GDT: Wednesday match-up Hawks @ Avs 8:00 PM 26/11

[BobbyJet]

Finally watched the last half of the game last night.

Some observations:

- Nice win by Hawks but seemed fortunate that their second goal wasn't called back because of too many men on the ice.
- there was some chippy play late in the game, and I can understand why Roy wasn't too happy, as borderline calls often get called when refs try to even out the number of penalties in a game. They weren't this time.
- Iginla was getting a little carried away with his chirping. The cross check by Shaw wasn't much at all.
- Crawford played well again.
- Bickel had a good game. I do like 29-65-13 as our 3rd line.
- And I'd like to know what Q was thinking by having 23-88 on the ice late in regulation with Avs goalie pulled for the extra attacker. There is no excuse for this.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Q doesn't use shut down types late in games.

Last year we were up one late and Bollig came over the boards with Kruger and Smith against Getzlaf and Perry.

He seems to reward players that have played well that night with important minutes late.

 

[Crow]

He is looking for someone with speed who can steal the puck I assumed.

But maybe you are right.

 

[BobbyJet]

Q doesn't use shut down types late in games.

Last year we were up one late and Bollig came over the boards with Kruger and Smith against Getzlaf and Perry.

He seems to reward players that have played well that night with important minutes late.

I’m all for rewarding players with extra ice time but there is a time and place for that. That was certainly not it …. never at the expense of risking points for the team. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s just dumb coaching.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

He is looking for someone with speed who can steal the puck I assumed.

And someone who can create or finish an empty net scoring chance.

This wasn't the first night of the season that Kane was on the ice for the Hawks when the other team had their goalie pulled at the end of the game.

Alhtough I think there is something to the idea of Q putting out guys who he feels are playing well that night, too.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

I’m all for rewarding players with extra ice time but there is a time and place for that. That was certainly not it …. never at the expense of risking points for the team. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s just dumb coaching.

IIRC Kane perfectly feathered a pass out of the offensive zone to clear the puck but avoid icing in the time that he was on the ice in this game while protecting a one-goal lead.

So if it was a risk putting him out there, it was a risk that paid off.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I’m all for rewarding players with extra ice time but there is a time and place for that. That was certainly not it …. never at the expense of risking points for the team. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s just dumb coaching.

In your opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it is bad coaching just because you think it is.

Who else is he going to throw out there? Toews/Hossa can't play the entire 2+mins to end the game, Kruger sucks according to you, and Bicks/Shaw/Carcillo certainly isn't the answer.

It shows them that coach trusts them in those situations and maybe it builds their confidence a little more? Can be good for them long term.

And it worked out OK, and has in the past as well.

 

[BobbyJet]

In your opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it is bad coaching just because you think it is.

Who else is he going to throw out there? Toews/Hossa can't play the entire 2+mins to end the game, Kruger sucks according to you, and Bicks/Shaw/Carcillo certainly isn't the answer.

It shows them that coach trusts them in those situations and maybe it builds their confidence a little more? Can be good for them long term.

And it worked out OK, and has in the past as well.

You can't be serious. Don't tell me you honestly think that 88 and 23 he can do a better job in that circumstance than checkers like 65, 94, 16, 28, 20, 19, 81 etc etc. ...

If the team was going one man down for say, the last 5 minutes of regulation, I can see MAYBE letting Kane out there, and MAYBE even Versteeg without Kane, but to have both 23 and 88 out together is ridiculous and no argument will convince me otherwise. Yes, it worked out, so all is well, which seems to be the story of Q's life as Hawk's coach.

 

[atomicfroster*]

You can't be serious. Don't tell me you honestly think that 88 and 23 he can do a better job in that circumstance than checkers like 65, 94, 16, 28, 20, 19, 81 etc etc. ...

If the team was going one man down for say, the last 5 minutes of regulation, I can see MAYBE letting Kane out there, and MAYBE even Versteeg without Kane, but to have both 23 and 88 out together is ridiculous and no argument will convince me otherwise. Yes, it worked out, so all is well, which seems to be the story of Q's life as Hawk's coach.

i just got back in this thread, are we talking about why kaner and steeger where out for the end of the game? I myself did find it concerning when i saw them out there for a faceoff so late. Should have been a checking line for my vote, BUT who the **** cares! WE WON.

 

[Kurtosis]

In your opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it is bad coaching just because you think it is.

Who else is he going to throw out there? Toews/Hossa can't play the entire 2+mins to end the game, Kruger sucks according to you, and Bicks/Shaw/Carcillo certainly isn't the answer.

It shows them that coach trusts them in those situations and maybe it builds their confidence a little more? Can be good for them long term.

And it worked out OK, and has in the past as well.

Just because something works doesn't mean it is a good decision.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Yea, Bollig icing games was stupid just like Kane and Versteeg together icing games is stupid.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

Well, we won. So I am not sure why this is even a debate

 

[massivegoonery]

no argument will convince me otherwise.

What else is new?

 

[BobbyJet]

Wow... 4 whole words from the wise man of the board. Why bother, honestly??

 

[Hawkaholic]

You can't be serious. Don't tell me you honestly think that 88 and 23 he can do a better job in that circumstance than checkers like 65, 94, 16, 28, 20, 19, 81 etc etc. ...

If the team was going one man down for say, the last 5 minutes of regulation, I can see MAYBE letting Kane out there, and MAYBE even Versteeg without Kane, but to have both 23 and 88 out together is ridiculous and no argument will convince me otherwise. Yes, it worked out, so all is well, which seems to be the story of Q's life as Hawk's coach.

23 is fine defensively, better than 65. I have no idea who 94 is. I already said Hossa, Toews and Saad can't be out there all night, and you think Kruger sucks. That line played great all game, didn't give any major scoring chances and did a pretty good job when they were out there.

Both of them out there hasn't been a problem for the last 5 or so games, but keep telling us it will be a problem, maybe you'll be right one of these games.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Just because something works doesn't mean it is a good decision.

Just because you don't think it's a good decision doesn't mean it's a bad decision.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Just because Q thought it was a good decision doesn't make it so.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Just because Q thought it wasn't a bad decision doesn't make it so.

Well his decision didn't cost us the game, maybe with different players on the ice they score? Who knows? What I do know is it worked out fine, we won, and they actually did a pretty good job with it.

 

[BobbyJet]

23 is fine defensively, better than 65. I have no idea who 94 is. I already said Hossa, Toews and Saad can't be out there all night, and you think Kruger sucks. That line played great all game, didn't give any major scoring chances and did a pretty good job when they were out there.

Both of them out there hasn't been a problem for the last 5 or so games, but keep telling us it will be a problem, maybe you'll be right one of these games.

You would defend Q no matter what, but I think you know it was a bad coaching decision... just like when he sometimes fails to have 2 center ice men on the ice at times when it's warranted. If Q was coaching a less talented team he would pay dearly for not paying attention to such details, but he continues to get away with it in Chicago.

 

[BobbyJet]

23 is fine defensively, better than 65. I have no idea who 94 is. I already said Hossa, Toews and Saad can't be out there all night, and you think Kruger sucks. That line played great all game, didn't give any major scoring chances and did a pretty good job when they were out there.

Both of them out there hasn't been a problem for the last 5 or so games, but keep telling us it will be a problem, maybe you'll be right one of these games.

Well you've changed the topic but nevertheless, I'll respond.....

I assume you're referring to our 2nd line now. So, yeah, I reckon I'll be right this weekend if Q puts the 88-91-23 line together against Ducks/Kings/Blues..... the first true contenders we have met since the brilliant decision was made to assemble those 3 as a unit.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Let's all go to the next GDT:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1782595