• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

2015 SCF : Chicago Blackhawks vs. Tampa Bay Lightning

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I forgot about that slew foot. Fil missed the rest of game 7 from that too IIRC.

Yeah, and that is how lazy NBC coverage is... maybe now it doesn't matter but leading up to series if you want to make some story lines or drama, why not bring this play up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that playing his top 4 defensemen to death hasn't bit Quenneville in the ass yet...

A good coach finds ways to put his 5th and 6th defensemen in positions to succeed instead of simply not playing them.

Agreed. I must say though, while Hjalmarsson has ben solid, Keith and Seabrook have seemed uncharacteristically sloppy at times. Maybe they are wearing down with the major minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that playing his top 4 defensemen to death hasn't bit Quenneville in the ass yet...

A good coach finds ways to put his 5th and 6th defensemen in positions to succeed instead of simply not playing them.

Like back when Lidstrom was averaging 30 minutes a night you mean? Good coaching like that?

You ride the horses you have. Babcock certainly wasn't shy about wearing out Lidstrom and Rafalski for a Stanley Cup, and he's a good coach right?

Plus, if you hadn't noticed, Chicago's defense is pretty banged up. Oduya is walking wounded, and they've got Timmonen in the lineup because the career AHLer (Cuminsky) with 7 whole games played for the Hawks hasn't been cutting it.

Who else is he going to play?

The great Scotty Bowman played Lidstrom 31:00 a night in the 2002 playoffs. Perhaps he should have played Lidstrom a little less, and gone with his third pair. That's what a good coach would do.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like back when Lidstrom was averaging 30 minutes a night you mean? Good coaching like that?

You ride the horses you have. Babcock certainly wasn't shy about wearing out Lidstrom and Rafalski for a Stanley Cup, and he's a good coach right?

Plus, if you hadn't noticed, Chicago's defense is pretty banged up. Oduya is walking wounded, and they've got Timmonen in the lineup because the career AHLer (Cuminsky) with 7 whole games played for the Hawks hasn't been cutting it.

Who else is he going to play?

The great Scotty Bowman played Lidstrom 31:00 a night in the 2002 playoffs. Perhaps he should have played Lidstrom a little less, and gone with his third pair. That's what a good coach would do.

LOL why do you always attack people who have an opinion different than yours?

Scotty Bowman wasn't playing Duchesne, Fischer, or Dandenault 5 minutes a night.

Babcock didn't play Ericsson, Lebda, or Chelios 5 minutes a night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like back when Lidstrom was averaging 30 minutes a night you mean? Good coaching like that?

You ride the horses you have. Babcock certainly wasn't shy about wearing out Lidstrom and Rafalski for a Stanley Cup, and he's a good coach right?

Plus, if you hadn't noticed, Chicago's defense is pretty banged up. Oduya is walking wounded, and they've got Timmonen in the lineup because the career AHLer (Cuminsky) with 7 whole games played for the Hawks hasn't been cutting it.

Who else is he going to play?

The great Scotty Bowman played Lidstrom 31:00 a night in the 2002 playoffs. Perhaps he should have played Lidstrom a little less, and gone with his third pair. That's what a good coach would do.

This.

I was happy that TVR seemingly had gotten into the game and then within two seconds of me noticing, he had a sloppy turnover in his own zone that led to a pretty good scoring chance for the Bolts. It's no wonder Q's been riding his horses.

Tampa plays D by committee with Hedman leading the way. Not to say that Carle, Coburn, Strahlman, etc. are shlubs, but they're all showing up. It's nice to see. It gives me hope for our own defensive schemes.

LOL why do you always attack people who have an opinion different than yours?

Scotty Bowman wasn't playing Duchesne, Fischer, or Dandenault 5 minutes a night.

Babcock didn't play Ericsson, Lebda, or Chelios 5 minutes a night.

I don't think he's attacking you at all. He's stating a difference of opinion and giving you some thoughts to back it up. Don't take it personally when someone doesn't agree with you.

Edited by e_prime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL why do you always attack people who have an opinion different than yours?

Scotty Bowman wasn't playing Duchesne, Fischer, or Dandenault 5 minutes a night.

Babcock didn't play Ericsson, Lebda, or Chelios 5 minutes a night.

Why do you feel "attacked" when I disagree with you? I'm not attacking you. I'm correcting you. Because in this instance, you are completely wrong.

If Quenneville is playing his top line just as much as guys like Babs and Bowman did, and his bottom pair less, then by default that means he's playing his second pair more. Which the numbers bear out. Hjalmarsson played 24:00 minutes last night. Oduya played 25:00.

So your notion that he plays his top guys WAY MORE, is false. He plays them about the same same as most good coaches do with their top pair. He just plays his second pair a lot more too. Probably so that his train wreck third pair doesn't cost him the Stanley Cup. His bottom pair is a rookie and a 40 year old that missed most of the season. Would you play them more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you feel "attacked" when I disagree with you? I'm not attacking you. I'm correcting you. Because in this instance, you are completely wrong.

If Quenneville is playing his top line just as much as guys like Babs and Bowman did, and his bottom pair less, then by default that means he's playing his second pair more. Which the numbers bear out. Hjalmarsson played 24:00 minutes last night. Oduya played 25:00.

So your notion that he plays his top guys WAY MORE, is false. He plays them about the same same as most good coaches do with their top pair. He just plays his second pair a lot more too. Probably so that his train wreck third pair doesn't cost him the Stanley Cup. His bottom pair is a rookie and a 40 year old that missed most of the season. Would you play them more?

You're putting words into my mouth and then saying I'm wrong about it: YOU are bringing the top pair argument into the fold, I referenced the top 4.

I get that coaches play their top 2 guys a lot more, but you don't often see the bottom PAIR scraping the barrel for minutes and as a team being able to get away with it. Maybe the 6th guy gets 5 minutes, but not the 5th AND 6th.

Anyway, in my opinion (which isn't wrong because it's...an opinion) that mismatch in minutes is a big roll of the dice. Admittedly I have a predisposition that Quenneville is in the right place at the right time; I think he's just an ok coach (my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're putting words into my mouth and then saying I'm wrong about it: YOU are bringing the top pair argument into the fold, I referenced the top 4.

I get that coaches play their top 2 guys a lot more, but you don't often see the bottom PAIR scraping the barrel for minutes and as a team being able to get away with it. Maybe the 6th guy gets 5 minutes, but not the 5th AND 6th.

Anyway, in my opinion (which isn't wrong because it's...an opinion) that mismatch in minutes is a big roll of the dice. Admittedly I have a predisposition that Quenneville is in the right place at the right time; I think he's just an ok coach (my opinion).

Quenneville's third pair last night played a combined 36 games this year. One of them is a 23 year old rookie, with no playoff experience. The other is a 40 year old who was injured all season long. They were also AWFUL last night. That's why they played so little.

By your logic, Quenneville would be a better coach if he played less capable players more often than he does. It doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quenneville's third pair last night played a combined 36 games this year. One of them is a 23 year old rookie, with no playoff experience. The other is a 40 year old who was injured all season long. They were also AWFUL last night. That's why they played so little.

By your logic, Quenneville would be a better coach if he played less capable players more often than he does. It doesn't make sense.

He also played an injured Johnny Oduya for 25 minutes...

We just disagree here. I don't have it in me to banter about Joel Quenneville and the Blackhawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also played an injured Johnny Oduya for 25 minutes...

We just disagree here. I don't have it in me to banter about Joel Quenneville and the Blackhawks.

You're in a Blackhawks related thread. One which is directly applicable to Joel Quenneville's game time decision making. If you didn't want to talk about it, this is probably not the thread to be posting in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago inexplicably changed their lines up last night. You'd think that they would have stuck with what they had in game 3 given that they put a lot of pucks on net in that game, and given that Tampa was going to be starting a rookie goalie last night.

I suspect the reason why they switched them up was to split up the offense a little prior to going back to Tampa. It gave the new lines a game to gel, at home, and it will help alleviate the matchup problems next game.

I expect Chicago will be better in Game 5 than they were last night. Which may be a big problem for Tampa if Bishop is still out.

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