Pre-Game Talk: Chicago vs. Dallas- 12/3 (7:00 CST)

[Easton Modano Curve]

bench kane...he is a defensive liability

i vote no!

 

[Sarava]

That's a short sighted way of looking at things though. Who cares what you're ranked. If adding a scorer that creates/scores an additional net fifteen goals after factoring in his defense over the guy he's replacing then your team is better for it.

As some of us have been trying to say for a while. Q may be doing this in the short-term, knowing it might make the team slightly worse right now. But if it helps mold Pirri in to the player he wants Pirri to be, then it will be worth it down the line....both for the Hawks and for Pirri.

It's all conjecture, since none of us can get in Q's head.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

That's a short sighted way of looking at things though. Who cares what you're ranked. If adding a scorer that creates/scores an additional net fifteen goals after factoring in his defense over the guy he's replacing then your team is better for it.

In the past two years Handzus has average 0.45 ppg as a Hawk. In the same time period Pirri has averaged 0.46 ppg as a Hawk. I guess if you want to break down minutes played to find the extra 15 goals you can.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

As some of us have been trying to say for a while. Q may be doing this in the short-term, knowing it might make the team slightly worse right now. But if it helps mold Pirri in to the player he wants Pirri to be, then it will be worth it down the line....both for the Hawks and for Pirri.

It's all conjecture, since none of us can get in Q's head.

 

[CPHawksFan]

As some of us have been trying to say for a while. Q may be doing this in the short-term, knowing it might make the team slightly worse right now. But if it helps mold Pirri in to the player he wants Pirri to be, then it will be worth it down the line....both for the Hawks and for Pirri.

It's all conjecture, since none of us can get in Q's head.

I hope you're right.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

In the past two years Handzus has average 0.45 ppg as a Hawk. In the same time period Pirri has averaged 0.46 ppg as a Hawk. I guess if you want to break down minutes played to find the extra 15 goals you can.

Is it really your contention that Pirri has played with the same level of talent consistently that Handzus has?

And I never said that Pirri is worth a net 15 goals a year over Handzus. It was just a hypothetical example.

 

[Marina]

1) Hawks are 1st in goals per game and 17th in goals against per game. Q will pick a 2C based on who helps with the latter stat.

2) Patrick Kane is the only regular forward on the Hawks who is minus on the season in the +/- department. He's mostly played on line 2. Again, 2C is going to be picked on goals against instead of goals for.

Of course this is all conjecture, but isn't this all? Q might be a little crazy but there is a method to the madness if you look closely (at least to me).

I like Q. Some head scratchers but he sticks to his system. And I don't think there is a better 5 v 5 system in the NHL. Now if we could find some consistency w/ the special teams...

Without Kane, the second line is more than likely nothing. Again. Q's questionable decisions with that line have been covered up by Kane playing amazing hockey. I don't really see how having Handzus on the second line is going to help the team's GA average improve though. Or the GF, really. He and Kane have like negative chemistry on the ice. Zero points together I believe. And Saad's production has taken a dive since Handzus joined the second line too.

It's pretty simple... he's not suited for the 2C role on this team. At least not with Kane and Saad, maybe he'd look better with Sharp and Hossa, I don't know. Not sure why people keep trying to make excuses for his placement there though.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

As some of us have been trying to say for a while. Q may be doing this in the short-term, knowing it might make the team slightly worse right now. But if it helps mold Pirri in to the player he wants Pirri to be, then it will be worth it down the line....both for the Hawks and for Pirri.

It's all conjecture, since none of us can get in Q's head.

He's been sand bagging Pirri for three years now. If he's some hockey savant that is playing the slow play to end all slow plays and it ends up making Pirri a better hockey player I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.

But I have said and thought that Handzus was Q's second line center this year before the ink was dry on his extension come hell or high water. Pirri was playing well, Zues came back from injury, was handed Pirri's role despite looking awful early, and Pirri's minutes got slashed. His game has fallen off as a result.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

Is it really your contention that Pirri has played with the same level of talent consistently that Handzus has?

And I never said that Pirri is worth a net 15 goals a year over Handzus. It was just a hypothetical example.

"That's a short sighted way of looking at things though. Who cares what you're ranked. If adding a scorer that creates/scores an additional net fifteen goals after factoring in his defense over the guy he's replacing then your team is better for it."

Sorry to misquote you. Since the last dozen posts were about Handzus/Pirri is just kinda assumed. My bad.

Zus has had more games with better linemates, I understand. Part of what I don't understand is the utter outrage over two secondary scorers on the Blackhawks. Sorry, might be offending some here, but Brandon Pirri is not in my eyes (or will ever be) an offensive catalyst to this team. He is a NICE player. I think he could even hit 60 points in a good year. But every freaking thread turns into a debate about Handzus and Pirri - two guys just under 0.5 ppg in the past two year. I get it, the linemates are different! Newsflash - everyone but Kane, Toews, Hossa, and Sharp are moved up and down the lineup. I don't understand why Pirri gets to ride into town annointed to lineup next to Patrick Kane every game. I also get that Q likes Handzus - it's weird, whatever, the production really isn't that much different than anyone else we've put there (and I do think Handzus looks horrible).

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

"That's a short sighted way of looking at things though. Who cares what you're ranked. If adding a scorer that creates/scores an additional net fifteen goals after factoring in his defense over the guy he's replacing then your team is better for it."

Sorry to misquote you. Since the last dozen posts were about Handzus/Pirri is just kinda assumed. My bad.

Zus has had more games with better linemates, I understand. Part of what I don't understand is the utter outrage over two secondary scorers on the Blackhawks. Sorry, might be offending some here, but Brandon Pirri is not in my eyes (or will ever be) an offensive catalyst to this team. He is a NICE player. I think he could even hit 60 points in a good year. But every freaking thread turns into a debate about Handzus and Pirri - two guys just under 0.5 ppg in the past two year. I get it, the linemates are different! Newsflash - everyone but Kane, Toews, Hossa, and Sharp are moved up and down the lineup. I don't understand why Pirri gets to ride into town annointed to lineup next to Patrick Kane every game. I also get that Q likes Handzus - it's weird, whatever, the production really isn't that much different than anyone else we've put there (and I do think Handzus looks horrible).

The fact that their production is the same when Handzus is put in position to succeed time after time after time while Pirri is set up to fail over and over again says something doesn't it?

As for the bolded... my point wasn't just about Pirri and Handzus. It's about every team everywhere. It doesn't matter how good your offense or defense is... it could be better. Hockey is a game of goal differential. I understand the argument of diminishing returns, but just because you're the best offensive team in the league doesn't mean you should play a defensively responsible fourth liner on your second liner in favor of an above average scorer.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

The fact that their production is the same when Handzus is put in position to succeed time after time after time while Pirri is set up to fail over and over again says something doesn't it?

As for the bolded... my point wasn't just about Pirri and Handzus. It's about every team everywhere. It doesn't matter how good your offense or defense is... it could be better. Hockey is a game of goal differential. I understand the argument of diminishing returns, but just because you're the best offensive team in the league doesn't mean you should play a defensively responsible fourth liner on your second liner in favor of an above average scorer.

Maybe just maybe Zus is put into a position to "succeed" b/c he brings something to the second line Pirri doesn't. I understand all the conspiracy theories out there regarding Q and Pirri and Q's love affair with vets. Believe me, I wonder what goes through Q's head.

And I'm not talking about you hear, but it ticks me off when a lot of fans knee jerk reaction is just to bash Q for his lineup. Maybe there is thought put in even if we disagree. I know people hate when this is brought up but Q has had wins/losses success here in Chicago.

This is a whole other convo, but I don't really buy the fact that Pirri deserves to be in a position to succeed. Q doesn't owe any rookie anything in my opinion. His job is to win games. In that case they should just trade Pirri like you suggested earlier. I don't buy this rookies deserve a shot though. We're here to win games. You perform like the coach wants when brought up (Shaw, Saad, Leddy, etc) or you don't (Hayes, Skille, Olsen, etc).

 

[Chris Hansen]

Maybe just maybe Zus is put into a position to "succeed" b/c he brings something to the second line Pirri doesn't. I understand all the conspiracy theories out there regarding Q and Pirri and Q's love affair with vets. Believe me, I wonder what goes through Q's head.

Nope. Handzus is certainly not as effective as Pirri on offense, and his being so slow basically neuters whatever defensive smarts he may have. He's a better faceoff man, that's about it.

And I'm not talking about you hear, but it ticks me off when a lot of fans knee jerk reaction is just to bash Q for his lineup. Maybe there is thought put in even if we disagree. I know people hate when this is brought up but Q has had wins/losses success here in Chicago.

Lots of wins don't excuse not putting the best lineup possible on the ice.
A bad decision is a bad decision regardless of past success. The "he's won a lot" argument is old, tired, and as ineffective as ever. Quenneville is not infallible because he's won a lot of games in the past. That logic is so infantile, I can't stand when people resort to it. It's just weak argumentation.

This is a whole other convo, but I don't really buy the fact that Pirri deserves to be in a position to succeed. Q doesn't owe any rookie anything in my opinion. His job is to win games. In that case they should just trade Pirri like you suggested earlier. I don't buy this rookies deserve a shot though. We're here to win games. You perform like the coach wants when brought up (Shaw, Saad, Leddy, etc) or you don't (Hayes, Skille, Olsen, etc).

He earned his way to the second line, so he deserved it.
Q doesn't owe any player anything - his chief responsibility is to give the team he coaches its best chance to win. Putting a "geriatric fourth liner" (as DHF so correctly put it) on the second line in favor of - quite simply - a better player... it's a bizarre choice no matter which way you slice it.

Rookies deserve a shot if they earn it. Pirri did, and he thrived.
Handzus was absolutely dreadful prior to his injury, and yet was gifted the #2C spot as soon as he was healthy again.
In light of the very accurate "we're here to win games" line of reasoning that you brought up, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Maybe just maybe Zus is put into a position to "succeed" b/c he brings something to the second line Pirri doesn't. I understand all the conspiracy theories out there regarding Q and Pirri and Q's love affair with vets. Believe me, I wonder what goes through Q's head.

And I'm not talking about you hear, but it ticks me off when a lot of fans knee jerk reaction is just to bash Q for his lineup. Maybe there is thought put in even if we disagree. I know people hate when this is brought up but Q has had wins/losses success here in Chicago.

This is a whole other convo, but I don't really buy the fact that Pirri deserves to be in a position to succeed. Q doesn't owe any rookie anything in my opinion. His job is to win games. In that case they should just trade Pirri like you suggested earlier. I don't buy this rookies deserve a shot though. We're here to win games. You perform like the coach wants when brought up (Shaw, Saad, Leddy, etc) or you don't (Hayes, Skille, Olsen, etc).

He doesn't deserve the opportunity to play on the second line because he's a rookie. He isn't "owed" anything.

He SHOULD be on the second line because he's a better hockey player than Handzus. Point blank. It'd be nice if we had a coach that was flexible enough to win regardless. At the highest level that's not always practical. You get to the top by playing your style. I've brought this up before that Q and Stan aren't on the same page and that eventually it may hurt us.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Nope. Handzus is certainly not as effective as Pirri on offense, and his being so slow basically neuters whatever defensive smarts he may have. He's a better faceoff man, that's about it.


Lots of wins don't excuse not putting the best lineup possible on the ice.
A bad decision is a bad decision regardless of past success. The "he's won a lot" argument is old, tired, and as ineffective as ever. Quenneville is not infallible because he's won a lot of games in the past. That logic is so infantile, I can't stand when people resort to it. It's just weak argumentation.


He earned his way to the second line, so he deserved it.
Q doesn't owe any player anything - his chief responsibility is to give the team he coaches its best chance to win. Putting a "geriatric fourth liner" (as DHF so correctly put it) on the second line in favor of - quite simply - a better player... it's a bizarre choice no matter which way you slice it.

Rookies deserve a shot if they earn it. Pirri did, and he thrived.
Handzus was absolutely dreadful prior to his injury, and yet was gifted the #2C spot as soon as he was healthy again.
In light of the very accurately"we're here to win games" line of reasoning that you brought up, that doesn't make any sense.

Well said. I will admit that on some level it does fall on Bowman to know that his coach just has no use for a guy like Pirri. People gloss over the fact that if we don't win three in a row and come back against Detroit we likely have a different head coach right now. I believe Bowman to be one of if not the best GM's in hockey. The scary thing is that if he finds a coach that has the same hockey strategies/principles as himself this team could be even BETTER.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

Nope. Handzus is certainly not as effective as Pirri on offense, and his being so slow basically neuters whatever defensive smarts he may have. He's a better faceoff man, that's about it.


Lots of wins don't excuse not putting the best lineup possible on the ice.
A bad decision is a bad decision regardless of past success. The "he's won a lot" argument is old, tired, and as ineffective as ever. Quenneville is not infallible because he's won a lot of games in the past. That logic is so infantile, I can't stand when people resort to it. It's just weak argumentation.


He earned his way to the second line, so he deserved it.
Q doesn't owe any player anything - his chief responsibility is to give the team he coaches its best chance to win. Putting a "geriatric fourth liner" (as DHF so accurately put it) on the second line in favor of - quite simply - a better player... it's a bizarre choice no matter which way you slice it.

Rookies deserve a shot if they earn it. Pirri did, and he thrived.
Handzus was absolutely dreadful prior to his injury, and yet was gifted the #2C spot as soon as he was healthy again.
In light of the very correct "we're here to win games" line of reasoning that you brought up, that doesn't make any sense.

Handzus was traded for as a #4 center last year. Earned his way (not much competition) to the #2 center last year. He was even the extra attacker when the Hawks were down 2-1 in Boston. I agree that Pirri looks better than Zus. But I do believe that Zus earned his way onto this team more than you're giving him credit for. Played through the entire playoffs injured in a spot no one expected him to and eventually helped raised the Cup. Pirri was the leading scorer in the AHL last year - there was a reason Zeus was traded for and we didn't call up Pirri last year.

The funny thing about a lot of my posts is that I'm not really on the other side as much as you guys think. I'd rather have Pirri at #2C than Zus - at the very least for development sake at this point in the season. I guess why it seems like I'm rushing to Q's defense is that I'm frankly appalled by the arrogance of some of the Hawks fans on this board. I don't pretend to know all the answers (despite my posts ), but I am starting to find it a little comical some of the posts on this board regarding Q. We are a bunch of guys positing on an internet board. We only watch the games - no practice, no film room, no dry land, no team dinners, no performance evals no hanging at the hotel. Yet we think we know exactly what is right for the team. I know you don't like this argument but this team is first place in the NHL with 2 recent Stanley Cups. There might be some bad decisions on Q's part, but this board sure hasn't highlighted the many good decisions he's made to contribute to our success.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Maybe just maybe Zus is put into a position to "succeed" b/c he brings something to the second line Pirri doesn't. I understand all the conspiracy theories out there regarding Q and Pirri and Q's love affair with vets. Believe me, I wonder what goes through Q's head.

And I'm not talking about you hear, but it ticks me off when a lot of fans knee jerk reaction is just to bash Q for his lineup. Maybe there is thought put in even if we disagree. I know people hate when this is brought up but Q has had wins/losses success here in Chicago.

This is a whole other convo, but I don't really buy the fact that Pirri deserves to be in a position to succeed. Q doesn't owe any rookie anything in my opinion. His job is to win games. In that case they should just trade Pirri like you suggested earlier. I don't buy this rookies deserve a shot though. We're here to win games. You perform like the coach wants when brought up (Shaw, Saad, Leddy, etc) or you don't (Hayes, Skille, Olsen, etc).

a few things - i try to be vanilla re Q - i don't mind his coaching but don't like his treatment of some of our prospects - and i'm someone who is strongly of the view that it's to the team's benefit to funnel our best prospects on to the team.

re Pirri - I don't appreciate your opinion on him. If Q is such a great coach then his obligation is not to look at the team year by year, it's to look at the team and to try to ensure its success. Making sure that Pirri is funnelled into the team re his own skill and placed in a position to succeed is very much in the interest of the Hawks.

Yes, I agree with you that Q doesn't owe any rookie anything - but given that we have great prospects in our system and have done well integrating young players (at a very early stage) on to our team it's unacceptable to me when Q harasses us all with an old/slow horse who needs to be put down.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Handzus was traded for as a #4 center last year. Earned his way (not much competition) to the #2 center last year. He was even the extra attacker when the Hawks were down 2-1 in Boston. I agree that Pirri looks better than Zus. But I do believe that Zus earned his way onto this team more than you're giving him credit for. Played through the entire playoffs injured in a spot no one expected him to and eventually helped raised the Cup. Pirri was the leading scorer in the AHL last year - there was a reason Zeus was traded for and we didn't call up Pirri last year.

The funny thing about a lot of my posts is that I'm not really on the other side as much as you guys think. I'd rather have Pirri at #2C than Zus - at the very least for development sake at this point in the season. I guess why it seems like I'm rushing to Q's defense is that I'm frankly appalled by the arrogance of some of the Hawks fans on this board. I don't pretend to know all the answers (despite my posts ), but I am starting to find it a little comical some of the posts on this board regarding Q. We are a bunch of guys positing on an internet board. We only watch the games - no practice, no film room, no dry land, no team dinners, no performance evals no hanging at the hotel. Yet we think we know exactly what is right for the team. I know you don't like this argument but this team is first place in the NHL with 2 recent Stanley Cups. There might be some bad decisions on Q's part, but this board sure hasn't highlighted the many good decisions he's made to contribute to our success.

I haven't been here as long as others - but no, you're not biased at all. like many of us (including me) you have your own opinions. ... but fwiw you clearly have no axe to grind in your views, imo.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Handzus was traded for as a #4 center last year. Earned his way (not much competition) to the #2 center last year. He was even the extra attacker when the Hawks were down 2-1 in Boston. I agree that Pirri looks better than Zus. But I do believe that Zus earned his way onto this team more than you're giving him credit for. Played through the entire playoffs injured in a spot no one expected him to and eventually helped raised the Cup. Pirri was the leading scorer in the AHL last year - there was a reason Zeus was traded for and we didn't call up Pirri last year.

The funny thing about a lot of my posts is that I'm not really on the other side as much as you guys think. I'd rather have Pirri at #2C than Zus - at the very least for development sake at this point in the season. I guess why it seems like I'm rushing to Q's defense is that I'm frankly appalled by the arrogance of some of the Hawks fans on this board. I don't pretend to know all the answers (despite my posts ), but I am starting to find it a little comical some of the posts on this board regarding Q. We are a bunch of guys positing on an internet board. We only watch the games - no practice, no film room, no dry land, no team dinners, no performance evals no hanging at the hotel. Yet we think we know exactly what is right for the team. I know you don't like this argument but this team is first place in the NHL with 2 recent Stanley Cups. There might be some bad decisions on Q's part, but this board sure hasn't highlighted the many good decisions he's made to contribute to our success.

It's funny because I feel the same way in the opposite direction.

 

[Chris Hansen]

Handzus was traded for as a #4 center last year. Earned his way (not much competition) to the #2 center last year. He was even the extra attacker when the Hawks were down 2-1 in Boston. I agree that Pirri looks better than Zus. But I do believe that Zus earned his way onto this team more than you're giving him credit for. Played through the entire playoffs injured in a spot no one expected him to and eventually helped raised the Cup. Pirri was the leading scorer in the AHL last year - there was a reason Zeus was traded for and we didn't call up Pirri last year.

That was last year. Handzus was playing horrible hockey this season and was still handed back the same old role when he returned from injury.

Bickell was laying an egg on the first line this year and Quenneville rightfully moved him back to the third line. It served to get him and the first line going. It was a great move, and he did this despite Bickell earning his way onto the first line during last season's playoff run.
Why is he refusing to do the same thing with Handzus?

Presumably because Pirri is the alternative. Based on a slew of instances, it seems clear that Q has never been a Pirri fan. It is what it is.
Pirri is a better hockey player than Michal Handzus. The team is worse with the latter playing #2C over the former.

It's not being arrogant. It's calling out a bad decision for being a bad decision.

 

[Bubba88]

Me being wrong? Q giving Pirri a fair shake?

Pirri got a fair chance and still plays with Versteeg and Shaw...

him playing poorly those last few games is what helds him back.

 

[here come the]

Well said. I will admit that on some level it does fall on Bowman to know that his coach just has no use for a guy like Pirri. People gloss over the fact that if we don't win three in a row and come back against Detroit we likely have a different head coach right now. I believe Bowman to be one of if not the best GM's in hockey. The scary thing is that if he finds a coach that has the same hockey strategies/principles as himself this team could be even BETTER.

Why do you believe this to be true? And playing the what if game isn't a good way to argue, you've made and are capable of making much better arguments than that. It's not like Q resigned Handzus

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Pirri got a fair chance and still plays with Versteeg and Shaw...

him playing poorly those last few games is what helds him back.

yet kruger is still on the 4th line and will be dumped soon!

for all your complaining about Pirri, he will have a much better career than your bro!

 

[Taze em]

I think it's hilarious that the two top threads on this site are this Pirri/Handzus debate and the "What will Pirri get on his next contract" thread and yet people can't see the connection.

Let me spell it out I guess: You leave Pirri with Kane and Saad and he is putting up 50 pts. 50pt rookies get paid. Hawks don't want to pay/don't have the flexibility.

Sure, there are issues like defense and getting Handzus back in the rotation as well but there is another level to all this.

What do you think is going on with Morin?

 

[CPHawksFan]

I think it's hilarious that the two top threads on this site are this Pirri/Handzus debate and the "What will Pirri get on his next contract" thread and yet people can't see the connection.

Let me spell it out I guess: You leave Pirri with Kane and Saad and he is putting up 50 pts. 50pt rookies get paid. Hawks don't want to pay/don't have the flexibility.

Sure, there are issues like defense and getting Handzus back in the rotation as well but there is another level to all this.

What do you think is going on with Morin?

Is this really what it comes down to?

 

[Taze em]

Is this really what it comes down to?

I would bet it's a very large piece. As shocking as it may be, the goal isn't always icing your best lineup for some random game in December.

Drouin would have made TBL if they were trying to ice the best lineup, he's playing in the OHL so that they get an extra year on his contract.

Is it really so far fetched that a team would suppress a player's statistics for favorable contract negotiations? Yea... go ahead and give Morin and Pirri some extra "seasoning" in the minors. Detroit did it forever.