GDT - Game #69: Hawks @ Sens, Mar 16, 2017, 7:30pm

Ottawa is second in the league in blocking, nearly 17 blocks per game. Last night they blocked 15, which is not really out of line (shots on goal were under 30).

Chicago is 11th in the league, blocking an average of under 15 shots per game. Last night they blocked *24*. That's a very significant change.

So, yeah, I'd say they were laying down way more than usual, and the fact that Darling is coming back after missing more than 2 weeks had something to do with it.

wprager wrote:Ottawa is second in the league in blocking, nearly 17 blocks per game.  Last night they blocked 15, which is not really out of line (shots on goal were under 30).

Chicago is 11th in the league, blocking an average of under 15 shots per game.  Last night they blocked *24*.  That's a very significant change.

So, yeah, I'd say they were laying down way more than usual, and the fact that Darling is coming back after missing more than 2 weeks had something to do with it.

I think that's silly. The biggest reason is that the Sens had a lot of trouble getting quick shots off last night. It seemed that they were taking an extra second or two most of the time. That gives the other team time to set up for a block. It was clear to me that the Hawks were taking advantage of those lags to get in the way of shots. To me this is a much better explanation than the idea that the team determines how many shots they'll block based on how many days the goalie has been sitting. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Sens had more shots on goal, won nearly 2 of 3 faceoffs, same 1/4 PP (and 3/4 on PK), more hits (without Boro or Neil in the lineup), fewer giveaways. The only thing the Hawks dominated was the blocked shots. Did Darling steal one? Don't think so. Not that many of his saves were spectacular, or at least I don't recall. Some nice saves, for sure (Hoffman comes to mind), and lucky on the goal post and the puck bouncing over Ryan's stick. I think Condon had more hard saves, but not to the point where I'd say they dominated the Sens and only Condon kept it close. He got lucky one one play just like Darling with the goalpost.

All in all, a very even game. This would be a series that went 6-7 games, easy.

We get Stone back, it helps; but they get Anisimov back and win more faceoffs. Does Anderson make a difference? Over a 6-7 game series, yes, that one game, probably not. That second goal (Panik), don't think Andy would have stopped it (he's 1" taller, probably not enough). The first one, Condon stopped it and the D failed to contain the Hawks attackers. Maybe Andy traps that one a little better.

wprager wrote:

Sens had more shots on goal, won nearly 2 of 3 faceoffs, same 1/4 PP (and 3/4 on PK), more hits (without Boro or Neil in the lineup), fewer giveaways.  The only thing the Hawks dominated was the blocked shots.  Did Darling steal one?  Don't think so.  Not that many of his saves were spectacular, or at least I don't recall.  Some nice saves, for sure (Hoffman comes to mind), and lucky on the goal post and the puck bouncing over Ryan's stick. I think Condon had more hard saves, but not to the point where I'd say they dominated the Sens and only Condon kept it close.  He got lucky one one play just like Darling with the goalpost.

All in all, a very even game.  This would be a series that went 6-7 games, easy.

We get Stone back, it helps; but they get Anisimov back and win more faceoffs.  Does Anderson make a difference?  Over a 6-7 game series, yes, that one game, probably not.  That second goal (Panik), don't think Andy would have stopped it (he's 1" taller, probably not enough).  The first one, Condon stopped it and the D failed to contain the Hawks attackers.  Maybe Andy traps that one a little better.

To me it felt like a really close game that saw the Sens miss some golden opportunities (you identified a big one when Ryan missed that open cage, but there were others too), got some bad luck on calls, and ended up losing a squeaker to an excellent team. I'm ok with that. The bounces won't always go our way. 

That said, I really hope they take it to the Habs this weekend. Anything short of 3 points is a missed opportunity to me. 

You mentioned Stone. Is he slotted for a return soon?

Stone was week to week. When Boucher was asked he repeated the "week to week" and then sarcastically asked, "has it been a week?"

wprager wrote:Stone was week to week. When Boucher was asked he repeated the "week to week" and then sarcastically asked, "has it been a week?"

Hopefully that means what it seems to mean. He's a beast.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:

Sens had more shots on goal, won nearly 2 of 3 faceoffs, same 1/4 PP (and 3/4 on PK), more hits (without Boro or Neil in the lineup), fewer giveaways.  The only thing the Hawks dominated was the blocked shots.  Did Darling steal one?  Don't think so.  Not that many of his saves were spectacular, or at least I don't recall.  Some nice saves, for sure (Hoffman comes to mind), and lucky on the goal post and the puck bouncing over Ryan's stick. I think Condon had more hard saves, but not to the point where I'd say they dominated the Sens and only Condon kept it close.  He got lucky one one play just like Darling with the goalpost.

All in all, a very even game.  This would be a series that went 6-7 games, easy.

We get Stone back, it helps; but they get Anisimov back and win more faceoffs.  Does Anderson make a difference?  Over a 6-7 game series, yes, that one game, probably not.  That second goal (Panik), don't think Andy would have stopped it (he's 1" taller, probably not enough).  The first one, Condon stopped it and the D failed to contain the Hawks attackers.  Maybe Andy traps that one a little better.

To me it felt like a really close game that saw the Sens miss some golden opportunities (you identified a big one when Ryan missed that open cage, but there were others too), got some bad luck on calls, and ended up losing a squeaker to an excellent team. I'm ok with that. The bounces won't always go our way. 

That said, I really hope they take it to the Habs this weekend. Anything short of 3 points is a missed opportunity to me. 

You mentioned Stone. Is he slotted for a return soon?

Yeah, I agree.  That was as close as they come.  Really strong bounce back from ottawa.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:Stone was week to week. When Boucher was asked he repeated the "week to week" and then sarcastically asked, "has it been a week?"

Hopefully that means what it seems to mean. He's a beast.

I think it means Stone is not ready yet. You almost never hear sarcasm from Boucher do this must have been a sore spot.

When he came out for his player of the month thing he did not move very well at all.