What the Blackhawks Need to Fix

          Two years ago, the Chicago Blackhawks resuscitated the flat-lined hockey heart in the Windy City by winning the Stanley Cup. Decade after decade of terrible seasons and being blacked out on local TV were finally a thing of the past and Lord Stanley was coming home. But after that glorious run for the Cup, the Blackhawks made some serious changes, changes that arguably removed the pieces to the success of Chicago’s post-season and Hawks fans were left to wonder what the front office was doing.

            Now, two years removed from winning the Cup, it seems as though the fans worries were right on the mark. Chicago hasn’t seen past the first round of the playoffs since then, their physical play is non-existent and it already feels like our Championship was just a lucky year, not a reflection of the amount of talent and passion it took to win. I understand that financial adjustments need to be made and those adjustments might require removing some players from your roster but cutting Antti Niemi and Dustin Byfuglien were possibly the worst “adjustments” that Chicago could have made in order to leave room to improve on their already impressive achievements.

            With that being said, what needs to get fixed if the Chicago Blackhawks want to bring the Stanley Cup back to the Windy City again? A lot of people will have a lot of different arguments. Some will say our goaltending, others will argue that we need a physical defenseman and the rest will say it’s more of a combination of things that need to be changed. Whatever the case may be, I’m in the combination boat and the following are what I think are areas of improvement.

            If the Blackhawks, Coyotes series was any indication, my first concern is goaltending. Corey Crawford is a good goalie, he has been brilliant at points during the season, but he has also been terrifying to watch at times this season. Case in point, in the two overtime games in Chicago during the playoffs. Crawford let in two soft goals that put the Blackhawks up against a wall. While the Hawks were shooting the puck at Mike Smith who seldom let one in, watching the puck get played in Chicago’s zone was unsettling because I didn’t know when Phoenix was going to score. It wasn’t just during the playoffs that Crawford’s abilities were questioned. There were many times in which Ray Emery replaced him in the regular season because of his inconsistencies and there was some serious debate as to whether or not Crawford should be the starting goalie for Chicago in the playoffs. Such questions do not bode well for a goalie and his confidence let alone for the fans that were already upset the Blackhawks got rid of Antti Niemi. For Chicago to make it past the first round, I really think they need a new goalie that Crawford can learn from and gain some confidence.

            Another aspect of the Hawks that needs to change is their lack of big, physical defensemen. There is a problem with a defensive line when the coaching staff relies on two of the six to endure the brunt of the ice time. Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook averaged nearly 30 minutes on the ice during the series. In other words those two spent half of the entire hockey game on the ice. Now, those two are by far the best defensemen Chicago have but those two cannot be relied on to protect Crawford all the time and therefore we need more defensive players to share the load. Nick Leddy, Johnny Oduya, Niklas Hjalmarsson and the rest of the defensemen were invisible and unproductive (minus Leddy’s late goal in Game 5). In fact, I was furious with Nick Leddy’s production the whole series because he turned the puck over; he wasn’t physical and was more useful warming the bench than playing on the ice. Defensemen are an integral part in preventing goals and if a team only has two that can be depended on to do so then that is a sign a team needs more.

            The last ingredient that I think will put the Blackhawks back on the right track is a bruiser. We had one earlier in John Scott but much to the dismay of the fans, he was traded to New York. Then Brandon Bolig came into the picture and made a strong case for being that guy, however he seems to enjoy getting kicked out of games more than playing in them so his status as a bruiser is questionable. I liked what Dustin Byfuglien did as a bruiser and as an enforcer. He upset goalies by standing in front of them, he was integral in the success of Chicago’s Cup run. I’ll be happy if Bolig can fill that void because he’s been proven in the short time he’s played here. But if not, then we really need a guy that can be that guy.

            I LOVE our offense, the youth and talent that the offensive side of the puck has makes us a threat for years to come, much like the Detroit Red Wings were for decades. Toews, Kane, Sharp, Shaw, Stalberg, everybody is quick, agile and determined. The fact that we have some young players who have already won a Cup is special because they understand how much it takes to win and that experience helps their peers stay calm.

            The Blackhawks have what it takes there is no doubt about that. However, they really do need to make some adjustments. What made them successful in 2010 is gone and in order to get back to that level they need to fix the issues at hand. Now, some might have a different opinion on what needs to get repaired and what we as fans think is most likely not what the front office thinks but it’s important that they realize something is missing from that 2010 group.  I know Lord Stanley will come back to Chicago in the near future, but not if the Hawks play the way they played against Phoenix this season. 

What is Brendan Shanahan's Problem?

            This is going to be quick but I need to get it out there. NHL Commissioner Brendan Shanahan is showing his true colors this post-season. After giving Shea Weber a pocket change fine of $2,500 for DELIBERATELY taking his hands to Zetterberg’s head and smashing it into the glass in game 1 of the playoffs, he then suspends Andrew Shaw for 3 games for a hit to Mike Smith that was according to Shanahan’s report “intentional”.

            A serious problem indeed has Shanahan caused because many thought that Weber’s hit was not only intentional but suspendable due to the fact that it was unnecessary to grab a man’s head with BOTH hands and smash it into the glass with 3 seconds left in the game. While Shaw’s hit was hard and questionable at best, his shoulder didn’t raise to intentionally hit Smith behind the net nor his elbow. Shanahan also suspended New York Ranger Carl Hagelin for 3 games for a hit to Ottawa’s Daniel Alfredsson whereas the Senators’ Matt Carkner, a player with a history of violent hits only gets suspended one game for literally beating Brian Boyle while he was down on the ice. If you didn’t see game 2 of the Rangers vs. Senators game and do not know what incident I am talking about, imagine a man bending over another, defenseless man and repeatedly beating him over the head with his bare fist while an official is attempting to pry the attacker off the attacked. 

            So what does this mean when it comes to how Shanahan is handling the violent situations that have plagued the first round of the post-season? It means that Shanahan is showing favortism, that he is a hypocrite and that he punishes the less violent over the more violent offenses. If he, like every other pro-sports Commissioner is genuinely concerned with player safety then there needs to be consistency with the punishment. Incidental contact between Shaw and Smith is far less dangerous than intentional contact with Weber’s hands and Zetterberg’s head. For a multi-million dollar athlete to receive a simple fine and a rookie athlete to receive a suspension is mixing the signals, especially for the younger generation.

            I am extremely upset by all of this. Not just because I am a Hawks fan but because the punishments that have been handed down have not fitted the crimes attached to them.

*Not my best blog I know but this is more of an upset writing than a seriously thought out blog.

            

First Take Follow Up

          For those who did not watch “ESPN First Take” this morning, the show went from the traditional list of topics to debate to a single topic that took up the whole 2 hour show in the most real interaction I have ever seen between analysts, athletes and fans. The topic of the day was whether or not the media crosses a line when they talk about athletes in a negative way. This topic and the ensuing debate between Jalen Rose, Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith and Cris Carter shook the Twitter world and the relationships between reporter and athlete. Good points were made by all three reporters, one saying that it is disrespectful to comment negatively on an athlete because it affects the family just as much as it affects the player, another says that there is a line that should not be crossed but negative comments about a player is a reflection of that player at a specific time and, on occasion, a reflection of their character as well but nobody could find common ground on a single branch of the topic tree.

            As I sat on my couch and watched the debate, I found myself thinking about my own points to bring to the table, which inspired me to write this blog because as much as I admire the intelligence of the reporters who debated this long and hard I think they missed some things that could have strengthened their position on the subject.

            First of all, I disagree with what Jalen said about being disrespectful to a player by giving them a nickname or calling them out on their performance. When an athlete decides to place himself or herself in the spotlight by attending a prestigious college or becoming a professional, they have inevitably opened the door to being examined by the media and by the fans. If an athlete decides to hide his head in a towel after a poor performance, fight with a coach during a game or not include him or herself in a huddle, they are disrespecting themselves and their team and ultimately allowing reporters and fans to discuss their character and come up with a negative conclusion.

            In other words, when one decides to become a member of an elite team, college or otherwise, you are becoming a member of that brand and being disrespectful to that brand means your being disrespectful to yourself so why should journalists or fans not give our opinion, albeit negative, about you? You chose to behave in a specific way and you are aware that the cameras are on you when you behave that way.

            I do agree with Jalen that the negative comments about an athlete affect not just the athlete but their families as well. But I also think that athletes disrespect their families by behaving in a negative manner. What I don’t think Jalen understands is that fans and journalists alike are reacting to an athletes performance from the night before or a recurrence of a negative act. Case in point, the Dwight Howard situation. Now I do not know all of the facts so I am just going to respond to what I have seen, read and heard from professionals. It is obvious that Dwight and Stan Van Gundy do not get along but both are a part of the Magic franchise for now and therefore should at least try to work together. When Dwight sits out of a huddle or crashes Van Gundy’s press conference, he is being disrespectful to his coach and his brand. Many journalists and former athletes agree that his attitude is not conducive to a successful team and according to Jalen’s point, if we think that Dwight is being rude, unprofessional and acting like a baby we are hurting his family by saying such things but since it is Dwight that is in fact behaving this way, isn’t he hurting his family by acting like this and we are simply giving our opinion about him? What I am trying to say is if you don’t want your family to be hurt don’t act in a way that would hurt your family.

Journalists can’t help but discuss what they see and develop an opinion from it. If Skip Bayless says Tony Romo is acting like “Tony Romeo” it is because during Romo’s relationship with Jessica Simpson his character reflected his interest in being in a relationship more than his interest in being a professional athlete and I think his trip to Cabo during his week off before the playoffs is a perfect example of that reflection, what else could a journalist or fan conclude from that? If Romo thought Skip’s nickname was offensive or the following comments and reports about his vacation were unfair, he should have thought about that beforehand. I mean come on; just because you have the week off doesn’t mean you should go on vacation with your girlfriend. If anything that week should have been spent preparing for the playoff game next week and I bet every Cowboys fan agrees.

Now, I do think that un-prepared negative comments are unnecessary. For example, Jay Cutler’s knee injury during the NFC Championship game two years ago. For reporters to question whether or not he was faking the injury was unfair and hurtful because they have no facts to prove he was. Just because he walked up a flight of stairs the next day doesn’t mean anything. Without medical proof that Cutler was faking, journalists had NO right to assume Cutler faked the injury and then question his toughness especially after he endured 52 sacks that year and a concussion that he played through after he sustained it in the Giants game.

I find it interesting that this debate occurred during a year where a lot of athlete’s performances have been put under a microscope. I think athletes deserve to get called out for their performance. In fact, I guarantee that if an athlete doesn’t get talked about, they’d be upset because they aren’t in the spotlight. If they want to be defensive and come on “ESPN”, I bet it’s for the attention and if they really have a problem with what journalists are saying, shut up and prove them wrong. If you want respect from the media then they should be respectful also, not just to their brand but to the journalists as well because journalists are just doing their job and being disrespectful to them is just giving them more reason to assume that your character is flawed and their original point was correct.

The debate was more about reporters and athletes but I think that it could be stretched farther to include fans of the game. Our voices may only be heard by a smaller group of people, mainly family and friends but we still have opinions both positive and negative about a player, a team, a coach and a reporter.

What I admire about journalists like Skip and Stephen A. Smith is that they honestly don’t care what people think about them and it’s that very reason that allows them to continue to do their job the way they do. 

Do the Players in the NFL Have a Point?

Before I write this blog, I want to reiterate that I do not support the Saints bounty program.

With that being said. There has been strong opposition towards Commissioner Goodell’s handling of the situation on behalf of the players in the NFL. Many say that he is taking away the physicality of the sport and has no genuine interest in player safety. Others say that his background in law has navigated his interested in the direction of league protection and his platform of player safety is simply a façade to maintain support among the fans and players. Whether or not the above is true, I find it incredibly telling and interesting that the players have publicly and without fear expressed their dislike for the Commissioner not just because of this bounty gate scandal but also because they feel he is not genuinely interested in player safety.

Starting with bounty gate, there is no room in the NFL for it. I understand that motivational speeches that state “let’s run them into the ground” or “we are going to rip their (blank) heads off” is a part of the game and it’s not those types of speeches that bother me. It is the money and specificity of the desired injury attached to the monetary value that frustrates me.

Player’s say their fear is that the Commissioner is taking away the physical part of the game by punishing the Saints so harshly because they feel that any big hit will now be viewed in his eyes as a bounty hit and will be investigated. Every player that has come out and discussed bounty gate whether it was on TV or in an interview has said that this sport is a physically violent game and they understand the risks, love the sport and don’t want to see it changed. Many fear that in the future Rodger Goodell will have turned the NFL into a Flag Football league with all of the rules against big hits and concussions.

What I don’t think Mr. Goodell understands is that a significant portion of the fans appreciate the big hits, it is those hits that changes the course of a game and what we as fans boast about for the minutes and hours afterwards. If that part of the game is softer or even non-existent, we will not want to watch and his popularity will significantly decrease.

Which brings me to my next point. Rodger Goodell is obviously not too popular among the players. Jay Feely, the kicker for the Arizona Cardinals was on First Take today saying that he doubts that the Commissioner has a genuine interest in player safety and his real interest is protecting the league from lawsuits such as the one they are facing now with concussed players. Now, I understand that it is not in the league’s best interest to get sued but the problem with his premise is the fact that his desire to protect the league will cause a reduction in revenue and in the long term, cost him his job. The biggest problem the Commissioner is the fact that he has been accused of denying workman’s compensation to injured players, forcing them to endure years of litigation in order to get the money they deserve. If these accusations prove to be true, the next investigation that needs to be held is the one that investigates the manner in which he conducts this business.

Whether or not the players have a point, my greatest concern is how the fans are going to react to the Commissioner’s rule changes. We love the big hits and if he’s taking them away, what is left for us to have?