HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Optimism or Negativity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2012, 02:28 AM
  #1
bulletwwings
Registered User
 
bulletwwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Enemy Territory, STL
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Optimism or Negativity

There is a lot going on right now with management and coaching staff being "dysfunctional". I am wondering how we will do next season...The way I see it we have two options this next season. 1)Q and kitchen stay, and 2)Q and kitchen leave. Now what do these options implicate?

1) They stay. Where do we see the hawks at mid-way, and at the end of the season? PP and PK? Playoffs?

2) They get the boot. When? Who replaces them? Do we see a huge turn around like in STL or are we looking at an irreversible problem here?

I know this is a lot of speculation but i think its something that should be talked about considering the situation the team is in...

bulletwwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 04:15 AM
  #2
Hawks82
Registered User
 
Hawks82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 779
vCash: 500
If you've read the ESPN article that was posted in another thread, I would think it would be hard to have much optimism that things will improve.

The triangle + 1 system that Kitchen runs has been proven ineffective and yet, he still runs it that way. Barry Smith was brought in to help, the PP improved...and instead of realizing the machine was broken...Q got offended, Smith left and the PP went right back to being dog **** under Kitchen.

The other instance that really bothered me was Q's insistence on playing Kruger at 2nd line C when it was obvious that Kane was a better option. When Bowman came out and said that not only was Kane more effective in that role but the team was much better, I took it as an indictment of Q.

I hate to say it but it reminds me of Moneyball, where Billy Beane has to keep telling Art Howe to play Scott Hatteberg at 1st. Howe finally gives in and the A's go on a roll. When the GM makes better strategic decisions than the coach, then it's time for a new coach.

I'm optimistic that Bowman will give Q just enough rope to hang himself. Anything less than a top 4 standing in the conference and a top 5 PP 20 games in, it's time to move on.

Hawks82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 05:27 AM
  #3
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 22,587
vCash: 500
Optimism

We are not bad, we underachieve

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 06:52 AM
  #4
BBSeabs27
#freeseabs
 
BBSeabs27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Optimism

We are not bad, we underachieve
+1

Maybe now that Q has total control over coaching and player involvement, we'll see a different Q. He did say that the ice-time needed to be deserved, which hopefully means when Kane is playing no better than Andrew Brunette, he gets benched. Same thing goes for any of the star players. Duncan Keith comes to mind in particular. He doesn't have to earn his role on the team and he gets 25+ min of ice time every night. He's been overworked for 3 years now by Q. Maybe if Keith felt he had to deserve the ice time it would make him work harder. IDK, that's just my thinking. Think what you may, but I'm not down and out yet. From the articles I read it sounds like this is pretty much Q's last chance to be our coach and take us further than the first round.

BBSeabs27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:03 AM
  #5
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
+1

Maybe now that Q has total control over coaching and player involvement, we'll see a different Q. He did say that the ice-time needed to be deserved, which hopefully means when Kane is playing no better than Andrew Brunette, he gets benched. Same thing goes for any of the star players. Duncan Keith comes to mind in particular. He doesn't have to earn his role on the team and he gets 25+ min of ice time every night. He's been overworked for 3 years now by Q. Maybe if Keith felt he had to deserve the ice time it would make him work harder. IDK, that's just my thinking. Think what you may, but I'm not down and out yet. From the articles I read it sounds like this is pretty much Q's last chance to be our coach and take us further than the first round.
Great, Kane had a bad game bench him. It's his fault the team played him all over the ice at every position and with every line partner we could, it's his fault half of his passes bounced of the sticks of guys like Brunette that would have been easy goals.

Your Keith example is a joke, blame Keith that this team is dog crap beyond him and Seabs on the back and the team has played him too much? How dare he play more minutes then any other player because the team needed him to because we have 4 5th Dman out there instead of a true 2nd pairing.

Keith and Kane on the bench because of the failures of the rest of the team.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:09 AM
  #6
Ace Rothstein
Systems of Football
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
+1

Maybe now that Q has total control over coaching and player involvement, we'll see a different Q. He did say that the ice-time needed to be deserved, which hopefully means when Kane is playing no better than Andrew Brunette, he gets benched. Same thing goes for any of the star players. Duncan Keith comes to mind in particular. He doesn't have to earn his role on the team and he gets 25+ min of ice time every night. He's been overworked for 3 years now by Q. Maybe if Keith felt he had to deserve the ice time it would make him work harder. IDK, that's just my thinking. Think what you may, but I'm not down and out yet. From the articles I read it sounds like this is pretty much Q's last chance to be our coach and take us further than the first round.
Great, now Q can continue to play guys like Morrison and Brunette while benching players like Hayes and Olsen.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:10 AM
  #7
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Negativity, this team for the 2nd year in a row loses in the first round and Q decides to fire a coach who was good at his job and was loved by the players and keep on his friend who has done squat for this team.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:10 AM
  #8
BBSeabs27
#freeseabs
 
BBSeabs27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Great, Kane had a bad game bench him. It's his fault the team played him all over the ice at every position and with every line partner we could, it's his fault half of his passes bounced of the sticks of guys like Brunette that would have been easy goals.

Your Keith example is a joke, blame Keith that this team is dog crap beyond him and Seabs on the back and the team has played him too much? How dare he play more minutes then any other player because the team needed him to because we have 4 5th Dman out there instead of a true 2nd pairing.

Keith and Kane on the bench because of the failures of the rest of the team.
Uhmm, I was talking about individual play. At this point if you think Keith is our #1 d-man you're very mistaken. He is supposed to be that norris trophy guy we saw back in 09-10. And he even agress himself that he hasn't been the same and he isn't happy with his play. You must have missed the entire playoffs and a majority of the regular season if you think Duncan Keith played well.

Stalberg gets benched for a whole period when he makes a mistake. Kane has some god awful games and I mean god awful, all I'm saying is that during those times the team is honestly beter with him benched.

BBSeabs27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:11 AM
  #9
BBSeabs27
#freeseabs
 
BBSeabs27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein View Post
Great, now Q can continue to play guys like Morrison and Brunette while benching players like Hayes and Olsen.
what does that have anything to do with my post??

BBSeabs27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:17 AM
  #10
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
Uhmm, I was talking about individual play. At this point if you think Keith is our #1 d-man you're very mistaken. He is supposed to be that norris trophy guy we saw back in 09-10. And he even agress himself that he hasn't been the same and he isn't happy with his play. You must have missed the entire playoffs and a majority of the regular season if you think Duncan Keith played well.

Stalberg gets benched for a whole period when he makes a mistake. Kane has some god awful games and I mean god awful, all I'm saying is that during those times the team is honestly beter with him benched.
Yeah it was Keith playing bad in the play-offs that cost us because Leddy, Oduya, Hammer and O'Donnell where pillars of consistency and great play.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:17 AM
  #11
Ace Rothstein
Systems of Football
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
what does that have anything to do with my post??
I don't trust Q like you seem to.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:33 AM
  #12
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,809
vCash: 500
It seems to me that this is obviously an opportunity being given to Q. Stan is probably fed up with the excuses and the "dysfunction" so he's letting Q have total control over coaching. Stan is basically saying " OK, maybe I'm wrong and you will succeed if you can do things exactly the way you want."

The consequence of this, of course, is that if Q can't markedly improve this team when he's in control, is that the fault lies with no one else but himself. At that point there's no way he can't get the axe.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 07:35 AM
  #13
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
+1

Maybe now that Q has total control over coaching and player involvement, we'll see a different Q. He did say that the ice-time needed to be deserved, which hopefully means when Kane is playing no better than Andrew Brunette, he gets benched. Same thing goes for any of the star players. Duncan Keith comes to mind in particular. He doesn't have to earn his role on the team and he gets 25+ min of ice time every night. He's been overworked for 3 years now by Q. Maybe if Keith felt he had to deserve the ice time it would make him work harder. IDK, that's just my thinking. Think what you may, but I'm not down and out yet. From the articles I read it sounds like this is pretty much Q's last chance to be our coach and take us further than the first round.
You know I like Q taking blame but in my opinion he took the wrong kind of blame. Yes he did play some guys too much or some guys too little but he failed to acknowledge that the horrid special teams and d play were a result of the bad systems that he employs on the ice. These systems, in my opinion, are what truly held us back and he didn't take any responsibility for that at all. It doesn't matter who you give ice time to if the system sucks.

What did he do instead? Said the players need to play his system better and that they need to sacrifice, oh, and fired their favorite coach.

So, yea, kind of pessimistic.

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 08:44 AM
  #14
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,261
vCash: 500
I choose to be optimistic. It's no fun watching a team when you think things are going to turn out badly.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 09:18 AM
  #15
ObeyBollig
Registered User
 
ObeyBollig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
It seems to me that this is obviously an opportunity being given to Q. Stan is probably fed up with the excuses and the "dysfunction" so he's letting Q have total control over coaching. Stan is basically saying " OK, maybe I'm wrong and you will succeed if you can do things exactly the way you want."

The consequence of this, of course, is that if Q can't markedly improve this team when he's in control, is that the fault lies with no one else but himself. At that point there's no way he can't get the axe.
The problem with that is if Bowman knows that Q will fail next year, it is just another wasted year. Everyone is implying that this coming year will give Bowman reason to get rid of Q. As a GM, he has the power to make a change now. Why burn another year from the core group's contracts? Time is running out.

ObeyBollig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 10:03 AM
  #16
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeyBollig View Post
The problem with that is if Bowman knows that Q will fail next year, it is just another wasted year. Everyone is implying that this coming year will give Bowman reason to get rid of Q. As a GM, he has the power to make a change now. Why burn another year from the core group's contracts? Time is running out.
Pretty much my thoughts. Bowman needs to stop playing corporate politics and start taking care of business or everyone, including him, should be gone. Division victory is essential IMO. Lots of work to be done.

Am I optimistic? I have no reason to be. It looks like Bowman will do nothing, team will struggle, Q will take ALL of the blame and Bowman skates on through to another season after another season is wasted.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 10:11 AM
  #17
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
You have to see it from both sides though, Stan ****ed up by bringing in Smith to help fix things (no surprise he did though) but it really underminded Q's authority on the team. So I don't think Stan is really waiting for Q to fail, I suspect he thinks he might, but he's giving Q a chance to prove himself, with his own guys, with no interference before canning him. Not really setting him up to fail as much as him giving him a chance to either succeed or fail.

Personally, I think he will fail but you never know.

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 10:58 AM
  #18
HawksFan37
Registered User
 
HawksFan37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 263
vCash: 500
Until the front-office politics stop, and people stop worrying about their egos before what's best for the team (Q, Bowmans, McD are all guilty of this), I think the answer is clear.

If I'm a player, and I see that everyone else in the organization is more worried about their own ego and selfishness as opposed to what's best for the 23 players on the roster, how do you think that's going to translate to my play on the ice?

Yes, the Hawks have talent and good players and aren't far off. But to think that what's going on with the soap operas right now has no impact on the on-ice play is ignorance.

Negativity until the front office powerplays end. Maybe the only way to end them is to clean house. It's on Rocky to correct things now.

HawksFan37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 11:12 AM
  #19
MurrayBannerman
BBall ATD Champion
 
MurrayBannerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 219
Country: United States
Posts: 20,005
vCash: 500
Optimism.

MurrayBannerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 11:50 AM
  #20
Judrix
Kruger is our 2C
 
Judrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
optimism, if we had better goal tending we would have made a run to the Finals this season.

Judrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 11:53 AM
  #21
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judrix View Post
optimism, if we had better goal tending we would have made a run to the Finals this season.
We still have the same guys though.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 11:56 AM
  #22
Judrix
Kruger is our 2C
 
Judrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
We still have the same guys though.
I'm just saying that this team isn't completely flawed like everyone says around here. They don't need an overhaul, just need to find a better goalie...if they go into next season with Crawford I'll still be optimistic that he can bounce back, if he starts sucking again then I'll start to worry.

Judrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 11:59 AM
  #23
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judrix View Post
I'm just saying that this team isn't completely flawed like everyone says around here. They don't need an overhaul, just need to find a better goalie...if they go into next season with Crawford I'll still be optimistic that he can bounce back, if he starts sucking again then I'll start to worry.
I guess that's one way to look at it. Another is it is unacceptable to go into next year with Emery as backup and instead we should have someone like Harding or Vokoun who can take over if Crawford is slumping. Because the way you put it, if Crawford does struggle, what are we going to be able to do about it? Nothing. We'll just have to live through the slump like this past year. If we go into next year with Crawford/Emery, I'm already worried because I know we're ****ed again if Crawford isn't on his game all year.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 12:00 PM
  #24
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
This team got blanked at home in an elimination game and the only problem is goaltending?

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 12:03 PM
  #25
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicSlap View Post
This team got blanked at home in an elimination game and the only problem is goaltending?
Obviously not, but bringing in a quality goalie to play with Crawford or replacing Crawford with an elite goalie would be a great move.

Then a defender.

Then a top 6 forward.

If you can add toughness into those two skaters, perfect, we actually have a good roster.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.