The Question Behind the Bench: Is Sorensen the Right Fit for the Blackhawks' Future?

The 2-1-2 is effective because it takes away the boards and forces the opposing defensemen to use the center of the ice under pressure. You can encourage the defensemen to pinch (which Sorensen does), but you take a risk opening yourself up to odd-man rushes. So long as you pinch when the opponent doesn't have the puck under control and you have support from the high forward, you're fine. 

In Tuesday's game, there's a critical moment when this team's confidence is shot. First, a potential Blackhawk goal is waved off. Then the Kraken score two goals in under 30 seconds. The Hawks puck management becomes horrid and they can't connect on passes. This team lost their dog in the fight, so how does Sorensen respond in the third period? By having the Hawks play a 1-2-2 forecheck. 

Frank Nazar and Connor Bedard thrive in offensive-minded hockey — mistakes be damned. A 1-2-2 forecheck does not facilitate that.

The 1-2-2 forecheck clogs the middle of the ice and has one forward pressuring the breakout. This forces the breakout to the boards and you only have one forward committed deep in the zone. 

Sorensen probably makes the change because he doesn't want to risk opening up this team to odd-man rushes. But here's my problem. At this point, what difference does it make if you're down? Let Bedard and Nazar play their heart out on a 2-1-2. So what if they give up a goal? 

Sorensen utilizes a hybrid D-zone coverage. When the puck is low, the Hawks play zone defense. They button up and take out passing lanes, with one player pressuring the puck carrier. When the puck is high, above the hash marks, the Hawks play more of a man-on-man defense. D1 follows his man, and F3 fills D1's spot. The below clip is an example of that working.

As the game got worse, the Blackhawks' defensive structure fell apart. Passing lanes went uncontested, players lost their assignment, and the Kraken got to the center of the ice with ease. Below is a screenshot of the Blackhawks before Shane Wright scores his first goal of the night.

So what can Sorensen do? Spencer Knight wasn't pulled, even though it's not his fault. There was never a time-out, even if it wouldn't have really mattered. The Hawks played more conservatively, even though a more offensive-minded game would have cost you a couple more goals.

The line-up decisions that Sorensen makes seem to be throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks. Teuvo Teravainen has no reason to be married to Ilya Mikheyev for this long. Teuvo, by the way, was a player Kyle Davidson brought on to play with Bedard. Sorensen probably wants to keep him on the second line because of the chemistry he's developed with Mikheyev. 

But he has yet to play Teuvo with Connor Bedard. 

The AHL isn't a developmental league. However, it can be used for player development to bridge the gap between juniors and pro-level hockey. The NHL isn't a developmental league, but you can find opportunities to develop your young players if you can afford it.

Can he develop young players? 

Sorensen spent a lot of time in Rockford, but we have no substantial proof that he can develop players. Alex Vlasic is a one-off. He spent one year in Rockford and came out better for it. Who else can Sorensen say that he's developed? What proof do we have that this is a coach who can develop players at the pro level?

Kyle Davidson won't show his hand during his coaching search, but when Scott Powers says he's "turning heads," then I get a little worried. Powers is plugged into the front office as anyone. 

It's one game that had a lot of poor individual effort, but it's a symptom of larger issues. Bedard isn't having fun. The veterans are clearly checked out of whatever message Sorensen is trying to say (if any). And losing is destroying the morale of the players. More importantly, it's destroying the morale of the young players.