JJ, don't follow on the take the fall thing, why does someone have to take the fall for losing in the SCF's. I actually feel like an extension is guaranteed.
- UnnamedSource

because losing the SCF because of your stupid line juggling and other poor personnel decisions should be a terminable offense. I bet the jackass comes back with the same lines, including Bollig, again.

because losing the SCF because of your stupid line juggling and other poor personnel decisions should be a terminable defense. I bet the jackass comes back with the same lines, including Bollig, again.
- Q...argh

Sure, fire the coach that got you to the finals, which (as has been pointed put here) not many thought could happe, after breaking records in the regular season.

See how that goes down with the fan base.

See how that goes down with potential quality coaches and other league decision makers, who, very possibly (according to rumors posted here) already have a bad view of a dysfunctional front office.

He pushed almost all the right buttons until now - bad coaches don't get teams to within 3 games of a championship with your core (19, 88, 81, 10) not scoring for much of the last 3 series.

EDIT: This is not about the Reinsdorf "a to b ok - need someone to get to c". Q has already gotten them to "c" (and still has a good chance to do so again).

Several concerns going into tonight...

the Hawks played their game Saturday and had One Goal to show for it...as the game went on the physical play of the Bruins took over. The charmin soft Stanbow Hawks wilted the more and more they got hit.

Even the Trib and hard to believe Chris Kuc actually called out the power play this morning in the paper...fairly obvious there's still no QB to the powerplay - and that is on Stanley. Clearly Kompon doesn't have a clue which is why he was run out of LA after they won the Cup and hired by Q - of course with the way the front office was being run last spring and certainly still is - what coach wanted to come here when the thought was Q would be bounced at the end of this season if the Hawks failed to get out of the first round.

Sounds like Stalberg will get the call tonight. Bollig had a horrible turnover no question, but the bigger thing was he wasn't hitting at all in the 2nd game nor was anyone else. Too many passengers.

Where are the big guns...Bickell the new poster boy has been held off the sheet in the finals and Toews has One Goal for the entire playoffs.

One thing's for sure the officiating will remain its brutal self tonight.

BR game 3 projected lines. Hope they are right...

Line 1: Bryan Bickell, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane

Line 2: Patrick Sharp, Michal Handzus, Marian Hossa

Line 3: Brandon Saad, Marcus Kruger, Michael Frolik

Line 4: Andrew Shaw, Dave Bolland, Viktor Stalberg
- ilinkhawk

It all makes sense and I hope you are right
Roll these four lines and let Boston worry about match ups.

I would also roll the four same lines on the PP and see what happens

Several concerns going into tonight...

the Hawks played their game Saturday and had One Goal to show for it...as the game went on the physical play of the Bruins took over. The charmin soft Stanbow Hawks wilted the more and more they got hit.

Even the Trib and hard to believe Chris Kuc actually called out the power play this morning in the paper...fairly obvious there's still no QB to the powerplay - and that is on Stanley. Clearly Kompon doesn't have a clue which is why he was run out of LA after they won the Cup and hired by Q - of course with the way the front office was being run last spring and certainly still is - what coach wanted to come here when the thought was Q would be bounced at the end of this season if the Hawks failed to get out of the first round.

Sounds like Stalberg will get the call tonight. Bollig had a horrible turnover no question, but the bigger thing was he wasn't hitting at all in the 2nd game nor was anyone else. Too many passengers.

Where are the big guns...Bickell the new poster boy has been held off the sheet in the finals and Toews has One Goal for the entire playoffs.

One thing's for sure the officiating will remain its brutal self tonight.
- DK002

I'll just quibble with your first sentence: if the Bruins played there game most of Saturday after the first period - they only got 2 goals in 53 minutes, and 22 shots.

Throw in last Wednesday and it's 2 goals in about 130 minutes.

Bruins dominated play, no question - but no blow out. Hawks need to adjust in many ways, but they are still in it.

BR game 3 projected lines. Hope they are right...

Line 1: Bryan Bickell, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane

Line 2: Patrick Sharp, Michal Handzus, Marian Hossa

Line 3: Brandon Saad, Marcus Kruger, Michael Frolik

Line 4: Andrew Shaw, Dave Bolland, Viktor Stalberg
- ilinkhawk

I would also roll the four same lines on the PP and see what happens
- PEIHawkFan

I agree. At some point you have to just play them as opposed to trying to out-think/outwit them.

because losing the SCF because of your stupid line juggling and other poor personnel decisions should be a terminable offense. I bet the jackass comes back with the same lines, including Bollig, again.
- Q...argh

Tell me one coach who is on the market that is hands down better than what you have now? If the Hawks lose the series, it's not because of coaching. Perhaps they faced a better team that had a matchup advantage personnel wise?

BR game 3 projected lines. Hope they are right...

Line 1: Bryan Bickell, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane

Line 2: Patrick Sharp, Michal Handzus, Marian Hossa

Line 3: Brandon Saad, Marcus Kruger, Michael Frolik

Line 4: Andrew Shaw, Dave Bolland, Viktor Stalberg
- ilinkhawk


It all makes sense and I hope you are right
Roll these four lines and let Boston worry about match ups.

I would also roll the four same lines on the PP and see what happens

It all makes sense and I hope you are right
Roll these four lines and let Boston worry about match ups.

I would also roll the four same lines on the PP and see what happens
- PEIHawkFan

Agree on all of this. Let 'em play, treat the PP like it's a 5 on 5 with an extra guy in play, and stop chasing matchups. I'm willing to be they'd do well with this!

The Hawks nearly ALWAYS do very well when Q doesn't screw with lines and matchups. It's his "coaching" that always seems to throw us off our game and cause losses. Truth is truth, and I don't give a rat's patootie who thinks Quenville is the best thing since sliced bread. If we had Sutter back here again, we'd probably be up 2-0.

because losing the SCF because of your stupid line juggling and other poor personnel decisions should be a terminable offense. I bet the jackass comes back with the same lines, including Bollig, again.
- Q...argh

You wanna fire the coach that got us to the Final...and whose adjustments basically won the series vs Detroit against a master tactician himself, Mike Babcock?

If there's one thing Q knows, it's his team. He's one of those coaches that relies on knowing when guys are "on" and when guys are having an off night.

I can't believe how much people are panicking at 1-1. I'm glad I wasn't around for the 3-1 DET series lead.

BR game 3 projected lines. Hope they are right...

Line 1: Bryan Bickell, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane

Line 2: Patrick Sharp, Michal Handzus, Marian Hossa

Line 3: Brandon Saad, Marcus Kruger, Michael Frolik

Line 4: Andrew Shaw, Dave Bolland, Viktor Stalberg
- ilinkhawk


It all makes sense and I hope you are right
Roll these four lines and let Boston worry about match ups.

I would also roll the four same lines on the PP and see what happens



Agree on all of this. Let 'em play, treat the PP like it's a 5 on 5 with an extra guy in play, and stop chasing matchups. I'm willing to be they'd do well with this!

The Hawks nearly ALWAYS do very well when Q doesn't screw with lines and matchups. It's his "coaching" that always seems to throw us off our game and cause losses. Truth is truth, and I don't give a rat's patootie who thinks Quenville is the best thing since sliced bread. If we had Sutter back here again, we'd probably be up 2-0.
- Q...argh

Cause Sutter's "consistent" lines did so well in round 3? Q's adjustments basically turned the series around vs DET.

Cause Sutter's "consistent" lines did so well in round 3? Q's adjustments basically turned the series around vs DET.
- andru2797

Either that. Or that is how Q should have had it set to begin with.

Either that. Or that is how Q should have had it set to begin with.
- ilinkhawk

Isn't it more important to make the required adjustments based on what the other team throws at you?

That becomes increasingly important vs a team you haven't played in 2 years.

Sometimes we forget the guy behind the other team's bench is also pretty good at adjusting.

Tell me one coach who is on the market that is hands down better than what you have now? If the Hawks lose the series, it's not because of coaching. Perhaps they faced a better team that had a matchup advantage personnel wise?
- golfbard

What does "better" mean??? Have you not noticed that the Hawks perform best when Quenville just rolls the same 4 lines and doesn't over coach??? All we need is someone who is competent, brings in another PP coach, and doesn't constantly change lines and chase matchups. Hell, we could even get someone who can relate to the younger players and not alienate those not perceived to be in the "core."

Babcock's not going anywhere, and neither is Sutter. So, you keep this guy just because the very best is not available? Why not an assistant who's done well somewhere else for a while?

Better yet, why not the guy Q both scapegoated for his own failings and removed as a threat to his job at the same time? I'd be willing to bet Haviland would take the job in a heartbeat.

Isn't it more important to make the required adjustments based on what the other team throws at you?

That becomes increasingly important vs a team you haven't played in 2 years.

Sometimes we forget the guy behind the other team's bench is also pretty good at adjusting.
- andru2797

You can also over think or over adjust... And in the end you don't have the situation that plays to your strengths.

What does "better" mean??? Have you not noticed that the Hawks perform best when Quenville just rolls the same 4 lines and doesn't over coach??? All we need is someone who is competent, brings in another PP coach, and doesn't constantly change lines and chase matchups. Hell, we could even get someone who can relate to the younger players and not alienate those not perceived to be in the "core."

Babcock's not going anywhere, and neither is Sutter. So, you keep this guy just because the very best is not available? Why not an assistant who's done well somewhere else for a while?

Better yet, why not the guy Q both scapegoated for his own failings and removed as a threat to his job at the same time? I'd be willing to bet Haviland would take the job in a heartbeat.
- Q...argh

Better as in win a Cup with this team, take them to a second Cup finals, 3 conference finals in five years.

We need someone who is competent? So if Q doesn't win the Cup he's a dummy? The power play is an issue and you can blame the Kompon hiring on him but it's largely a personnel issue as well. This team has no PP QB. None. You need that guy back there. Net presence? Don't see that on the roster. Maybe you can get away with Bickell here and there. What proof do you have that Q doesn't relate well to younger players?

Yea I do keep him because he's better than what's available. For every hot assistant that's worked out, there are several flavors of the month that have stunk. Changing the coach because they lost in the Cup finals to a better team (if that happens) is not a reason to fire him unless you tell me you can get a better coach. An unproven assistant is not better.

Better as in win a Cup with this team, take them to a second Cup finals, 3 conference finals in five years.

We need someone who is competent? So if Q doesn't win the Cup he's a dummy? The power play is an issue and you can blame the Kompon hiring on him but it's largely a personnel issue as well. This team has no PP QB. None. You need that guy back there. Net presence? Don't see that on the roster. Maybe you can get away with Bickell here and there. What proof do you have that Q doesn't relate well to younger players?

Yea I do keep him because he's better than what's available. For every hot assistant that's worked out, there are several flavors of the month that have stunk. Changing the coach because they lost in the Cup finals to a better team (if that happens) is not a reason to fire him unless you tell me you can get a better coach. An unproven assistant is not better.
- golfbard

The problem is that Boston is NOT the better team!!!

http://www.chicagobusines...0130615/ISSUE01/306159983

Thought you guys would really enjoy this article from Crain's posted today.

"Even with higher ticket and sponsorship revenues this season, Crain's estimates the Blackhawks annually spend between $10 million and $20 million more than they take in. The balance is made up from other companies under the Wirtz Corp. umbrella, including United Center Joint Venture."

The article is somewhat amazing because of how everything is broken down into pieces (so while we think OK, concessions and parking take in a fortune -- and they do -- it's considered part of the UC Joint Venture -- which Wirtz is a part of and obviously gets a cut of whatever profitability exists from it).

So the Hawks "lose" money because their ticket take doesn't account for all the team expenditures. However, there is no mention made of what all these other ventures really add up to.

Better as in win a Cup with this team, take them to a second Cup finals, 3 conference finals in five years.

We need someone who is competent? So if Q doesn't win the Cup he's a dummy? The power play is an issue and you can blame the Kompon hiring on him but it's largely a personnel issue as well. This team has no PP QB. None. You need that guy back there. Net presence? Don't see that on the roster. Maybe you can get away with Bickell here and there. What proof do you have that Q doesn't relate well to younger players?

Yea I do keep him because he's better than what's available. For every hot assistant that's worked out, there are several flavors of the month that have stunk. Changing the coach because they lost in the Cup finals to a better team (if that happens) is not a reason to fire him unless you tell me you can get a better coach. An unproven assistant is not better.
- golfbard

No, not a "dummy." A poor coach (at least here). His constant, unnecessary line juggling, playing of favorites, chasing match ups and changing the Hawks' game to counter the opponent's game rather than forcing the opponent to do that are killing this team's playoff chances. Have you not noticed that, in the three years since the great salary cap dumpoff of the most stacked team in the NHL, they finally and only performed up to/beyond expectations when he FINALLY stopped all that nonsense during the regular season? Then, he went back to it at the beginning of each playoff series, and the inevitable losses followed??? Can you not recognize patterns???


Come on, wake up.

The problem is that Boston is NOT the better team!!!
- Q...argh

That's all a matter of opinion and I'm not saying they are or aren't. I think these teams are even but we'll see if the Hawks adjust and even if they do, will it work?

That's all a matter of opinion and I'm not saying they are or aren't. I think these teams are even but we'll see if the Hawks adjust and even if they do, will it work?
- golfbard

Shoot Puck on Power Play.

Get Rebound on Power Play.

The Hawks will skate themselves into power plays.

Shoot Puck on Power Play.

Get rebounds on Power Play.

I do not think the issue of Q coming back is about as much results but philosophy. I am not a fan, but does not mean he is not a great coach. The whole issue will stem on the rift between he and front office. And JJ I do not doubt one exists based upon how q manages guys.

Specifically, the front office has one philosophy and Q coaches another. Q is getting guys that are not geared to how he would likes to play. IF that is the case, why would Q want to stick around?

That is not a knock on Q, it is just a matter of philosophy.

Shoot Puck on Power Play.

Get Rebound on Power Play.

The Hawks will skate themselves into power plays.

Shoot Puck on Power Play.

Get rebounds on Power Play.
- mrpaulish

Totally agree and I think Q knows and has preached this but I think you have a personnel issue here. Guys always looking for the perfect, highlight reel pass. Not consistently going for the dirty goals. They are also extraordinarily slow at making decisions. They give the PK too much time to get in their faces.

Game 2 was a tough game. After digesting it, it appeared to me that the team was exhausted, and expelled too much of their energy early on. Conversely, Boston played more level. I do not think they stepped up much as opposed to the Hawks slowed down.

Looking forward to a better game tonight. Like our chances.

Totally agree and I think Q knows and has preached this but I think you have a personnel issue here. Guys always looking for the perfect, highlight reel pass. Not consistently going for the dirty goals. They are also extraordinarily slow at making decisions. They give the PK too much time to get in their faces.
- golfbard

How Bickell is not on PP is crazy!