Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Old_Hawk

Are You Worried Yet?

Recommended Posts

Biscuit_In_The_Basket said on 14 hours ago:

Something interesting to ponder:    The 'Hawks were very near or at the bottom of the league in hits from 2008-2017.   As I type this they are sitting 14th and only 5 hits out of being top ten in the league.     That's a huge shift in team scheme. 

Just means we don’t have the puck!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big-T said on 18 minutes ago:

Just means we don’t have the puck!!!

 

'Hawks puck possession numbers have severely dropped as part of this shift.   Seems like too many on the D are trying to hit in the neutral zone and losing position as well, which has helped with the breakdowns.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biscuit_In_The_Basket said on 35 minutes ago:

 

'Hawks puck possession numbers have severely dropped as part of this shift.   Seems like too many on the D are trying to hit in the neutral zone and losing position as well, which has helped with the breakdowns.   

Give me their names, I’ll deal with em!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomc8481 said on 8 hours ago:

I don't think I'm as worried as Quenneville should be. There is no accountability on this team and that starts from behind the bench.

I keep going back to that Keith turnover against Nashville that put us in the hole and if it was anyone other than Keith or another member of the core, they probably wouldn't have seen the ice for the rest of the period if not game.

Now I know what you're thinking. Well it's Keith, he wears a letter and we have a better chance to win with him on the ice than without. And to me, that's exactly why he should have lost ice time for it. Same thing every time Seabrook decides to stop skating and consequently gets smoked. Send him a message to always keep his feet moving, and set the tone for everyone else. 

This is right in theory but wrong in logic. You don't take off your best defenseman in a one goal game against a divisional rival that swept you out of the playoffs when you're desperate for a win at home, when you have D-core as presently constructed as ours. It's simply the truth. Don't get me wrong: the play was atrocious and he should have been benched, but Quenneville didn't have that luxury, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PuckProphet said on 11 hours ago:

schadenfreude ......

 

 

ok ok that was a smart remark  Obviously that is a picture from the playoffs ....

 

the real answer .....the core loves being the core 

Even rotten apples have cores.  Being the core is not enough unless production is stepped up pronto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 1 hour ago:

This is right in theory but wrong in logic. You don't take off your best defenseman in a one goal game against a divisional rival that swept you out of the playoffs when you're desperate for a win at home, when you have D-core as presently constructed as ours. It's simply the truth. Don't get me wrong: the play was atrocious and he should have been benched, but Quenneville didn't have that luxury, really.

You could just as easily argue that given the significance of the game, it's more of a reason to use that incident as an opportunity to set the expectations. Keith and Keith alone cost us the lead and let Nashville back into that all-important divisional rival game. Six of one, half dozen of the other. 

At some point the two points in the standings are going to be less important than the need to send the message. To me, that was a perfect time to do it but I am sure there will be no shortage of opportunities to do so this season. Whether Q actually does or not is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomc8481 said on 1 minute ago:

You could just as easily argue that given the significance of the game, it's more of a reason to use that incident as an opportunity to set the expectations. Keith and Keith alone cost us the lead and let Nashville back into that all-important divisional rival game. Six of one, half dozen of the other. 

At some point the two points in the standings are going to be less important than the need to send the message. To me, that was a perfect time to do it but I am sure there will be no shortage of opportunities to do so this season. Whether Q actually does or not is another story.

Not if you want to win. I think the whole team already knows they're not playing to expectations; and the core most certainly knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jacksalmon said on 1 hour ago:

Even rotten apples have cores.  Being the core is not enough unless production is stepped up pronto. 

again , was going to use some provocative wordplay...... but i dont want to be overly clever ......those men are the love of the town.....while i am not dispute the frigging loser suck factor .....i just dont want to provoke emotions from all of us ....try to think positive ......

 

disclaimer by choosing those words i am attempting to provoke emotion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old_Hawk said on On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:13 PM:

If you take out the Hawks two first games, in which they looked very good, they have performed very mediocre, at best. In almost every game they are outshot, outhustled and generally outplayed. If not for the goalies (despite Crow's gaff against Edmonton, the goalies have played very well, as Crow's save percentage would indicate), the record would likely be worse.. I can't point to anything specific yet, other than the useless power play, but if they keep playing like they are, they'll soon be chasing a playoff spot instead of solidifying one.

Oct. 30 update. Lots of insightful comments but, they are now on the outside looking in and to be blunt, I'm not optimistic. We keep hearing the coaches and the players talking about, "not getting the bounces, bad luck, hot goaltenders, getting to the net, getting some dirty goals", etc,  etc, but night after night, it's the same thing. Many of the players have convinced themselves that they are working hard and smart enough and because of their star status and history, the coaches are all too forgiving. As many have mentioned, maybe it's time for some new head direction behind the bench. I can't see the assistants being bold enough to bench any of the vets for lacklustre play. Everyone makes mistakes, but playing without heart and desire is unforgiveable in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 28 minutes ago:

Not if you want to win. I think the whole team already knows they're not playing to expectations; and the core most certainly knows.

Hellen Keller could see that the core aside from Crawford is failing to meet expectations. But if the core most certainly knows, you'd never tell it by watching them on the ice. The only thing the core seems to know right now is how to regurgitate the same cliches to the press after we lose.

Allowing the lacksidaisical effort and beer league mistakes from the core has already cost us much more than just two points. It got us swept in the first round last year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old_Hawk said on 9 minutes ago:

Oct. 30 update. Lots of insightful comments but, they are now on the outside looking in and to be blunt, I'm not optimistic. We keep hearing the coaches and the players talking about, "not getting the bounces, bad luck, hot goaltenders, getting to the net, getting some dirty goals", etc,  etc, but night after night, it's the same thing. Many of the players have convinced themselves that they are working hard and smart enough and because of their star status and history, the coaches are all too forgiving. As many have mentioned, maybe it's time for some new head direction behind the bench. I can't see the assistants being bold enough to bench any of the vets for lacklustre play. Everyone makes mistakes, but playing without heart and desire is unforgiveable in my eyes.

That's funny !!!! I remember just a few short years ago them saying" getting the bounces,good luck, getting dirty goals because when you play hard those things just come to you"

 

So what's happened?  :blink:

 

Maybe someone should read them the quotes they said just a few short years ago. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking over the last 3 games,

Against the Avs #19 had 0 SOG. This was with 20 minutes of ice time including 5+ on the PP. No Points

                          #88 had 4 SOG, similar ice time and -2. No Points.

Against the Preds #19 had 5 SOG with 28+ minutes of ice. No Points.

                              #88 had 5 SOG 25 minutes of ice. No Points

Against Vegas #19 had 3 SOG,  24 minutes of ice. No Points

                         #88 had 6 SOG, similar ice time, 1 goal (which came with 1 minute left in the game when down 4-1).

When the 2 highest paid players are on the ice for roughly 140 minutes, and they total 1 meaningless point, things are not good. The Hawks look stale, unmotivated, and the PP approach continues to baffle me. Worried? No. Concerned? Yes.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomc8481 said on 31 minutes ago:

Hellen Keller could see that the core aside from Crawford is failing to meet expectations. But if the core most certainly knows, you'd never tell it by watching them on the ice. The only thing the core seems to know right now is how to regurgitate the same cliches to the press after we lose.

Allowing the lacksidaisical effort and beer league mistakes from the core has already cost us much more than just two points. It got us swept in the first round last year.

Nevertheless, they know. They're veterans and 3 time Stanley Cup champions. You'd just be compounding the main issue, which is overall zit play by the team as a whole. There's a time and a place for "message sending," and that game wasn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 13 minutes ago:

Nevertheless, they know. They're veterans and 3 time Stanley Cup champions. You'd just be compounding the main issue, which is overall zit play by the team as a whole. There's a time and a place for "message sending," and that game wasn't it.

To you it wasn't, to me it was. Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 20 minutes ago:

Nevertheless, they know. They're veterans and 3 time Stanley Cup champions. You'd just be compounding the main issue, which is overall zit play by the team as a whole. There's a time and a place for "message sending," and that game wasn't it.

In retrospect, it might have been.  Granted, I'll admit I'm going off of the game summary because I didn't *see* the game; I was on the road driving at the time so I only have Weiderman's calls to go off of.

Keith was on the ice for the SHGF - but by the sounds of it it was all Ani/Schmaltz.

Keith was responsible for the ESGA - And deserves the lion's share of the blame.

I can't remember how much culpability was expressed in Weiderman/Murray's voices for the PPGA, but Keith was on the ice.  I'm assuming little.

Moving forward to the Avs:  Of the 6 goals against, Keith was on the ice for 4:  Goals 2 & 3 (PPGA), Goal 5 (ESGA), and goal 6 (ESGA).  He wasn't on the ice for any GF

I get where you're coming from about at-the-time that might have not been the best time to send Keith a message, but I'd hope from this point off all bets are off in terms of "time and place".  Since that goal he's been the one player on the ice for most of the GA since.

...and it's not like Crawford and Forsberg aren't used to being the targets in the shooting gallery by now. :).  Seriously though I think it would do a lot in terms of teaching the youths accountability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 5 hours ago:

This is right in theory but wrong in logic. You don't take off your best defenseman in a one goal game against a divisional rival that swept you out of the playoffs when you're desperate for a win at home, when you have D-core as presently constructed as ours. It's simply the truth. Don't get me wrong: the play was atrocious and he should have been benched, but Quenneville didn't have that luxury, really.

Granny, I totally understand.  That said, and I know you don't like baseball, but there is an adage that goes like this "Show me a manager who's not afraid to lose a ballgame (for acts such as this) and I'll show you a good manager...(and vice versa)"  I think it could just as easily be applied to hockey.  I mean, the Hawks not only lost that game, but lost the next game and ...   I know he's a players' coach, but even players' coaches have to be unafraid to lose a game IMHO.

Edited by GigECJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordKOTL said on 1 hour ago:

In retrospect, it might have been.  Granted, I'll admit I'm going off of the game summary because I didn't *see* the game; I was on the road driving at the time so I only have Weiderman's calls to go off of.

Keith was on the ice for the SHGF - but by the sounds of it it was all Ani/Schmaltz.

Keith was responsible for the ESGA - And deserves the lion's share of the blame.

I can't remember how much culpability was expressed in Weiderman/Murray's voices for the PPGA, but Keith was on the ice.  I'm assuming little.

Moving forward to the Avs:  Of the 6 goals against, Keith was on the ice for 4:  Goals 2 & 3 (PPGA), Goal 5 (ESGA), and goal 6 (ESGA).  He wasn't on the ice for any GF

I get where you're coming from about at-the-time that might have not been the best time to send Keith a message, but I'd hope from this point off all bets are off in terms of "time and place".  Since that goal he's been the one player on the ice for most of the GA since.

...and it's not like Crawford and Forsberg aren't used to being the targets in the shooting gallery by now. :).  Seriously though I think it would do a lot in terms of teaching the youths accountability.

 

No, in the moment. This wasn't a hard decision (to not bench him). I wondered, at the time, if Q would bench Keith for a shift or two; if memory serves, he didn't; and I was fine with it honestly, because again, who's going to take his place? Rutta?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GigECJ said on 1 minute ago:

Granny, I totally understand.  That said, and I know you don't like baseball, but there is an adage that goes like this "Show me a manager who's not afraid to lose a ballgame (for acts such as this) and I'll show you a good manager...(and vice versa)"  I think it could just as easily be applied to hockey.  I mean, the Hawks not only lost that game, but lost the next game and ...   I know he's a players' coach, but even players' coaches have to be unafraid to lost a game IMHO.

They lost the game, but out-shot their opponent thoroughly and Rinne stood on his head; and the Avs was a tough game. They always play the Hawks tough, it was a back to back, with them traveling from Chicago the night before. That's no excuse, but nonetheless, it's fact. There's that baseball adage, but there's also the adage of over-managing a game. A manager wouldn't punish his ace reliever who in the 7th who had given up a run on his 3rd pitch to teach him a lesson when all his other relievers are garbage, simply to send him a message, would he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 12 minutes ago:

They lost the game, but out-shot their opponent thoroughly and Rinne stood on his head; and the Avs was a tough game. They always play the Hawks tough, it was a back to back, with them traveling from Chicago the night before. That's no excuse, but nonetheless, it's fact. There's that baseball adage, but there's also the adage of over-managing a game. A manager wouldn't punish his ace reliever who in the 7th who had given up a run on his 3rd pitch to teach him a lesson when all his other relievers are garbage, simply to send him a message, would he?

Ooh, Granny, as a guy who has played a lot of hardball (but not hockey I'll admit), I have to temper what you said about that ace reliever.  A badly spotted pitch can happen to anybody at any time and it happens quite often.  What Keith did, IMHO, is not in the same vein.  Yeah, I'm certain it was an accident and I don't expect anyone to constantly show that he's superhuman, but what #2 did simply doesn't happen if his head is in the game.  You can have your head in the game and still throw a fat pitch. 

Edited by GigECJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GigECJ said on 7 minutes ago:

Ooh, Granny, as  guy who has played a lot of hardball (but not hockey I'll admit), I have to temper what you said about that ace reliever.  A badly spotted pitch can happen to anybody at any time and it happens quite often.  What Keith did, IMHO, is not in the same vein.  Yeah, I'm certain it was an accident and I don't expect anyone to constantly show that they're superhuman, but what #2 did simply doesn't happen if his head is in the game.  You can have your head in the game and still throw a fat pitch. 

You'd have to base it off of missed sign or more particularly, a waived-off pitch, in that they are both (the pitch and the turnover) bad decisions .

Edited by Granada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granada said on 29 minutes ago:

No, in the moment. This wasn't a hard decision (to not bench him). I wondered, at the time, if Q would bench Keith for a shift or two; if memory serves, he didn't; and I was fine with it honestly, because again, who's going to take his place? Rutta?

In retrospect, Rutta might have been the better choice IMHO.

I totally see your logic.  The flipside though is the aftermath: If Keith was the letter-wearing Norris-level Conn Smythe defender we know him as, he would have tightened his play up much like he did after game 6 of the 2015 Nashville series...or his 2011 campaign.  He hasn't, and that's a problem since he's the de facto defense leader.  I'm hoping from hereon out Q does take the vets to task for bad play simply because outside of Crawford none of them are really doing much.  The way I see it is this:  Worst-case scenario the kids and depth biff it and the result is the same shooting gallery on Crawford and Forsberg, the O is impotent, and we're still losing if we bench TKKS for a shift or 3.  Best case, they step it up and prove their worth.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordKOTL said on Just now:

In retrospect, Rutta might have been the better choice IMHO.

I totally see your logic.  The flipside though is the aftermath: If Keith was the letter-wearing Norris-level Conn Smythe defender we know him as, he would have tightened his play up much like he did after game 6 of the 2015 Nashville series...or his 2011 campaign.  He hasn't, and that's a problem since he's the de facto defense leader.  I'm hoping from hereon out Q does take the vets to task for bad play simply because outside of Crawford none of them are really doing much.  The way I see it is this:  Worst-case scenario the kids and depth biff it and the result is the same shooting gallery on Crawford and Forsberg, the O is impotent, and we're still losing if we bench TKKS for a shift or 3.  Best case, they step it up and prove their worth.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Did you see the Colorado game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from one recent article :

"But when your fourth-liners are the only ones finishing checks and nobody is making any adjustments to try to motivate the team, you have to wonder what is going on in the locker room.  Are they just being lazy?  Is it complacency?  Is it elitism?

It’s hard to make the argument that the Blackhawks just aren’t good enough to compete, because that’s simply not true.  The Blackhawks turned it on during the second and third periods, possessing the puck for minutes at a time in the Avs zone.  They have shown that they can compete with great teams, but seemingly only when they want to.

So the question has to be asked.  After 10 years, has Joel Quenneville lost the locker room?"

 

the rest is here :

https://blackhawkup.com/2017/10/30/chicago-blackhawks-has-coach-qs-voice-gone-stale/

Edited by Modry-Jazyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×