Post-Game Talk: Hawks sweep Western Canadian leg of the Circus Trip, down Flames 3-2!

[Hawkaholic]

And if Oduya picks up his man and that pass sails into the corner we're not talking about this.

..and if Pirri doesn't turn the puck over going towards our end at the red line, we're not talking about this. It wasn't a pass, he fumbled the puck, just like he did before he took his stupid penalty.

and BTW, Bollig palyed 2mins less than Pirri, and it was his lowest TOI in 5+ games. So yes, he was benched more than usual.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

..and if Pirri doesn't turn the puck over going towards our end at the red line, we're not talking about this. It wasn't a pass, he fumbled the puck, just like he did before he took his stupid penalty.

and BTW, Bollig palyed 2mins less than Pirri, and it was his lowest TOI in 5+ games. So yes, he was benched more than usual.

I was referring to the pass to the trailer that Oduya didn't pick up because he was going far post to pick up the man that Saad already had covered.

And despite being benched "more than usual", Bollig was on the ice with less than two minutes to play.

 

[Sarava]

I was referring to the pass to the trailer that Oduya didn't pick up because he was going far post to pick up the man that Saad already had covered.

And despite being benched "more than usual", Bollig was on the ice with less than two minutes to play.

I agree Oduya should have picked him up, but that at most is 10% of the blame. We don't blame doctors for not saving gunshot patients do we? We blame the shooters.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

You keep bringing up AHL statistics like that's the reason I want him in our top six. I've wanted him in our top six for three years now. And I love the line about as soon as he was benched the teams started scoring goal. I think it probably had a whole lot more to do with dropping the anchor that is Handzus off of Kane's line.

I always want the Hawks to win. Go back and read the GDT. When we were down 2 I was claiming the Hawks would win this game when everyone else declared the game over.

I care about winning. I think we will win a lot more hockey games moving forward if we use Pirri correctly.

I only stated facts about us scoring goals when he was benched, and it was fact. I do not think the reason we turned the game around was because of Pirri going to the bench and said it was probably coincidence. I want the kid to play, but obviously Q has little tolerance for rookie mistakes and thinks it best we sit them when they screw up. To be fair, the mistake Pirri made when he seemd to just throw his stick was glaring.

Who knows why he is so hard on rookies. It is obviously easier to bench a rookie without issue then a veteran who might act up. But other good coaches around the league do the exact same thing with rookies. Maybe its an accepted ritual league wide that rookies get benched, like a hazing thing. The important thing is mistakes like Pirri made on that one play could cost you a playoff game.

Is it best to teach the kid a lesson by benching him and he learns from it or let him play through and eventually he stops making those mistakes? That is what the debate is, and most here think its let him play through. I personally would like to see him get to play through it.

 

[BobbyJet]

..and if Pirri doesn't turn the puck over going towards our end at the red line, we're not talking about this. It wasn't a pass, he fumbled the puck, just like he did before he took his stupid penalty.

and BTW, Bollig palyed 2mins less than Pirri, and it was his lowest TOI in 5+ games. So yes, he was benched more than usual.

… and you claim to not have anything against Pirri? Yes, he made a bad play, yes, he stumbled and lost his stick in doing so. That could easily happen to any player.

The team had 150 feet of ice to recover from a 3 on 3 break-out, for gawd sakes. 3 on 3 breakouts happen all the time in a game. Oduya’s bonehead decision was the worst part of the sequence… but you carry on not hating.

From what I witnessed, Q’s decision to sit him late in the game was probably a culmination of what he saw in the game and saw a rookie that he felt was having a bad game (he certainly wasn’t the only one, but Q can’t bench them all). I would have no problem if Q sat any young player, late in the game, who he figured was struggling. I wish he would do it more often in fact but the same rules need to apply for any player (outside of the vets who get a longer leash of course) That one incident at the blue line was a contributor to his decision but it wasn’t it, and only it. I’m certain of that, otherwise Pirri would not have seen the ice at all, after it.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

… and you claim to not have anything against Pirri? Yes, he made a bad play, yes, he stumbled and lost his stick in doing so. That could easily happen to any player.

The team had 150 feet of ice to recover from a 3 on 3 break-out, for gawd sakes. 3 on 3 breakouts happen all the time in a game. Oduya’s bonehead decision was the worst part of the sequence… but you carry on not hating.

From what I witnessed, Q’s decision to sit him late in the game was probably a culmination of what he saw in the game and saw a rookie that he felt was having a bad game (he certainly wasn’t the only one, but Q can’t bench them all). I would have no problem if Q sat any young player, late in the game, who he figured was struggling. I wish he would do it more often in fact but the same rules need to apply for any player (outside of the vets who get a longer leash of course) That one incident at the blue line was a contributor to his decision but it wasn’t it, and only it. I’m certain of that, otherwise Pirri would not have seen the ice at all, after it.

I agree with all of what you said except the part of Q having something against Pirri, like it is personal. He does this with most rookies except maybe Saad last year. I doubt its just a dislike of Pirri or he never would have been on the second line and probably be in the minors now.

Sorry, maybe I misread your post. It looks like you didnt say Q had something against Pirri. My bad!

 

[BobbyJet]

I only stated facts about us scoring goals when he was benched, and it was fact. I do not think the reason we turned the game around was because of Pirri going to the bench and said it was probably coincidence. I want the kid to play, but obviously Q has little tolerance for rookie mistakes and thinks it best we sit them when they screw up. To be fair, the mistake Pirri made when he seemd to just throw his stick was glaring.

Who knows why he is so hard on rookies. It is obviously easier to bench a rookie without issue then a veteran who might act up. But other good coaches around the league do the exact same thing with rookies. Maybe its an accepted ritual league wide that rookies get benched, like a hazing thing. The important thing is mistakes like Pirri made on that one play could cost you a playoff game.

Is it best to teach the kid a lesson by benching him and he learns from it or let him play through and eventually he stops making those mistakes? That is what the debate is, and most here think its let him play through. I personally would like to see him get to play through it.

Starting Zus on the 2nd line was worse than the Pirri benching, IMO, - and Q’s shuffling all the lines except the 1st threw the team chemistry for a loop. For most of the game it looked like they weren’t going to score at all. I suppose he figures he can get away with it this early in the season against one of the weaker teams when the team looked out-of-synch but Kane (and a little luck) saved the day.

2 points is 2 points, and I doubt Q would ever admit playing 26 on the 2nd line was a mistake and was at least part of the reason (if not the main one) for the team being off. We’ll take the 2 points and move on.

 

[Sarava]

Starting Zus on the 2nd line was worse than the Pirri benching, IMO, - and Q’s shuffling all the lines except the 1st threw the team chemistry for a loop. For most of the game it looked like they weren’t going to score at all. I suppose he figures he can get away with it this early in the season against one of the weaker teams when the team looked out-of-synch but Kane (and a little luck) saved the day.

2 points is 2 points, and I doubt Q would ever admit playing 26 on the 2nd line was a mistake. We’ll take the 2 points and move on.

He probably felt like he had no choice. If he's trying to make a point to Pirri, then caving in because of a lack of roster depth isn't going to make him a better player or fix the holes in his game that Q wants fixed.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

Starting Zus on the 2nd line was worse than the Pirri benching, IMO, - and Q’s shuffling all the lines except the 1st threw the team chemistry for a loop. For most of the game it looked like they weren’t going to score at all. I suppose he figures he can get away with it this early in the season against one of the weaker teams when the team looked out-of-synch but Kane (and a little luck) saved the day.

2 points is 2 points, and I doubt Q would ever admit playing 26 on the 2nd line was a mistake and was at least part of the reason (if not the main one) for the team being off. We’ll take the 2 points and move on.

I agree he made a mistake changing the top 2 lines to start the game when we had been rolling. He got away with it like he does most times, but it was strange to try and mess with the chemistry of the top 2 lines considering recent auccess. Would of thought after such a long lay off you would put Zus on the 3rd or 4th line, not the second line where more minutes are played. Be interesting to see his lines tonight. Sit Bolig and put Zus on the 4th. Bolig's face might be too sore to play anyway...

 

[Nothingman*]

I agree he made a mistake changing the top 2 lines to start the game when we had been rolling. He got away with it like he does most times, but it was strange to try and mess with the chemistry of the top 2 lines considering recent auccess. Would of thought after such a long lay off you would put Zus on the 3rd or 4th line, not the second line where more minutes are played. Be interesting to see his lines tonight. Sit Bolig and put Zus on the 4th. Bolig's face might be too sore to play anyway...

I agree with this. And Bollig took a good beating in a fight I be the wish he never agreed to! My face still hurts from it and I just watched it.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

I agree with this. And Bollig took a good beating in a fight I be the wish he never agreed to! My face still hurts from it and I just watched it.

I like how Bolig kept smiling every time his face was punched. What a tool!

 

[zac]

What a joke, I'm pretty sure Toews at his worst is still far better than Pirri. Why would we sit a player that is MUCH more important than a 10-12min/game player?

Common sense is wonderful.

Really? Toews is better than Pirri and more important to the team? I had no idea.

Reread my post (you were so far from comprehending the point that it makes me wonder if you even did). The point was Toews is an all world player that had several uncharacteristc and large mistakes throughout the game. Relative to his capabilities Toews had a far worse game than Pirri. If th point was to penalize a player for a bad game than why didn't Q sit Toews (since it wasn't obvious the first time im not saying he should have)? If the point was to bench Pirri for repeated mistakes over several games that didn't happen so it wasn't warranted. Pirri had a bad game in that he made a couple of big mistakes. It happens. Instead of Q chalking it up to a rough game like he does with most of the team, he makes an "exqmple" of Pirri for doing something EVERYONE on the team does a handul of time a year. Its ridiculous.

For some reason the younger players are held to a higher standard than the vets and it makes no ****ing sense whatsover. Pirri had played well, even when not scoring, of late and our coach hampers our teams chances by overracting to one really bad play. Unless a mistake is as egregious as Seabs' loafing on that break last year, or repetitive in nature then he needs to let the kids learn and play. Pulling this **** does nothing but hurt the team and the youngster. Its gotta be hard for our young players when the coach benches or demotes over the slightest of errors. Its even worse when half of the the errors are figments of our coach's imagination.

 

[Blue Liner]

I agree with this. And Bollig took a good beating in a fight I be the wish he never agreed to! My face still hurts from it and I just watched it.

It helps dispose of the notion many fans have that Bollig is a heavyweight. A heavyweight he is not.

As for laughing and smiling while fighting and while getting hit, how does that make him a tool, exactly?

 

[BobbyJet]

I only stated facts about us scoring goals when he was benched, and it was fact. I do not think the reason we turned the game around was because of Pirri going to the bench and said it was probably coincidence.

Splitting hairs here but ..... I didn’t think Pirri was on the ice for Kaner’s first goal either but his plus/minus for the game disputes that. Pirri ended up 0 in the plus/minus category according to the TSN stats.

Edit ..........Or maybe he got off the ice before Flames scored. Yeah, that must be it.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I was referring to the pass to the trailer that Oduya didn't pick up because he was going far post to pick up the man that Saad already had covered.

And despite being benched "more than usual", Bollig was on the ice with less than two minutes to play.

Seems to be a common thing that our 4th line is out in the last few mins of the game. It's also common that they don't ever seem to allow a goal to be scored against them. I fail to see a problem with it.

… and you claim to not have anything against Pirri? Yes, he made a bad play, yes, he stumbled and lost his stick in doing so. That could easily happen to any player.

The team had 150 feet of ice to recover from a 3 on 3 break-out, for gawd sakes. 3 on 3 breakouts happen all the time in a game. Oduya’s bonehead decision was the worst part of the sequence… but you carry on not hating.

"The team" was 2 defenseman against 3 opponents. It was an odd man rush caused by a turnover in the neutral zone. Coaches hate turnovers in the neutral zone, because they tend to result in odd man rushes against.

Again, like I said earlier, Pirri isn't fully to blame, but he takes the brunt of it for the neutral zone turnover.

Reread my post (you were so far from comprehending the point that it makes me wonder if you even did). The point was Toews is an all world player that had several uncharacteristc and large mistakes throughout the game. Relative to his capabilities Toews had a far worse game than Pirri. If th point was to penalize a player for a bad game than why didn't Q sit Toews (since it wasn't obvious the first time im not saying he should have)? If the point was to bench Pirri for repeated mistakes over several games that didn't happen so it wasn't warranted. Pirri had a bad game in that he made a couple of big mistakes. It happens. Instead of Q chalking it up to a rough game like he does with most of the team, he makes an "exqmple" of Pirri for doing something EVERYONE on the team does a handul of time a year. Its ridiculous.

I don't think you understand my point, Toews at his worst, is still far better than Pirri at his best. So even though Toews made a bad mistake(not game), our team is MUCH better with him on the ice, than off of it. Where as our team doesn't suffer a whole lot with Pirri off the ice.

Add to that, that Toews is our captain, vet, and best C on our roster (even on a bad day). Pirri is a rookie, and still learning, and just like most rookies by most coaches, got benched for making not just 1 bad mistake, but 2.

What would sitting Toews accomplish? Nothing.

I can't believe you are even attempting to compare the 2 situations.

 

[moose vasko]

It helps dispose of the notion many fans have that Bollig is a heavyweight. A heavyweight he is not.

Bollig is a pretty good scrapper within his weight class, but McGrattan is a monster (even his head is built for fighting--tiny, flat little ears like a pit bull). Bollig wasn't defending a teammate nor did we need him to light a spark under us. He has guts, but it was dumb of him to take that fight and he was lucky to get out of it alive.

 

[Hawkaholic]

It helps dispose of the notion many fans have that Bollig is a heavyweight. A heavyweight he is not.

As for laughing and smiling while fighting and while getting hit, how does that make him a tool, exactly?

I'm not sure that anyone ever thought he was a heavyweight. He stands up for himself and his teammates, which is what our big guns need.

 

[ModryJazyk]

I guess defensive responsibility and play is more important values for any forward who is battling for last free lineup spots and for more ice time as offensive stats are.At least for coach of the team which is league #1 in GF, #1 GF/G, #10 PP% but #20 GA, #19 GA/G and #29 PK%...Ofc, fans usually think other way as coach (ie Pirri vs. Kruger 1st season stats or Kane playing w/Pirri/Handzus/Shaw scoring stats discussions above).

 

[Blue Liner]

I'm not sure that anyone ever thought he was a heavyweight. He stands up for himself and his teammates, which is what our big guns need.

No one here does but there are a lot of fans out there who think he is.

I also was not knocking him in any way,shape, or form. I back him a lot around here. He does well with the gloves off and that's the first time I can ever remember him getting fed like that.