• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Hockeytown0001

WCF : (3) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (1) Anaheim Ducks

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Any chance the Ducks would want Howard?

Howard is average, and that Swedish creampuff Andersen is below average. If not for him, they'd be in the Finals right now. They don't need a top goalie, just someone decent.

Not a chance. Andersen (25) is still pretty young and made it that far. Plus, they still have John Gibson (21) waiting in the wings behind him and he's pretty spectacular. I wouldn't be surprised to see him be the starter at some point next season. Howard may get dealt, but it won't be to Anaheim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Howard would be an upgrade for St. Louis and it might send them into round 2 ... maybe 3 if Howie is in the zone.

St. Louis would be stupid enough to go after another Wings goalie castoff.

Osgood, Legace, Conklin,...........Howard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge Babs fan, but I don't think there is a huge gap between the two -- if any. Q has had the best roster in hockey basically every year since the Wings in 2009. How hard is it to mess up four really solid lines and putting Keith/Seabrook out there for half of the game? I'm not saying Q is a bad coach, but there are plenty of coaches that would kill for his situation.

I love how he gets called a genius for putting Kane and Toews on same line. Um, that is what every coach does when back against the wall. Stack one super line. We all think Babs is genius when he put Dats and Z together, but really its not a surprise or a questionable move in anybody's eyes. Not sure why they act like he is out thinking the other coach. The other coach would have to have an IQ of 10 to not know to prepare for a super line move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how he gets called a genius for putting Kane and Toews on same line. Um, that is what every coach does when back against the wall. Stack one super line. We all think Babs is genius when he put Dats and Z together, but really its not a surprise or a questionable move in anybody's eyes. Not sure why they act like he is out thinking the other coach. The other coach would have to have an IQ of 10 to not know to prepare for a super line move.

If it is so obvious, why didn't Boudreau put together a nuclear line of Getzlaf, Perry, with Kesler on the wing then?

Edited by RedWingsRox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call Quenneville a "genius". I would, however, argue that he wins more with what he has. Sure, he has a really good team. Lots of other coaches have had really good teams too. But he wins more than they do.

That's why he's the best coach in hockey.

Edit: Per this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/mirtle-a-stanley-cup-final-of-dynasties-past-present-and-maybe-future/article24715839/

"Five final fours in the past seven years and the possibility of three Cups in six years – if they can beat a solid challenger in the Tampa Bay Lightning – is an almost unmatched body of work in the past 25 years.

In the past seven, Chicago has more points during the regular season (700) and more wins in the postseason (69) than any other franchise. In the case of the playoffs, it’s not really close. (Only Boston is within 20.)"

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call Quenneville a "genius". I would, however, argue that he wins more with what he has. Sure, he has a really good team. Lots of other coaches have had really good teams too. But he wins more than they do.

That's why he's the best coach in hockey.

Here's his stats at other stops for reference:

G W L T OTL Pts Finish W L Win % Result

STL Total 593 307 191 77 18 34 34 .500 7 playoff appearances

COL Total

246 131 92 — 23 8 11 .421 2 playoff appearances

That's a .522 winning percentage reg season at his other coaching stops. STL 7 out of 7 playoffs, fired 8th year for a poor start and risky of missing playoffs (they didn't). COL 2 out of 3 playoffs.

Edited by Rhah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's his stats at other stops for reference:

G W L T OTL Pts Finish W L Win % Result

STL Total 593 307 191 77 18 34 34 .500 7 playoff appearances

COL Total

246 131 92 — 23 8 11 .421 2 playoff appearances

That's a .522 winning percentage reg season at his other coaching stops. STL 7 out of 7 playoffs, fired 8th year for a poor start and risky of missing playoffs (they didn't). COL 2 out of 3 playoffs.

I agree. He's won a lot more with a better team in Chicago. That's sort of a truism though. You'd expect a good coach to win more with better players. What's interesting is that he put up pretty solid numbers, and consistently made the playoffs, with marginal teams in St. Louis and Colorado. That's not too much different than Babs (for instance). He's done pretty good with marginal teams, and when he coached better teams he's achieved more. The only difference is that Quenneville has won more (with a very good team) than Babcock, or Hitchcock, or Sutter, did when they had very good teams.

He's had one of the best rosters in the league for the last 5-7 years, and in that time he's gone to the conference finals 5 times, the Cup finals 3 times, and won the Cup twice (and maybe a third soon). Comparably, Babcock had one of the best rosters in the league for 5-7 years from 2005-2012 and went to the conference finals 3 times, the Cup finals twice, and won 1 Cup.

Trying to diminish Quenneville's accomplishments is starting to get asinine. He's (by a mile) the most accomplished coach in the league. Nobody else is even close. To attribute all that to the quality of his roster implies that A) nobody else had equally good rosters (which is bull), or B) that everybody with equally good rosters would have won as much (also bull).

He's really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. He's won a lot more with a better team in Chicago. That's sort of a truism though. You'd expect a good coach to win more with better players. What's interesting is that he put up pretty solid numbers, and consistently made the playoffs, with marginal teams in St. Louis and Colorado. That's not too much different than Babs (for instance). He's done pretty good with marginal teams, and when he coached better teams he's achieved more. The only difference is that Quenneville has won more (with a very good team) than Babcock, or Hitchcock, or Sutter, did when they had very good teams.

He's had one of the best rosters in the league for the last 5-7 years, and in that time he's gone to the conference finals 5 times, the Cup finals 3 times, and won the Cup twice (and maybe a third soon). Comparably, Babcock had one of the best rosters in the league for 5-7 years from 2005-2012 and went to the conference finals 3 times, the Cup finals twice, and won 1 Cup.

Trying to diminish Quenneville's accomplishments is starting to get asinine. He's (by a mile) the most accomplished coach in the league. Nobody else is even close. To attribute all that to the quality of his roster implies that A) nobody else had equally good rosters (which is bull), or B) that everybody with equally good rosters would have won as much (also bull).

He's really good.

I agree with your assessment of him, but St. Louis did not have a "marginal team" under him. They had a really good team. Just couldn't get above the top teams in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment of him, but St. Louis did not have a "marginal team" under him. They had a really good team. Just couldn't get above the top teams in the West.

Good point, weren't they competing with the dynasty Wings and Avs?

I just checked, in his 8 season with St. Louis he lost to the eventual Cup winner 5 times. 3 to Bowman's Wings, once to the Stars, and once to the Avs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted his stats with no opinion really on if they meant he was good or bad before Hawks or average. But, he was out coached by Babs 2 years ago... and if making sure you have the right match ups at home and trying to do them on the road as best you can and putting your top two guys on the same line is what people are using to prove how he is best in the league. I just don't see it being above and beyond any other coach's strategy. Nothing innovative or new. He was handed a great group of guys but I don't see 5 or 6 other coach's not doing the same thing with the same guys the past 6 years. Unless maybe if Torts was coach.

EDIT - These are the opinions on the Internet of an idiot hockey fan with no coaching experience. Take that with a grain of salt :)

Edited by Rhah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that five or six coaches with comparably talented rosters haven't done just as well. Babs had comparably talented rosters. So did McClellan. And Vigneault. And Hitchcock. And Sutter. And Bylsma.

He's had good rosters but its not like he was coaching the 2002 Wings. He's won quite a lot more with a comparably talented roster than any number of other coaches.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that five or six coaches with comparably talented rosters haven't done just as well. Babs had comparably talented rosters. So did McClellan. And Vigneault. And Hitchcock. And Sutter. And Bylsma.

He's had good rosters but its not like he was coaching the 2002 Wings. He's won quite a lot more with a comparably talented roster than any number of other coaches.

Sutter has won just as many cups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but not nearly as much of anything else. So it's hardly a tie. But I'll readily admit (and have) that Sutter is the second best coach in the NHL.

What do you mean not much of anything else? They've both won the same amount of cups, and that's all that matters, you can win as many president trophies as you want, but if you can't translate that into postseason success it's a failure. Sutter took an underachieving 8th seed team to the cup and won. And did it in magnificent fashion too, blew by everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean not much of anything else? They've both won the same amount of cups, and that's all that matters, you can win as many president trophies as you want, but if you can't translate that into postseason success it's a failure. Sutter took an underachieving 8th seed team to the cup and won. And did it in magnificent fashion too, blew by everyone.

So you're saying that in the event that two guys have the same number of Cups, nothing else matters as a tiebreaker?

So John Tortarella and Mike Babcock are equally good coaches then? Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that in the event that two guys have the same number of Cups, nothing else matters as a tiebreaker?

So John Tortarella and Mike Babcock are equally good coaches then? Lol.

Umm no.

Quenville and Sutter have very similar playoff records.

Quenville with a .561 win %

Sutter with a .531 win %

Babcock with a .569 win %

torts has .481 win %

I consider Sutter and quenville pretty equal. Babcock had some awesome teams and couldn't get it done.

Sutter has 3 scf appearances and 2 cups, quenville has 2 scf appearances and 2 cups (time will tell on his 3rd) Babcock has 3scf appearances and 1 cup, and hasn't passed the second round since 09 and torts has 1 scf appearance and 1 cup, 11 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babcock had some awesome teams and couldn't get it done.

Babcock has 3scf appearances and 1 cup, and hasn't passed the second round since 09

Babs is lucky to have three finals appearances. He pretty much rode a hot goalie to the finals in '03. Giggy was the last player on the losing side since to win the Smythe I believe. They were'nt expected to contend(much less only lose 6 games total) like in many of his years with the Wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this thread would be about the Ducks versus Hawks instead it's another Quennville versus the best coach in all of hockey (useless) debate.

Q is a very good coach but he is no Babcock. There is a reason wh the guy is so highly regarded and finally the highest paid coach in the league.

I thinkk the top coaches are: Babs > Suter > Q > Tippet > McLellan > Julien > Hitchcock > Bylsma

up and coming ones: Nelson + Cooper + hopefully Blashill

Anyway, this game came down tothe big guys and well...the Hawks big guns delivered the Ducks didn't they didn't even goon it up :(

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this thread would be about the Ducks versus Hawks instead it's another Quennville versus the best coach in all of hockey (useless) debate.

Q is a very good coach but he is no Babcock. There is a reason wh the guy is so highly regarded and finally the highest paid coach in the league.

I thinkk the top coaches are: Babs > Suter > Q > Tippet > McLellan > Julien > Hitchcock > Bylsma

up and coming ones: Nelson + Cooper + hopefully Blashill

Anyway, this game came down tothe big guys and well...the Hawks big guns delivered the Ducks didn't they didn't even goon it up :(

Basically, "I think this discussion is "useless" so my first reaction is, of course, to contribute.........."

?

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