Power struggles?

I have heard wild rumors about this going back to 2010, one emanating from a former Hawk. I don't know how much of this is true. Those rumors essentially revolved around different messages being sent by the coaching staff and the front office to the players.

I do know fences make good neighbors. Crowded committee rooms and overlapping responsibility create power struggles.

Winning, as it may have done in 2010, solves everything. There is a narrow window here where the Hawks can right the ship and maybe put some (or all) of this in the rearview. If that doesn't happen, my money says this gets ugly.
- John Jaeckel

In a power struggle isn't it the coach that usually goes first? Getting rid of Bowman right now would have no impact on this season and there would certainly be no major move involving a core player either.

interesting that this has come out. I was talking to someone very close to the team about the mood around the UC about a week before the trip. He said that he over heard a conversation between two employees about the defense not being very pleased with Crow. I guess there are some questions regarding his work ethic and that he is not very coachable (for all the time he has spent with Stephan W. this is starting to make sense).

I (didn't at the time) and still don't know what to make of this other than this post enhances the fact that there may be some legs to this.

Personally - I have a feeling there is some personality conflict going on inside the room. Crawford may not be very out spoken but I think he may be the strongest personality they have had between the pipes since Eddie. If he is speaking his mind maybe these guys think there s*** doesn't stink and Crawford should be quiet and stop pucks.
- jeffjacklin16

I would disagree with some of it... He doesn't strike me as the type to sow dissent... Will agree that he has more personality than any of the foreigners (Not North American) that have been back there in recent memory. Most good goalies I have ever met is some weird combination of pain in the ass, super weird yet somehow likable.

Emery has had a history of locker room issues:
" Emery has had problems with his own teammates, some of which resulted in fights during practice while in Ottawa."
source: http://bleacherreport.com...more-sense-than-you-think

Ottawa was a while ago but his frustration here and lack of playing time when he should have gotten more of an opportunity could have ended his patience, not to mention the awful defense in front of either player.

It has been floated that a lot of them do not like Kitchen... at all... And one could argue since he was hired the special teams has gone to hell and team defense out the window.

Is this story from the same source as "Jeff Carter to CGY (e3)"?
- andru2797

Hey, there's this nifty little button at the top of the screen called "My Hockey Buzz." You can go there and write your own blog full of your crap thoughts and ideas.

Hey JJ...in case you didn't catch my response on the other board...I just wanted to be clear.

I wanted to clarify something JJ...and I really hope you read this. I've never had a problem saying you "may" end up being right. I've even said as much several times. I've openly admitted how while I disagree with you, it's not because I don't enjoy reading.

The reason we debate is because we have a difference of opinion. Now if you constantly present the same arguments for certain players and not others who offer the same performance, you can understand how I could perceive that as being biased (case in point, Crawford and Emery letting in soft goals).

You may be right by season's end and this team may end up worse off than last year's. But you also have to admit that the chances that this team, with a tweak or two, could turn things around and play up to their potential and have a long playoff run.

The point I've always tried to make is that an NHL season is a marathon not a sprint, and to panic and overreact on any game, winning streak, or losing streak is nonsensical. That's why I've always preached patience. Especially when it comes to trades.

It takes a long time to identify real weaknesses in a team. You need a big enough sample size to get a real gauge of what your team needs are.

If you take the time to look past the 6 game losing streak, this is the same team that has had several winning runs this season as well. They're still the same team that has ample firepower, a lacklustre pp, a terrible PK, average goaltending and a defense that's a little on the small side, but moves the puck very well.

This is still a team that needs a top 4 defenseman, a good 3rd line PK forward and ideally, a 2nd line C.

Most teams are 2-3 players away from being the clear favorite though, and there's no sense in paying too much for any of those things when the league is so wide open.

In addition, deadline deals of impact players almost never result in a team winning a Stanley Cup anyway. The reality is that this team is down in the dumps right now, and they are playing worse than they are. They are not a top team, but they have as good a chance as anyone in the spring with this roster.

All I've ever said is to try and look at the season as a whole, once it's over, to get a real assessment of where this team stacks up.

The last thing I ask everyone is to form your own opinions. Everyone has jumped down my throat and called me a "polyanna" because I disagree that the sky is falling. Am I not allowed?
- andru2797[/quote]

You are allowed and welcome. Your tone comes off as more than a little condescending at times. I have been accused of the same. It's fair game.

But even in this response, you load it with the same stuff meant to paint the person you have a disagreement with as being "unfair," "biased," etc.

I do not have an issue with Corey Crawford per se. I have presented—what 100 times— the reason for why I think this team will miss Troy Brouwer. You can tell me about your experience in hockey all you want. Does that mean I, or Wolverine or anyone else doesn't have any?

And you put words in my mouth. I never categorically said this years team will be worse than last years. What I DID say is that the question is now out there— will it be worse?

This kind of argumentation on your part is why people on this board are starting to wonder if you're a Hawk employee or paid proxy of some kind— and you, yes, you, are trying to control the message by inaccurately relaying back what others say. And trying to put them on the defensive.

Check yourself.

Read what I (and others) actually say. Respond to that and keep it to the facts— not devolving into "you just love this player or hate that one." Or you said "x" when what was really said was a bit different.

I would disagree with some of it... He doesn't strike me as the type to sow dissent... Will agree that he has more personality than any of the foreigners (Not North American) that have been back there in recent memory. Most good goalies I have ever met is some weird combination of pain in the ass, super weird yet somehow likable.

Emery has had a history of locker room issues:
" Emery has had problems with his own teammates, some of which resulted in fights during practice while in Ottawa."
source: http://bleacherreport.com...more-sense-than-you-think

Ottawa was a while ago but his frustration here and lack of playing time when he should have gotten more of an opportunity could have ended his patience, not to mention the awful defense in front of either player.

It has been floated that a lot of them do not like Kitchen... at all... And one could argue since he was hired the special teams has gone to hell and team defense out the window.


- fattybeef

I suggest you read more of the stuff at bleacherreport.com and decide then whether you want your credibility attached to it. Their latest 9 Hawk trade proposals is a real doozy. Ranks up there with the 50 toughest NHL players of all time— that included 22 Hawks like Chris Chelios and Stan Mikita. But not for example a guy like Tiger Williams, among many others.

Emery had his issues. He seems to have grown through adversity. Crawford might too. A lot of these kids, Canadian and American, are spoiled and immature. As are a lot of kids period.

I think you're reaching a bit here..
- pri$ey

Maybe I am. But have you ever worked in an organization where there are 2 distinctly different groups - one that is wanted and secure and the other that don't seem to belong and their services won't be required long term or maybe at all?

It takes a long time to identify real weaknesses in a team. You need a big enough sample size to get a real gauge of what your team needs are.

If you take the time to look past the 6 game losing streak, this is the same team that has had several winning runs this season as well. They're still the same team that has ample firepower, a lacklustre pp, a terrible PK, average goaltending and a defense that's a little on the small side, but moves the puck very well.

This is still a team that needs a top 4 defenseman, a good 3rd line PK forward and ideally, a 2nd line C.

Most teams are 2-3 players away from being the clear favorite though, and there's no sense in paying too much for any of those things when the league is so wide open.

- andru2797

I'm sorry. I was wrong earlier.
It's not Q after all (must still be sleeping, dreaming of a new defensive scheme for this defensively-challenged hockey club).

Stan Bowman, is that you??? You are certainly not above holding the corporate line, even in a blog, are you??

[quote=andru2797]Hey JJ...in case you didn't catch my response on the other board...I just wanted to be clear.

I wanted to clarify something JJ...and I really hope you read this. I've never had a problem saying you "may" end up being right. I've even said as much several times. I've openly admitted how while I disagree with you, it's not because I don't enjoy reading.

The reason we debate is because we have a difference of opinion. Now if you constantly present the same arguments for certain players and not others who offer the same performance, you can understand how I could perceive that as being biased (case in point, Crawford and Emery letting in soft goals).

You may be right by season's end and this team may end up worse off than last year's. But you also have to admit that the chances that this team, with a tweak or two, could turn things around and play up to their potential and have a long playoff run.

The point I've always tried to make is that an NHL season is a marathon not a sprint, and to panic and overreact on any game, winning streak, or losing streak is nonsensical. That's why I've always preached patience. Especially when it comes to trades.

It takes a long time to identify real weaknesses in a team. You need a big enough sample size to get a real gauge of what your team needs are.

If you take the time to look past the 6 game losing streak, this is the same team that has had several winning runs this season as well. They're still the same team that has ample firepower, a lacklustre pp, a terrible PK, average goaltending and a defense that's a little on the small side, but moves the puck very well.

This is still a team that needs a top 4 defenseman, a good 3rd line PK forward and ideally, a 2nd line C.

Most teams are 2-3 players away from being the clear favorite though, and there's no sense in paying too much for any of those things when the league is so wide open.

In addition, deadline deals of impact players almost never result in a team winning a Stanley Cup anyway. The reality is that this team is down in the dumps right now, and they are playing worse than they are. They are not a top team, but they have as good a chance as anyone in the spring with this roster.

All I've ever said is to try and look at the season as a whole, once it's over, to get a real assessment of where this team stacks up.

The last thing I ask everyone is to form your own opinions. Everyone has jumped down my throat and called me a "polyanna" because I disagree that the sky is falling. Am I not allowed?
- John Jaeckel[/quote]

You are allowed and welcome. Your tone comes off as more than a little condescending at times. I have been accused of the same. It's fair game.

But even in this response, you load it with the same stuff meant to paint the person you have a disagreement with as being "unfair," "biased," etc.

I do not have an issue with Corey Crawford per se. I have presented—what 100 times— the reason for why I think this team will miss Troy Brouwer. You can tell me about your experience in hockey all you want. Does that mean I, or Wolverine or anyone else doesn't have any?

And you put words in my mouth. I never categorically said this years team will be worse than last years. What I DID say is that the question is now out there— will it be worse?

This kind of argumentation on your part is why people on this board are starting to wonder if you're a Hawk employee or paid proxy of some kind— and you, yes, you, are trying to control the message by inaccurately relaying back what others say. And trying to put them on the defensive.

Check yourself.

Read what I (and others) actually say. Respond to that and keep it to the facts— not devolving into "you just love this player or hate that one." Or you said "x" when what was really said was a bit different.

Like you said, we can all be accused of those things from time to time. The unfortunate thing about internet message boards (and chat rooms, text messages, etc) is that tone is very hard to convey.

If I come off as condescending, it's because of frustration from people overreacting to every little thing the Hawks do (or don't). I understand that's part of fans' passion, however it doesn't make it any less frustrating.

As for me "misquoting" people, again tone is very difficult to convey in this medium. You may say something, I may take it a certain way. If my perception of your (or others') opinions/statements is wrong, you are free to clarify.

And lastly, I am FAR from a Hawks employee. I think I'm just a little more even keel than most, meaning I don't get too high during the good times or too low during the bad when in-season. Neither is better or worse, I'm just saying that's how I am and I believe it allows me to see things more objectively sometimes. Again, that's simply my belief.

I will try to be more clear.

You'd hope there'd be some grumbling in the locker room given the losing streak...

But, yeah, sometimes it seems like Q is playing his schemes rather than scheming to his players. (Of course, I think the same thing about Lovie Smith and thought the same thing about Ozzie post '05 and de los Campos so maybe I just hate all Chicago coaches...)

As for Nabakov.... if he's super dirt cheap... I would guess the Hawks could carry three goalies and finally dump Lepisto and Scott to Rockford.

Maybe I am. But have you ever worked in an organization where there are 2 distinctly different groups - one that is wanted and secure and the other that don't seem to belong and their services won't be required long term or maybe at all?
- RickJ

No. But that is the nature of sports.

If what JJ heard is true, and the players don't like or don't feel they can play whatever type of defense Q is preaching (Cuz I don't know what it is either) than I don't see how that can be Bowmans fault.

I'm still on the fence with Bowman.. I feel this team has enough talent to play a good defensive system. They also have enough offense that playing a solid defense first system would still allow them to score enough goals to win.

I'm still on the fence with Bowman. A lot of my opinion will be swayed in the next couple of weeks. I want to see what he does and who he brings in.

The Summer will also be very telling about Bowman..

You'd hope there'd be some grumbling in the locker room given the losing streak...

But, yeah, sometimes it seems like Q is playing his schemes rather than scheming to his players. (Of course, I think the same thing about Lovie Smith and thought the same thing about Ozzie post '05 and de los Campos so maybe I just hate all Chicago coaches...)

As for Nabakov.... if he's super dirt cheap... I would guess the Hawks could carry three goalies and finally dump Lepisto and Scott to Rockford.
- shruew

Thats exactly it. I've said that here before.

There are coaches out there who have less overall talent on their clubs but play much better defense.. That's a coaching issue.

Q still wants this team to play like the 2010 Cup team.. They can't, but it also doesn't mean they can't be a successful team.

Adjust, play a defense first game.. We have the talent to score goals.

A question is:

Brunette, Montador, O'Donnell, Lepisto, Mayer - the summer hires, older, slower, etc. - how well did they play last year?

Not they they couldn't all have lost it in one year - especially considering the advanced ages of somebody- but if they played last year like we (and SB hoped), then they should have been OK this year, and it's not completely on Bowman - a lot on the coaching (not using them according to their abilities) and the players themselves.

If they didn't play well - and Bowman and the scouts didnt see it - then it is on the front office.

Maybe too simplistic, but players usually don't completely decline over a summer.

This blog gives me more hope than any of the dumbass trade rumors.
- Hal9000y2k

"What I heard is that a number of players, if not all of them, are immensely frustrated with aspects of the defensive scheme of the coaching staff. This information allegedly leaked out via a current player venting to an ex-teammate."

I find this unbelievable. Clearly the Hawks don't have a defensive scheme at all so aspects of it are irrelevent.

Thats exactly it. I've said that here before.

There are coaches out there who have less overall talent on their clubs but play much better defense.. That's a coaching issue.

Q still wants this team to play like the 2010 Cup team.. They can't, but it also doesn't mean they can't be a successful team.

Adjust, play a defense first game.. We have the talent to score goals.
- pri$ey

Ernie Kovisto, may he rest in peace, a somewhat legendary high school basketball coach (and as it happens Doug Wilson's father in law) told me once that defense is 90% getting your ass where it's supposed to be as a play developes. The other 10% is technique. And you can achieve the 90% with simple "want to". The problem with this as it applies to the Hawks is are they correctly coached on where they should be and how much "want to" do they have. IMO, "want to" can be applied to a coachs boot and inserted into players who don't have enough. But that's just me.

A question is:

Brunette, Montador, O'Donnell, Lepisto, Mayer - the summer hires, older, slower, etc. - how well did they play last year?

Not they they couldn't all have lost it in one year - especially considering the advanced ages of somebody- but if they played last year like we (and SB hoped), then they should have been OK this year, and it's not completely on Bowman - a lot on the coaching (not using them according to their abilities) and the players themselves.

If they didn't play well - and Bowman and the scouts didnt see it - then it is on the front office.

Maybe too simplistic, but players usually don't completely decline over a summer.
- StLBravesFan

Lepisto was a guy I thought would play more regularly here.

Over the last two seasons his numbers weren't bad.

2009-10 66 games played in Phoenix and was +14

2010-11 split between Phoenix and Columbus 70 games +10

Q has only put him in 11 games this season yet John Scott has played in 22 games.

Everyone knew Montador was a good defender if kept within his limits and TOI kept lower towards a 3rd pairing.. Thats not happening.

O'Donnell was supposed to be no more than a 7th dman.. He's playing to much

Brunette has played 80 games a season for the last 10 years!! always scoring more than 18 goals.. This team is to fast for him. Thats a little on Bowman and Q.

Bowman should have known he couldn't keep up with the speed this team plays at but at the same time. It may be time to slow this team down a bit and play a safer style of game. Q wont do that.

Mayers has been fine IMO.

No. But that is the nature of sports.

If what JJ heard is true, and the players don't like or don't feel they can play whatever type of defense Q is preaching (Cuz I don't know what it is either) than I don't see how that can be Bowmans fault.

I'm still on the fence with Bowman.. I feel this team has enough talent to play a good defensive system. They also have enough offense that playing a solid defense first system would still allow them to score enough goals to win.

I'm still on the fence with Bowman. A lot of my opinion will be swayed in the next couple of weeks. I want to see what he does and who he brings in.

The Summer will also be very telling about Bowman..
- pri$ey

Here's where I will concede to your thinking about Q and his staff - it seems very odd to me that players like Frolik, Crawford, Bickell, and Keith in particular are having such mediocre seasons with no real improvement looking to be on the horizon.

But doesn't the General Manager sit down with the Coach and ask him what's going on, how can this be happening, what can be done to change it?

Remember last summer when Brian Burke replaced Ron Wilson's 2 assistants for him and just told him he was doing it? Wilson was surprised but had no say in the matter. I can't imagine Q is any more stubborn than Wilson.

It's the GM's team, the coaches and players report to him ultimately. Time for him to be the boss or get out of Dodge City.

Here's where I will concede to your thinking about Q and his staff - it seems very odd to me that players like Frolik, Crawford, Bickell, and Keith in particular are having such mediocre seasons with no real improvement looking to be on the horizon.

But doesn't the General Manager sit down with the Coach and ask him what's going on, how can this be happening, what can be done to change it?

Remember last summer when Brian Burke replaced Ron Wilson's 2 assistants for him and just told him he was doing it? Wilson was surprised but had no say in the matter. I can't imagine Q is any more stubborn than Wilson.

It's the GM's team, the coaches and players report to him ultimately. Time for him to be the boss or get out of Dodge City.
- RickJ

Is it?

Ernie Kovisto, may he rest in peace, a somewhat legendary high school basketball coach (and as it happens Doug Wilson's father in law) told me once that defense is 90% getting your ass where it's supposed to be as a play developes. The other 10% is technique. And you can achieve the 90% with simple "want to". The problem with this as it applies to the Hawks is are they correctly coached on where they should be and how much "want to" do they have. IMO, "want to" can be applied to a coachs boot and inserted into players who don't have enough. But that's just me.
- Hal9000y2k

I mentioned yesterday Ken Hitchcock's statement to his group of forwards:

"When you have the puck you can do whatever you want. When you don't have the puck you will do what I want."

Hitchcock must be loving what he sees out of this Hawks team.

What I heard is that a number of players, if not all of them, are immensely frustrated with aspects of the defensive scheme of the coaching staff.

Who runs defence now on the coaching staff?

Here's where I will concede to your thinking about Q and his staff - it seems very odd to me that players like Frolik, Crawford, Bickell, and Keith in particular are having such mediocre seasons with no real improvement looking to be on the horizon.

But doesn't the General Manager sit down with the Coach and ask him what's going on, how can this be happening, what can be done to change it?

Remember last summer when Brian Burke replaced Ron Wilson's 2 assistants for him and just told him he was doing it? Wilson was surprised but had no say in the matter. I can't imagine Q is any more stubborn than Wilson.

It's the GM's team, the coaches and players report to him ultimately. Time for him to be the boss or get out of Dodge City.
- RickJ

You're right about that.

If Bowman is with Q on the type of game this team is currently playing, then that starts to push me over the fence.

It's hard to know exactly what is going on inside but I think we'll find out more with the type of players Bowman brings in over the next couple of weeks.

Is it?
- John Jaeckel

I can only assume it is if he is doing his job properly. Your question seems to suggest it isn't.

I mentioned yesterday Ken Hitchcock's statement to his group of forwards:

"When you have the puck you can do whatever you want. When you don't have the puck you will do what I want."

Hitchcock must be loving what he sees out of this Hawks team.
- RickJ

Great quote!

Wish this team played that.

Great quote!

Wish this team played that.
- pri$ey

A little more context is required on Hitch's quote...

Players here screw up because they do what they want when they have the puck....

Not considering defensive schemes etc...The Hawks have lost games recently because of careless play which leads to odd man breaks and prime scoring chances which the goal keepers haven't been able to stop...And they won't stop all of those chances.

At least two goals the other night were caused by blueline turnovers and the fourth goal by forwards not covering for dmen that were pinching in late in the game.

Forwards here, young and not so young put scoring as a primary concern above smart play too often.

Hitchcock has an MO of being a defensive minded coach, which suggests he stiffles offensive creativity. He disagress with that association....

Thus the quote mentioning you can do what you want with the puck meaning he is allowing offensive creativity.

But before that can happen you have to get the puck and be able to hold onto it.....That my friends hasn't happened enough here.

A little more context is required on Hitch's quote...

Players here screw up because they do what they want when they have the puck....

Not considering defensive schemes etc...The Hawks have lost games recently because of careless play which leads to odd man breaks and prime scoring chances which the goal keepers haven't been able to stop...And they won't stop all of those chances.

At least two goals the other night were caused by blueline turnovers and the fourth goal by forwards not covering for dmen that were pinching in late in the game.

Forwards here, young and not so young put scoring as a primary concern above smart play too often.

Hitchcock has an MO of being a defensive minded coach, which suggests he stiffles offensive creativity. He disagress with that association....

Thus the quote mentioning you can do what you want with the puck meaning he is allowing offensive creativity.

But before that can happen you have to get the puck and be able to hold onto it.....That my friends hasn't happened enough here.
- Al

And that usually starts with winning more faceoffs than you lose.