles during this stretch, Greene finished at minus-4, a respectable number considering the volume of goals against and the situations he was deployed in. Two of his five points came on the power play, showing his ability to contribute offensively while handling increased minutes and responsibility.
Overall, Greene played a solid two-way game. For a rookie, consistently lining up against top competition and holding his own shift after shift is no small task. Greene showed good awareness, work ethic, and composure, and his performance during this stretch was encouraging given the circumstances and expectations placed on him.
Wyatt Kaiser put together a strong 10-game segment, recording three goals and four points while finishing at minus-2, a solid result given the team context. He continued to deliver important plays at both ends of the ice and provided steady minutes when the Blackhawks needed reliability on the blue line.
One of Kaiser’s biggest strengths during this stretch was his adaptability. Regardless of who lined up beside him, he adjusted quickly, played within his role, and maintained a consistent level of performance. His decision-making, positioning, and puck movement allowed him to stabilize different pairings while still contributing offensively.
After 40 games, Kaiser has been one of the biggest surprises of the season. His ability to handle minutes, produce timely offense, and remain dependable night after night has made him an important piece of the lineup and a positive development for the Blackhawks moving forward.
Players Impacted by the Stretch
Arvid Söderblom continues to struggle in his role as the Blackhawks’ backup goaltender. During this 10-game segment, he recorded one win in three appearances, posting a 4.28 goals-against average and an .862 save percentage. The trend has been even more concerning over a larger sample. In his last six games, Söderblom is 1-5-0 with a 5.30 GAA and an .843 save percentage, numbers that are simply not good enough at the NHL level. At some point, he needs to find a way to stabilize his game and give the team a chance when called upon.
Teuvo Teräväinen also went through a difficult stretch. He finished the segment with one goal and a minus-10 rating, while averaging over 18 minutes per game in a top-six role. With Bedard and Nazar out, the expectation for veterans is to help carry the offense, and that production did not come. While the circumstances were challenging, players like Bertuzzi and Burakovsky still found ways to contribute, and more is needed from Teräväinen moving forward.
Ryan Donato’s struggles continued as well. He managed just two points (one goal) in this 10-game segment and has not played at the same level he reached last season when he scored 31 goals. Donato has nine goals on the season and is currently on pace for only 18, a significant drop-off. Over his last 20 games, he has recorded just three points (two goals), highlighting how difficult this stretch has been for him offensively. The Blackhawks will need more consistency and impact from their veteran forwards as the season progresses.
Coaching Evaluation: Last 10 Games
Jeff Blashill (C)
Looking strictly at the results, the last 10 games were clearly the most difficult stretch of the season for the Blackhawks. The team posted a 2-7-1 record, allowed 3.50 goals per game, and averaged just 2.10 goals for, numbers that reflect a group struggling to maintain consistency and structure. The power play also dropped sharply to 8.7%, removing one of the few offensive lifelines the team had earlier in the season.
Context, however, is essential when evaluating this stretch. Connor Bedard played only two games, and Frank Nazar missed four, leaving the Blackhawks without their top two centers for most of the segment. That absence had a clear ripple effect on offensive flow, zone entries, and puck possession, particularly at five-on-five.
Managing Instability, Not Creating It
The defensive issues during this stretch were significant and supported by the data. Chicago spent extended time in its own zone, gave up too many quality looks, and struggled to recover once momentum shifted against them. The road struggles were especially damaging, and the lack of pushback when games started poorly became a recurring theme.
Still, the numbers suggest these problems were driven more by execution, roster limitations, and inexperience than by a complete system breakdown. When structure slipped, it often slipped hard — but not consistently across every game.
That inconsistency defines the segment.
The Blackhawks played two strong games against Dallas, earning two wins while showing structure, compete level, and buy-in. In other games, when execution dropped, the results were ugly. That gap from game to game remains one of the biggest challenges for the coaching staff.
Adjustments and Responses
To Blashill’s credit, adjustments were made once the collapse became clear, particularly after a difficult road stretch:
- Shift from seven defensemen to a traditional six-defense setup
- Return from 11 forwards to 12 forwards, restoring line stability
- A clearer emphasis on simplifying play and protecting the middle of the ice
Personnel Decisions: Development Over Panic
The decision to send Sam Rinzel and Landon Slaggert to Rockford was not reactionary. It was rooted in structure, development, and a clear assessment of where the team was during this stretch. The numbers and game flow showed recurring issues:
- Too many defensive-zone breakdowns
- Inconsistent puck management
- Young players being exposed in high-leverage situations
Rather than allowing confidence to erode at the NHL level, the coaching staff chose to reduce chaos, stabilize matchups, and reset roles in a more controlled environment. That approach reflects long-term thinking, not panic.
At the same time, the staff remained flexible. Slaggert was later recalled, Del Mastro was brought up for a one-game look, and the team adjusted again by calling up Nick Lardis, whose offensive instincts were immediately evident. Lardis responded with two goals, showing confidence, timing, and a natural scoring touch that translated quickly at the NHL level.
Earlier in the season, Oliver Moore’s call-up before the Games 21–30 segment also paid dividends. The chemistry between Moore and Lardis became noticeable, and Blashill experimented with young combinations, including stretches where Greene, Moore, and Lardis were used together. Those looks didn’t always produce consistent results, but they offered valuable evaluation time and flashes of offensive creativity.
Overall, these moves show a coaching staff balancing development, evaluation, and structure. Some young players were given opportunities to spark the lineup, others were sent down to regroup, and adjustments were made as information changed. That willingness to adapt — while keeping long-term growth in mind — is a key part of managing a rebuilding roster through uneven stretches.
Ongoing Concerns
There are still areas Blashill and his staff must solve:
- Back-to-back games remain a major issue: the Blackhawks are 0-4-0 this season, including 0-2-0 in this segment, allowing 11 goals in two games
- When trailing first, the Blackhawks have just one win all season, showing difficulty responding to early adversity
- Special teams were uneven:
- Power play struggled badly
- Penalty kill held firm despite extended defensive pressure
These trends point to issues with game readiness, emotional swings, and sustaining structure, not just talent gaps.
Overall Coaching Grade (Last 10 Games)
Grade: C
Why not lower?
- Adjustments were eventually made
- The team responded immediately once structure was simplified
- Development decisions were proactive, not reactive
Why not higher?
- The team lost control of games too often
- Road structure collapsed before corrections came
- Back-to-back performance remains a serious concern
- Inconsistency from game to game continues to define the group
This was not a coach who lost his room or failed to respond. It was a coach navigating a young roster, missing its top two centers, through a brutal stretch — and adjusting when the data demanded it. The response matters, but consistency will determine whether those changes truly stick.
The next 10 games will tell us far more — not just about results, but about whether this team can finally stabilize its identity.
Final Thoughts
The last 10 games were a clear reminder of where the Blackhawks are in their rebuild. Missing both Connor Bedard and Frank Nazar for most of the stretch exposed the team’s lack of depth down the middle and made consistency extremely difficult to sustain. The results reflected that reality — a 2-7-1 record, reduced offensive output, and ongoing defensive issues — but the context behind those numbers still matters.
This was a segment defined by inconsistency. When the Blackhawks played within their structure — including the two wins against Dallas — they showed they can compete. When execution slipped, especially on the road or in back-to-back situations, the results quickly became lopsided. That gap from game to game remains the biggest challenge moving forward.
From a development standpoint, the coaching staff continued to prioritize long-term growth over short-term fixes. Young players were rotated in and out of the lineup, roles were adjusted, and difficult decisions were made to stabilize structure while still evaluating talent. Some moves produced immediate results, others provided valuable information — both are necessary in a rebuilding season.
The next 10-game segment will be telling. With recent adjustments in place and key players working their way back into the lineup, the focus now shifts to consistency, structure, and response. Progress may not always show up in the standings, but the Blackhawks need to show clearer signs of stability and growth from game to game.
January Overview: The Toughest Stretch of the Season
January represents the most demanding month of the season for the Blackhawks, both in terms of volume and competition. Chicago will play 16 games in 30 days, including three back-to-back sets and three stretches of three games in four nights. It is, without question, the busiest and most compressed part of the schedule.
The workload is heavy but slightly balanced geographically, with 11 home games and five on the road, giving the Blackhawks an opportunity to lean on home ice during a challenging stretch. That said, the level of competition ramps up significantly. Nine of the 16 games come against playoff-caliber teams, testing Chicago’s structure, depth, and consistency night after night.
Another key factor is variety. The Blackhawks will face only four division opponents, while seven games come against Eastern Conference teams, limiting familiarity and increasing the importance of preparation and adaptability. There is little room for slow starts, especially considering the team’s struggles in back-to-back situations and when allowing the first goal.
The month opens on a positive note with a win against Dallas, but January will quickly demand more than flashes. Managing fatigue, tightening defensive play, and finding more consistent offense — particularly at five-on-five — will be essential. With limited rest and strong opponents, January will be a defining test of this group’s resilience, structure, and ability to compete through adversity.
