Confirmed with Link: Blackhawks trade Hjalmarsson to Arizona for Connor Murphy & Laurent Dauphin

[TheSting]

Exactly but you're wasting your breath if you're trying to convince the folks who think stats will tell them all they need to know about this game. There are far too many variables and subtleties to try to accurately evaluate with numbers.... no matter how "advanced" these stats supposedly are.



Q is notorious for not recognizing the best players to ice on a given night or given series, and who should play with whom, scrambling his lines unnecessarily etc.. The team is no longer a powerhouse hence this rather major fault has caught up with him (after getting away with it for some time in Chicago). It is the main reason he needs to go.

Were you questioning Q after each of the 3 cups?

The only teams that has had this much success in past 10 years are the Kings and Penguins. That's 2 teams out of 30 (think about it). Unfortunate thing for Q is once the cups occur the bar is raised and the fanbase starts nitpicking the smallest things like difference maker Peter Regin

 

[ChiHawks10]

Were you questioning Q after each of the 3 cups?

The only teams that has had this much success in past 10 years are the Kings and Penguins. That's 3 teams out of 30+. Unfortunate thing for Q is once the cups occur the bar is raised and the fanbase starts nitpicking the smallest things like difference maker Peter Regin

Actually, I'm sure Bobby was. And I can tell you from experience, most the people on here with half a brain have recognized and ragged about Q's faults through all three Cups. Through their Cup runs they were loaded with so much talent that a coach behind the bench didn't matter. They could have played coachless and won all three.

Q has shown over and over again through all three of those Cups that he is a ****ing bonehead when it comes to lineup/roster decisions. And now that the team isn't nearly as talented, his weaknesses get exposed more easily.

 

[LDF]

Again... reading comprehension is evidently not your strong suit here... where has anyone called him a "difference maker"?

How the hell do you manage to find this **** in any of these posts? Like two comments were made about him, and then you started laying into people about stupid **** that was never said. Don't you find that hilarious? I do.

esp his same rhetoric of the hawks won 3 SC's ... like that should forgive any moves going forward.

does that mean the team can do crap for the next 2-3 yrs and it is ok, b/c the team won 3 sc's.

 

[TheSting]

esp his same rhetoric of the hawks won 3 SC's ... like that should forgive any moves going forward.

does that mean the team can do crap for the next 2-3 yrs and it is ok, b/c the team won 3 sc's.

yes cause championships are EZ mode, amirite? Am sure the Cub fans thought it was a sure thing to repeat this year. Am sure the 1985 Bear fans thought multiple superbowls were a lock.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Actually, I'm sure Bobby was. And I can tell you from experience, most the people on here with half a brain have recognized and ragged about Q's faults through all three Cups. Through their Cup runs they were loaded with so much talent that a coach behind the bench didn't matter. They could have played coachless and won all three.

Q has shown over and over again through all three of those Cups that he is a ****ing bonehead when it comes to lineup/roster decisions. And now that the team isn't nearly as talented, his weaknesses get exposed more easily.

Yup, he's to blame when things don't go well, gets no credit when things do. Only on HF.

 

[TheSting]

Yup, he's to blame when things don't go well, gets no credit when things do. Only on HF.

Bingo!

 

[ChiHawks10]

Yup, he's to blame when things don't go well, gets no credit when things do. Only on HF.

I do give him credit where it's due. I've never been a huge opponent/critic of Q. Go through and look at my post history. I've probably defended him more than I've ragged on him/blamed him.

But there are obviously things he's good at (matchups, getting the most out of roleplayers/mediocre talents, potentially his motivation of the players, etc.)

And then there are things that he's not good at, like roster/lineup decisions, special teams, making the correct adjustments mid-game(this one is probably 50/50 good and bad), and giving the chance/opportunity for young guys to play, develop, and learn. Also not very good at creating the best lines. He just blends everybody together until he finds some guys that click in a game/series of games.(The oft talked about Q line blender)

But there's absolutely NO denying that the Hawks have a good chance of winning all three Cups with any coach behind the bench. Their leadership through all three wins was unrivaled, IMO. Their poise as players, the same. And it's also undeniable that all three Cup teams were supremely talented. I mean... many pegged the Hawks to win in both 2010, and 2013, including Vegas odds, IIRC. They very well could have won it all in 2014 if not for a lucky bounce, and a bad coaching decision or two that I didn't like, and in 2015, once they were past Nashville, I had them basically as a lock to win it, as I didn't think Minnesota, Anaheim, or Tampa were better than them, despite the insistence by each of those fanbases that the Hawks weren't the better team.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

esp his same rhetoric of the hawks won 3 SC's ... like that should forgive any moves going forward.

does that mean the team can do crap for the next 2-3 yrs and it is ok, b/c the team won 3 sc's.

Good post. 3 Cups does not make Q and Bowman infallible. The whole "3 Cups" argument is getting tired.

Personally, I think a lot of NHL coaches would have had the same success Q has had in Chicago. He was a good but not great coach before he came to Chicago and then he gets several HOF players in their prime and he wins championships. Still says he blew it against LA in 2014. Sullivan just won back to back titles. Are we ready to anoint him to the HOF?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Actually, I'm sure Bobby was. And I can tell you from experience, most the people on here with half a brain have recognized and ragged about Q's faults through all three Cups. Through their Cup runs they were loaded with so much talent that a coach behind the bench didn't matter. They could have played coachless and won all three.

Q has shown over and over again through all three of those Cups that he is a ****ing bonehead when it comes to lineup/roster decisions. And now that the team isn't nearly as talented, his weaknesses get exposed more easily.

I honestly can't believe you're saying this. Never pegged you as the type of poster who would buy in to that nonsense.

It's like finding out you're a Death Eater

Oh well, people are entitled to have their own very wrong opinions

 

[ChiHawks10]

I honestly can't believe you're saying this. Never pegged you as the type of poster who would buy in to that nonsense.

It's like finding out you're a Death Eater

Oh well, people are entitled to have their own very wrong opinions

Haha. Look at my next post for a little more clarification on what I meant. The coachless thing was an exaggeration, more than anything. Q very obviously did some things that helped them win those Cups. But he also did some things that almost cost them Cups, too.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The "any coach could've won 3 Cups with the Hawks" is just so stupid. There are plenty of series where the Hawks won mostly on talent but there are also plenty of series where they won due to talent+deployment+matchups+Q out-coaching the guy next to him.

It's inexcusably nonobservant to think anything else. Not to mention, but if the Hawks FO and ownership thought that "anybody" could do it, I'd doubt they'd just throw away $18 million on Quenville.

He certainly has his flaws, but he's objectively a fantastic coach

 

[LDF]

i won't get into this discussion on coach vs history.

but i give credit to the players. why ?? b/c they needed to buy into the coaches philosophy .... which they did.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

The "any coach could've won 3 Cups with the Hawks" is just so stupid. There are plenty of series where the Hawks won mostly on talent but there are also plenty of series where they won due to talent+deployment+matchups+Q out-coaching the guy next to him.

It's inexcusably nonobservant to think anything else. Not to mention, but if the Hawks FO and ownership thought that "anybody" could do it, I'd doubt they'd just throw away $18 million on Quenville.

He certainly has his flaws, but he's objectively a fantastic coach

Geez- cut out the hyperbole. This is a debate that has no answer so don't pretend to be the authority.

Here's a question for you- which series in this run have the Hawks won when they weren't the favorites? Vancouver in 2009? The underachieving Duck in 2015?

 

[ChiHawks10]

The "any coach could've won 3 Cups with the Hawks" is just so stupid. There are plenty of series where the Hawks won mostly on talent but there are also plenty of series where they won due to talent+deployment+matchups+Q out-coaching the guy next to him.

It's inexcusably nonobservant to think anything else. Not to mention, but if the Hawks FO and ownership thought that "anybody" could do it, I'd doubt they'd just throw away $18 million on Quenville.

He certainly has his flaws, but he's objectively a fantastic coach

That's why I said it was an exaggeration. I've always given Q his props when due. And criticized him when it warrants, as well. I do think that the Hawks were so talented that maybe not "any coach" but even a mediocre one could have helped them achieve the Cups. Yes, they won some series due to his matchup adjustments and deployment strategies, and him outcoaching other coaches, but they also lost some games and series, almost lost some series,and strictly my opinion, lost a Cup, due to his stubbornness, and inability to put the best team on the ice every game. I mean... with the "fresh legs" debacle everyone who knows anything about hockey knew how bad he ****ed up.

I've never said he's not a good coach, or a HoF coach, or even a great coach. But I do believe those Cups were more a direct result of being substantially more talented than the other teams they played than anything.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

That's why I said it was an exaggeration. I've always given Q his props when due. And criticized him when it warrants, as well. I do think that the Hawks were so talented that maybe not "any coach" but even a mediocre one could have helped them achieve the Cups. Yes, they won some series due to his matchup adjustments and deployment strategies, and him outcoaching other coaches, but they also lost some games and series, almost lost some series,and strictly my opinion, lost a Cup, due to his stubbornness, and inability to put the best team on the ice every game. I mean... with the "fresh legs" debacle everyone who knows anything about hockey knew how bad he ****ed up.

I've never said he's not a good coach, or a HoF coach, or even a great coach. But I do believe those Cups were more a direct result of being substantially more talented than the other teams they played than anything.

I agree with this. Except, I wouldn't call him a great coach due to some of the flaws we've seen. Very good, HOF coach due to his longevity and Cup wins.

 

[JaegerDice]

Joel Quenneville is a very good coach.

Joel Quenneville was also basically Bruce Boudreau before he was handed the keys to the Blackhawks.

Do the Blackhawks win with ANY coach? No. Is Quenneville capable of pulling a Mike Sullivan and winning a cup without a deep, stacked roster? No.

 

[LDF]

Joel Quenneville is a very good coach.

Joel Quenneville was also basically Bruce Boudreau before he was handed the keys to the Blackhawks.

Do the Blackhawks win with ANY coach? No. Is Quenneville capable of pulling a Mike Sullivan and winning a cup without a deep, stacked roster? No.

i agree. i think that everything was there, a stacked team and Q with a game plan that the players brought into.

 

[LordKOTL]

i agree. i think that everything was there, a stacked team and Q with a game plan that the players brought into.

And the 'hawks had none of those these past playoffs.

 

[LDF]

And the 'hawks had none of those these past playoffs.

ok i see the sarcasm but the question, are you talking about the last 2 playoff??

 

[Any Colour You Like]

Q's gotten us a lot of "coaching wins," but he's also had his fair share of "fresh legs" moments. He's up-and-down. I think he'll go down as one of the greatest coaches in history, but he's beyond his time. The game is changing faster than Q can or wants to adapt to it, especially with the role of younger, faster players and moving the puck from the blue line. The recipe for success is changing, and I think that if you're talking about capital-c Changes, a younger, more progressive coach might be what this team needs.

 

[LDF]

Q's gotten us a lot of "coaching wins," but he's also had his fair share of "fresh legs" moments. He's up-and-down. I think he'll go down as one of the greatest coaches in history, but he's beyond his time. The game is changing faster than Q can or wants to adapt to it, especially with the role of younger, faster players and moving the puck from the blue line. The recipe for success is changing, and I think that if you're talking about capital-c Changes, a younger, more progressive coach might be what this team needs.

this would be more for the BK kind of posters who have yrs of hockey experience, instead of me, who has none.

but i been thinking the last yr, that the style of hockey is more suited for the young legs kind of players. esp in the d-men area.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Q's gotten us a lot of "coaching wins," but he's also had his fair share of "fresh legs" moments. He's up-and-down. I think he'll go down as one of the greatest coaches in history, but he's beyond his time. The game is changing faster than Q can or wants to adapt to it, especially with the role of younger, faster players and moving the puck from the blue line. The recipe for success is changing, and I think that if you're talking about capital-c Changes, a younger, more progressive coach might be what this team needs.

No problem with anything in this post

 

[TheSting]

Q's gotten us a lot of "coaching wins," but he's also had his fair share of "fresh legs" moments. He's up-and-down. I think he'll go down as one of the greatest coaches in history, but he's beyond his time. The game is changing faster than Q can or wants to adapt to it, especially with the role of younger, faster players and moving the puck from the blue line. The recipe for success is changing, and I think that if you're talking about capital-c Changes, a younger, more progressive coach might be what this team needs.

The only thing that has changed is the roster got purged and Toews, Keith, Seabrook & company are no longer 25 years old. It's the realities of parity in the NHL via salary cap, free agency and drafting bottom tier due to the success. Typically you have a competitive window of 3-5 years to make a run and win many as you can before the inevitable happens.

The World champion Cubs are in a similar boat and Theo Epstein recognizes this as well as he just went ALL IN and traded the future farm for Jose Quintana cause he knows the Cubs are in that same window the Blackhawks were to compete and win more championships

 

[BK]

Q's gotten us a lot of "coaching wins," but he's also had his fair share of "fresh legs" moments. He's up-and-down. I think he'll go down as one of the greatest coaches in history, but he's beyond his time. The game is changing faster than Q can or wants to adapt to it, especially with the role of younger, faster players and moving the puck from the blue line. The recipe for success is changing, and I think that if you're talking about capital-c Changes, a younger, more progressive coach might be what this team needs.

this would be more for the BK kind of posters who have yrs of hockey experience, instead of me, who has none.

but i been thinking the last yr, that the style of hockey is more suited for the young legs kind of players. esp in the d-men area.

So here is the issue with replacing Q right now (right now is the key), the team is a vet team so it will be hard to bring in a coach that can command the room from the start. Yes, the vets can help with this but it is still an issue. I think the FO made a solid hire in Rockford that can be the coach of the future but he is still raw. Mike Sullivan was a perfect storm, as he has a 700 game NHL playing resume, had prior HC experience (2 years in Boston (I think it was Boston)), was a longtime NHL AC, and he was the HC of the Pens AHL team so he developed some of the young guys we saw come up and play well.

You don't just hire a new young trendy HC and boom there is a new/improved team. It has so much to do with timing that people are missing.

If the new Rockford coach is not the next coach, I personally would like to see Sheldon Keefe, Kevin Dineen, or Travis Green (Vancouver hired him this year). An outside of the box thought would be Ray Ferraro but that is just me.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[ClydeLee]

But I've seen people praise oh you sometimes gotta wait and good playing performances and lead to production like with Vermette... you hear some complain things are too soft in decision making, but shortly after two guys were healthy scratched they produced even more and late in the playoffs. Somehow that's not a positive to those despite constantly calling for more accountability in that exact way that it can occur.

I don't get the abstract, sure people can point to 2014 if they want to not be abstract... because what component do they think the team could of done to beat the Preds? Even in beating the Blues last year do so many think they could of beaten the Sharks or Penguins ever? Does 2012's rushed from concussion just at the playoffs Toews and loss of Hossa still linger that people think that team could go somewhere? 2011's withered team even if they did beat Vancouver where adjustments got them back to the fold?

There's a good reason adjustments do occur why despite people who hate defensive play and always say it is the end of winning games, the hawks with leads into the 3rd almost never vanished.

The entire D rotation system used, the Anaheim adjustments and Tampa ones to the point that then and universally most all 4-6 games are won by Q under the Hawks which is what I kept telling a friend is from adjusting when he thought Tampa was gonna beat the Hawks.

I get 2014 and that's it... nothing even close with even some great coach but even then, sure some pine for Regin but the pines that existed immediately then for Jeremy Morin to have played all dried up... So many seemed to think nothing of Nordstrom then to not want him playing and not many change the tune now. Versteeg was too hurt, the next playoffs it happened again but yeah there was depth to swap him and Bickell out and the flashes of a more time rested Versteeg was that year good enough in his limited play then. It is so often said by some people Q's bonehead lineup decisions lost the playoffs without a tinge of naming how they would of actually formulated that lineup especially the mainly only issue of the troubled 3rd line that was what failed.. and what I recall were some of the leads of that game 7 lost while Toews-Hossa-Bickell were out there, but the OT unit out there gets criticized as if better options actually would of won games for them. Such as if Regin was in more games and even centering over Zeus, could that of not damaged defensively more or hurt the PK chances to kill penalties some times having more goals against that his impact likely wouldn't of put more on the board? It's not a reality that really can be said as often some feel.