For 4 years, I watched this forum denigrate Quenneville...

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
I’m confused. So giving Q 15 games with Crawford was more important than giving your team an offseason to learn a new system?

I think that with Crow being out last season and the Hawks being close to the playoffs when he went out you needed to give Q the additional amount of time. It removes excuses. This season was going to be a trying one with Q or with JC. Now JC has the rest of the season to slowly implement his changes and then have next summer to really get things going once our young D get here.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
I could probably go find a post where you wanted him fired over the summer, also. And expected it. ;).

I was ready to move on from Q for sure but they almost had to give him the start of the season. Do I like it? No but it removes all of the excuses.

Firing a coach mid-season is never the right time, IMO. Awful time, actually. The worst possible time.

I don't disagree. I thought they would keep him all season or at least half of the season.

Like I said, this season was never going to go well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmericanDream

RememberTheRoar

“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Oct 21, 2015
23,119
21,154
That's me in the corner
Probably and I bet Q knew he was a lame duck as well.

All this makes zero sense to me. If they knew it, if Q knew it, if you knew it, why the hell did they wait?

Are you saying this is another play by the front office trying to pander to the lowest common denominator of this fan base?

If that’s what they did, they bungled the f*** out of it because those fans are pissed they gave the apperence of jerking Q around. This while setting the team back by not allowing them to learn Colliton’s systems before the season started.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
All this makes zero sense to me. If they knew it, if Q knew it, if you knew it, why the hell did they wait?

Are you saying this is another play by the front office trying to pander to the lowest common denominator of this fan base?

If that’s what they did, they bungled the **** out of it because those fans are pissed they gave the apperence of jerking Q around. This while setting the team back by not allowing them to learn Colliton’s systems before the season started.

No I think that the FO still thought there was a possibility that Q could turn it around if Crow was healthy. They started fast then they fell off. Remember there was talk from people around Q this summer that they were focused on fixing systems and what not.

I agree that they should not pander to fans.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,916
21,138
Chicago 'Burbs
I was ready to move on from Q for sure but they almost had to give him the start of the season. Do I like it? No but it removes all of the excuses.



I don't disagree. I thought they would keep him all season or at least half of the season.

Like I said, this season was never going to go well.

I don't agree. They knew his deficiencies heading into this season, already. He was fired for basically all the same things we saw/complained about all last season, and even the year before to some degree. If they were going to fire him 12-15 games in... they should have fired him in the offseason. And I don't think there should be any disputing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: excaliber

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
I don't agree. They knew his deficiencies heading into this season, already. He was fired for basically all the same things we saw/complained about all last season, and even the year before to some degree.

That is fine. See my post above.

I don't think the Hawks handled it well but it was a f***ed situation. There isn't a handle book on how to fire a HOF coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawks10

AmericanDream

Thank you Elon!
Oct 24, 2005
36,957
26,266
Chicago Manitoba
I don't agree. They knew his deficiencies heading into this season, already. He was fired for basically all the same things we saw/complained about all last season, and even the year before to some degree. If they were going to fire him 12-15 games in... they should have fired him in the offseason. And I don't think there should be any disputing that.
I do agree with BK here slightly, that FO thought because Crow went down and this team was on the bubble at that time, they deemed he deserved a shot to see what they could do if healthy again...if BK is saying differently then I am with you - but that seems to be the logic behind why Q was here this summer...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RememberTheRoar

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
I do agree with BK here slightly, that FO thought because Crow went down and this team was on the bubble at that time, they deemed he deserved a shot to see what they could do if healthy again...if BK is saying differently then I am with you - but that seems to be the logic behind why Q was here this summer...

This is basically it.

It is a lose lose situation.

Like I said there is not a handbook in how to fire a HoF coach like Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmericanDream

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,916
21,138
Chicago 'Burbs
I do agree with BK here slightly, that FO thought because Crow went down and this team was on the bubble at that time, they deemed he deserved a shot to see what they could do if healthy again...if BK is saying differently then I am with you - but that seems to be the logic behind why Q was here this summer...

I'd accept that, if they knew when Crow was coming back to start this season. But they didn't. We knew they expected him back at some point. But not when. And neither did they from the way they talked about it. We were already a week+ into the season when it was announced that he had a possible timetable on his first start... So... they knew they were starting without Crow for at least 5-10 games... but could have been much more. Because of that, it just doesn't make sense to me that they wanted to see how he did with a healthy Crow. I mean... as it stands, he only had 7-10 games with Crow did he not? And he could have not had any, depending on how Crow's health progressed, until halfway into the season, or more.
 
Last edited:

RememberTheRoar

“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Oct 21, 2015
23,119
21,154
That's me in the corner
This is basically it.

It is a lose lose situation.

Like I said there is not a handbook in how to fire a HoF coach like Q.

I know we debated this at the time the FO delivered its PR line, but with all this said, do you believe the FO thought this was a playoff team?

Do you think they believed it was a playoff team at the start of the year so they kept Q, then realized 15 games in that it wasn't a PO team so they fired Q?
 

AmericanDream

Thank you Elon!
Oct 24, 2005
36,957
26,266
Chicago Manitoba
I'd accept that, if they knew when Crow was coming back to start this season. But they didn't. We knew they expected him back at some point. But not when. And neither did they from the way they talked about it. We were already a week+ into the season when it was announced that he had a possible timetable on his first start... So... they knew they were starting without Crow for at least 5-10 games... but could have been much more. Because of that, it just doesn't make sense to me that they wanted to see how he did with a healthy Crow. I mean... as it stands, he only had 7-10 games with Crow did he not?
I honestly don't know, I think they being the FO never really let on how much they knew about Crow...pure speculation here and I argued it over the summer but I felt they had a better grasp of Crow's situation than what was being said publicly...it kept pressure off of Crow and let him "heal" and get back in peace.. the Ward signing threw that off for me as it seemed like Crow was going to miss more time and Ward was the only guy in our range that has carried the mail before in that market...
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,916
21,138
Chicago 'Burbs
I honestly don't know, I think they being the FO never really let on how much they knew about Crow...pure speculation here and I argued it over the summer but I felt they had a better grasp of Crow's situation than what was being said publicly...it kept pressure off of Crow and let him "heal" and get back in peace.. the Ward signing threw that off for me as it seemed like Crow was going to miss more time and Ward was the only guy in our range that has carried the mail before in that market...

I'm also speaking from a position of knowing more what was going on with Crow. ;)
 

LDF

Registered User
Sep 28, 2016
11,778
1,172
I could probably go find a post where you wanted him fired over the summer, also. And expected it. ;)



Firing a coach mid-season is never the right time, IMO. Awful time, actually. The worst possible time.
ok i really have been reluctant to go in this area..... why b/c i was trying to be nice and not cause a problem. but heck it that.

has anyone thought that the primary reason SB really fire Q, esp when he did ?? when it happen i made a subtle nudge into my thinking. it was a diversion from laying the real blame ...... the real blame is on SB. he is in charge of bringing in player personnel for the coach to use ....... but SB didn't. so Q was the sacrificial lamb that was there and SB if by himself or with others in the FO decided to lay the blame on Q.... thereby buying time for them-self.
 

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
ok i really have been reluctant to go in this area..... why b/c i was trying to be nice and not cause a problem. but heck it that.

has anyone thought that the primary reason SB really fire Q, esp when he did ?? when it happen i made a subtle nudge into my thinking. it was a diversion from laying the real blame ...... the real blame is on SB. he is in charge of bringing in player personnel for the coach to use ....... but SB didn't. so Q was the sacrificial lamb that was there and SB if by himself or with others in the FO decided to lay the blame on Q.... thereby buying time for them-self.

People have been talking about this idea since it happened. Nothing new here.
 

Blackhawks

Registered User
Jul 25, 2007
5,678
1,134
Lots of teams change coaches mid season and start new systems, why doesn’t the team always go into a frenzy and start playing pathetically all of the sudden like the Hawks have? These systems are not rocket science, contrary to what’s is almost being preached here players don’t have to learn hockey from scratch. It has been almost 20 games and a month and a half, why have they not learned the system yet? How much difference would that couple weeks of light hearted begining of season training camp really have made? Also how do we know that the “system” being implemented now is just not as good as Q’s system no matter how outdated it was? I mean the results are speaking loud and clear. I understand the hopefulness and all but maybe just maybe some here should be open to the idea that this guy is not as great as it was thought to be, the AHL is not the NHL, it’s a huge step forward and IMO JC is not ready for the job. That is not to say Q is a saviour but if you had to let him go you had to find someone who can do the job to replace him or he stays put. I also take Stan and Ronald MacDonald at their word that they believed this team can make the playoffs, that’s why Q was fired after a 5 game losing streak, they truly believed this team is good enough to enter the playoffs, the reality is this is not some genius master plan to get the first overall it’s just a failed plan with possible positive consequences...
 

Marotte Marauder

Registered User
Aug 10, 2008
8,587
2,442
That is fine. See my post above.

I don't think the Hawks handled it well but it was a ****ed situation. There isn't a handle book on how to fire a HOF coach.

I'm sure the team tried to "promote" Q to the front office but he was bullheaded about it and finally the team had to launch him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyJet

BobbyJet

I am Canadian
Oct 27, 2010
29,736
9,838
Dundas, Ontario. Can
/\

After I read "start playing pathetically all of the sudden " that was it for this read.

Newsflash: this team has looked like keystone cops for well over a year. In fact, lately I see more compete under JC than we have seen for most of that time. It will take a while to rid the team of the country club atmosphere and lackadaisical play but I'm confident it will come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jls24

Blackhawks

Registered User
Jul 25, 2007
5,678
1,134
/\

After I read "start playing pathetically all of the sudden " that was it for this read.

Newsflash: this team has looked like keystone cops for well over a year. In fact, lately I see more compete under JC than we have seen for most of that time. It will take a while to rid the team of the country club atmosphere and lackadaisical play but I'm confident it will come.


What is the country club atmosphere? Q had them running and hustling like dogs out there in the cup years. All the sudden Q changed to this lacksadaisixal coach? I thought his system just got old? I am confused now. 4-12-2 is pathetic last time I checked.
 

BobbyJet

I am Canadian
Oct 27, 2010
29,736
9,838
Dundas, Ontario. Can
This is not 2015 sir. You can't just gloss over what has been going on in recent years under Q and the GM. The "good stick" system and pathetic STs caught up to this team as it became weaker and weaker thanks to Stan. The old core can no longer carry this team on its shoulders as it did for years.
 

Hawkaholic

Registered User
Dec 19, 2006
31,454
10,788
London, Ont.
/\

After I read "start playing pathetically all of the sudden " that was it for this read.

Newsflash: this team has looked like keystone cops for well over a year. In fact, lately I see more compete under JC than we have seen for most of that time. It will take a while to rid the team of the country club atmosphere and lackadaisical play but I'm confident it will come.
More compete? Are you talking about in the first period when they are giving up 2-3 goals before they even score one and everyone looks like they are skating in mud? (outside of the Pens game?) Yeah, maybe they show more fight when they are down 2 or 3 goals, or is that the other team has taken their foot off the gas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClydeLee

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
27,916
21,138
Chicago 'Burbs
More compete? Are you talking about in the first period when they are giving up 2-3 goals before they even score one and everyone looks like they are skating in mud? (outside of the Pens game?) Yeah, maybe they show more fight when they are down 2 or 3 goals, or is that the other team has taken their foot off the gas?

The world will never know.
 

LordKOTL

Abuse of Officials
Aug 15, 2014
3,525
768
Pacific NW
I do agree with BK here slightly, that FO thought because Crow went down and this team was on the bubble at that time, they deemed he deserved a shot to see what they could do if healthy again...if BK is saying differently then I am with you - but that seems to be the logic behind why Q was here this summer...

I think management blew it by not dismissing Q in the offseason. I think the excuse of "Let's see what Q can do with a fully healthy Crawford" was incredibly shortsighted. The team D stats prove this. It's not as if the team D was playing good--even good for post-2015 season when Crawford was up and playing lights out. They had issues and Crawford was masking those issues. Given the end of 2017 and the bill of goods upper management sold the fans about the play in Nashville not happening again, Q should have been on the clock, and it doesn't take a hockey genius to see that the skaters were playing the same uninspired hockey early in 2017/2018, and Q wasn't getting anything done about it. Q failed to get the team on-board with the guy who was singlehandedly carrying them. Then Crawford goes down and no one steps up.

IMHO the idea that the season was lost on losing Crawford glossed over the fact that the team in front of him was underperforming both before and after he went down (which is on Q & the players). If Crawford was not playing some of the best goaltending seen from a 'hawk player since Tony O in 1972, the 'hawks wouldn't have been in the playoff hunt at all. It was taking a goaltender playing at an abnormally high (and some would say unsustainable pace even if Crawford was able to finish the season) just to keep at the playoff line--and at the same time Toews wasn't improved at all since the previous 2 years, Kane refused to play any defense whatsoever, Sebrook was old, feeble, and slow, Saad was not focused, and Keith was playing the worst hockey of his career. The guys who should be leading, simply weren't and Q did all of jack and squat about it.

If the FO sticks by the excuse that Q needed another chance because Crawford going down tanked the season, They needed to go with Q because they lack hockey IQ.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->