Chicago Blackhawks: Dave Bolland's Injury Should Raise Questions
Christian Petersen/Getty Images
Fans should rightfully praise Ray Emery for his single-handed procuring of two points Saturday in Chicago's shootout win in Calgary. But after giving Razor his props for standing on his head, Bolland and his injury draw concern along with a lot of questions.
I'm probably not the only one who feared the worst when Bolland went down in the third period of a 2-1 shootout defeat to the Canucks. Losing Bolland for anything more than a few days could be problematic, to say the least.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, coach Joel Quenneville proclaimed Bolland's status as "day to day" and didn't seem to be in panic mode:
He's going to be all right. You're always concerned about the worst, but he's not doing too bad today (Saturday).
Bolland is remaining with the team as the 'Hawks travel to San Jose for Tuesday's showdown with the top team in the Western Conference. This implies that Bolland could be available for one of the last three games on this current six-game trek.
If he's out a game or two, it'll be no big deal. However, if Bolland is out for any serious time, a thin situation in the middle will just get a lot worse.
Minus Bolland, the Blackhawks have Andrew Shaw, Marcus Kruger and Jamal Mayers manning the pivot on the bottom three lines. Brandon Pirri has 33 points in Rockford and would appear to be the best in-house option should Bolland be out for a couple of weeks.
However, let's suppose hypothetically that the injury is the season-ender Bolland's reaction suggested when he went down Friday. Will the club make a move to address what would be a gaping hole?
If we trust Quenneville, things aren't going to come to that, and we could see Bolland back in action very soon. For a team looking to contend in the Western Conference, that's very good news. Losing Bolland long-term would open up a large can of worms.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?