Was Quenneville really the problem in Chicago?

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Since Joel Quenneville was fired, the Hawks record has been 3-12-2, on pace for 39 points in a full season... Was he really the problem in Chicago? Was he even a problem at all?

Click to read more...

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Everyone the problem except Kane pretty much.

Everyone else be it large (Toews,Seabrook,Bowman) or small (Keith,Crawford) deserve some blame

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Coaches don't get fired because they forget how to coach, they get fired to facilitate change and use it as a wakeup call. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

 

[jaric1862]

No a world-class coach like Quennville was not the problem. The problem is Stan Bowman. This is currently being emphasized with the teams record under a new coach

 

[Klargplutte]

This is what happens in all team sports when a team disappoints , ofcourse he wasnt THE problem but a couple of coaches has to be sacrificed before the GM goes.

 

[Joe Sakic]

Essentially everyone knew firing him was a bad move when it happened.

If someone is to blame, it is surely Stan Bowman before it is coach Q.

 

[Kcb12345]

They fired him cause he wasn't on board with tanking, duh

 

[thesaadfather]

Since Joel Quenneville was fired, the Hawks record has been 3-12-2, on pace for 39 points in a full season... Was he really the problem in Chicago? Was he even a problem at all?

He wasn't the only problem, but he was definitely a problem.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Bold of you to assume there was a singular problem with the Blackhawks.

 

[ponder719]

The Hawks sucked with Quenneville. The Hawks suck without Quenneville. If that factor isn't going to change, would you rather pay $6M per for someone to coach the team to suck, or $470K? (I'm guessing they're on the hook to pay Q until he gets a new job, but probably not after that, so eventually they'll be free.)

 

[48g90a138pts]

Since Joel Quenneville was fired, the Hawks record has been 3-12-2, on pace for 39 points in a full season... Was he really the problem in Chicago? Was he even a problem at all?

Lol...no he wasn't. Big mistake letting him go.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

Since Joel Quenneville was fired, the Hawks record has been 3-12-2, on pace for 39 points in a full season... Was he really the problem in Chicago? Was he even a problem at all?

They said on Canadian radio that Q wasn't fired for performance reasons, but because he and Bowman kept butting heads over personnel decisions. So no, he was not the problem.

The Hawks' top 3 problems in order are:

1. Goaltending
2. Defense
3. Offensive Depth

#4 would have to be coaching now that Q is gone.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

They said on Canadian radio that Q wasn't fired for performance reasons, but because he and Bowman kept butting heads over personnel decisions. So no, he was not the problem.

The Hawks' top 3 problems in order are:

1. Goaltending
2. Defense
3. Offensive Depth

#4 would have to be coaching now that Q is gone.

I'd put defense before goaltending. Crawford is having his first not great season since 2013-2014 (ANd so far only his 2nd poor season with the first one being 2011-2012).

 

[ColbyChaos]

They had like 8 straight games go to OT to start the season under Q which coincidentally is where almost all their wins are from. Honestly not sure they would be a lot better the start was obviously not going to last. The only real awful thing right now is the team should basically skip the first period its pretty much mental at this point. Every game has basically been the same script

1st period: Go down 2-3 goals

2nd period: Show signs of life get a goal or two and control play in the offensive zone

3rd period: Either get within 1 goal or tie it only to allow a back breaking goal in the dying minutes.

The main problem is that they have no #1 Dman and an 19 year old is their best Dman right now. There is reason to be optimistic with the strength of their d prospect pool (Mitchell, Boqvist, Krys, Beaudin being the big names) but they are either in the NCAA or not ready. Right now they have Jokiharju, Murphy, and Keith then a bunch of #5-6 guys in Gustafsson, Ruuta, Forsling.

 

[tntkid]

I honestly wish Quenneville was coaching in Winnipeg.
Letting him go was a mistake.

The Hawks should have moved a big player instead.

 

[saluki]

The Hawks sucked with Quenneville. The Hawks suck without Quenneville. If that factor isn't going to change, would you rather pay $6M per for someone to coach the team to suck, or $470K? (I'm guessing they're on the hook to pay Q until he gets a new job, but probably not after that, so eventually they'll be free.)

I don't agree. They were off to a decent start under him. I remember they looked great in back to back games against the Rangers and Ducks, basically dominating both games.

The whole season came crashing down a few games later in Vancouver. The Hawks were taking it to the Nucks for 1 1/2, 2 periods and then the simply stopped skating and competing for some reason, allowing Vancouver to come back and win. They were never the same after that.

 

[93LEAFS]

LA and Chicago are examples of what happens in a cap-system to good teams. They could have been slightly better managed, but teams that stay elite long-term are going to be a rarity. Both also benefitted by signing guys to extremely long-term deals which drove down the cap-hit, and the back-end of those are going to hurt.

 

[93LEAFS]

I honestly wish Quenneville was coaching in Winnipeg.
Letting him go was a mistake.

The Hawks should have moved a big player instead.

Sort of hard when most of them have complete no-moves. They already moved multiple big-names (Panarin, Hjalmarsson), and they couldn't really make a much bigger splash than trading Schmaltz (I guess trading Debrincat).

Also, you can't really publically shame club legends into a move, which is probably the only way Toews, Kane or Keith accept a move.

 

[LOFIN]

Changing coaches mid-season rarely brings out good results, but it is usually the easiest thing to change so teams keep trying to win the lottery. Problems with Chicago (and many other diving teams) lay deeper than just coaching.

 

[tntkid]

Sort of hard when most of them have complete no-moves. They already moved multiple big-names (Panarin, Hjalmarsson), and they couldn't really make a much bigger splash than trading Schmaltz (I guess trading Debrincat).

Also, you can't really publically shame club legends into a move, which is probably the only way Toews, Kane or Keith accept a move.

I think Kane would have been the one to move.
I am sure he would love to play for one of the New York teams.

The return for him would be huge.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think Kane would have been the one to move.
I am sure he would love to play for one of the New York teams.

The return for him would be huge.

I doubt he accepts a trade, and you risk alienating your best player by trying to trade him. Maybe the Rangers, but I don't see otherwise the appeal. It is not like Buffalo is close to NYC, it's closer to Toronto and Pittsburgh.

 

[solidprospect]

No they lack depth and core is over 30, he would leave eventually.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

I thought they fired him and hired that teenaged coach so they could tank. Is that not what's going on?

 

[Section88]

They said on Canadian radio that Q wasn't fired for performance reasons, but because he and Bowman kept butting heads over personnel decisions. So no, he was not the problem.

The Hawks' top 3 problems in order are:

1. Goaltending
2. Defense
3. Offensive Depth

#4 would have to be coaching now that Q is gone.

The hawks biggest problem is goaltending? Yeah f***ing right. Brandon manning played over 18 minutes for us tonight. The defense is far and away the hawks biggest issue. Which should be solved within the next couple seasons with guys like Boqvist, Mitchell, and Beaudin on the way

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

The mistakes were made a long time ago by committing that much money in the Toews and Seabrook contracts while letting go of guys like Panarin who were cost controlled for a while.