As bold as my prediction that the Hawks either lose the first round in 5, or make it to the finals - maria_wyeth
Don't think that prediction is that far fetched. Can see them losing in 5 or 6 to Blues or beating them and then taking out the other central team and then CA dreamer rep in the WCF. Who the hell knows......crap shoot year for sure in the West this year.
Don't think that prediction is that far fetched. Can see them losing in 5 or 6 to Blues or beating them and then taking out the other central team and then CA dreamer rep in the WCF. Who the hell knows......crap shoot year for sure in the West this year. - ILGolfer
Definitely a crapshoot this year. I would not at all be surprised with a lot of first round upsets. Preds certainly stand a chance against the Ducks, Sharks could get hot and eek out a win against the Kings, the Wild has more playoff experience than Dallas and Dallas' defense could cost them.
And I do think that if the Hawks make it past the 1st round they will get better as the playoffs go on as they generally have slow starts, and we know this team feeds off the environment of being in the playoffs. But getting out of round 1 alive will depend on a lot of things, health and Q not being an idiot are #1 and #2
I find it so hard to believe that (a) Stan and Q wouldn't talk about movement between Chicago and Rockford, or possible trades, or anything else that affects on-ice performance; (b) that Q would deliberately not play someone just to stick it to Stan; (c) that Stan would deliberately put skaters on the team that Q hates just to stick it to the coach.
Can these guys really be stupid enough to deliberately screw up a potential Cup championship team, just because of pique or ego or power struggle - these are not stupid men, they have each been successful in the sport, what they do is in full view of the public, the press, McD and Rocky, and (most important) us idiots on hockey blogs. - StLBravesFan
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately put the team's chances at risk, so I really want to trust what they are doing. Everyone would question Q if he sat Kane or Seabrook, or any other generally-recognized top performer. Would not be surprised if it was simply a difference of opinion on who the best skaters are in the bottom half of the team.
However, it would not be the first time in the history of everything that prolonged success bred arrogance and/or corporate infighting and as a result, poor decisions. All, of course, rationalized by the person making the decision as "in the best interest of the organization."
You might be familiar with this term Maria, Q and Stan are in the bathroom as we speak having a "sword fight" over the tops of the stalls. - savvyone-1
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately put the team's chances at risk, so I really want to trust what they are doing. Everyone would question Q if he sat Kane or Seabrook, or any other generally-recognized top performer. Would not be surprised if it was simply a difference of opinion on who the best skaters are in the bottom half of the team.
However, it would not be the first time in the history of everything that prolonged success bred arrogance and/or corporate infighting and as a result, poor decisions. All, of course, rationalized by the person making the decision as "in the best interest of the organization." - pdx2ord
Exactly! You put it better than I did. I don't think the thought process is "Well I know xyz player is better than Mashinter, but I'm mad at Stan so I'm gonna play Mashinter over everyone he traded for and everyone else we brought up from Rockford. That'll show him!" It would probably be more along the lines of, "I'm the coach, I played the game, I understand things Stan doesn't, and for whatever reason I love Brandon Mashinter and he's going to see the ice over players that Stan incorrectly thought would be good."
Stan isn't thinking, "WTF if you he play Ehrhoff I'm just gonna give him Runblad LOL that'll teach him," he's thinking "Well, Q hated Daley, Scuds, and he won't play Ehrhoff so we'll recall Runblad, Q was at least willing to play him last year so he's gotta be an upgrade over Ehrhoff in Q's opinion..."
Thinking that, somehow, if we talk about it in incredulous tones long enough on this board, Q will finally change what he has been doing all year? - pdx2ord
Yep!
ETA: It worked last year when I yelled a lot to myself and my father that Q was an idiot for scratching Vermette and TT and then he put them back in!
ETA: It worked last year when I yelled a lot to myself and my father that Q was an idiot for scratching Vermette and TT and then he put them back in! - maria_wyeth
i just told my wife 2 weeks of 3 games/night playoff hockey = best time of the year...she rolled her eyes and said..."yeah...i am hockey widow..again" - bogiedoc
So glad mine likes to go to the games and even watch on tv, makes things so much easier in a way.
I would have thought they need Rasmussen for the physical aspect--
Runblad is a not so good insurance policy on the back end-- uggh would rather have seen Pokka recalled-- maybe he still can be recalled?
Anyone know what the league policy is for recalls from AHL to add to the NHL playoff roster? Does the playoff roster have to be set prior to each round and what are the rules on the 'black aces' availability etc-- - jb3333
Maybe Bowmans way of saying to Q you want to be an ass and play Mash over Weise enjoy having Rubberblades back on the team.
StLBravesFan Season Ticket Holder Chicago Blackhawks
Location: IL Joined: 07.03.2011
Apr 11 @ 7:46 PM ET
For as much as I joke about, I'm sure you're right. It would be very surprising if either of them did things purposely just to stick it to the other. However, I wonder if ego/stubbornness doesn't sometimes cloud their judgment. How else do you explain Stan resigning Runblad? Maybe he sees upsides in Runblad's game that aren't really there and he hasn't come around to admitting it to himself yet.
And Q isn't stupid, and that's the point. He's not stupid. He sees the games and he sees the stats. He has to know, via the eye test and the hard numbers, that the Hawks are a weaker team with Mashinter on the ice than they are without him. It's absolutely baffling. And scratching Panik for Mash is one thing, they play a different style of game. But keeping Mashinter over Rasmussen is beyond perplexing. Both are big bodies that can get physical and are players that clearly work very hard. Moose has more skill than Mashinter. There is nothing Mashinter gives this team that Moose can't/doesn't on top of more offensive upside than Mash has. Grasping at straws for an explanation for this nonsense and you end up with, well he must be sticking it to Stan - maria_wyeth
Well, then - my other thought is (I only get two each day, so this is my "other thought"):
We see the games (most of us) only on TV - and only what the camera shows, which is 90% the action around the puck, even on replays. We don't see what happens well behind - or ahead of - the play. The coaches - and front office - probably spend half their time watching video of games, all angles, all activity by each player on the ice.
The coaches / front office also see all of the practices - again, we don't.
They see much more of each skater than we do - how they skate, how they react to situations around the puck and away from it, how they react to opposition, how they match up with certain teams, how they probably will react in various situations.
I find it so hard to believe that (a) Stan and Q wouldn't talk about movement between Chicago and Rockford, or possible trades, or anything else that affects on-ice performance; (b) that Q would deliberately not play someone just to stick it to Stan; (c) that Stan would deliberately put skaters on the team that Q hates just to stick it to the coach.
Can these guys really be stupid enough to deliberately screw up a potential Cup championship team, just because of pique or ego or power struggle - these are not stupid men, they have each been successful in the sport, what they do is in full view of the public, the press, McD and Rocky, and (most important) us idiots on hockey blogs. - StLBravesFan
Wouldn't be the first time Q had an attitude and refused to change. And it wouldn't be close to the first time he went down with the ship because of it.
What if the sequence of events that David Runblad experienced this year turned out for the positive and he comes back and is a useful contributor ? Maybe it might have been a wake up call for him. He probably logged a lot of minutes overseas under the direction of the Euro scouts and worked on deficiencies. Anyone see him at Rockford? Did he look more confident?
Shake my head about moose, and Bickell's next move has tobe LTIR.
Media at the post-practice interview asked Q directly about Weise and why he wasn't playing him. Q did the dead-eye stare when answering. Made it clear he doesn't think he's made an impact. - pdx2ord
Forget Bickell and Mashinter for a minute. What has Weise done at any point during his Hawks stay that has stood out? Answer is absolutely nothing, so if Shaw and Hossa are good to go, Weise is in the press box.
I would have loved that but Bowman probably would have given him away probably with Danault or Dano in either of the trades. I like Trotz ,you are right about him. Ithink Hitch gets a bad rap here because he coaches a rival Blues. If ya ever met the guy, you'd like him instantly. He's just doing his job the way he believes in, just like Q ,Trotz, or any of us in our line of work. If we never had Q and Hitch fell into our laps ,I would have no problem with him behind the bench here. - wonthecup10
Q has Mashinter in the lineup and that should make you happy. He is the big tough guy both you and Q think this team needs to be successful. Only problem is Mashinter does not know how to deliver a check, is too slow to get to the player in order to check him and has no hockey skills to bring to the ice
If your Mashinters centerman you are playing as if you are on a penalty kill because your missing a winger
Time for MCD to have a meeting with Q, Stan, Scotty and Smith and make Q justify his actions or just release Mashinter and don't give Q the option to play him
Forget Bickell and Mashinter for a minute. What has Weise done at any point during his Hawks stay that has stood out? Answer is absolutely nothing, so if Shaw and Hossa are good to go, Weise is in the press box. - RickJ
Nothing, necessarily, but has he even been given a chance to gain a foothold and get comfortable with any linemates? I know you say to forget Mashinter, but I think that's the point we're all making. We can't understand why he, in particular, is playing ahead of Weise. At least there is a book on Weise RS and PO that would say he should be the better player. This year:
Mash 41 games, 5 points, -7, avg 7:29 TOI
Weise (MTL) 56 games, 26 points, 0
(CHI) 15 games, 1 point, +4, avg 9:56 TOI
ETA: And rumor has it, he and Fleischmann have great chemistry. If they make each other better, why continue to keep them apart?
What if the sequence of events that David Runblad experienced this year turned out for the positive and he comes back and is a useful contributor ? Maybe it might have been a wake up call for him. He probably logged a lot of minutes overseas under the direction of the Euro scouts and worked on deficiencies. Anyone see him at Rockford? Did he look more confident?
Shake my head about moose, and Bickell's next move has tobe LTIR. - wonthecup10
He followed the yellow brick road and found the wizard and asked and received a heart along with courage so he is a new man
Nothing, necessarily, but has he even been given a chance to gain a foothold and get comfortable with any linemates? I know you say to forget Mashinter, but I think that's the point we're all making. We can't understand why he, in particular, is playing ahead of Weise. At least there is a book on Weise RS and PO that would say he should be the better player. This year:
Mash 41 games, 5 points, -7, avg 7:29 TOI
Weise (MTL) 56 games, 26 points, 0
(CHI) 15 games, 1 point, +4, avg 9:56 TOI
ETA: And rumor has it, he and Fleischmann have great chemistry. If they make each other better, why continue to keep them apart? - pdx2ord
Because Q can do whatever. We have a chance to repeat as Cup Champs and Q od's on the psych meds before game 1.
Q has Mashinter in the lineup and that should make you happy. He is the big tough guy both you and Q think this team needs to be successful. Only problem is Mashinter does not know how to deliver a check, is too slow to get to the player in order to check him and has no hockey skills to bring to the ice If your Mashinters centerman you are playing as if you are on a penalty kill because your missing a winger
Time for MCD to have a meeting with Q, Stan, Scotty and Smith and make Q justify his actions or just release Mashinter and don't give Q the option to play him - molly2522
And it appears he's playing him with TT as center... if that isn't a setup for a disaster I don't know what is
Nothing, necessarily, but has he even been given a chance to gain a foothold and get comfortable with any linemates? I know you say to forget Mashinter, but I think that's the point we're all making. We can't understand why he, in particular, is playing ahead of Weise. At least there is a book on Weise RS and PO that would say he should be the better player. This year:
Mash 41 games, 5 points, -7, avg 7:29 TOI
Weise (MTL) 56 games, 26 points, 0
(CHI) 15 games, 1 point, +4, avg 9:56 TOI
ETA: And rumor has it, he and Fleischmann have great chemistry. If they make each other better, why continue to keep them apart? - pdx2ord
Weise may not have done anything more than Mashinter to deserve ice time. But Weise hasn't shown himself to be the liability that Mashinter is either. And I think this is where I get the most confused... when Q plays Mashinter, he almost always gives him less than 8 minutes. And that means less than 8 minutes for whoever his linemates are. Which means unnecessary minutes on the other lines. When he has played Weise he's generally given him more ice time than Mashinter, suggesting that he believes Weise is less of a liability on the ice. I made this point a few weeks ago when I went through everyone's ice time, at that time Q was scratching Panik for Mash. Which honestly makes more sense than scratching Weise for Mash. Weise is the big body that Mashinter is supposed to be, and Weise has the nasty streak that Mashinter allegedly has that might deter other teams from going after Toews. I can (kinda almost) understand Q playing Mash over Panik when facing a heavy hitting team, but playing him over Weise is bonkers
And TT has had some nice chemistry with Flash, so why wouldn't you put all three on a line together?
What if the sequence of events that David Runblad experienced this year turned out for the positive and he comes back and is a useful contributor ? Maybe it might have been a wake up call for him. He probably logged a lot of minutes overseas under the direction of the Euro scouts and worked on deficiencies. Anyone see him at Rockford? Did he look more confident?
Shake my head about moose, and Bickell's next move has tobe LTIR. - wonthecup10
Hockey is a career for these guys so I harbor no ill will towards Saad. He did what was in the best interest of his family. I wish there was a way Saad could have stayed but given his demand the only option was to trade him. I hope Saad has a long, healthy and successful career.
The Saad/Anisimov trade is a difficult one to analyze. Since Stan's hand was forced and the threat of an offer sheet loomed large he had to act fast. I think Stan did very well in the return he got for Saad, I have no complaints about that. Had Stan signed Saad at $6 million then we would have likely lost Shaw too. So for at least this season it was either Saad or Anisimov & Shaw. Maybe Stan could have unloaded Bickell, but look at the cost he paid to unload Sharp. I'd have to think that teams would be asking for Schmaltz in any deal for Bickell. - DarthKane
I totally agree Darth. One could argue that we traded Saad for Anisimov and Ladd. Essentially we got what Anisimov, Dano and Morin. Morin was I believe released then we moved Dano for Ladd. Dano may very well have a nice career in Winipeg however our window is still now. Kane is having a career year and I feel that Anisimov is as much to credit for that as is the "Breadman". Then bring back a former Captain who can play in all situations and on our top line. Nothing but praise to Stan for these moves.Yes Saad would have been nice to keep, but we are a deeper and better team up front now than we would be with him.
