Confirmed with Link: Leddy & Simpson to Isles for Brennan, Pokka, & rights to Nilsson

[ManChild20]

They could do worse, but they could also do a lot better. He's a an ego-maniacal idiot who screws up the easiest of lineup decisions and roster moves and makes it up with stump-humping Jethro rationale.

Q's successes over the course of his career are a byproduct of the rosters he's been given. Both Cup winning teams were the best and most complete rosters in the league both years. Yes there were flaws, like every team has/had, but at the end of the day at least 70% of coaches would have won with those teams and even then he almost screwed it up in '13 (juggling Stalberg and Bickle around like a ****ing idiot for no justifiable reason).

If we had someone other than that idiot and his Ray Charles-like vision we would have won last year. Nobody in their right mind would have played Handzus, especially as ineffective he was during the entire season, let alone deployed him in the role that he was. That move alone (and there were many others) cost us the Kings series.

I absolutely hate this argument in regards to coaching success. Every elite coach is always knocked down by fans because of roster talent. Man, why even have a coach with that rationale?

 

[DPHawk]

Q gives youngsters a chance if they have a solid all-around game with an emphasis on good play without the puck. Shaw, Krüger and Saad are examples of players that established themselves on the team in the early 20s under coach Q. Not every 18-20 year old is going to be ready for the big show, no matter how much you think they will be awesome for your fantasy team.

Think this talk about Q hating on youngsters doesn't really have any basis. Just because he chooses to play a veteran (even a bad one) instead of someone young, does not mean that the result would be any better. The organization also seems to have a plan on where they will slot their prospects and will be taking their time to mold them into their roles instead of throwing them in the grind and see what comes out.

The Handzus folly is really the ammunition for the anti-Q crowd. Pirri was outperforming Zus (even with his extended slump) and Q refused to give the 2C job over to Shaw or Smith in the playoffs until it was too late. Zus was the worst (by far) of several sub-optimal choices but Q kept going with the vet in the critical role.

 

[zac]

I absolutely hate this argument in regards to coaching success. Every elite coach is always knocked down by fans because of roster talent. Man, why even have a coach with that rationale?

The problem is Q is not an elite coach. Coaches should be judged on the areas they can impact, not the talent they are bequeathed with. Playing players like Saad, who was an absolute stud, and Hammer, who showed he belonged from the get go were easy decisions. Shaw? Okay, I'll give him that one. But for every Shaw he absolutely ****ed around with Leddy, Pirri, and Hayes (not that Hayes was awesome but he was one of the guys that was better than Bollig) and gave way too much playing time/chances to Zeus, Bollig, and Brookbank (Kostka was much better). He's also kept around terrible asst. coaches, made horrendous decisions with our special teams, while also (usually) making the wrong choice with our line combinations.

It's THOSE things that the coach can control and be judged upon. The fact that we continue to win with our coach continually making many unjustifiable errors only speaks to the level of (elite) talent this club possesses. We usually win in spite of our coach, not because of him.

 

[Hawknut 1]

Neither Mike Babcock nor Darryl Sutter are hands down better than Q. Not even better, period.

Your right. They are much much better.

 

[Hawknut 1]

The problem is Q is not an elite coach. Coaches should be judged on the areas they can impact, not the talent they are bequeathed with. Playing players like Saad, who was an absolute stud, and Hammer, who showed he belonged from the get go were easy decisions. Shaw? Okay, I'll give him that one. But for every Shaw he absolutely ****ed around with Leddy, Pirri, and Hayes (not that Hayes was awesome but he was one of the guys that was better than Bollig) and gave way too much playing time/chances to Zeus, Bollig, and Brookbank (Kostka was much better). He's also kept around terrible asst. coaches, made horrendous decisions with our special teams, while also (usually) making the wrong choice with our line combinations.

It's THOSE things that the coach can control and be judged upon. The fact that we continue to win with our coach continually making many unjustifiable errors only speaks to the level of (elite) talent this club possesses. We usually win in spite of our coach, not because of him.

Excellent post. Glad someone gets it.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

The Handzus folly is really the ammunition for the anti-Q crowd. Pirri was outperforming Zus (even with his extended slump) and Q refused to give the 2C job over to Shaw or Smith in the playoffs until it was too late. Zus was the worst (by far) of several sub-optimal choices but Q kept going with the vet in the critical role.

I agree Pirri looked better than Zus. But that's only because Zus looked bad. Pirri didn't look ready. And apparently he still doesn't in Florida. Healthy scratched every game this season so far with the Panthers.

 

[here come the]

The problem is Q is not an elite coach. Coaches should be judged on the areas they can impact, not the talent they are bequeathed with. Playing players like Saad, who was an absolute stud, and Hammer, who showed he belonged from the get go were easy decisions. Shaw? Okay, I'll give him that one. But for every Shaw he absolutely ****ed around with Leddy, Pirri, and Hayes (not that Hayes was awesome but he was one of the guys that was better than Bollig) and gave way too much playing time/chances to Zeus, Bollig, and Brookbank (Kostka was much better). He's also kept around terrible asst. coaches, made horrendous decisions with our special teams, while also (usually) making the wrong choice with our line combinations.

It's THOSE things that the coach can control and be judged upon. The fact that we continue to win with our coach continually making many unjustifiable errors only speaks to the level of (elite) talent this club possesses. We usually win in spite of our coach, not because of him.

Who in the league is a good coach and for what reasons are they a good coach? Who is available that would coach the Blackhawks better than Q?

 

[Taze em]

I would love to hear a name of a coach the anti-Q crew would prefer. I'll give you a hint, don't say Babcock it won't work out well for you.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

I would love to hear a name of a coach the anti-Q crew would prefer. I'll give you a hint, don't say Babcock it won't work out well for you.

Last 10 Stanley Cups have been won by following coaches:

Suter (2014, 2012)
Joel Quenneville (2013, 2010)
Claude Julien (2011)
Dan Bylsma (2009)
Mike Babcock (2008)
Randy Carlyle (2007)
Peter Laviolette (2006)
John Tortorella (2004)

I'd easily take Q over Julien, Bylsma, Carlyle, Laviolette, and Tortorella. Suter and Babcock are good coaches but I don't think Q is as far behind as some make him out to be.

 

[ManChild20]

I understand a coach cannot be judged on wins and losses alone, but to say the Blackhawks win in spite of Q is just nonsense. You wanna know how many NHL teams would kill for Q as their coach? I'll give you a hint: 25+.

 

[Taze em]

Last 10 Stanley Cups have been won by following coaches:

Suter (2014, 2012)
Joel Quenneville (2013, 2010)
Claude Julien (2011)
Dan Bylsma (2009)
Mike Babcock (2008)
Randy Carlyle (2007)
Peter Laviolette (2006)
Tortorella (2004)

I'd easily take Q over Julien, Bylsma, Carlyle, Laviolette, and Tortorella. Suter and Babcock are good coaches but I don't think Q is as far behind as some make him out to be.

Torts is deservedly out of the league, Laviolette no, Calyle lol no, Bylsma was so good he was fired when he had the 2 best players in the world, Julien and Babcock buries their youngsters in favor of old vets just like Q... Also less decorated.

Babcock- ask a Detroit fan what they think of Dan Cleary. It is the Handzus situation on steroids.
Therrien-Chiarelli just had to strong arm Therien to take Spooner over old vets.
Suter- his teams play like crap in the regular season, Q wins in season AND the playoffs. Also, there are always rumors about his players and he having problems. He's the closest to Q but I still take Q 10/10 times.

I think there is a healthy conflict between GM and coach on all teams. I think it works great for the hawks. Bowman loads these players up on the assembly line and Q picks out 1-2 a year that are worthwhile.

Worked to the tune of President's trophies, Stanley Cups and you can book your hotel rooms for the Western Conference finals every year. how terrible.

 

[Bubba88]

Q is a good Coach. There is a reason why many Players have had career years playing for him.
I can understand why he wants his Players to Play a solid two way game. Most Players that are said that he doesn't like... don't Play good D. Coincidence?

 

[EmeticDonut]

The belly-aching about coach Q's line combos and special teams (which are league average at worst), old veterans and who should be playing on the 4th line and be the 3rd D pairing that is so prevalent around the interwebs Hawks forums tells me its a well spoiled fanbase. The majority of other fanbases would love to have the "problems" we have.

 

[Nothingman*]

Q is a good Coach. There is a reason why many Players have had career years playing for him.
I can understand why he wants his Players to Play a solid two way game. Most Players that are said that he doesn't like... don't Play good D. Coincidence?

Exactly. If they don't want to play D off they go. There's no elite talent he has let go. Heck, good talent.

 

[hawksrule]

The belly-aching about coach Q's line combos and special teams (which are league average at worst), old veterans and who should be playing on the 4th line and be the 3rd D pairing that is so prevalent around the interwebs Hawks forums tells me its a well spoiled fanbase. The majority of other fanbases would love to have the "problems" we have.

His line combos and use of old veterans cost us the cup last year. It was plain as day. Your conclusion that critiquing Q implies a spoiled fan base is a real head-scratcher.

 

[Kurtosis]

God forbid fans critique a team they dedicate much of their life to.

Oh and newsflash to everyone who doesn't think so:

Every fanbase complains about their team, no matter how good they are at a given period of time.

 

[EmeticDonut]

His line combos and use of old veterans cost us the cup last year. It was plain as day. Your conclusion that critiquing Q implies a spoiled fan base is a real head-scratcher.

Or then it was a really closely matched series between two very good teams and one got the bounce.

And yes, the Hawk fans are spoiled.

I just think the complaining is excessive, breaking down every perceived problem to atoms and then making such a big deal about them, when the fact that there is really very little to complain about. Instead of concentrating on all the negatives, why not enjoy it and look at the positives for a change, which are far more than the negatives. When this historically best era of the Hawks concludes, how many will look back and say "boy, wish I had enjoyed it more instead of spending my energy on complaining about some ultimately trivial things". It's not long ago this fanbase got to see the Miracle on Ice, with all the stiffs skating, when they went to the UC. Something which truly deserved all the belly-aching.

 

[Kurtosis]

Or then it was a really closely matched series between two very good teams and one got the bounce.

And yes, the Hawk fans are spoiled.

I just think the complaining is excessive, breaking down every perceived problem to atoms and then making such a big deal about them, when the fact that there is really very little to complain about. Instead of concentrating on all the negatives, why not enjoy it and look at the positives for a change, which are far more than the negatives. When this historically best era of the Hawks concludes, how many will look back and say "boy, wish I had enjoyed it more instead of spending my energy on complaining about some ultimately trivial things". It's not long ago this fanbase got to see the Miracle on Ice, with all the stiffs skating, when they went to the UC. Something which truly deserved all the belly-aching.

And in a series that closely contested everything matters, including coaching.

I think most are able to balance criticism and enjoyment of the squad. Just doing one or the other really doesn't make for a rewarding fan experience after all.

 

[hawksrule]

Or then it was a really closely matched series between two very good teams and one got the bounce.

And yes, the Hawk fans are spoiled.

I just think the complaining is excessive, breaking down every perceived problem to atoms and then making such a big deal about them, when the fact that there is really very little to complain about. Instead of concentrating on all the negatives, why not enjoy it and look at the positives for a change, which are far more than the negatives. When this historically best era of the Hawks concludes, how many will look back and say "boy, wish I had enjoyed it more instead of spending my energy on complaining about some ultimately trivial things". It's not long ago this fanbase got to see the Miracle on Ice, with all the stiffs skating, when they went to the UC. Something which truly deserved all the belly-aching.

The LA series wasn't about a lucky bounce. Coaching decisions matter. If you want to believe Q is above all criticism, go ahead, but that doesn't preclude objective fans from seeing both the good and the bad.

As an aside, I think most Hawk fans, myself included, have enjoyed the past few years immensely.

And yes, the Hawk fans are spoiled.

That may or may not be true. But a legitimate critique of the coach is not something from which this can be inferred.

 

[EmeticDonut]

Q isn't above criticism. He has his flaws, as does every other coach and the criticism wouldn't go anywhere if someone else would be behind the bench. Even Babcock, who many consider to be a coaching guru (despite also having stacked rosters for most of his stint), can't escape criticism, much which is the same that coach Q gets.
I guess the job of a fan is to complain. I just don't understand wasting energy on stuff that is ultimately out of your control. But if it floats your boat, then go hog wild.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

So we're just supposed to sit here and talk about how start spangled awesome the Hawks are? Debate about whether they're awesome or tremendous?

I love the Hawks. Me having criticisms of my team doesn't make me less of a fan. That's the entire purpose of these boards.

 

[EmeticDonut]

Perhaps. Wouldn't it be a nice change to talk about how well someone played or how well the team does things, instead of scrutinizing every little mistake. Maybe a lot less hyperbole would occur if people looked at positives.
I haven't actually checked, but I get the impression GDTs tend to have more posts when the team loses than when they win. Maybe it's just a way to vent frustration over a loss and the positive feels are kept to oneself and used on something else. I know for myself that I feel a need to write something more so after a loss than a win.

 

[Blue Liner]

Perhaps. Wouldn't it be a nice change to talk about how well someone played or how well the team does things, instead of scrutinizing every little mistake. Maybe a lot less hyperbole would occur if people looked at positives.
I haven't actually checked, but I get the impression GDTs tend to have more posts when the team loses than when they win. Maybe it's just a way to vent frustration over a loss and the positive feels are kept to oneself and used on something else. I know for myself that I feel a need to write something more so after a loss than a win.

I don't want to speak for everyone, but if I had to guess I would think this is the case. I think this is a good place to just vent and rant and get the negative out of one's system in a forum where others, even if they don't agree, will understand it at least.

 

[EmeticDonut]

HFboards - where misery loves company

 

[rick hawk]

Anybody know why Pokka didn't dress for Rockford? I keep checking this thread as its kind of related to the subject but not as much as Q's coaching abilities I guess....