Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Sign in to follow this  
Gumby-1

Joel Quenneville

Recommended Posts

There are many here calling for Q's head so I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss.

IMHO, Joel Quenneville is a good coach, a sure bet for the HHOF - his record speaks for itself and God knows he has delivered for the Hawks.  That said, either something is drastically wrong with this team or Hawks fans simply can't come to terms with reality.  I believe the problem is the former and while it would be nice to shake things up by swapping out a few players, the world of the salary cap and NMC's make that very hard to do.

What else can be done?  There is an old saying that coaches are hired to be fired.  I took a quick look at NHL coaching tenures and I was shocked at what I learned:

31 teams in the league and only 1 team has a coach that has 10 years service (and we all know who that is).  Two teams have coaches in their 5th season.  Four in their 4th.  Eight in their 3rd.  Five in their 2nd year and 11 (yes 11) first year coaches in 2017.  That's right, 24 teams (OK 23 if we take away Vegas) have new coaches within the last 3 years.  For those weak in math, that's 74% of the league!

By no means am I trying to start a lynch mob and I would personally like to see Q and his staff figure this out and get the Hawks back into the thick of things.

I will however, ask this:  How much longer can this continue without something changing?  Whether it's right or wrong, it's much easier to fire a coach than 23 players.

Have at it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is the latter.   The team is not very good.   There are too many young inexperienced players.   The older core players are no longer capable of covering up for their linemates' mistakes.   The players who remain in their prime years are not that good.

Bowman has done a brutal job of managing the lineup the past couple of years.   There have been far too many unnecessary changes.    The coach is not really the issue.   The team needs to get to know each other's tendencies.   This will take time.  

I would give him two or three more years to get this team back on track.   I would fire Bowman right now if I was in charge.

Edited by mvr
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I believe it is the latter.   The team is not very good.   There are too many young inexperienced players.   The older core players are no longer capable of covering up for their linemates' mistakes.   The players who remain in their prime years are not that good.

Bowman has done a brutal job of managing the lineup the past couple of years.   There have been far too many unnecessary changes.    The coach is not really the issue.   The team needs to get to know each other's tendencies.   This will take time.  

I would give him two or three more years to get this team back on track.   I would fire Bowman right now if I was in charge.

I agree. The problem is that many think that you are attacking Stan and his family. I’m sure he’s a great guy/father/son/friend/husband etc. But you’re bang on with his work over the last few years. I get that the salary cap is gonna get you if you’re not smart, and well...... Now there has been the country club atmosphere initialized by Stan, by overpaying and over staying a lot of guys. MVR, you’re a baseball guy, I remember Cashman saying a few years ago about Robinson Cano, he said that he already got the best years out of him, and seen no reason to re-sign him long term at 30+ million. Now, I love Seabs, even at 7 million, but for 8 years and a NMC is insanely moronic. I think Q is getting the most out of these guys. I really do, it’s just most don’t wanna realize that the team as a whole took a massive step back!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan certainly has to carry his share of the blame. When you have two players consuming 1/3 of the salary cap, you can't afford mistakes like the Seabrook contract.  Then again, when those 2 players making all that money aren't playing to their potential, that's not on Stan.  I realize that they can't do it all by themselves and they need a strong supporting cast but the eye test shows that the supporting cast is not always the problem.  Poor decisions with and without the puck, lack of intensity and inconsistent play are all contributing factors.  The PP is proof of that ... you can't blame the bottom 6 for the abysmal effort of the star players on the PP (27th in the league at 14.3%).

I'm not letting Stan off the hook but the big boys have to get their game back and lead the way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many of the star players have become old with many miles on their tread.

It happens.  It is too bad it happened to all of them at the same time.

Seabrook is still a useful player.    He is no longer a top-two defenceman.   This is not his fault.   Hossa was never the big top ten scorer in Chicago that he'd been in other places (though he was paid that way).   Nevertheless, he still filled a role here.

I believe most of the core players are "playing to their potential."   Their potential is not that high any more.   The supporting cast is not picking up the slack.   Too often, they are making glaring mistakes.   The core is not able to cover up for these mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mvr the core is the main part of the problem as good as they were they're that bad. Seabs is toast, Toews is only worth half of what he's making. Q has been hard headed in the past and sometimes the Hawks won in spite of him. Now with this team he doesn't have the luxury of the core winning close games because they aren't producing. The way they are playing they will be out of the playoff picture by Christmas if something doesn't change. SB is also guilty of many bad decisions but I'm not sure Q outlasts him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mvr said on 10 hours ago:

Too many of the star players have become old with many miles on their tread.

It happens.  It is too bad it happened to all of them at the same time.

Seabrook is still a useful player.    He is no longer a top-two defenceman.   This is not his fault.   Hossa was never the big top ten scorer in Chicago that he'd been in other places (though he was paid that way).   Nevertheless, he still filled a role here.

I believe most of the core players are "playing to their potential."   Their potential is not that high any more.   The supporting cast is not picking up the slack.   Too often, they are making glaring mistakes.   The core is not able to cover up for these mistakes.

I agree that the core guys have a lot of mileage but I don't agree that they've become old just yet.  We have seen flashes of their former selves at times so we know they still have the ability.  But, there is something not quite right about this team and the way they approach the game.  I personally would feel better if the excuse was that they have aged beyond repair because then I could say, "well they left it all on the ice tonight but they're just not that good anymore."  Instead, I find myself saying things like, "where is the intensity?"  "Why would he even try to make that pass?"  "Why won't anyone go near the net?"   "Why the heck don't they shoot the puck?"  Those are not age-related issues and from where I stand, fixing those things would go a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mvr, he's not even top 4 dman.And it's now, 6-7 years before his contract expires.How he could look ie three years later in 2020 ? Or in 2023 ? Seabrook is 32 and Toews 29.....  similar age or older guys playing top level.Crawford is 32, Keith is already 34..... From actual Cup winners : Crosby is 30, Malkin 31, Kesel 30.Other examples Oveckin 32, Kopitar 30, Giroux 29, Hossa scored 40 RS goals at 30. ... it's not that at 28 is all over.

Age is no excuse to play like Rozsival at 39.

Edited by Modry-Jazyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gumby-1 said on 29 minutes ago:

I agree that the core guys have a lot of mileage but I don't agree that they've become old just yet.  We have seen flashes of their former selves at times so we know they still have the ability.  But, there is something not quite right about this team and the way they approach the game.  I personally would feel better if the excuse was that they have aged beyond repair because then I could say, "well they left it all on the ice tonight but they're just not that good anymore."  Instead, I find myself saying things like, "where is the intensity?"  "Why would he even try to make that pass?"  "Why won't anyone go near the net?"   "Why the heck don't they shoot the puck?"  Those are not age-related issues and from where I stand, fixing those things would go a long way.

It is not just about declining physical ability, although it is partly that.

It is also about changing priorities.   Players as they age begin to take on personal burdens outside of the game.  They get married.  They have kids.  They have responsibilities.  These outside influences provide distractions.   So too do nagging injuries.

My feeling is that we tend to underestimate the impact of a player's private life.   We don't see how fatigue reduces a player's ability to focus and concentrate.   

I also strongly believe that the dramatic lineup shuffling and the continuous roster turnover has finally taken its toll.   There is too much confusion and uncertainty on the ice which leads to hesitation and poor decision making.

Edited by mvr
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modry-Jazyk said on 2 minutes ago:

Seabrook is 32 and Toews 29.....  similar age or older guys playing top level.Crawford is 32, Keith is already 34..... Crosby is 30, Malkin 31, Kesel 30, Oveckin 32, Kopitar 30, Giroux 29 ...

Age is no excuse to play like Rozsival at 39.

Seabs declining game is not Q's fault.  Playing him like he does may be Q's fault...but Q is old school and will stay loyal to the diminishing core players.

Fire him for this mess?  The frustration from some may be misdirected a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iknowpuck said on 38 minutes ago:

Seabs declining game is not Q's fault.  Playing him like he does may be Q's fault...but Q is old school and will stay loyal to the diminishing core players.

Fire him for this mess?  The frustration from some may be misdirected a bit.

That's sort of the predicament of being a manger: personal loyalties/relationships sometimes get in the way. I suppose if another coach stepped in, he would be more inclined to bench sharp; or to reduce Seabrook's minutes; or try a few different things on the power play; or do something.  I am not qualified to judge Q's coaching abilities, but I can see how one's objectivity can become compromised. However, I also don't see how this team is anything above very average...at least their play is at the moment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkFanPdx said on 2 minutes ago:

That's sort of the predicament of being a manger: personal loyalties/relationships sometimes get in the way. I suppose if another coach stepped in, he would be more inclined to bench sharp; or to reduce Seabrook's minutes; or try a few different things on the power play; or do something.  I am not qualified to judge Q's coaching abilities, but I can see how one's objectivity can become compromised. However, I also don't see how this team is anything above very average...at least their play is at the moment. 

First bolded is an assumption.

Second bolded, that's not necessarily Q's fault.  Yet some posters want to fire a HOF coach.  Firing the coach is the easy thing.  Holding players accountable for their  performances is the more difficult thing...but the right thing to do.

Share this post


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

First bolded is an assumption.

Second bolded, that's not necessarily Q's fault.  Yet some posters want to fire a HOF coach.  Firing the coach is the easy thing.  Holding players accountable for their  performances is the more difficult thing...but the right thing to do.

Of course, it's an assumption. Based on such assumptions coaches and are fired and hired all the time -- because they may be in a better position to hold players accountable. For one thing,  expectations are different for the newly hired coaches. Personally, though, I'd hold on to Q for a bit longer. At least the team has scored a few in the last two games. Let's call the NJ game an aberration. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s get Q the missing pieces and wake the core up...if it’s possible...before we want to let him go.  The guy has been a winner.  He is a HOF coach.  Pump the brakes for some posters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is not just about declining physical ability, although it is partly that.

It is also about changing priorities.   Players as they age begin to take on personal burdens outside of the game.  They get married.  They have kids.  They have responsibilities.  These outside influences provide distractions.   So too do nagging injuries.

My feeling is that we tend to underestimate the impact of a player's private life.   We don't see how fatigue reduces a player's ability to focus and concentrate.   

I also strongly believe that the dramatic lineup shuffling and the continuous roster turnover has finally taken its toll.   There is too much confusion and uncertainty on the ice which leads to hesitation and poor decision making.

I'm with you on the burdens of everyday life, that can certainly influence a persons attitude and provide distraction.  I simply feel that there is a funk surrounding this team right now that is affecting everyone (including us fans :D).  The stars are not playing up to snuff and no one from the supporting cast is stepping up to ignite the spark.  One of those two things needs to happen.  Hopefully conversations have been had with the core guys to inspire them to raise their game and similarly with the younger guys to let them know that opportunity is knocking at the door.  As I've stated before, my frustration to this point is not with their record but their lethargic approach and roll over and die behavior.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iknowpuck said on 12 hours ago:

Let’s get Q the missing pieces and wake the core up...if it’s possible...before we want to let him go.  The guy has been a winner.  He is a HOF coach.  Pump the brakes for some posters.

If you believe that missing pieces are what it is going to take to wake up the core..................................................Then there are a lot more problems with this team then what we believe. What has been done recently to wake up the core? Yank CC for the 3rd period? That'll wake them up. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I think Q might have his head in the guillotine right now doesn't mean I think he's a bad coach.

Regardless of where the blame is in reality (Personally, I think there's a lion's share to go around to EVERYONE), Q's position means he's the 1st to go.  Stan, in all likelihood, won't get fired before since he's up on the food chain.  However, Q leaving does expose Stan.

Which is why I think Stan won't out-last him by much.

The nature of the core's deals means they're here for the long haul.  2023-2024

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Creature1958 said on On 11/15/2017 at 7:01 AM:

If you believe that missing pieces are what it is going to take to wake up the core..................................................Then there are a lot more problems with this team then what we believe. What has been done recently to wake up the core? Yank CC for the 3rd period? That'll wake them up. :rolleyes:

That wasn't all in one.  I should have posted "let's get the missing pieces and ALSO wake the core up."

There are pieces missing to make this team better/a playoff team/maybe contender.  First step.  Try to get them.  More difficult to do.

While ALSO...

Wake the core up...shake things up...move one if you can...sit some if need be...get their attention...shouldn't be the case but it seems it's needed.

Share this post


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

That wasn't all in one.  I should have posted "let's get the missing pieces and ALSO wake the core up."

There are pieces missing to make this team better/a playoff team/maybe contender.  First step.  Try to get them.  More difficult to do.

While ALSO...

Wake the core up...shake things up...move one if you can...sit some if need be...get their attention...shouldn't be the case but it seems it's needed.

The problem is the core is virtually immovable.

Seabs' contrast has absurd negative value--even if he waives his NMC.  I think the only way he leaves is early retirement or a compliance buyout.
Keith is a recapture risk.  Like Hossa, he holds all the cards lest he really screws the franchise over--plus has an NMC.
Toews and Kane would only work with a like-for-like deal.  They wouldn't draw 10.5M worth of players.  It would be ailing core for ailing core.  Plus...NMC.

Crawford may be the only movable option if he waives, but really you're talking a top-8 netminder making his contract worth on a team with basement-level D with no one remotely close in the pipeline...plus he's only on for 2 more years after this one.

So I don't think Core moves are in the cards.  Guys who aren't pulling their weight might get sacrificed, but I feel the bras is going to try and keep/acquire those who will be the next step once the core is ready to cycle down or cycle out.

 

Be that with Q/Stan at the helm or someone else.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iknowpuck said on 19 hours ago:

That wasn't all in one.  I should have posted "let's get the missing pieces and ALSO wake the core up."

There are pieces missing to make this team better/a playoff team/maybe contender.  First step.  Try to get them.  More difficult to do.

While ALSO...

Wake the core up...shake things up...move one if you can...sit some if need be...get their attention...shouldn't be the case but it seems it's needed.

When you say missing pieces that is just a small part of the problem but also brings with it the largest problem. Money and cap. Then there is age vs. experience which goes back to money and cap. There are not that many missing pieces yet it is so hard to address. At some point and probably sooner than later they need to start the fill in the missing pieces from the farm. It seems they are trying to do that with these 1 mil. 1 year contracts from old aging players so they can let the kids get more adjusted to what the NHL is going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Creature1958 said on 1 hour ago:

When you say missing pieces that is just a small part of the problem but also brings with it the largest problem. Money and cap. Then there is age vs. experience which goes back to money and cap. There are not that many missing pieces yet it is so hard to address. At some point and probably sooner than later they need to start the fill in the missing pieces from the farm. It seems they are trying to do that with these 1 mil. 1 year contracts from old aging players so they can let the kids get more adjusted to what the NHL is going to be.

The first part of my post states that it is difficult to do (to add missing pieces).  There is some cap room and hopefully some options.

Waking up the core doesn't necessarily cost you money.  It requires Q to make some waves...dropping a few F bombs at the end of a practice isn't going to do it.  I know he is loyal to them...but sit someone...do something different.  They need to wake up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This team's success was always based on their depth.  Remember that?  They always had 3 or more lines that the opposing team had to worry about.  Now they have 1 - 1 1/2 depending on the night and how you see it.  They're an average NHL team right now.  And they're an average team that likes to play on the perimeter.  Don't forget about that part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The first part of my post states that it is difficult to do (to add missing pieces).  There is some cap room and hopefully some options.

Waking up the core doesn't necessarily cost you money.  It requires Q to make some waves...dropping a few F bombs at the end of a practice isn't going to do it.  I know he is loyal to them...but sit someone...do something different.  They need to wake up.

 

I am not disagreeing with you at all. My question is this, let’s say they put in a coach who will sit the stars for mediocre play, what next? Will the team win more? And how do we repair a broken relationship with the unmovable players? I get why Q does that, but it never should a happened in the first place. I truly believe a new coach will get instant results, but probably no Cup. Also, I just think at this point, the team just isn’t that good. Young kids have been meh, except Dcat, he’s been a welcomed burden. When Seabs Toews Kane and Keith are just not playing to standards, it’s gonna hurt, especially when the coach leans on them no matter what!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big-T said on On 11/17/2017 at 2:56 PM:

I am not disagreeing with you at all. My question is this, let’s say they put in a coach who will sit the stars for mediocre play, what next? Will the team win more? And how do we repair a broken relationship with the unmovable players? I get why Q does that, but it never should a happened in the first place. I truly believe a new coach will get instant results, but probably no Cup. Also, I just think at this point, the team just isn’t that good. Young kids have been meh, except Dcat, he’s been a welcomed burden. When Seabs Toews Kane and Keith are just not playing to standards, it’s gonna hurt, especially when the coach leans on them no matter what!!!

I don't want a new coach.  I would like a new/different approach from Q.  His relationship with the core players should be strong enough to survive a few messages sent from him.

I don't think a new coach gets instant results after a quick honeymoon trip.  Like you said, this team just isn't good enough right now to sustain good results...even with a new coach.  I thought it was going to be better.

I'm in full agreement that if the core can't play to a higher standard...it doesn't matter who the coach is...it's going to fail.

Edited by iknowpuck

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
Sign in to follow this  

×