What We Learned: Trouble signs for Blackhawks dynasty

(Hello, this is a feature that will run through the entire season and aims to recap the weekend’s events and boils those events down to one admittedly superficial fact or stupid opinion about each team. Feel free to complain about it.)

It wasn't so long ago that Chicago looked like one of the best teams in the league.

On March 1, they were second in the league with 83 points in 64 games, sitting at 39-20-5. Their win total was second only to that of the Capitals' at the time (45 in 61 games played) but given the quality of their division, that was totally understandable.

Since that date a little more than a month ago, however, things have gone more than a little off the rails.

They've played 15 games since then, carrying a record of just 7-6-2 and generally going from looking like a probable Cup contender to looking like one of the worse teams in the league (yesterday's should-have-been-a-romp over Boston only somewhat withstanding). In fact, their point total in the last month is almost in the bottom third of the league, along with the likes of the slip-sliding and aforementioned Bruins and a club as mediocre as the Red Wings, and the downright-bad Flames. When the Arizona Coyotes have more points than you over any length of time, that is a cause for major concern.

But what's interesting is that Chicago has been struggling longer than the record would suggest. This is a team that most people would agree is among the most talented in the league. They have All-Star players at every position, and even when they get deeper into the lineup, their third- and fourth-liners mostly compare favorably with their peers.

However, a troubling trend has emerged that we frankly just haven't seen from this club since it began its run of dominance so many years ago: They're getting out-possessed on a regular basis.

This is an alien concept. Chicago's hallmark is that it just has the puck constantly, regardless of score or situation.

Since 2009-10, when they won their first of three Stanley Cups, only the Los Angeles Kings have a better score-adjusted possession share at 5-on-5 than they do. They're also eighth in the league in high-danger chances over that stretch, first in shots-for, and third in goals-for. This team has been miraculously good for a very long time, and it seems that whatever magic they conjured has faded not only since the start of March, but really more like around the middle of January.

Since Jan. 15, and not including the Boston results yesterday, they have a barely above-water CF% of just 50.1, just 15th in the league. This is not particularly normal. There haven't been too many 32-game stretches of Chicago basically playing break-even hockey in that regard at least over the past seven seasons.

What's more worrying, though, is that if you're used to Chicago being a 55 percent possession team (and really, how could you not be?) you might be surprised to find out that they haven't been close to that level of dominant since around the middle of last season. Here's what the past seven seasons have looked like for Chicago, moving in 32-game sets equal to the length of their most recent, more pronounced difficulties.

You'll note that there has basically not been a stretch this bad for the club in the past 550 games or so, which is a lot of time to go through such a run of mediocrity for a team this clearly talented and powerful. They've been hovering in the 52 percent range or so for the past 110 or so games — which, while not world-beating, is still tied for ninth in the league over that time — and that's a major downgrade that brings in far more room for error than the team might like.

Of course, those numbers just include regular-season games, and we of course know how strong this team was once it got out of the first round of the playoffs last year. Dominant as ever, etc., etc. But here's a real bit of concern: Since mid-January of last season, Chicago has been outscored at 5-on-5 despite having one of the best goaltending runs in the league (.930, tied for fourth). They've allowed three more goals than they've scored in that time, which is a negligible “minus” number in 118 games, but it's a minus number nonetheless. Again, you just don't expect to see it from a team this good.

So the question is whether this is a bit of a fluke, right?

Obviously the downward trend in possession seen in the last 14 months or so would indicate that it is not. Especially because the drop in goals-for percentage comes despite near-Vezina-worthy numbers from Corey Crawford (whose absence the last few weeks has been duly noted in the “not helping” category).

Certainly, it's reflected in the high-danger chances as well. Chicago just isn't getting to the net as effectively as it used to, and now has a share of those scoring opportunities of around 48 percent, just 23rd in the league. Their ability to prevent them is effectively unchanged from last season, and is in fact at one of the highest levels they've seen in the past seven years. But their ability to generate them? It's in the toilet, sitting at the lowest level seen since the year they won their Cup.

Part of the lack of scoring is, I think, something you can chalk up to bad luck. In the last 117 games, only Toronto has a worse shooting percentage at 5-on-5. This team is too good for that to continue. But if you're a just-scraping-by possession team that gives up a lot more high-quality chances than you generate, it's fair to say that something has gone haywire. And when a coach as good as Joel Quenneville hasn't been able to fix it for any considerable length of time over 100-plus games, that's a major worry.

Perhaps not a surprise here, but when Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane are off the ice, the team gets outscored pretty badly, and the possession sags to a lesser extent. It's fair to say, then, that the depth that made this team so dangerous for so long has gone away; they're paying so much for top-end talent that they have difficulties deeper down the lineup. Kane and Toews actually gets badly out-chanced from high-danger areas (45.4 percent and 47.6 percent, respectively!) but has such high-end finishing talent and gets deployed wisely enough that it doesn't matter (53.5 and 55.5 percent goals-for).

It makes sense, of course, and you'd rather pay for great players than not-have them, but it might get to the point where you have too many to build out the rest of your team, or at least you're not properly allocating your cap dollars. Even after some judicious trades and transactions, this team has a few problem contracts creating some dead cap space (and apparently they're going to run into even more problems if Artemi Panarin finishes top-10 in scoring, which seems likely at this point as he's just a few points away).

So it's tough to say how you solve this problem. This isn't an issue of a poorly coached team, but rather one that's been so talented and successful for so long that it's now dealing with the roster issues only super-talented and successful teams see: The cap doesn't rise quickly enough for them to keep up with their own needs.

This is a team that has long been praised for its ability to bring in relatively unheralded guys — college free agents, mid-level NHLers from other teams, players from foreign pro leagues, etc. — and have success with them. I think you're starting to see that this very specific kind of success can't last forever. You can only win so much playing scratch-off tickets.

They still have the talent to beat anyone in the playoffs at any time, but the way they've thinned out their margins for error in the last year-plus makes the climb a lot tougher. They've made it before, so in theory they “know what it takes,” but this is like trying to scale Everest by walking backwards: extremely unlikely, though theoretically possible.

It's a rich man's problem, but it's a big one nonetheless.

What We Learned

Anaheim Ducks: This seems bad.

Arizona Coyotes: Okay quick question: How did Mike Smith of all people stop 31 of 31 from the Capitals? Here's a quicker one: How is Mike Smith a .962 goalie in seven games since returning from injury?

Boston Bruins: Let's not get too excited about that “playoff position” thing because it's looking like that's not gonna happen... again.

Buffalo Sabres: Not too many times Henrik Lundqvist is gonna get the hook. Impressive game in attack for the Sabres.

Calgary Flames: This was just a brutal beating. The Flames almost never lose in Edmonton any more. It would be strange if this weren't the Oilers we were talking about.

Carolina Hurricanes: I didn't know Patrick Brown's grandfather owned the New York Giants. Weird. Anyway he scored his first NHL goal on Friday.

Chicago: This is the mark of a truly dirty player right here. Sad to see DoPS punk out and let him get off so light, but this was the only end result possible.

Colorado Avalanche: It's not over 'til it's over or whatever, but it's over.

Columbus Blue Jackets: So, fair to say mixed results on this trade? Brandon Saad is good, but the team is very not.

Dallas Stars: This was an excellent, excellent game on Saturday afternoon. The Stars are playing very well these days, which is scary.

Detroit Red Wings: This would be a crazy thing to happen. Just shocking.

Edmonton Oilers: This is where a year of coaching the Oilers gets you mentally, I guess.

Florida Panthers: Jaromir Jagr has points in 16 of his last 21 games, and 22 points in that time overall. He's 44 years old!

Los Angeles Kings: Yes I want this to be the Western Conference Final by a whole lot.

Minnesota Wild: This is a great look at how teams prep for the playoffs, before they even officially make it (but c'mon, the Wild are in.)

Montreal Canadiens: Yeah this feels like a pattern.

Nashville Predators: The Preds have one point in their last four games, which is bad. The good news is that with the exception of a loss to Colorado, all of them are to really good teams. So maybe that's your silver lining?

New Jersey Devils: The Devils are officially not going to make the playoffs, but hey, the fact that they stuck around this long is not something anyone saw coming.

New York Islanders: It's a little early to be asking this kind of question given that he's only out for the remainder of the regular season and this team probably has at least one playoff series left.

New York Rangers: They should show worry.

Ottawa Senators: Love when a guy buys a house because that means something about where they're gonna play for the foreseeable future but sometimes also it doesn't.

Philadelphia Flyers: Do you think Andrew MacDonald is the reason the Flyers are playing really well lately? Because if you do, please stop watching this sport. Thanks.

Pittsburgh Penguins: This is some genuinely scary stuff for Marc-Andre Fleury. Hope he can get everything sorted out.

San Jose Sharks: The Sharks are apparently going to sign a pair of guys from the Swedish league. I don't know if they're good but they might be!

St. Louis Blues: Sometimes it's hard to figure out what goes on with this team.

Tampa Bay Lightning: First Stralman, now Stamkos. Things are getting worrisome in Tampa.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Well, thanks for the help, Mike.

Vancouver Canucks: I thought this said, “without a plan,” and that made a lot more sense than “without pain.”

Washington Capitals: Yeah, but they should be resting their stars.

Winnipeg Jets: This may come as a big surprise, but the Jets are bad this year.

Play of the Weekend

This was quite the save by Chad Johnson. Unreal.

Gold Star Award

Johnny Gaudreau is up to 30 goals this year. He is a good player I like. Wow. 

Minus of the Weekend

Shocked that a team like the Bruins couldn't come back from a 6-0 hole. That'll do it for Claude Julien, right?

Perfect HFBoards Trade Proposal of the Year

User “McDangler97” is on top of things.

To NYR:
Taylor Hall
Oscar Klefbom

To EDM:
Ryan McDonagh
Chris Kreider 

Signoff

Say, let's take a relaxed attitude toward work and watch the baseball match.

 

Ryan Lambert is a Puck Daddy columnist. His email is here and his Twitter is here.

(All stats via War On Ice unless otherwise noted.)