Collitons defensive system

[BlueFruit]

I am not sold on the d-zone system Colliton has the team playing. To me it looks like a man to man system. A system I never expected to see at this level.
A lot of times the players are waiting for the opponents to make a move, and that makes them constantly chasing in the d-zone The players are reacting instead of acting, .

If you can´t make elite players play a system successfully after almost two seasons the system is not good enough. And that is on the coach to fix.

[vadarx]

also not a big fan of his system.

big fan of his ability to get the lads playing harder this year this far, but I am interested to see how we look consistently against the top teams in our temporary division. only 2 games vs tb and Florida early, interested to see how we look in a couple weeks when we have 3 in a row vs the Bolts. feels like the system doesn't work real well against better teams.

[LordKOTL]

Collition has a defensive system?

[BigT]

Feb 21, 2021 14:35:56 GMT -6 vadarx said:

also not a big fan of his system.

big fan of his ability to get the lads playing harder this year this far, but I am interested to see how we look consistently against the top teams in our temporary division. only 2 games vs tb and Florida early, interested to see how we look in a couple weeks when we have 3 in a row vs the Bolts. feels like the system doesn't work real well against better teams.

You bring up a very valid question and point. I know this isn’t popular around here. But I’m not sold on this team beating up on probably the weakest division so far. If they even go .500 against the top dogs. Then they look much better, and probably are. But Detroit, Nashville, Columbus are all pretty bad so far. And we’ve played them more than anyone.

It’s tough this year to judge a team. Especially the Hawks. Many may think they’re on track to make the next step, but then a real season happens and they could be bottom feeders over an 82 game season like many have predicted.

So I agree, let’s see how they fair the rest of the way against Tampa, Florida, Carolina and Dallas!!!

[vadarx]

Mar 4, 2021 6:52:51 GMT -6 BigT said:

Feb 21, 2021 14:35:56 GMT -6 vadarx said:

also not a big fan of his system.

big fan of his ability to get the lads playing harder this year this far, but I am interested to see how we look consistently against the top teams in our temporary division. only 2 games vs tb and Florida early, interested to see how we look in a couple weeks when we have 3 in a row vs the Bolts. feels like the system doesn't work real well against better teams.

You bring up a very valid question and point. I know this isn’t popular around here. But I’m not sold on this team beating up on probably the weakest division so far. If they even go .500 against the top dogs. Then they look much better, and probably are. But Detroit, Nashville, Columbus are all pretty bad so far. And we’ve played them more than anyone.

It’s tough this year to judge a team. Especially the Hawks. Many may think they’re on track to make the next step, but then a real season happens and they could be bottom feeders over an 82 game season like many have predicted.

So I agree, let’s see how they fair the rest of the way against Tampa, Florida, Carolina and Dallas!!!

honestly, I look at it less as them beating up lesser teams and more the lack of a real schedule. playing the same teams repeatedly (and only those teams) makes it easier to prepare for the schedule. I wonder if they would be doing as well if they were having to play a normal schedule...

still, it is what it is this year and the boys certainly have a playoff spot in sight right now. if they can maintain their success against the shite teams and beat Dallas in more than 50% of their games remaining with them, they will make it, imo. 88 is gonna have to keep looking like a mvp candidate and Lankinen is gonna need to keep his Calder run going to do so, though.

[hsbob]

The team still allows a league high 33.52 shots against per game so the system is still a work in progress to say the least.....

www.oddsshark.com/nhl/defensive-stats

Middle of the pack with a team 2.94 goals allowed per game thanks to Lanks!

[LordKOTL]

Mar 4, 2021 7:55:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

The team still allows a league high 33.52 shots against per game so the system is still a work in progress to say the least.....

www.oddsshark.com/nhl/defensive-stats

Middle of the pack with a team 2.94 goals allowed per game thanks to Lanks!

Basically this^^^.  Had the rookies (including Lankinen) not stepped up this would be a bottom team, but they did so we're about Mid-pack.

The positive on that is that it's gone down from 35.1 from last season.  Average over the years since 2005 is something like 30.1, so there's a way to go.  Ultimately though the adage of "Defense wins championships" holds true, so there's work to be done there, and it can't just be small little O-type D-men who put defense second and play small.  

[tincup]

www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CHI/2021.html#all_stats_adv_rs

What I can divine from this site is that what has also changed from last year is the high danger chances for and against. It shows this team much better at closing down those types of chances as opposed to last year. Not all shots are created equal after all. I’m putting this down to how much of a better effort the forwards are putting in this year in coming back and taking responsibility for their part. However, it’s obvious that they are still being scored on too much on second chances and failure to clear. That’s on the system and how players are expected to defend once the chaos ensues.

edit. .This is likely to change with the harder schedule upcoming.

[Tater]

Tonight and tomorrow will be a real test. I believe the Bolts have only given up one goal in their last four games.
33 against tonight would be an ugly outcome.

[tincup]

Mar 4, 2021 13:10:20 GMT -6 Tater said:

Tonight and tomorrow will be a real test. I believe the Bolts have only given up one goal in their last four games.
33 against tonight would be an ugly outcome.

Three SO’s in a row for Vasilevsky.  I have no idea what the record is but if he wants to extend it this is his opportunity. The Lightning PK is top two I think but the PP might still be our best opportunity to score. Need to draw some penalties, something that hasn’t happened much lately.

[irmaks]

Maybe trere is more to 'Colliton system'.
Maybe he knows what he is doing, and learning on a job? And he is still 33.

[vadarx]

Mar 7, 2021 16:50:13 GMT -6 irmaks said:

Maybe trere is more to 'Colliton system'.
Maybe he knows what he is doing, and learning on a job? And he is still 33.

I dunno. I've never thought that he doesn't know what he is doing, I just don't care for his man to man system.

when done well, it can obviously have a lot of success, particularly in the regular season. it can also mask a lack of offensive gamebreakers, which is something we need right now. it strikes me as a system that will allow for a lot of regular season wins but will struggle when it comes to the postseason. I'd point to Nashville under Trotz as an example. of course, he won with his system in Washington, so when you have the right players who've bought into it, there is evidence that is could lead to bigger things.

right now, he has the boys playing hard and looking better than I expected. I wasn't thrilled at all about his extension, but it is looking like I could've been wrong about it. I didn't like Bowman's either, but it looks like I might have been wrong about that one as well. I'll be plenty happy to eat more crow if they keep winning and moving the team in the right direction.

[irmaks]

Mar 7, 2021 17:03:24 GMT -6 vadarx said:

Mar 7, 2021 16:50:13 GMT -6 irmaks said:

Maybe trere is more to 'Colliton system'.
Maybe he knows what he is doing, and learning on a job? And he is still 33.

I dunno. I've never thought that he doesn't know what he is doing, I just don't care for his man to man system.

when done well, it can obviously have a lot of success, particularly in the regular season. it can also mask a lack of offensive gamebreakers, which is something we need right now. it strikes me as a system that will allow for a lot of regular season wins but will struggle when it comes to the postseason. I'd point to Nashville under Trotz as an example. of course, he won with his system in Washington, so when you have the right players who've bought into it, there is evidence that is could lead to bigger things.

right now, he has the boys playing hard and looking better than I expected. I wasn't thrilled at all about his extension, but it is looking like I could've been wrong about it. I didn't like Bowman's either, but it looks like I might have been wrong about that one as well. I'll be plenty happy to eat more crow if they keep winning and moving the team in the right direction.

With Toews and Duch they would definitely have more offensive talent and play a little differently, but it is what it is.

[vadarx]

Mar 7, 2021 17:08:41 GMT -6 irmaks said:

Mar 7, 2021 17:03:24 GMT -6 vadarx said:

I dunno. I've never thought that he doesn't know what he is doing, I just don't care for his man to man system.

when done well, it can obviously have a lot of success, particularly in the regular season. it can also mask a lack of offensive gamebreakers, which is something we need right now. it strikes me as a system that will allow for a lot of regular season wins but will struggle when it comes to the postseason. I'd point to Nashville under Trotz as an example. of course, he won with his system in Washington, so when you have the right players who've bought into it, there is evidence that is could lead to bigger things.

right now, he has the boys playing hard and looking better than I expected. I wasn't thrilled at all about his extension, but it is looking like I could've been wrong about it. I didn't like Bowman's either, but it looks like I might have been wrong about that one as well. I'll be plenty happy to eat more crow if they keep winning and moving the team in the right direction.

With Toews and Duch they would definitely have more offensive talent and play a little differently, but it is what it is.

yeah, those two would help out a lot right now!

I don't think they would play any differently. the system is the the system, they would be playing the same, defensively. those two would help out with offensive possession a ton, though, which would in turn lessen the load on the defensive end.

fingers crossed we see both before May rolls around. that would be one helluva boost if we are heading into the playoffs.

[LordKOTL]

Mar 7, 2021 17:03:24 GMT -6 vadarx said:

Mar 7, 2021 16:50:13 GMT -6 irmaks said:

Maybe trere is more to 'Colliton system'.
Maybe he knows what he is doing, and learning on a job? And he is still 33.

I dunno. I've never thought that he doesn't know what he is doing, I just don't care for his man to man system.

when done well, it can obviously have a lot of success, particularly in the regular season. it can also mask a lack of offensive gamebreakers, which is something we need right now. it strikes me as a system that will allow for a lot of regular season wins but will struggle when it comes to the postseason. I'd point to Nashville under Trotz as an example. of course, he won with his system in Washington, so when you have the right players who've bought into it, there is evidence that is could lead to bigger things.

right now, he has the boys playing hard and looking better than I expected. I wasn't thrilled at all about his extension, but it is looking like I could've been wrong about it. I didn't like Bowman's either, but it looks like I might have been wrong about that one as well. I'll be plenty happy to eat more crow if they keep winning and moving the team in the right direction.

I think every single system requires not just buy-in, but the right personnel to execute it.  Moreover, the a players ability to execute also depends on their age--both by virtue of possibly being too young and inexperienced to think on their feet or too old where the mind is willing but the body isn't able anymore.

The team in-and-of-itself is playing better than expected.  This is good.  I was expecting 2006 but we're getting 2008.  Most of our numbers are around middle-of-the-pack.  The biggest difference is goaltending vs shots allowed comparing this year and 2008:  In 2008 we were getting about 28.6 shots against per game.  This season it's 34.8--which is a lot more.  The team goaltending in 2008 was about .905, while this year it's about .914.  

I think the real questions have to be asked when the roster is healthy.  Right now the team has some things to work on, but overall things are working.  Guys like the 4th line are playing well and gelling.  When Dach, Toews, and Nylander come back, how do they affect things?  I wouldn't expect us to jettison Toews or Dach, but as I mentioned elsewhere Nylander's O numbers were right at the cusp on 2nd and 3rd like last year.  This year they'd be between 3rd and 4th.  Personally I'd not play Nylander, but I'm not the coach or GM.

When we're talking JC and Bowman, this is the stuff we have to examine them for, and hold them to task for since the job of building and maintaining the team lies with them.  With who we have developing on-ice right now, 2-3 players have to go for them coming back--Who goes?  If you think about the 4th line it's gelled right now--why mess with it?  For a guy like Nylander do we bump someone like Kurashev or Suter for him?  

Part of the equation is that the team is about 2 years beyond where I thought they'd be at this point.  That's good.  However, Given that most of the team 'hawk numbers are middle of the pack and the team still hemorrhages shots, I don't think they at this point would make much of a dent in the playoffs--and that's okay. But then how does the team move forward.

To wit:  if this team is the 2008 'hawks, I think it's too early to 100% say jettison Bowman or JC (even though I still stand by my assertion that both Q and Bowman should have been gone at the end of the 2018 season) in the here-and-now, but then next year should be closer to 2009 with the kids up-and-coming.

[Tater]

Great post sir ^^^^.

[shooter61]

Mar 7, 2021 22:20:11 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Mar 7, 2021 17:03:24 GMT -6 vadarx said:

I dunno. I've never thought that he doesn't know what he is doing, I just don't care for his man to man system.

when done well, it can obviously have a lot of success, particularly in the regular season. it can also mask a lack of offensive gamebreakers, which is something we need right now. it strikes me as a system that will allow for a lot of regular season wins but will struggle when it comes to the postseason. I'd point to Nashville under Trotz as an example. of course, he won with his system in Washington, so when you have the right players who've bought into it, there is evidence that is could lead to bigger things.

right now, he has the boys playing hard and looking better than I expected. I wasn't thrilled at all about his extension, but it is looking like I could've been wrong about it. I didn't like Bowman's either, but it looks like I might have been wrong about that one as well. I'll be plenty happy to eat more crow if they keep winning and moving the team in the right direction.

I think every single system requires not just buy-in, but the right personnel to execute it.  Moreover, the a players ability to execute also depends on their age--both by virtue of possibly being too young and inexperienced to think on their feet or too old where the mind is willing but the body isn't able anymore.

The team in-and-of-itself is playing better than expected.  This is good.  I was expecting 2006 but we're getting 2008.  Most of our numbers are around middle-of-the-pack.  The biggest difference is goaltending vs shots allowed comparing this year and 2008:  In 2008 we were getting about 28.6 shots against per game.  This season it's 34.8--which is a lot more.  The team goaltending in 2008 was about .905, while this year it's about .914.  

I think the real questions have to be asked when the roster is healthy.  Right now the team has some things to work on, but overall things are working.  Guys like the 4th line are playing well and gelling.  When Dach, Toews, and Nylander come back, how do they affect things?  I wouldn't expect us to jettison Toews or Dach, but as I mentioned elsewhere Nylander's O numbers were right at the cusp on 2nd and 3rd like last year.  This year they'd be between 3rd and 4th.  Personally I'd not play Nylander, but I'm not the coach or GM.

When we're talking JC and Bowman, this is the stuff we have to examine them for, and hold them to task for since the job of building and maintaining the team lies with them.  With who we have developing on-ice right now, 2-3 players have to go for them coming back--Who goes?  If you think about the 4th line it's gelled right now--why mess with it?  For a guy like Nylander do we bump someone like Kurashev or Suter for him?  

Part of the equation is that the team is about 2 years beyond where I thought they'd be at this point.  That's good.  However, Given that most of the team 'hawk numbers are middle of the pack and the team still hemorrhages shots, I don't think they at this point would make much of a dent in the playoffs--and that's okay. But then how does the team move forward.

To wit:  if this team is the 2008 'hawks, I think it's too early to 100% say jettison Bowman or JC (even though I still stand by my assertion that both Q and Bowman should have been gone at the end of the 2018 season) in the here-and-now, but then next year should be closer to 2009 with the kids up-and-coming.

Is that because we were loosing, I never cared for the way he used our players but the system works when the played buy in, they don't play straight man to man system , just in our end, But will never change my mind about SB

[LordKOTL]

Mar 8, 2021 12:13:16 GMT -6 shooter61 said:

Mar 7, 2021 22:20:11 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

I think every single system requires not just buy-in, but the right personnel to execute it.  Moreover, the a players ability to execute also depends on their age--both by virtue of possibly being too young and inexperienced to think on their feet or too old where the mind is willing but the body isn't able anymore.

The team in-and-of-itself is playing better than expected.  This is good.  I was expecting 2006 but we're getting 2008.  Most of our numbers are around middle-of-the-pack.  The biggest difference is goaltending vs shots allowed comparing this year and 2008:  In 2008 we were getting about 28.6 shots against per game.  This season it's 34.8--which is a lot more.  The team goaltending in 2008 was about .905, while this year it's about .914.  

I think the real questions have to be asked when the roster is healthy.  Right now the team has some things to work on, but overall things are working.  Guys like the 4th line are playing well and gelling.  When Dach, Toews, and Nylander come back, how do they affect things?  I wouldn't expect us to jettison Toews or Dach, but as I mentioned elsewhere Nylander's O numbers were right at the cusp on 2nd and 3rd like last year.  This year they'd be between 3rd and 4th.  Personally I'd not play Nylander, but I'm not the coach or GM.

When we're talking JC and Bowman, this is the stuff we have to examine them for, and hold them to task for since the job of building and maintaining the team lies with them.  With who we have developing on-ice right now, 2-3 players have to go for them coming back--Who goes?  If you think about the 4th line it's gelled right now--why mess with it?  For a guy like Nylander do we bump someone like Kurashev or Suter for him?  

Part of the equation is that the team is about 2 years beyond where I thought they'd be at this point.  That's good.  However, Given that most of the team 'hawk numbers are middle of the pack and the team still hemorrhages shots, I don't think they at this point would make much of a dent in the playoffs--and that's okay. But then how does the team move forward.

To wit:  if this team is the 2008 'hawks, I think it's too early to 100% say jettison Bowman or JC (even though I still stand by my assertion that both Q and Bowman should have been gone at the end of the 2018 season) in the here-and-now, but then next year should be closer to 2009 with the kids up-and-coming.

Is that because we were loosing, I never cared for the way he used our players but the system works when the played buy in, they don't play straight man to man system , just in our end, But will never change my mind about SB

Which part?

If you mean Stan and Q getting let go after 2018:

All of the brass said the 2017 playoff debacle would never happen again; 2018 was worse.

Crawford was carrying every. single. player. until December 24th when he was out for the rest of the season and then some.  Q in my opinion failed to motivate anyone to jump on board early on when Crawford was doing, willing, and able to do all of the heavy lifting.

Stan failed to see the holes in the lineup and plug them.  In fact, he made an additional hole for trading Kempny out (ultimately for nothing), who was arguably our best defenseman for the 'hawks in 2018 in terms of pure defense that year.

After Crawford went down, Stan and Q failed to either get on-board with the rest of the team,  or get the rest of the team on-board with how they wanted the remainder of the season to go.  To wit:  if the goal was to try to pick up where Crawford left off, they failed to motivate all of the players to pick up the pace.  If the goal was to punt that year thinking the year was 100% gone with the loss of their best player that season, then they failed to manage the roster properly by continuing to run the core roughshod when they were playing nowhere near 100%--or in Kane's case, were neglecting everything defense in favor of offense.  That would have been the perfect time to start bringing some of the kids in and giving some of the lesser players more icetime and stronger roles.  The 'hawks were losing anyway while leaning on Toews, Kane, Keith, and Seabrook, So trying to see what some of the younger guys had would've ultimately resulted in the same net outcome in the worst-case scenario:  Losing.

All in all it was a complete cluster for that season--with the team being a bubble team in spite of Crawford having the best goaltending-season since Tony O's 1972 campaign, and when he went down they were bottom-3--and not all of that was the replacement goaltenders' faults.  The players' numbers weren't that much different before Crawford went down and after he went down.  The difference was Crawford was masking the team's issues from the GM down.  IMHO that shouldn't have been an excuse: they should have sent Stan and Q packing.

But, spilled milk and all that.

[hsbob]

Mar 8, 2021 12:36:23 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Mar 8, 2021 12:13:16 GMT -6 shooter61 said:

Is that because we were loosing, I never cared for the way he used our players but the system works when the played buy in, they don't play straight man to man system , just in our end, But will never change my mind about SB

Which part?

If you mean Stan and Q getting let go after 2018:

All of the brass said the 2017 playoff debacle would never happen again; 2018 was worse.

Crawford was carrying every. single. player. until December 24th when he was out for the rest of the season and then some.  Q in my opinion failed to motivate anyone to jump on board early on when Crawford was doing, willing, and able to do all of the heavy lifting.

Stan failed to see the holes in the lineup and plug them.  In fact, he made an additional hole for trading Kempny out (ultimately for nothing), who was arguably our best defenseman for the 'hawks in 2018 in terms of pure defense that year.

After Crawford went down, Stan and Q failed to either get on-board with the rest of the team,  or get the rest of the team on-board with how they wanted the remainder of the season to go.  To wit:  if the goal was to try to pick up where Crawford left off, they failed to motivate all of the players to pick up the pace.  If the goal was to punt that year thinking the year was 100% gone with the loss of their best player that season, then they failed to manage the roster properly by continuing to run the core roughshod when they were playing nowhere near 100%--or in Kane's case, were neglecting everything defense in favor of offense.  That would have been the perfect time to start bringing some of the kids in and giving some of the lesser players more icetime and stronger roles.  The 'hawks were losing anyway while leaning on Toews, Kane, Keith, and Seabrook, So trying to see what some of the younger guys had would've ultimately resulted in the same net outcome in the worst-case scenario:  Losing.

All in all it was a complete cluster for that season--with the team being a bubble team in spite of Crawford having the best goaltending-season since Tony O's 1972 campaign, and when he went down they were bottom-3--and not all of that was the replacement goaltenders' faults.  The players' numbers weren't that much different before Crawford went down and after he went down.  The difference was Crawford was masking the team's issues from the GM down.  IMHO that shouldn't have been an excuse: they should have sent Stan and Q packing.

But, spilled milk and all that.

So you believe the team should have been successful with Forsberg,Berube and Glass in net? How have those three tender's careers been since?
Don't forget a very competitive 4th line was sent down around that same time frame.

[LordKOTL]

Mar 8, 2021 16:59:09 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Mar 8, 2021 12:36:23 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Which part?

If you mean Stan and Q getting let go after 2018:

All of the brass said the 2017 playoff debacle would never happen again; 2018 was worse.

Crawford was carrying every. single. player. until December 24th when he was out for the rest of the season and then some.  Q in my opinion failed to motivate anyone to jump on board early on when Crawford was doing, willing, and able to do all of the heavy lifting.

Stan failed to see the holes in the lineup and plug them.  In fact, he made an additional hole for trading Kempny out (ultimately for nothing), who was arguably our best defenseman for the 'hawks in 2018 in terms of pure defense that year.

After Crawford went down, Stan and Q failed to either get on-board with the rest of the team,  or get the rest of the team on-board with how they wanted the remainder of the season to go.  To wit:  if the goal was to try to pick up where Crawford left off, they failed to motivate all of the players to pick up the pace.  If the goal was to punt that year thinking the year was 100% gone with the loss of their best player that season, then they failed to manage the roster properly by continuing to run the core roughshod when they were playing nowhere near 100%--or in Kane's case, were neglecting everything defense in favor of offense.  That would have been the perfect time to start bringing some of the kids in and giving some of the lesser players more icetime and stronger roles.  The 'hawks were losing anyway while leaning on Toews, Kane, Keith, and Seabrook, So trying to see what some of the younger guys had would've ultimately resulted in the same net outcome in the worst-case scenario:  Losing.

All in all it was a complete cluster for that season--with the team being a bubble team in spite of Crawford having the best goaltending-season since Tony O's 1972 campaign, and when he went down they were bottom-3--and not all of that was the replacement goaltenders' faults.  The players' numbers weren't that much different before Crawford went down and after he went down.  The difference was Crawford was masking the team's issues from the GM down.  IMHO that shouldn't have been an excuse: they should have sent Stan and Q packing.

But, spilled milk and all that.

So you believe the team should have been successful with Forsberg,Berube and Glass in net? How have those three tender's careers been since?
Don't forget a very competitive 4th line was sent down around that same time frame.

To answer you directly, It's complicated:

Before Crawford went down I expected better from the skaters--especially given how badly the whole team embarrassed themselves in the 2017 playoffs, and how good some of the individuals' subsequent play has been in succeeding seasons.  If guys were hurt, they should have played less.  If not, they should have came on board because that's just what teams do:  When Keith picked up the team in the 2015 playoffs, everyone came on board because he was in beast-mode.  Why no one did the same when Crawford was in beast mode early in the 2018 season is a question I lay at Q's feet.  As the coach, he should have managed egos enough to get guys on board.  If he couldn't, then if that was indeed the case then he truly lost the room and hit his expiration date.

After Crawford went down, the team may not have been going anywhere, but in the same vein questions have to be asked:  Were Stan & Q still in go-for-it mode?  If so, why didn't the players play as such?  If they were in punt mode (and given how the players played this is what it looked like), then why did they still run guys like Toews and Keith roughshod--after all, if the team couldn't really be successful with guys who are more Lalime/Huet and less Crawford/Lehner, why does it matter giving our star players a ton of time only for them to play not to get inured and not really give it their all when we can give more icetime to the lower-tier players that are doing well (Kempny comes to mind) and see if they have it in big-game situations.  After all, we were losing anyway with the core played heavily behind Forsberg, Berube, and Glass.  The worst that could have happened is the lower-tier players would have lost just like the core players--but we could have seen more about what they had sooner, which would have possibly hastened development.  Instead they plugged the core guys in there and played them heavily until the 'hawks were mathematically eliminated.

The players played like they had no chance after Crawford went down and weren't playing well when he was up.  The coaching/management deployed them like they still had a chance until they mathematically didn't.  The disconnect in my opinion spoke volumes and IMHO, was reason to let Stan and Q go that summer.  

[hsbob]

Mar 8, 2021 17:42:28 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Mar 8, 2021 16:59:09 GMT -6 hsbob said:

So you believe the team should have been successful with Forsberg,Berube and Glass in net? How have those three tender's careers been since?
Don't forget a very competitive 4th line was sent down around that same time frame.

To answer you directly, It's complicated:

Before Crawford went down I expected better from the skaters--especially given how badly the whole team embarrassed themselves in the 2017 playoffs, and how good some of the individuals' subsequent play has been in succeeding seasons.  If guys were hurt, they should have played less.  If not, they should have came on board because that's just what teams do:  When Keith picked up the team in the 2015 playoffs, everyone came on board because he was in beast-mode.  Why no one did the same when Crawford was in beast mode early in the 2018 season is a question I lay at Q's feet.  As the coach, he should have managed egos enough to get guys on board.  If he couldn't, then if that was indeed the case then he truly lost the room and hit his expiration date.

After Crawford went down, the team may not have been going anywhere, but in the same vein questions have to be asked:  Were Stan & Q still in go-for-it mode?  If so, why didn't the players play as such?  If they were in punt mode (and given how the players played this is what it looked like), then why did they still run guys like Toews and Keith roughshod--after all, if the team couldn't really be successful with guys who are more Lalime/Huet and less Crawford/Lehner, why does it matter giving our star players a ton of time only for them to play not to get inured and not really give it their all when we can give more icetime to the lower-tier players that are doing well (Kempny comes to mind) and see if they have it in big-game situations.  After all, we were losing anyway with the core played heavily behind Forsberg, Berube, and Glass.  The worst that could have happened is the lower-tier players would have lost just like the core players--but we could have seen more about what they had sooner, which would have possibly hastened development.  Instead they plugged the core guys in there and played them heavily until the 'hawks were mathematically eliminated.

The players played like they had no chance after Crawford went down and weren't playing well when he was up.  The coaching/management deployed them like they still had a chance until they mathematically didn't.  The disconnect in my opinion spoke volumes and IMHO, was reason to let Stan and Q go that summer.  

I may not agree with all of your points but they are valid. If a decent tender was brought in after CC went down,and I'm not talkin' about a top guy,just one of many available at the time(Flyers had three themselves) and the team still 'punted' as you correctly put it,I'd be more apt to agree but there was little to no confidence in the trio on the roster and it showed.
As far as pushing the stars despite the position in the standings,I figure they went along to protect their career numbers.

You know my feelings on cleaning house vs firing only Q but I still feel the team was sent a message when forced to go with three AHL tenders and the team reacted accordingly IMO.
 

[LordKOTL]

Mar 9, 2021 9:25:02 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Mar 8, 2021 17:42:28 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

To answer you directly, It's complicated:

Before Crawford went down I expected better from the skaters--especially given how badly the whole team embarrassed themselves in the 2017 playoffs, and how good some of the individuals' subsequent play has been in succeeding seasons.  If guys were hurt, they should have played less.  If not, they should have came on board because that's just what teams do:  When Keith picked up the team in the 2015 playoffs, everyone came on board because he was in beast-mode.  Why no one did the same when Crawford was in beast mode early in the 2018 season is a question I lay at Q's feet.  As the coach, he should have managed egos enough to get guys on board.  If he couldn't, then if that was indeed the case then he truly lost the room and hit his expiration date.

After Crawford went down, the team may not have been going anywhere, but in the same vein questions have to be asked:  Were Stan & Q still in go-for-it mode?  If so, why didn't the players play as such?  If they were in punt mode (and given how the players played this is what it looked like), then why did they still run guys like Toews and Keith roughshod--after all, if the team couldn't really be successful with guys who are more Lalime/Huet and less Crawford/Lehner, why does it matter giving our star players a ton of time only for them to play not to get inured and not really give it their all when we can give more icetime to the lower-tier players that are doing well (Kempny comes to mind) and see if they have it in big-game situations.  After all, we were losing anyway with the core played heavily behind Forsberg, Berube, and Glass.  The worst that could have happened is the lower-tier players would have lost just like the core players--but we could have seen more about what they had sooner, which would have possibly hastened development.  Instead they plugged the core guys in there and played them heavily until the 'hawks were mathematically eliminated.

The players played like they had no chance after Crawford went down and weren't playing well when he was up.  The coaching/management deployed them like they still had a chance until they mathematically didn't.  The disconnect in my opinion spoke volumes and IMHO, was reason to let Stan and Q go that summer.  

I may not agree with all of your points but they are valid. If a decent tender was brought in after CC went down,and I'm not talkin' about a top guy,just one of many available at the time(Flyers had three themselves) and the team still 'punted' as you correctly put it,I'd be more apt to agree but there was little to no confidence in the trio on the roster and it showed.
As far as pushing the stars despite the position in the standings,I figure they went along to protect their career numbers.

You know my feelings on cleaning house vs firing only Q but I still feel the team was sent a message when forced to go with three AHL tenders and the team reacted accordingly IMO.
 

My frustration is less on the players and more on the coaching/management.  Based on the numbers, Kane was really the only player in a position to pad his career numbers--and then just offensively.  It was Toews' worst year of O production to that date.  It was arguably Keith's worst year on all respects, and it was one of Seabrook's worst.  Aside from Kane I don't think less icetime for Toews/Keith/Seabrook would have hurt their career numbers--and in some cases might have helped in reducing some of the negative stats.  Keep in mind "less icetime" doesn't mean they sit out games, it means less icetime.  They could have dropped Keith minutes/game from ~23 to ~20 and that wouldn't have had much net effect in my opinion--and they could have rewarded Kempny with more icetime since he had some of the best defensive numbers on the team.  Worst case in the scenario is Kempny would have out of his depth and the team would have lost, which is what was happening anyway.

I don't disagree that the team responded in a predictable and justifiable way when they were dealt Forsber, Berube, and Glass in net--in fact, I fully think that within about 5 games of Crawford going down the team at-large should have packed it in and played only to pad stats and see what the kids had.  But it looked to me that the players were playing to punt the rest of the year.  It looked like Q/Bowman was trying to salvage the year.  Either coaching/management should have gotten on board with punting, or they should have held the players accountable for not playing to try to win.  The way it played out--with management going one way and the players going another make me feel like the coaching/management lost the room.  If that was indeed the case, that coaching/management lost the room, then a change was needed.

[creature]

What defensive system?

When you are always giving up close to 40 shots on goal you just have to ask. What defense? It's not about defense anymore it's about offense and as long as they get a point all is forgiven for their defensive lapses of reason.

I get they have a shortage of RHD at this time but continuing with Boqvist and Mitchell just tells you it's not about defense. Beaudin and Carlsson as LHD's played better defensively on the right side but those who have bought into the offensive defense complain about the lack of it.

[creature]

What defensive system?

When you are always giving up close to 40 shots on goal you just have to ask. What defense? It's not about defense anymore it's about offense and as long as they get a point all is forgiven for their defensive lapses of reason.

I get they have a shortage of RHD at this time but continuing with Boqvist and Mitchell just tells you it's not about defense. Beaudin and Carlsson as LHD's played better defensively on the right side but those who have bought into the offensive defense complain about the lack of it.

[hawkfaninpdx]

Mar 22, 2021 11:36:55 GMT -6 creature said:

What defensive system?

When you are always giving up close to 40 shots on goal you just have to ask. What defense? It's not about defense anymore it's about offense and as long as they get a point all is forgiven for their defensive lapses of reason.

I get they have a shortage of RHD at this time but continuing with Boqvist and Mitchell just tells you it's not about defense. Beaudin and Carlsson as LHD's played better defensively on the right side but those who have bought into the offensive defense complain about the lack of it.

In the past two games the Hawks gave up 23 and 29 shots, which is more than respectable. In both losses they had substandard goaltending. For a spell their goaltending was great, but they were giving up a ton of shots. Now the goaltending is what everyone feared it would be at the beginning of the season. 

[Tater]

Good to see you Creech.

[creature]

Mar 22, 2021 14:42:10 GMT -6 hawkfaninpdx said:

Mar 22, 2021 11:36:55 GMT -6 creature said:

What defensive system?

When you are always giving up close to 40 shots on goal you just have to ask. What defense? It's not about defense anymore it's about offense and as long as they get a point all is forgiven for their defensive lapses of reason.

I get they have a shortage of RHD at this time but continuing with Boqvist and Mitchell just tells you it's not about defense. Beaudin and Carlsson as LHD's played better defensively on the right side but those who have bought into the offensive defense complain about the lack of it.

In the past two games the Hawks gave up 23 and 29 shots, which is more than respectable. In both losses they had substandard goaltending. For a spell their goaltending was great, but they were giving up a ton of shots. Now the goaltending is what everyone feared it would be at the beginning of the season. 

The last 2 games is what you go by then go right to goaltending?

Defense is not on these defensemen's minds they now believe they are forwards and start pinching in in the O zone as soon as the first puck drop. When they do that it's small weak forwards who cover the points. It's not just 1 D man pinching in but many times both and everybody is on the perimeter trying to complete cross ice passes that fail miserably and it's off to the races for the opponent with a breakaway or odd man rush. Hell I think our defensemen forgot how to skate backwards since they are always skating forwards trying to catch up to those odd man rushes. I even see Boqvist more around the opponents net pinching in than around his own net in his own zone which is where he should be.

The defense needs to get back to playing defense the way defense is played in the NHL not some fantasy league where defense can consist of a bunch of poke checking pansies that can pinch in to gather points.

[creature]

Mar 22, 2021 23:34:47 GMT -6 Tater said:

Good to see you Creech.

Good to be back. Was a screwed up year last year because of Covid and I wasn't in a very good mood to get on boards because the rants wouldn't be good. Had to do with my roof that was damaged by a couple of storms but they couldn't put it on due to not being able to get building permits because everything was closed. They finally came out to tarp it for winter but with all the snow melting got under them and screwed up the ceilings and on and on. Finally got it up last week but now a lot of interior repair.

[LordKOTL]

Mar 23, 2021 7:24:32 GMT -6 creature said:

Mar 22, 2021 23:34:47 GMT -6 Tater said:

Good to see you Creech.

Good to be back. Was a screwed up year last year because of Covid and I wasn't in a very good mood to get on boards because the rants wouldn't be good. Had to do with my roof that was damaged by a couple of storms but they couldn't put it on due to not being able to get building permits because everything was closed. They finally came out to tarp it for winter but with all the snow melting got under them and screwed up the ceilings and on and on. Finally got it up last week but now a lot of interior repair.

Brutal.  I hope you get everything fixed soon and it's not too expensive.

[T-man2010]

Mar 23, 2021 7:24:32 GMT -6 creature said:

Mar 22, 2021 23:34:47 GMT -6 Tater said:

Good to see you Creech.

Good to be back. Was a screwed up year last year because of Covid and I wasn't in a very good mood to get on boards because the rants wouldn't be good. Had to do with my roof that was damaged by a couple of storms but they couldn't put it on due to not being able to get building permits because everything was closed. They finally came out to tarp it for winter but with all the snow melting got under them and screwed up the ceilings and on and on. Finally got it up last week but now a lot of interior repair.

Glad to see you back on with us. We need new rants to add to our already existing rants.

Hopefully your insurance will cover the damage done during the storms.
But it still sucks that you had to wait for any repair work for so long.