HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Blackhawks agree to terms with defenseman Rozsival

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-18-2012, 02:51 PM
  #351
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,153
vCash: 50
Well, then I'd rather not make a change. If we are going to win the same amount, then I'd much prefer to have the worst special teams in the league and be one of the best teams 5 on 5 than have everything spread out. The game is usually played 5 on 5, that's where we need to be strongest.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 04:50 PM
  #352
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
percentage won't improve much... we are already a good and winning team.

STs will improve, effort and system will get better. For the talent we have, it can't get worse
Presumptious talk. Talent isn't worth much if the team play doesn't improve. A good start would be for Q to abandon the line juggling act. Establish the lines and defensive pairings early on and give them some significant time together.

.. but I'm been saying the same thing for a few years. I don't think another team in the league juggles lines as much as, and/or as often as Q does. The players hate it.


Last edited by BobbyJet: 09-18-2012 at 05:04 PM. Reason: but
BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 05:27 PM
  #353
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Well, then I'd rather not make a change. If we are going to win the same amount, then I'd much prefer to have the worst special teams in the league and be one of the best teams 5 on 5 than have everything spread out. The game is usually played 5 on 5, that's where we need to be strongest.
Hmmm ... not so sure about that. Hawks have been very strong 5 on 5 (in the regular season).

A potent PP is feared by opps and tends to make them play softer as a result. Canucks thrive on that formula. There is no reason that Hawks can't be at the same level, if Q employs the right system with the right players. No Krugers, no Brunettes, no fancy dan perimeter play, more movement, especially by the dmen, and most importantly, crowd the crease.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 03:54 AM
  #354
TK 421
Donut Squad
 
TK 421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I ask that often although the suggestion wasn't directed at me.

Outside of roster continuity, I think STL has massive structural problems at many levels within the organization. I love their forwards and like the goalies, but I see roster issues there as well. From a multi-year perspective, I'm not sure yet that STL is doing anything sustainable yet, although I really like the progression. I like STL's roster better than Vancouver but I am far more trusting of Vancouver's ability to make changes and still maintain a high level of success.

On paper I would pick STL ahead of Chicago, but in context of everything structurally at the organizational level, I can't put STL ahead of Chicago.

The front office is going to have some juggling to do and that stuff seems to be ignored too often when discussing STL. Ice time, linemates, situational opportunities, etc. are going to start impacting contracts and negotiations later this year. Stillman is going to be a major factor determining the success of STL this season. Chicago and Vancouver are much better suited when it comes to avoiding these distractions.

Oh geez, I just realized this is the Rozsival thread.
Great point doug.

That's pretty much it from the Blues perspective. It's all about finances and timing in terms of adding a defensemen or two. That's normally something a contender does before they reach true contender status in a build up over the course of a couple seasons. It's yet to start, but a trade was always the route Armstrong intended as the Blues are virtually never a player in UFA.

Primary trade asset will be a winger and there is some serious depth there. Obviously wingers hold the least value in trade amongst skaters so the Blues would almost certainly need to add a decent piece depending on which winger it was(1st,Rattie,Cole,etc.) if they intended to trade for a true top pair guy. Armstrong is aggressive in addressing need, but he will have to wait until the guy he's trading for has already collected a decent hunk of salary from the looks of it. A budget team like the Blues would obviously prefer to absorb as little of that financial hit as possible, especially this 1st season with Stillman as primary owner trying to clean it up and trim some fat off the ice. The biggest factor however is timing with Armstrong waiting to see what will be available when teams start to feel they're out of it.

Like the Rozsival signing for the Hawks. I can't believe he sat as long as he did and I really can't believe the Wings didn't do themselves a favor. Red Wing fan's tears are delicious so I approve of this.

TK 421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 04:23 AM
  #355
TK 421
Donut Squad
 
TK 421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I agree last year, but moving forward I'm not going to make that assumption about Hitch over Q.

Hitch had the same ability in CLB for a while and then.....

I'm have no more confidence in Hitchcock compared to Q. I hope Q finds it again. One of the reasons I'm not convinced STL finishes ahead of Chicago is coaching. I rate those questions right behind those of front office questions in STL.

On a different note; a couple of pages ago Berglund was mentioned, I would swap him out for Bolland, very quickly. I think he's going to have a very long and productive career in a number of roles.
I had a chance to view Quenneville extensively during his tenure with the Blues and I never saw him elevate the team through force of will or coaching. Whenever he's had success, he's had a strong team. Conversely I have watched Mike Keenan will a team to be much better than what it really was through his dominating persona. I have also seen Hitchcock do this. And Hitchcock is a much better technical coach than Keenan ever was and certainly better than Q.

Hitchcock is easily the best coach the Blues have had during my 27 years watching the team. I think most observers over that 27 year span would agree. If there was a time to pick on Blues coaching....it sure isn't now. He turned the Blues into a machine last year that chewed up and spit out most of the league(LA was a major problem for the Blues all last year). The Blues steadily climbed in every category including the PP which was still hurting big time without McDonald but nonetheless it did improve. Likewise, Doug Armstrong has also garnered attention league wide for his work. So I'm not really sure what the concern would be with the front office other than the money issue of course.

TK 421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 05:13 AM
  #356
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
Coldsteel, just tell me how much more points would the Hawks get and goals they would score if we had signed Jagr, traded for Pavelski or could have kept Byfuglien?
Hawks are a 100 point team already and Top5 in Goals scored, this is not the problem.

Hawks need better coaching, if they have better STs, other teams will stop headhunting and playing too physical against us - or they would pay for it. Q is known to be against those enforcers and gooning it up a bit. We don't really need this that much. A big problem we have... other teams can take penalty after penalty after penalty. Hawks won't score on the PP. Adding Talent would help a bit, but not much. Only if we add a Giroux, Malkin or Crosby. STs have to improve, this is the key. Would make the job for Craw a bit easier too. He could get into a rhythm after we lead early and in more games than before. When he faces a ton of shots, he seems to make less mistakes.

Talent alone is worth much, last 2 years it was worth 97 & 101 pts in the standings and making the POs

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:07 AM
  #357
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK 421 View Post
If there was a time to pick on Blues coaching....it sure isn't now.
After Payne, who I thought was terribly suited for the roster, let alone a head coaching spot, I'll agree with that thought completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK 421 View Post
I had a chance to view Quenneville extensively during his tenure with the Blues and I never saw him elevate the team through force of will or coaching. Whenever he's had success, he's had a strong team. Conversely I have watched Mike Keenan will a team to be much better than what it really was through his dominating persona. I have also seen Hitchcock do this. And Hitchcock is a much better technical coach than Keenan ever was and certainly better than Q.
I can't argue with you're major points about the coaches, I like your perspective on them. The one thing about Quenneville I've always liked has been his long term approach (compared to the other two) which may be much better suited for a number of good teams. Given the 3 coaches and 3 mediocre teams, I would pick Q 3rd of those 3 but I think it's much more even with a good roster (like you implied). I've gone back and forth about how good I think Hitchcock is since the lockout. I'm not going to be shocked if the Blues pick up where they left off or better, or if they have some sort of implosion. I like the Blues chances of expanding on the success last year with Hitchcock over many other coaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK 421 View Post
Likewise, Doug Armstrong has also garnered attention league wide for his work. So I'm not really sure what the concern would be with the front office other than the money issue of course.
Armstrong had a great year, but it's too early to call him anything special yet in my opinion. I thought he had a pretty poor 2011 but a great 2012. Since he was there for a few seasons, he doesn't get the free pass from me for 2011 but 2012 offset most that poor aspects of that season. Armstrong isn't really my concern for the Blues in the front office though. It's money like you said. I'm not sure Armstrong will get all the assets (bodies and minds to help) in the front office he'll need from Stillman. Of course we're also waiting to see if Stillman will expand player payroll.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:12 AM
  #358
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,153
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
Hmmm ... not so sure about that. Hawks have been very strong 5 on 5 (in the regular season).

A potent PP is feared by opps and tends to make them play softer as a result. Canucks thrive on that formula. There is no reason that Hawks can't be at the same level, if Q employs the right system with the right players. No Krugers, no Brunettes, no fancy dan perimeter play, more movement, especially by the dmen, and most importantly, crowd the crease.
There is no guarantee we will be as good 5 on 5 with the new coach, that's my point. Instead of very good, we may just be above average and then above average PP and above average PK and in the end still finish 7th. Will we be better in the PO's, who knows. The people saying coaching is the only thing holding us back, better be a legendary coach coming in or it won't make a difference IMO.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:33 AM
  #359
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
There is no guarantee we will be as good 5 on 5 with the new coach, that's my point. Instead of very good, we may just be above average and then above average PP and above average PK and in the end still finish 7th. Will we be better in the PO's, who knows. The people saying coaching is the only thing holding us back, better be a legendary coach coming in or it won't make a difference IMO.
A team that's above average in all areas is generally a team that goes deep in the playoffs.

Like the goaltending, there is absolutely no excuse for us being in the league-wide bottom 5 for both special teams.

It is a problem that absolutely must be fixed by whatever means necessary.

Sevanston 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 12:35 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.