I realize it’s a very small sample, but I liked Davidson’s game a lot more than Manning’s.

Lankinen (spelling) was flying out of the net a few times last night, he looked ok otherwise but needs a lot of work.

Kampf looked pretty good creating a lot of offense. I don't think he should be above the fourth line unless he can actually finish a chance or set up a real goal.

Onto the hot topic, Boqvist. Keeping him up would likely be a mistake beyond a 9-game tryout. I'm super pumped for him, and loved the moves I saw last night. I love that Q seems thrilled with him, it's a welcome relief from the usual treatment a young defenseman gets.

Now is probably not the time to pull an Edmonton and assume that a couple good preseason games means our shiny new object is totally ready for 82 games of getting ragdolled and exposed.

Also, this site has so many obtrusive ads that I can't see what I'm typing in this box. Shame on Eklund for whoring this out so badly.
- ObeseOprah

I think it really is just be the rest of the pro season or a few games for Boqvist. They might want to give him a taste but that's it imo.

The only reason Q even said anything about beyond that is because someone asked point blank, and he's not going to say no and take the wind out of the kid's sails. Let him build some serious confidence before going to the OHL - certainly can't hurt.

rushing those two young Defenseman is IMO a big mistake ..I don't believe Keith or Seabrook were rushed and the team was terrible then if memory serve me right ..

Saw a little bit of the good the bad and the ugly last night ,and that is how are season will be if ya ask me .. PP looks the same dreadful No push back when Toews and Kane are fouled Pk well I believe this all stems from the coaching staff

That’s the thing. No other organization would just give up a young player for no reason even when struggling. Yes the Hawks were constrained by the cap, but young players had to be thrown in as complimentary trade pieces to entice other organizations to take on the Hawks dirty laundry, and Q has to have a say in which players he’s comfortable with letting go of. I don’t believe the notion that Stan is calling all the shots without consultation. So you can’t simply say “after he was sent packing but because of Q and not cap space”.

- TT is now a 60+ point player and only turned 24 a week ago.
- Leddy still has his problems defensively but is still likely the best d-man on the Isles roster.
- Philip Danault has been a great addition to the Canadiens
- Stephen Johns wasn’t even given a chance to play for Q and is now a steady stay-at-home for the Stars
- Trevor Daley played an integral role in the Pens winning it all last year
- Same goes for Michal Kempny

Who’s to say that those players would not have developed under Q with more opportunity/time, but for the moment, since becoming coach of the Hawks, no other d-man has come up in the system and developed internally outside of Hammer since Q came aboard (which is rare in today’s game considering how good 2, 7, Hammer, and Oduya were for the team).
- TommyHawk

Sorry, but you are mixing different types of situations here. Q's doghouse or not, Leddy was a cap casualty when they chose to keep Oduya instead (correct move, won them a cup). TT was a regular rotation player, was used to offload the Bickell contract. Johns was used to dump the Sharp cap hit, and Danault was used to add veterans (not saying it was a good trade, just that it had nothing to do with Q), he was not part of the regular rotation yet.

Of those named, you could say that Daley and Kempny never fit into Q's plan or his style of play but don't fool yourself into thinking that they were somehow great players that were lost. Both are arguably still 3rd pairing d-men with all kinds of deficiencies in their own end.

Of all the players that were supposedly in Q's doghouse that were moved, exactly who has become an impact player? A "star"? Separate the return they received for those players whether good or bad (thats on Bowman not Q)and ask yourself who did they really make a big mistake on in evaluation?

The most successful of those players moved is probably TT, followed by Leddy. In Leddy's case, he was a 3rd pairing D-man with a salary need that was going to be too high. Fast forward 5 years and sure, he is probably better at this point than some of the young d-men the Hawks will start the season with, but in reality is still only a #4 on most good defensive teams. I think the upside on many of the young Hawks D is higher than Leddy, but there will be times of painful adjustment thru the year as they learn.

I'm one who thinks Q's time has past, just like most coaches in any one place for an extended amount of time. I don't think he has made enough adjustments to his system to react to the changes in the style of play in the league over the past few seasons. That being said, the assertion that Q can't handle younger players or is mis-evaluating their potential is just wrong. Let me know when the "star" that they have traded/released shows up.

I realize it’s a very small sample, but I liked Davidson’s game a lot more than Manning’s.
- scottak

Davidson also played his game with a lesser supporting cast and against a better squad. At this point he is ahead of Manning.

rushing those two young Defenseman is IMO a big mistake ..I don't believe Keith or Seabrook were rushed and the team was terrible then if memory serve me right ..

Saw a little bit of the good the bad and the ugly last night ,and that is how are season will be if ya ask me .. PP looks the same dreadful No push back when Toews and Kane are fouled Pk well I believe this all stems from the coaching staff
- oldduffman

Yes and the Coach caused Hurricane Florence too. Your constant coach bashing is like Vandermeer23 agenda that the Hawks are not good because they don't have fighters. It needs to breathe. I have my issues with Q, but if he goes so does boy wonder in the front office. It will be a total house cleaning so for Q AND BOWMAN'S sake lets hope the Hawks have a good year. Bowman and Q are responsible for what's on the ice, period. So I'd table the agenda with hopes the Hawks have a good year.

I realize it’s a very small sample, but I liked Davidson’s game a lot more than Manning’s.
- scottak

Yeah, Davidson is not necessarily setting the bar high, but man-oh-man was Manning bad in a bunch of ways. For a supposed stay at home d-man, his reads and angles were horrible and he gets walked way too often. Most "slow" defensemen know that the opponent has a speed advantage and compensates by playing off a bit or making sure their angles are good. I didn't see that with Manning.

It's one game, we can give him the benefit of the doubt for a few and hopefully it works it's way out.

Sorry, but you are mixing different types of situations here. Q's doghouse or not, Leddy was a cap casualty when they chose to keep Oduya instead (correct move, won them a cup). TT was a regular rotation player, was used to offload the Bickell contract. Johns was used to dump the Sharp cap hit, and Danault was used to add veterans (not saying it was a good trade, just that it had nothing to do with Q), he was not part of the regular rotation yet.

Of those named, you could say that Daley and Kempny never fit into Q's plan or his style of play but don't fool yourself into thinking that they were somehow great players that were lost. Both are arguably still 3rd pairing d-men with all kinds of deficiencies in their own end.

Of all the players that were supposedly in Q's doghouse that were moved, exactly who has become an impact player? A "star"? Separate the return they received for those players whether good or bad (thats on Bowman not Q)and ask yourself who did they really make a big mistake on in evaluation?

The most successful of those players moved is probably TT, followed by Leddy. In Leddy's case, he was a 3rd pairing D-man with a salary need that was going to be too high. Fast forward 5 years and sure, he is probably better at this point than some of the young d-men the Hawks will start the season with, but in reality is still only a #4 on most good defensive teams. I think the upside on many of the young Hawks D is higher than Leddy, but there will be times of painful adjustment thru the year as they learn.

I'm one who thinks Q's time has past, just like most coaches in any one place for an extended amount of time. I don't think he has made enough adjustments to his system to react to the changes in the style of play in the league over the past few seasons. That being said, the assertion that Q can't handle younger players or is mis-evaluating their potential is just wrong. Let me know when the "star" that they have traded/released shows up.
- TheTrob

Again yes those young players weren’t moved for the sake of being moved but were casualities as a result of being constrained by the cap. I agree with the notion that none of those players were true “stars” because of the development within the Hawks system. All those years of low/traded draft picks or simply being unable to improve the talent from within and having to find talent outside the organization while continuing to ride the backs of Toews/Kane/Seabs/Keith for all these years helped alleviate that. In recent years adding guys like Schmaltz, Cat, Sikura, Boqvist, Beaudin, etc. give us hope for a brighter future, but there’s not much to show for inbetween those years in regards to developing players from within. Saad and Panarin are the closest to that, but Panarin was already a star in the K. Whether that’s an organizational or Q problem is subject to debate, but the Hawks never truly had young, budding talent to begin with since this dynasty run began. It was always based on the success of the superstars in Chicago. So that’s exactly why the Hawks haven’t lost any “stars” - they haven’t exactly had any to risk losing to begin with (plus StanBo made sure to give long-term contracts).

Just some thoughts.

Q might be tough on his players at times, but they respect him in general for a reason.

Remember the whole "Which Coach you'd like to play for?" poll.

I think the Q doesn't like kids/rookies or can't develop kids is a myth more than it is true. Not every player is going to fit, but that is the same in every team. Each team has very different cap and draft situations. It isn't apples to apples, but how do you quantify how he compares to other coaches? Especially when some of the players who have been traded, were traded for cap reasons or other reasons. Very few players have actually been traded because of Q.

TT for example, Q seemed to like him a lot. Gave him a lot of rope and icetime. He was traded to get Bickell offloaded. That isn't on Q IMO.

Here is the list of NHL Rookies the Hawks (ordered by games played with Chicago as a rookie) have had with Joel at the helm.

Van Riemsdyk, Bickell, Hartman, Dowell, DeBrincat, Fraser, Panarin, Kruger, Versteeg, Brouwer, Kero, Schmaltz, Hayden, Hinostroza, Nordstrom, Saad, Leddy, Kampf, Rasmussen, Bollig, Gustafsson, Morin, Forsling, Teravinen, Shaw, Pirri, Motte, Danault, Hayes, Olsen, Svedberg, Hjalmarsson, Smith, Highmore, Dahlstrom, Skille, Pelletier, Ejdsell, Baun, Sikura, Hillman, Dahlbeck, Clendening, Brent, LeBlanc, Carey, Smolenak, Lalonde, McNeill, Klinkhammer.

The guys worth their salt were handled pretty well IMO. A lot of these guys went on to bigger roles with other teams because of the Hawks circumstances having to cut salary and the depth they've had.

It is a bit of a sink or swim thing especially when the goal is to win and the Hawks have not been in a real rebuild. The coach has to balance between giving young guys minutes to learn and actually beating the other team. When the season went sideways last year, a some of younger players got looks and/or increased minutes.

rushing those two young Defenseman is IMO a big mistake ..I don't believe Keith or Seabrook were rushed and the team was terrible then if memory serve me right ..

Saw a little bit of the good the bad and the ugly last night ,and that is how are season will be if ya ask me .. PP looks the same dreadful No push back when Toews and Kane are fouled Pk well I believe this all stems from the coaching staff
- oldduffman

Agree
Boqvist showed flashes of what he will become on the offensive side of the puck, but he also showed that he is not ready on the defensive side when handling bigger forwards in deep. I have no problem with him and/or Jokiharu getting up to 9 games with us. However, anything beyond that would be a mistake.

Davidson also played his game with a lesser supporting cast and against a better squad. At this point he is ahead of Manning.
- 67hawks

I totally agree with both of you guys.

Lankinen (spelling) was flying out of the net a few times last night, he looked ok otherwise but needs a lot of work.

Kampf looked pretty good creating a lot of offense. I don't think he should be above the fourth line unless he can actually finish a chance or set up a real goal.

Onto the hot topic, Boqvist. Keeping him up would likely be a mistake beyond a 9-game tryout. I'm super pumped for him, and loved the moves I saw last night. I love that Q seems thrilled with him, it's a welcome relief from the usual treatment a young defenseman gets.

Now is probably not the time to pull an Edmonton and assume that a couple good preseason games means our shiny new object is totally ready for 82 games of getting ragdolled and exposed.


- ObeseOprah

Also, this site has so many obtrusive ads that I can't see what I'm typing in this box. Shame on Eklund for whoring this out so badly.

worst i have experienced...pay the nominal fee or suck it up...add blockers are detected...

rushing those two young Defenseman is IMO a big mistake ..I don't believe Keith or Seabrook were rushed and the team was terrible then if memory serve me right ..

Saw a little bit of the good the bad and the ugly last night ,and that is how are season will be if ya ask me .. PP looks the same dreadful No push back when Toews and Kane are fouled Pk well
- oldduffman

I believe this all stems from the coaching staff

When the horse sees you coming, does he just fall down and die from the boredom of a repeated narrative??

I mean seriously - saying it 1000 times does not make it true!!!!!

Just some thoughts.

Q might be tough on his players at times, but they respect him in general for a reason.

Remember the whole "Which Coach you'd like to play for?" poll.

I think the Q doesn't like kids/rookies or can't develop kids is a myth more than it is true. Not every player is going to fit, but that is the same in every team. Each team has very different cap and draft situations. It isn't apples to apples, but how do you quantify how he compares to other coaches? Especially when some of the players who have been traded, were traded for cap reasons or other reasons. Very few players have actually been traded because of Q.

TT for example, Q seemed to like him a lot. Gave him a lot of rope and icetime. He was traded to get Bickell offloaded. That isn't on Q IMO.

Here is the list of NHL Rookies the Hawks (ordered by games played with Chicago as a rookie) have had with Joel at the helm.

Van Riemsdyk, Bickell, Hartman, Dowell, DeBrincat, Fraser, Panarin, Kruger, Versteeg, Brouwer, Kero, Schmaltz, Hayden, Hinostroza, Nordstrom, Saad, Leddy, Kampf, Rasmussen, Bollig, Gustafsson, Morin, Forsling, Teravinen, Shaw, Pirri, Motte, Danault, Hayes, Olsen, Svedberg, Hjalmarsson, Smith, Highmore, Dahlstrom, Skille, Pelletier, Ejdsell, Baun, Sikura, Hillman, Dahlbeck, Clendening, Brent, LeBlanc, Carey, Smolenak, Lalonde, McNeill, Klinkhammer.

The guys worth their salt were handled pretty well IMO. A lot of these guys went on to bigger roles with other teams because of the Hawks circumstances having to cut salary and the depth they've had.

It is a bit of a sink or swim thing especially when the goal is to win and the Hawks have not been in a real rebuild. The coach has to balance between giving young guys minutes to learn and actually beating the other team. When the season went sideways last year, a some of younger players got looks and/or increased minutes.
- breadbag

I am agreeing with you and LBR a little more. He really makes you earn the spot, which is good competition, but one mistake and you are back at the bottom of the ladder again. Q scratched TT in the 15 series with Vermette for no reason. Q also has a weird system of playing favorites. Some who make it there I question.

I am agreeing with you and LBR a little more. He really makes you earn the spot, which is good competition, but one mistake and you are back at the bottom of the ladder again. Q scratched TT in the 15 series with Vermette for no reason.
- I Am The Breadman

It's not one mistake that sends you to the bottom of the ladder, it's making the same mistake repeatedly.

I remember listening to a panel of Hawks players a while back lay out basically what their system was and what all their defensive responsibilities were. Q has specific ways in which he wants to play in ALL zones. When a player makes the same "mistakes", especially when it is against the style of play Q demands, they will suffer. Obviously some players have longer leashes than others.

Take Kempny for an example. When he played, there were times you saw flashes of the kind of player he could possibly be, but he would then make the same mistakes in coverage over and over.

rushing those two young Defenseman is IMO a big mistake ..I don't believe Keith or Seabrook were rushed and the team was terrible then if memory serve me right ..

Saw a little bit of the good the bad and the ugly last night ,and that is how are season will be if ya ask me .. PP looks the same dreadful No push back when Toews and Kane are fouled Pk well I believe this all stems from the coaching staff
- oldduffman

Keith and Sebrook both took lumps on a bad NHL team. Keith was up as a 22 year old and Seabs was up at 20. Leddy obviously at 19 and its not like he's terrible or was terrible. Certainly a better option then what Manning has shown.

It's not one mistake that sends you to the bottom of the ladder, it's making the same mistake repeatedly.

I remember listening to a panel of Hawks players a while back lay out basically what their system was and what all their defensive responsibilities were. Q has specific ways in which he wants to play in ALL zones. When a player makes the same "mistakes", especially when it is against the style of play Q demands, they will suffer. Obviously some players have longer leashes than others.

Take Kempny for an example. When he played, there were times you saw flashes of the kind of player he could possibly be, but he would then make the same mistakes in coverage over and over.
- TheTrob

I get what you are saying, but I'm certain there were games and will be games that start out 6 dmen and finish 5 because they are done for the night.

Yes and the Coach caused Hurricane Florence too. Your constant coach bashing is like Vandermeer23 agenda that the Hawks are not good because they don't have fighters. It needs to breathe. I have my issues with Q, but if he goes so does boy wonder in the front office. It will be a total house cleaning so for Q AND BOWMAN'S sake lets hope the Hawks have a good year. Bowman and Q are responsible for what's on the ice, period. So I'd table the agenda with hopes the Hawks have a good year.
- kwolf68

No, it has been reported (not fake news) that Trump was responsible for that.

Agree
Boqvist showed flashes of what he will become on the offensive side of the puck, but he also showed that he is not ready on the defensive side when handling bigger forwards in deep. I have no problem with him and/or Jokiharu getting up to 9 games with us. However, anything beyond that would be a mistake.
- 67hawks

Henri might be ready

Some of that is on Q, I think - but a lot needs to be on the Hawks' development system before the young players GET to the Show.
- StLBravesFan

Bingo on that comment as that's a commentary on where Dent really fell short in many years and Colliton is succeeding after one year. Small size and Colliton could turn into a pumpkin but so far so good.

No, it has been reported (not fake news) that Trump was responsible for that.
- 67hawks

I thought it was because God hates gays.

The next Crawford? You mean a $3 million goalie getting paid $6 million??? Are you sure you want that?

Not a bad idea about AA on the left side with Toews and Kampf at 3C.
- DarthKane

I'm thinking he just might graduate into becoming
the next CC, he still needs work but as of now I'd
take him over Ward & Forsberg.

I get what you are saying, but I'm certain there were games and will be games that start out 6 dmen and finish 5 because they are done for the night.
- I Am The Breadman

Yup. Guys will be benched. You can usually see it coming. Plenty of nights where a forward or a d man will get zero or one shift in the 2 and 3rd periods.

I'm thinking he just might graduate into becoming
the next CC, he still needs work but as of now I'd
take him over Ward & Forsberg.
- gazza53

Much too small a sample size. Plenty of goalies look good in short stints but get chewed up in an NHL game or when asked to be the workhorse.

I think it really is just be the rest of the pro season or a few games for Boqvist. They might want to give him a taste but that's it imo.

The only reason Q even said anything about beyond that is because someone asked point blank, and he's not going to say no and take the wind out of the kid's sails. Let him build some serious confidence before going to the OHL - certainly can't hurt.
- L_B_R

And perhaps give him a better understanding of what he still has to work on.