After the excitement of Game 1 it was tough to predict how both the Bruins and the Blackhawks would come out for Game 2. Surely no one would have counted on seeing another game with multiple frames past regulation but we would more likely see one team capitalizing on the opposition’s weaknesses after 112 minutes of looking for where those holes may be.
Game 2 was not so much a disappointment but it lacked the dynamic play that characterized the showdown prior. Once again Boston started off looking flat and, dare I say it, lackadaisical. Chicago posted 19 shots to Boston’s 4 and despite the Hawks only having a one goal lead after the first 20 minutes, with a handful of phenomenal chances along the way, it seemed that they would steamroll over the boys in black and gold.
But the strong showing from the home squad would fall flat on its face in the following periods. From the second period through overtime, Chicago would only put 15 shots on net compared to the 24 Boston managed in the same time frame which also saw them put up 2 goals and a win. Honestly I would love to give a better analysis but instead of being a purely defensive matchup, which I find as thrilling as any high-scoring game, both teams seemed to struggle to make anything develop through the neutral zone. I guess this makes sense since we usually associate painful television with the NHL Awards Show which, in its lockout-altered format, concluded during the pregame show.
Speaking of strong showings, Chicago went from marginally edging Boston in recorded hits from the first game by a 61-59 count, respectively, to dropping the physicality contest all together in Game 2 with 34-50 recorded, again respectively. I know I said the Blackhawks should manage their physical play following Game 1 but part of managing anything is to know when to use it towards your advantage.
The Boston-Pittsburgh series was a prime example of this, where the Penguins came out of the gate trying to match the Bruins on the physical side of play and practically self-destructed. It is one thing to display to your opponent that you won't let them push you around, but it's another thing to attempt to best your opponent at what makes them effective in the first place, and that is one major portion of where Pittsburgh fell short. They tried to meet Boston on Boston's level and in turn lost what makes Pittsburgh great.
A wiser man than myself once said that you don't put up very many hits when you have possession of the puck for the majority of the game. If you control the flow of play you don't have the need to push the other team around because you are already taking them off their game because they have to come to you to create offense, and Chicago is more than skilled enough up front to best a team even at Boston's caliber of stingy defensive play. Joel Quenneville showed that through the late parts of the season and the entirety of the playoffs where, when he needs to, he is comfortable enough shuffling his lines up that the man can put anyone almost anywhere and generate results.
While it may seemed forced for other teams, Chicago definitely has a competitive advantage with the ability to move players around the line-up because of their familiarity playing alongside different players and against different match-ups so I think the Blackhawks should continue their shifts-on-the-fly style. It does appear like they are struggling with the same identity crisis that Pittsburgh had against the Bruins so if they can regain their confidence in their speed and skill they will find more success.
If the Blackhawks can maintain the energy they showed in the first period, and also capitalize on their dangerous opportunities, then they will be much harder to put away. This could also result in a boost on their non-existent power play performance. Lastly, Brandon Bollig really needs to find his way off of the starting roster. Bollig had 3 shots on goal and 9 hits in the first game but 0 shots, 0 hits, alongside 2 giveaways in the second game. I wouldn't put the loss on him but his strengths do not warrant 8-9 minutes a game when you have healthy scratches like Viktor Stalberg, with his speed and ability, or Jamal Mayers, who has more skill than Bollig, and the career statistics to back it up, while still playing the enforcer role. Hell, even give Mr. Hobey Baker a shot. If Coach Q wants more options and reliability, Bollig has not yet earned a spot on the playoff roster.
The Bruins obviously had a big boost with their new look 3rd line, with Chris Kelly centering Tyler Seguin and Daniel Paille and the latter having a goal and assist with the former two notching a goal and assist, respectively. But I feel that the big positive for Boston from Game 2 is that they do not need to rely on their goaltender to win games for them if they put trust in their defense. Granted, Tuukka Rask did a highly respectable job to stave off the assault in the first period, but the 18 skaters in front of him have more of a job to do to prevent losses. The biggest concern for the Bruins is to avoid sluggish play at any point of the next game. Even though they are highly confident in their abilities against the Blackhawks, they have had a history of dropping one or two goal leads this season and almost faced a first round exit because of a failure to activate until the final minutes of an elimination game. After their series against Toronto, Boston has proven they can shut down any team when they put the effort forth so if they can harness that drive, especially at home, they are virtually unstoppable.
Who do you think will win Game 3?
No comments:
Post a Comment