Miscellaneous NHL Talk V6.0 - 2018/19 Regular Season

[SolidSnakeUS]

And Hak still has a job...

I'd love Q here.

 

[Rebels57]

Before anyone gets any ideas, we definitely do not want him.

I’ve seen Hawk fans ripping him for very similar reasons to why we want Hak gone.

Yeah we definitely should not want a coach that has won 3 Cups in the last 8 years. Definitely prefer to stick with Hakstol.

:rolls eyes into back of head where they get stuck forever looking into my brain for an answer as to why we wouldn't want Q:

Blackhawks fans have turned on Q when they should have turned on Bowman. He's the one that f***ed up his roster with bad contracts which forced bad trades to stay under the Cap. And yeah, Q probably does need a fresh start as well. He's been there a long time.

We are not going to land a better coach than Q and there is not a better coach for Knoblauch to learn from.

 

[Rebels57]

Hexy is more likely looking at his former teammate Kevin Dineen who also got fired

I like Dineen as a potential Hak replacement as well.

 

[Striiker]

Yeah we definitely should not want a coach that has won 3 Cups in the last 8 years. Definitely prefer to stick with Hakstol.

:rolls eyes into back of head where they get stuck forever looking into my brain for an answer as to why we wouldn't want Q:

Blackhawks fans have turned on Q when they should have turned on Bowman. He's the one that ****ed up his roster with bad contracts which forced bad trades to stay under the Cap. Q probably just needs a fresh start to be honest. Q is the perfect guy for Knoblauch to learn from too.

Are we really going to use this horrible logic that we know makes no sense? Literally the same defense Hak fans use to say that the Flyers win games thanks to Hakstol? Pointing to wins as a defense of the coach will never be a good argument, especially when you consider the roster that got those wins.

Also who said stick with Hakstol? I just said I don't want to replace him with more of the same.

And like I just posted, does this sound familiar?

Q was Q he never changed, even with knowing his rear end is so close to getting canned he kept playing his favorites rather than the best team. It’s ironic that in his last game he had both Kunitz and Martinsen playing Lmao.

 

[hatcher]

If they’re this open about it I’m pretty sure they’ve talked to the coach already.

Hope so but players play and coaches coach. Dont talk shit.

 

[Rebels57]

Are we really going to use this horrible logic that we know makes no sense? Literally the same defense Hak fans use to say that the Flyers win games thanks to Hakstol?

Also who said stick with Hakstol? I just said I don't want to replace him with more of the same.

And like I just posted, does this sound familiar?

It's not horrible logic. He's a proven coach, which is what we need. He's one of the winningest coachs in NHL history.

Just because we shouldn't give any credit to Hakstol when the Flyers win, doesn't mean Quenneville shouldn't get any credit for leading the Blackhawks to a staggering amount of success the past 8 years. The Flyers win in spite of Hakstols awful decisions, when the Blackhawks were perennial contenders, Q was a big reason why. They did not have infallible flawless lineups.

The Blackhawks would still be a perennial contender if not for Bowman f***ing their roster up.

 

[Hurricane28]

Sutter won 2 cups in the past 6 years and we’re not clamoring him for be the head coach.

But the point about Bowman is correct. He had Ruben Amaro Jr syndrome and was loyal to his guys giving guys like Seabrook a lucrative contract. I’m on the fence about Quenneville. He has his flaws and I’m not sure he’s a progressive thinking coach. But the pedigree is impressive

 

[Striiker]

It's not horrible logic. He's a proven coach, which is what we need. He's one of the winningest coachs in NHL history.

Just because we shouldn't give any credit to Hakstol when the Flyers win, doesn't mean Quenneville shouldn't get any credit for leading the Blackhawks to a staggering amount of success the past 8 years. The Flyers win in spite of Hakstols awful decisions, when the Blackhawks were perennial contenders, Q was a big reason why. They did not have infallible flawless lineups.

The Blackhawks would still be a perennial contender if not for Bowman ****ing their roster up.

Then the argument should be "look at x, y, and z that Q did to help them win that up" not "look at the 3 cups". What specifically deserves praise, because merely citing the end result proves nothing.

It not as if he took a bad roster to the cup and won. The team was stacked.

It no coincidence that the roster getting worse meant less success... it proves it was the roster that caused the success to start with.

 

[Curufinwe]

Then the argument should be "look at x, y, and z that Q did to help them win that up" not "look at the 3 cups". What specifically deserves praise, because merely citing the end result proves nothing.

It not as if he took a bad roster to the cup and won. The team was stacked.

It no coincidence that the roster getting worse meant less success... it proves it was the roster that caused the success to start with.

So coaching doesn't matter?

 

[Striiker]

So coaching doesn't matter?

The best a coach can do is set them up for success and then get out of the way, leaving the rest up to the players. They're never the reason a team wins, but they can absolutely be the reason the team loses.

 

[Psuhockey]

Are we really going to use this horrible logic that we know makes no sense? Literally the same defense Hak fans use to say that the Flyers win games thanks to Hakstol? Pointing to wins as a defense of the coach will never be a good argument, especially when you consider the roster that got those wins.

Also who said stick with Hakstol? I just said I don't want to replace him with more of the same.

And like I just posted, does this sound familiar?

You do realize all coaches play their favorites and not what the fans think is the best team. Babcock was chastised in Detroit for doing that very same thing. Quenneville is a gigantic upgrade over Hakstol and has had proven success at multiple stops.

 

[Striiker]

You do realize all coaches play their favorites and not what the fans think is the best team. Babcock was chastised in Detroit for doing that very same thing. Quenneville is a gigantic upgrade over Hakstol and has had proven success at multiple stops.

To varying degrees, sure, but based on the complaints I've read it seems like Q has a scarily similar obsession with bad players as Hakstol.

I don't like reading about a coaches love of guys like Manning and Kunitz.

 

[Psuhockey]

To varying degrees, sure, but based on the complaints I've read it seems like Q has a scarily similar obsession with bad players as Hakstol.

Zaitsev is an awful player getting 22 minutes a night. So you wouldn’t want Babcock either?

 

[Striiker]

Zaitsev is an awful player getting 22 minutes a night. So you wouldn’t want Babcock either?

I don't know. I haven't read what Leaf fans think of him like I've seen from Hawks fans.

 

[Psuhockey]

I don't know. I haven't read what Leaf fans think of him like I've seen from Hawks fans.

I think you will agree that anyone is better than Hakstol right now right?

I don’t think a coach is cure all. Talent wins in the league. But the Flyers are stuck in mud. Maybe a guy like Quenneville gets them out of it. He would command instant respect from that lockerroom.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

I'd really like a young, progressive, modern coach, but he has to have the backing of Hexy, and I don't think Hexy believes in those things, despite drafting the way he has.

I don't want Hexy replaced because I love the way we are prioritizing building through the draft, but again, we have that disconnect where he wants to slow-cook all these guys and we have a logjam incoming, starting next year.

I don't know why I am typing this in here. Probably just thinking out loud. Hmm. **** it, who knows.

 

[Rebels57]

The best a coach can do is set them up for success and then get out of the way, leaving the rest up to the players. They're never the reason a team wins, but they can absolutely be the reason the team loses.

That's an extremely important part of a teams success. That "set-up." We've seen countless times over the years where teams have great rosters but don't go anywhere in the Playoffs.

Just recently, we saw that between 2010 and 2016 with Pittsburgh and then suddenly, with virtually the same roster, they were able to win back-to-back Cups. Hmm, I wonder what changed in 2016?

Coaching matters. There are great coaches.

 

[Striiker]

I think you will agree that anyone is better than Hakstol right now right?

I don’t think a coach is cure all. Talent wins in the league. But the Flyers are stuck in mud. Maybe a guy like Quenneville gets them out of it. He would command instant respect from that lockerroom.

Hakstol needs to be fired immediately, yeah, but we still have to be careful.

In other words, if we say Hakstol's a 2/10, then sure, the vast majority of coaches would be an upgrade. But, hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be hasty and replace a 2/10 with a 3/10 or a 4/10 and be stuck with that new guy for 4+ years. I'd rather be careful, have an interim for a bit, and find a better improvement.

Now, could Q be an upgrade and do great? Sure, I'm not saying he couldn't, I'm just pointing out causes for concern based on what people familiar with his coaching have said. At the very least, it's not a no-brainer move.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I don't like reading about a coaches love of guys like Manning and Kunitz.

Brandon Manning is averaging 15:56 TOI and ranks 6th among defenders on Hawks for that (And was healthy scratch once already)

Kunitz is averaging 11:07 TOI

This love and Q overplaying them is nonsense narrative from Hawk fans who hate Q. Also I would point out with Manning the Hawks are currently without Murphy and were without Forsling until recently (He just joined Ice Hogs and is playing his way into shape now 3 games into his year)

 

[Striiker]

That's an extremely important part of a teams success. That "set-up." We've seen countless teams over the years where teams have great rosters but don't go anywhere in the Playoffs.

Just recently, we saw that between 2010 and 2016 with Pittsburgh and then suddenly, with virtually the same roster, they were able to win back-to-back Cups. Hmm, I wonder what changed in 2016?

Coaching matters. There are great coaches.

Yes, coaching matters, but it isn't what wins you games and cups. It can definitely lose them for you though.

Best case scenario is the coach assembles the best possible lineup and has a system that gives the players a chance to be successful... but past that it's all out of his hands and up to the players executing. The coach isn't scoring the goals or doing anything on the ice.

Worst case scenario is what we have right now, where the coach stands in the players way and holds them back.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

That's an extremely important part of a teams success. That "set-up." We've seen countless times over the years where teams have great rosters but don't go anywhere in the Playoffs.

Just recently, we saw that between 2010 and 2016 with Pittsburgh and then suddenly, with virtually the same roster, they were able to win back-to-back Cups. Hmm, I wonder what changed in 2016?

Coaching matters. There are great coaches.

Pens actually fired GM before coach then gave new GM choice to fire coach or not

Hawks should have followed

And sorry the Pens of 2009 were not same and Kessel was major difference in those teams that "Suddenly" won cup

 

[Lindberg]

Before anyone gets any ideas, we definitely do not want him.

I’ve seen Hawk fans ripping him for very similar reasons to why we want Hak gone.

I'll take my chances on a guy who has coached a team to win multiple cups.

 

[Psuhockey]

Hakstol needs to be fired immediately, yeah, but we still have to be careful.

In other words, if we say Hakstol's a 2/10, then sure, the vast majority of coaches would be an upgrade. But, hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be hasty and replace a 2/10 with a 3/10 or a 4/10 and be stuck with that new guy for 4+ years. I'd rather be careful, have an interim for a bit, and find a better improvement.

Now, could Q be an upgrade and do great? Sure, I'm not saying he couldn't, I'm just pointing out causes for concern based on what people familiar with his coaching have said. At the very least, it's not a no-brainer move.

I understand what you are saying, but I think Quenneville is probably the best hire right now for this team and for Hextall. After the Hakstol debacle, Hextall can’t really take another chance on a unknown. The core also needs a guy with a winning pedigree. They have burned through three coaches so far without any success. Two have been bad but you can’t say the same with Quenneville. If they still come out flat footed for games, all eyes will be on them.

 

[Striiker]

I'll take my chances on a guy who has coached a team to win multiple cups.

Unless he's bringing those rosters with him, the cup wins aren't relevant.

 

[Rebels57]

Pens actually fired GM before coach then gave new GM choice to fire coach or not

Hawks should have followed

And sorry the Pens of 2009 were not same and Kessel was major difference in those teams that "Suddenly" won cup

Coaching got the most out of Kessel too though. Sullivan and especially Tocchet, motivated the hell out of him, and they used him very wisely on the 3rd line where he was feasting on other teams bottom sixes.

 

[Rebels57]

Yes, coaching matters, but it isn't what wins you games and cups. It can definitely lose them for you though.

Best case scenario is the coach assembles the best possible lineup and has a system that gives the players a chance to be successful... but past that it's all out of his hands and up to the players executing. The coach isn't scoring the goals or doing anything on the ice.

Worst case scenario is what we have right now, where the coach stands in the players way and holds them back.

This goes without saying. Problem is, Hakstol is not capable of this. Quenneville has proven that he is.