Saad has been a non-factor. I have no clue why he's on the PP team. Bickell needs to be there. PERIOD.

Coach Asshat just never learns. Here we go again, let's drop our game and "react" to something that hasn't even happened. Kane wakes up playing with Toews, they're doing great together, so dumbass needs to put a quick stop to THAT. And take away a big speed edge in Stalberg, who will at least keep the B's honest even if he doesn't score, and put Bollig in to start a few fights to put us shorthanded? OMG, only Q ...
- Q...argh

i think saad will score a few this series.

1 and 2) Q trying to force Julien to separate Chara and Seidenberg, also making a harder choice where to play Bergeron
3) That line will be out versus Krejci
4) A second defensive line option/energy line/heavy forecheck—this line as constructed was VERY good during the streak

I also think the second line is constructed to create space for Kane. Could work.
- John Jaeckel

Kane has shown that he he either has no chemistry with Zus or just doesn't want to play with him. Either way, he goes Q again, fixing what ain't broke ... so, he'll break it.

How many Stanley Cups will Q need to win before you drop the silly/insulting moniker?
- QStache

This is going to be another difficult summer for him: I'm sure whatever he does, half of us will be pissed at him.

The other half will take a "wait and see" attitude.

Kane has shown that he he either has no chemistry with Zus or just doesn't want to play with him. Either way, he goes Q again, fixing what ain't broke ... so, he'll break it.
- Q...argh

Well Q does have Kane and Bickell playing together and those two certainly showed some chemistry over the last few games.

This is going to be another difficult summer for him: I'm sure whatever he does, half of us will be pissed at him.

The other half will take a "wait and see" attitude.
- StLBravesFan

You talking about Q...argh, again?

1) Sharp/Toews/Hossa
2) Bicks/Zus/Kane
3) Saad/Bolland/Shaw
4) Frolik/Kruger/Bollig

Here's what I don't understand: Hossa and Zus showed chemistry and played well together. Toews and Kane's chemistry reignited both their games. Stalberg's speed at least keeps teams honest. Bollig brings nothing to the table but unnecessary penalties. God I hate Quenville.

How many Stanley Cups will Q need to win before you drop the silly/insulting moniker?
- QStache

Hey, they win in SPITE of Q, not BECAUSE of him. Did he ever take a POOR OR MEDIOCRE team to the playoffs???

Think back to Lovie "Coach of the Year" Smith. Yeah, the Bears went to the Super Bowl BECAUSE of Smith ... I got a bridge to sell ya ... cheap ... really ...

You talking about Q...argh, again?
- QStache

No: I'm certainly assuming Q won't be an issue - even going into his "lame duck" year, they'll get something done.

I'm talking about resigning / trading:

Bickell
Leddy
Bolland
Stalberg
Frolik

1) Sharp/Toews/Hossa
2) Bicks/Zus/Kane
3) Saad/Bolland/Shaw
4) Frolik/Kruger/Bollig

Here's what I don't understand: Hossa and Zus showed chemistry and played well together. Toews and Kane's chemistry reignited both their games. Stalberg's speed at least keeps teams honest. Bollig brings nothing to the table but unnecessary penalties. God I hate Quenville.
- Q...argh

I think the idea is that Q wants to separate Kane and Toews so Chara and Seidenberg aren't both spotting them. You can accuse him of overthinking it, but there is a logic in that thinking.

I think the idea is that Q wants to separate Kane and Toews so Chara and Seidenberg aren't both spotting them. You can accuse him of overthinking it, but there is a logic in that thinking.
- QStache

Look where his logic got us in the Detroit series: nearly eliminated by the number 7 seed!

Hey, they win in SPITE of Q, not BECAUSE of him. Did he ever take a POOR OR MEDIOCRE team to the playoffs???

Think back to Lovie "Coach of the Year" Smith. Yeah, the Bears went to the Super Bowl BECAUSE of Smith ... I got a bridge to sell ya ... cheap ... really ...
- Q...argh

That's stupid. How many coaches ever take poor or mediocre teams to the playoffs? No matter what sport you are talking about, teams that make the playoffs aren't poor or mediocre. And, if they are, then it means the entire league is made up of teams that are poorer or more mediocre. That logic is so faulty it is almost laughable.

And nobody EVER says that a team makes a championship game because of a coach. Nobody said it about Smith, nobody said it because of Jackson, nobody said it of Guillen, and no one, ever, has said it because of Quenneville. But it is ludicrous to suggest that they are doing it inspite of those coaches. No team is so infallable, so perfect that they could do it without a coach. And to suggest that really shows how little you know of team sports.

Look where his logic got us in the Detroit series: nearly eliminated by the number 7 seed!
- Q...argh

What are you talking about? Are you really suggesting that sitting Stalberg for two games, one in which we won, posting a hugely convincing victory, is the reason that the Hawks almost lost to Detroit?

Buddy, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you in Arizona ...

1 and 2) Q trying to force Julien to separate Chara and Seidenberg, also making a harder choice where to play Bergeron
3) That line will be out versus Krejci
4) A second defensive line option/energy line/heavy forecheck—this line as constructed was VERY good during the streak

I also think the second line is constructed to create space for Kane. Could work.
- John Jaeckel

67/16/52 was excellent during the streak. I'm happy to see Bollig get some playing time in the final.

That's stupid. How many coaches ever take poor or mediocre teams to the playoffs? No matter what sport you are talking about, teams that make the playoffs aren't poor or mediocre. And, if they are, then it means the entire league is made up of teams that are poorer or more mediocre. That logic is so faulty it is almost laughable.

And nobody EVER says that a team makes a championship game because of a coach. Nobody said it about Smith, nobody said it because of Jackson, nobody said it of Guillen, and no one, ever, has said it because of Quenneville. But it is ludicrous to suggest that they are doing it inspite of those coaches. No team is so infallable, so perfect that they could do it without a coach. And to suggest that really shows how little you know of team sports.
- QStache

Think what you want, but if you believe that his stupid chess playing and constant line juggling helps this team in the overall scheme of things, you're incredibly wrong. Yep, I know jack squat about team sports. I bow to your irrational Quenville hero worship. Let him know how loyal you defend him and he may just make you assistant coach after the FO throws his useless lackey Kompon out on his ass. He likes brown nosers.

Think what you want, but if you believe that his stupid chess playing and constant line juggling helps this team in the overall scheme of things, you're incredibly wrong. Yep, I know jack squat about team sports. I bow to your irrational Quenville hero worship. Let him know how loyal you defend him and he may just make you assistant coach after the FO throws his useless lackey Kompon out on his ass. He likes brown nosers.
- Q...argh

i've been hearing that Quenville is the anti matchup guy. tries to stay away from it. no?

What are you talking about? Are you really suggesting that sitting Stalberg for two games, one in which we won, posting a hugely convincing victory, is the reason that the Hawks almost lost to Detroit?

Buddy, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you in Arizona ...
- QStache

Quit talking in circles, you know damned well what Quenville did to screw up the Detroit series, and that I didn't say what you just implied. Stick your dime store shyster tactic of mischaracterizing my argument where the sun doesn't shine. That, or learn to read and be honest.

Quit talk in circles, you know damned well what Quenville did to screw up the Detroit series, and that I didn't say what you just implied. Stick your dime store shyster tactic of mischaracterizing my argument where the sun doesn't shine. That, or learn to read and be honest.
- Q...argh

Ha. You talking about honesty is rich. You claim that some mind f'ing is the cause of the Hawks plight. Well, this is now the second Stanley Cup that Q has directed the Hawks to and the third WCF this team has made. By all means, if you want someone to be honest, it needs to be you. Because post-lockout there are very, very few coaches with his resume.

And for the record, my moniker has more to do with the playful characterization in John Buccigross's columns in 2009 than some felation of Joel Quenneville. I've criticized the line changes in this very thread, but you criticize without context and seemingly without critical analysis. And if you are going to pull that schtick, then I won't be the only one calling you out.

i've been hearing that Quenville is the anti matchup guy. tries to stay away from it. no?
- Fountain-San

Why, yes, indeed. He also takes in stray puppies and would never compromise his team by handing the powerplay to an incompetent lackey. You must watch the Hawks religiously.

That's stupid. How many coaches ever take poor or mediocre teams to the playoffs? No matter what sport you are talking about, teams that make the playoffs aren't poor or mediocre. And, if they are, then it means the entire league is made up of teams that are poorer or more mediocre. That logic is so faulty it is almost laughable.

And nobody EVER says that a team makes a championship game because of a coach. Nobody said it about Smith, nobody said it because of Jackson, nobody said it of Guillen, and no one, ever, has said it because of Quenneville. But it is ludicrous to suggest that they are doing it inspite of those coaches. No team is so infallable, so perfect that they could do it without a coach. And to suggest that really shows how little you know of team sports.
- QStache

But coaches CAN LOSE championships - taking very good to excellent teams only so far and then screwing the pooch.

Q has so far "not lost" one championship, and is possibly on the verge of "not losing" another.

That puts him in pretty good company among the top-level coaches in history.

Quit talking in circles, you know damned well what Quenville did to screw up the Detroit series.
- Q...argh

Yeah, he totally franked that series. I'm sure the boys have been enjoying the last two weeks of playing golf, resting, visiting with their families, ...

Oh, wait ...

I don't think your lines will move about as freely as they did against an arguably banged-up Kings team. In addition, LA's defense was anemic at best. Boston is healthy, big, has a great defense, and Rask is on fire.

Stats or not, it'll be a tough series for you guys.

Hey, they win in SPITE of Q, not BECAUSE of him. Did he ever take a POOR OR MEDIOCRE team to the playoffs???

Think back to Lovie "Coach of the Year" Smith. Yeah, the Bears went to the Super Bowl BECAUSE of Smith ... I got a bridge to sell ya ... cheap ... really ...
- Q...argh

So the Bears didn't get to the Super Bowl because of Smith.

And they didn't get there because of Grossman.

Why / how did they get there?

Ha. You talking about honesty is rich. You claim that some mind f'ing is the cause of the Hawks plight. Well, this is now the second Stanley Cup that Q has directed the Hawks to and the third WCF this team has made. By all means, if you want someone to be honest, it needs to be you. Because post-lockout there are very, very few coaches with his resume.

And for the record, my moniker has more to do with the playful characterization in John Buccigross's columns in 2009 than some felation of Joel Quenneville. I've criticized the line changes in this very thread, but you criticize without context and seemingly without critical analysis. And if you are going to pull that schtick, then I won't be the only one calling you out.
- QStache

Ah, "he directed us" to 2 cups, ha? You just said what you earlier said you hadn't. Using your logic, he directed us out of the POs in the first round for two straight years and should've been dumped.

So the Bears didn't get to the Super Bowl because of Smith.

And they didn't get there because of Grossman.

Why / how did they get there?
- StLBravesFan

The bus driver, duh ...

So the Bears didn't get to the Super Bowl because of Smith.

And they didn't get there because of Grossman.

Why / how did they get there?
- StLBravesFan

They got there because of Kyle Orton, great special teams and an extremely gifted defensive corps. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that Smith and Grossman took them to the Super Bowl? Those two BUFFOONS LOST it for them!