John Jaeckel: Interesting Late Night Tip

Usually where there is smoke...

Thats too bad. The core of the Hawks is as good as anybody elses, they should be able to figure it out. However sometimes if dissident picks up momentum it is tough to reverse the course if enough players join the "movement". I have seen it on both ends, as a player and coach.

To some extent I want to believe it, because I want to think the roster is fine as is and it's a problem with the system and not the players. After all, it's easier to replace a coach than an entire team.

However, it all seems a little too....."convenient"

The team is playing crappy defense (well crappy everything lately) and some people are calling for Q's head, and out comes this rumor that players are upset with the coaches. Just seems a little too coincidental to me. The current staff has been here for a while now, did they out of nowhere change something with the system this year that is pissing players off? Because if I remember correctly the defense has been at least ok if not great at times over the last few seasons.

this could be a good thing if players are willing to leak their frustration since they cant state it outright. no player likes to be called soft in his playing style

hopefully this will force kitchen out. right or wrong someone needs to go with this coaching staff

for stan bowman to survive in his job he must make some positive changes to this teams makeup. to date stan has failed as a gm. heck i could give away all the players he did to get under the cap without gietting much of anything back

If true, I don't understand why we would want Burish back...we have both Shaw and Carcillo (for now) who are both aggitators/instigators and better at that role than Burish IMO since they can back up their smack talk. It just doesn't make any sense

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.

Not saying it is true,but it seems plausible...you can't play the same type D as the team did when they won the cup if you don't have the proper personnell

The easiest thing for Bowman to do is to fire Q. That IMO is more likely than SB pulling off 2 or 3 trades that turns things around for the Hawks. If he fires Q SB can spin it and say that he was being proactive and the team is good enough. If the Hawks record improves after a coaching change then he can say he had the right players in place all along and if the record doesn't improve he probably buys himself more time with his boss.

If true than that's kinda sad.

The best prt of signing Mayers, O'D, and Brunette wasthat they would have an extra presence in the clubhouse. That there would be less "Sniping and griping". I knew there on ice contribution on the ice wouldn't be that much given their age but I surely thought they'd be more of a help off the ice.

As for defensive schemes, does it really matter what it is if the players can't execute it?

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

Honestly if Crawford is talking he should shut his trap...when you show up on the ice during game time then you can start talking imo..i know he probably isn't too happy with the way his D has hung him out to dry,but the rest of the team can't be too happy with all of the softies he has allowed

As for defensive schemes, does it really matter what it is if the players can't execute it?
- yahoodi

Sure it matters.

I (and others) have been saying for a long time that the team's play is mainly on Q. Why? Pretty simple -- if you are hard-headed (like Q quite obviously is) and stick to your old ways of the way you_think_the game should be played because you have_some_of_the_players_still_left_from_the_Cup_team, but the rest of your team really doesn't fit -- then I think we see what we've seen here, especially in this recent 6 game slide.

How often have 1 of us said the Hawk defensive scheme while in our zone looks like a fire drill? How about as an example, the goal the Sedins pulled off in OT on this trip where we were only able to grab 1 point? Remember the fighting that went on about it? Troy Murray apparently calling out Kane on the OT winner and many of us (myself included) talking about the big failure of 2 & 7 on that play before Kane let the Sister get to an area of the ice where, had he continued to cover, would have left the point man wide open? And 7 just watched it all as a passenger on the bus? Bolland was in no man's land and tried at the last second to prevent the shot.

FWIW, that play speaks to this very situation.

Right now, I am calling power struggle. Regardless of Q's 600+ wins and the 2010 Cup, he's not a guy that is known to be flexible nor able to meld the talent he has into the most lethal team possible. Other coaches out there clearly are head and shoulders above him in that regard (see Hitchcock, Ken or Trotz, Barry to name just 2).

How often have we said he is NOT getting the most of the talent that's here?

Again, I submit to all that any team with Hossa, Toews, Sharp, Kane as your top forwards and 2,7 & 4 as your top D should be a lot better than what we've seen. Coaching is NOT just all about the X's and 0's but is about taking 20+ guys and getting them to buy in and believe in one another and the system, execute the system to perfection and succeed.

Could it be that these guys feel at this point they've given it a shot Q's way? And they (or at least some? many?) believe Q's way is not and DOES NOT work?

Tick Tock indeed . . .

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

Truth be told, nothing would shock me. There's personnel issues and there's a coaching issue. Bowman kept saying in the offseason "I like this mixture." Well its gone sour real fast.

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

Q, is that you again?
You're up awfully early there on the Left Coast . . .

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

If true than that's kinda sad.

The best prt of signing Mayers, O'D, and Brunette wasthat they would have an extra presence in the clubhouse. That there would be less "Sniping and griping". I knew there on ice contribution on the ice wouldn't be that much given their age but I surely thought they'd be more of a help off the ice.

As for defensive schemes, does it really matter what it is if the players can't execute it?
- yahoodi

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.

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

+1

Sure it matters.

I (and others) have been saying for a long time that the team's play is mainly on Q. Why? Pretty simple -- if you are hard-headed (like Q quite obviously is) and stick to your old ways of the way you_think_the game should be played because you have_some_of_the_players_still_left_from_the_Cup_team, but the rest of your team really doesn't fit -- then I think we see what we've seen here, especially in this recent 6 game slide.

How often have 1 of us said the Hawk defensive scheme while in our zone looks like a fire drill? How about as an example, the goal the Sedins pulled off in OT on this trip where we were only able to grab 1 point? Remember the fighting that went on about it? Troy Murray apparently calling out Kane on the OT winner and many of us (myself included) talking about the big failure of 2 & 7 on that play before Kane let the Sister get to an area of the ice where, had he continued to cover, would have left the point man wide open? And 7 just watched it all as a passenger on the bus? Bolland was in no man's land and tried at the last second to prevent the shot.

FWIW, that play speaks to this very situation.

Right now, I am calling power struggle. Regardless of Q's 600+ wins and the 2010 Cup, he's not a guy that is known to be flexible nor able to meld the talent he has into the most lethal team possible. Other coaches out there clearly are head and shoulders above him in that regard (see Hitchcock, Ken or Trotz, Barry to name just 2).

How often have we said he is NOT getting the most of the talent that's here?

Again, I submit to all that any team with Hossa, Toews, Sharp, Kane as your top forwards and 2,7 & 4 as your top D should be a lot better than what we've seen. Coaching is NOT just all about the X's and 0's but is about taking 20+ guys and getting them to buy in and believe in one another and the system, execute the system to perfection and succeed.

Could it be that these guys feel at this point they've given it a shot Q's way? And they (or at least some? many?) believe Q's way is not and DOES NOT work?

Tick Tock indeed . . .
- savvyone-1

My bet is that the root of the problem started with the dumping of Bryan Campbell in the summer. Players are human beings and employees and they saw one of their own, who they won a cup with and is a good guy, tossed aside over money and contract.

They come to camp and start the season off fine and then things start to get more difficult. Goaltending is weak, defensive play is horrible and players start looking around the room and see players like Scott, Bickell, Brunette and O'Donnell who just don't belong there. Lepisto gets no opportunity to play, just practices and is supposed to keep his mouth shut. Now an old fart like Morrisson is brought in. It just doesn't work, players aren't stupid they know they can't win with these guys in the lineup.

Who's first to blame IMO - not Q, Stan Bowman. I will start blaming Q after the GM's position is dealt with.

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

As your posts descend into utter silliness. I am tempted to let them just speak for themselves.

That said . . . for the sake of your own credibility (which should be of more concern to you than anyone else's), I suggest you read Eklund's blogs and read mine. I think you will see that there is no discernible relationship between what he posts and what I do. Sometimes, out information coincides, sometimes it doesn't.

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

Go back and tell John McD that the coach needs to go...

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?

Q, is that you again?
You're up awfully early there on the Left Coast . . .

- savvyone-1

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

I am not in the room with Bowman when he's having conversations. None of the rumor bloggers are.

That said, some people are privy to this information and sometimes it leaks out. Unfortunately it is also swallowed up in a contextual sea of made up crap.

Point is, some of the rumors seem to have some validity, some don't. Use your own judgment.

My bet is that the root of the problem started with the dumping of Bryan Campbell in the summer. Players are human beings and employees and they saw one of their own, who they won a cup with and is a good guy, tossed aside over money and contract.

They come to camp and start the season off fine and then things start to get more difficult. Goaltending is weak, defensive play is horrible and players start looking around the room and see players like Scott, Bickell, Brunette and O'Donnell who just don't belong there. Lepisto gets no opportunity to play, just practices and is supposed to keep his mouth shut. Now an old fart like Morrisson is brought in. It just doesn't work, players aren't stupid they know they can't win with these guys in the lineup.

Who's first to blame IMO - not Q, Stan Bowman. I will start blaming Q after the GM's position is dealt with.
- RickJ

I think you're reaching a bit here..

The easiest thing for Bowman to do is to fire Q. That IMO is more likely than SB pulling off 2 or 3 trades that turns things around for the Hawks. If he fires Q SB can spin it and say that he was being proactive and the team is good enough. If the Hawks record improves after a coaching change then he can say he had the right players in place all along and if the record doesn't improve he probably buys himself more time with his boss.
- jhawk159

Agreed. It's time for a change. Send Q packing and send Kitchen with him. This will give Haviland a chance to show what he can do, and would provide an ample audition to see if he's the guy Bowman wants to be Head Coach going into next season.