2014 Training Camp/Preseason Thread

[mikita's helmet]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimdust" data-cid="236089" data-time="1412119033">
<div>


Um you can't quantify how many dirty hits they prevented because they never happened.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Zapruder</p>

 

[Tater]

He thinks every line should be made up of Patrick Kanes with no hitting allowed.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimdust" data-cid="236089" data-time="1412119033">
<div>


Um you can't quantify how many dirty hits they prevented because they never happened.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


lol that's like a Back to the Future alternate timeline argument. So my argument is totally null and void because I can't prove something ridiculous that's impossible to prove without a time machine but when things like Torres nearly decapitating Hawks players in back to back years, or Backes hurting Toews or Jackman being Jackman in every single game they meet, regardless of who is dressed, I'm supposed to....what exactly? Look the other way? Pretend it didn't happen? All that shit still happens with the likes of Bollig or Scott or Eager or Burish,etc, being dressed. It happens no matter what, look around the league.</p>


 </p>


It's always going to be a point of contention with me regarding the Hawks wasting a roster spot on a guy like that because we saw how good they can be when they can roll 4 lines. We saw how much better of a team they can be without a player like that. They won the Cup with a 4th line of fucking Frolik, Bolland and Kruger. And they were good. That was an effective line. They've had the personnel to do it since then, but haven't committed to it. That's all I'm asking for, they don't need to be super skilled guys in that spot, just be effective, be able to play a role other than "PUNCH IN FACE TIME, PUNCH IN FACE TIME". Bollig was horrible in all roles, including that useless one.They don't need another worthless player like that plugging up a spot.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Unlike Bollig, Mashinter has some hockey skills. Guy has put up 30 points a season in the AHL a couple times. He makes his living being a physical presence and being aggressive but he's got some credentials to say he's not just a enforcer might be a lesser Chris Neil.


People can whine all they want about the 4th line tough guy, but there have been plenty on recent SC winning teams (Thornton has won 2, Clifford has won 2, Eager won 1, Bollig won 1) that proves it's obviously not A) a big deal and B) a huge differential. The biggest thing is can they play or not? John Scott is pretty much the last of the "goons" in the sense that he brings nothing of value, while the new "enforcers" are not as much a liability and can play a regular shift.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

In reality, no team has proven they can win a cup without a tough guy besides Detroit in 08, and even still they had a few guys who would drop them if necessary. I'm not saying it's not possible, but if the notion was that obvious some team would exploit it and yet, nobody has.

 

[Variable]

We're talking about different things once again. A lesser Chris Neil is fucking worthless to the Hawks. Chris Neil himself would be worthless. And the Hawks "proved it" it in their last Cup win. The only players that they had which fit that role was Bollig and Carcillo, and both of those guys played very little to no part in winning the Cup and Bollig of which could be argued was detrimental in the Hawk's chances this past playoff because he simply couldn't be trusted to play and Q simply refused to play guys like Morin or Regin over him.   Bollig isn't one of the hybrid enforcers/players you're talking about. He's a horrible hockey player in almost every aspect of the game besides maybe hitting and I guess fighting? I have no idea how fans of hockey fights view him as a fighter, but it doesn't really matter.</p>


 </p>


I mean, do you really want to argue that if the Hawks hadn't had Brandon Bollig and Carcillo in 12'-13'  or Burish back in 09'-10' that their chances of winning the Cup would've been less?  The only reason you still see these players like Bollig around is because the older generation of GMs and front office execs and older hockey players turned GMs/ front office execs are still around. The dinosaurs are still roaming about out there, along with their outdated ideas over what hockey needs, but  their numbers are dwindling.</p>


 </p>


Having a guy like Bollig on a team that ends up winning the Cup is far from any kind of proof positive that it's actually needed in order to win one. That's an insane argument. The Hawks barely played those guys when they won their Cups. Bollig played in 5 games that entire playoff. Same with Carcillo, who sat out entire series. Burish was lucky to see 5 minutes a night, if that.  They aren't vital, they don't fit the Hawks' strengths.</p>

 

[EspoForever]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="236094" data-time="1412135355">

In reality, no team has proven they can win a cup without a tough guy besides Detroit in 08, and even still they had a few guys who would drop them if necessary. I'm not saying it's not possible, but if the notion was that obvious some team would exploit it and yet, nobody has.</p></blockquote>

Marian Hossa would disagree. (Torres)

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Variable, the point was these guys aren't as much of a hindrance as you want to claim. Are they difference makers? No not really, but coaches feel they play a part and a role on the team. we are talking about 4th line guys who play maybe 5-10 minutes a night at best.


You can ***** about Bollig as much as you want, but he had the worst offensive zone starts off anyone on the team yet was able to put up a better Corsi rating then Smith. Was he someone who shouldn't see the ice in the final 5 minutes of a close game? He also had a better on ice save % then Smith, Bickell , Saad, and Morin despite starting more shifts in defensive zones.


Can't believe someone wants to keep on bitching about our 12th forward so much. Is that what it's really come down too?

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Last time I checked bollig is no longer on the team so we don't need to ***** about him any more.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

What's the over/under on how many games it will take when the Bollig haters have a new whipping boy? For bonus points who will it be?

 

[winos5]

Depends on how slow Richards starts the season.   If he does not produce out of the gate we will here all about how yewt _____________ should be the #2 center or who they should've signed instead of him.   If he has a slow start he's the whipping boy.   Otherwise Bickel, Mash or Regin.  <span style="color:#ee82ee;">If TCD returns then its Saad ....</span></p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="236097" data-time="1412169537">
<div>


Variable, the point was these guys aren't as much of a hindrance as you want to claim. Are they difference makers? No not really, but coaches feel they play a part and a role on the team. we are talking about 4th line guys who play maybe 5-10 minutes a night at best.


You can ***** about Bollig as much as you want, but he had the worst offensive zone starts off anyone on the team yet was able to put up a better Corsi rating then Smith. Was he someone who shouldn't see the ice in the final 5 minutes of a close game? He also had a better on ice save % then Smith, Bickell , Saad, and Morin despite starting more shifts in defensive zones.


Can't believe someone wants to keep on bitching about our 12th forward so much. Is that what it's really come down too?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


The problem is they become a hinderance when the coach still believes in dressing them over better options.And in the playoffs no less. That's the problem.When you dress a guy like Bollig in the playoffs over obvious better players like Regin or Morin and then he ends up barely playing anyway because he's horrible, that's a problem. They were much better the year before in the playoffs when they were able to play 4 lines and he sat Bollig than they were last year when he didn't. How Q could be the coach, live through that, win the Cup doing that and then still make the type of decisions opposite to what he did in the postseason before which worked so well is fucking baffling.  I will never understand some of the personnel moves he makes, ever. And then you had people praising him as a genius when he finally moved Handzus off the second line in the WCF, a move people were calling for in the middle of the regular season.</p>


 </p>


It's bigger than just a 4th line forward problem, it's indicative of a problem Q has had pretty much ever since he's been here. It's not just "hating" on one player or trying to find a whipping boy.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Yep, HUGE problem for a guy with 2 cup rings in 3 years. You'll need a team with zero fighting majors to prove your point, and that's not going to happen.


I watched every playoff game Bollig was in, and only did he make a goof (along the boards against bruins) that was a big deal. That said, he was on his off wing and I've seen plenty of NHL players make that mistake.


Oh well, Mashinter is your new whipping boy now. Can't wait to continually hear how awful Q, the brass, and the team is for constantly playing him.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunkus Porkstandzus" data-cid="236099" data-time="1412195806">


What's the over/under on how many games it will take when the Bollig haters have a new whipping boy? For bonus points who will it be?</p></blockquote>


Mashinter and one game. The "knowledgable fans" already are complaining about it.

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="236103" data-time="1412200872">
<div>


Yep, HUGE problem for a guy with 2 cup rings in 3 years. You'll need a team with zero fighting majors to prove your point, and that's not going to happen.


I watched every playoff game Bollig was in, and only did he make a goof (along the boards against bruins) that was a big deal. That said, he was on his off wing and I've seen plenty of NHL players make that mistake.


Oh well, Mashinter is your new whipping boy now. Can't wait to continually hear how awful Q, the brass, and the team is for constantly playing him.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


See that's the PMX route you're going there with the Cup rings bullshit. No one is infallible. You can't tell me him leaving Handzus on the second line as long as he did or playing Bollig over those other guys was part of some master plan or something. They were just bad decisions, that's all they were. Every coach makes them, and he made them at some pretty critical junctions during last season and during the playoffs. All I'm expecting is that he learns from them, even though he already saw how well it worked without dressing a guy like Bollig in the past and it played a huge part in getting him his second Cup ring with having that kind flexibility and depth of 4 effective lines.</p>


 </p>


I don't need a team with zero fighting majors to make any point, because the argument you're making is insanity. What you're talking about is like saying a team has never won a Cup that has had their captain wake up on the left hand side of the bed before the clinching game. That's how fucking irrelevant and inane the argument you're making about fighting and how important it is. All I heard when Toews got drilled by Backes or Jackman or whoever it was late in the season that took him out until the playoffs was how there was no "response" afterward, how the Hawks were pussies and how they'd get bounced in the first round. And yet, one goal away from back to back Cups.  It doesn't matter even a tenth of the amount you think it does.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="236102" data-time="1412197900">
<div>


The problem is they become a hinderance when the coach still believes in dressing them over better options.And in the playoffs no less. That's the problem.When you dress a guy like Bollig in the playoffs over obvious better players like Regin or Morin and then he ends up barely playing anyway because he's horrible, that's a problem. They were much better the year before in the playoffs when they were able to play 4 lines and he sat Bollig than they were last year when he didn't. How Q could be the coach, live through that, win the Cup doing that and then still make the type of decisions opposite to what he did in the postseason before which worked so well is fucking baffling.  I will never understand some of the personnel moves he makes, ever. And then you had people praising him as a genius when he finally moved Handzus off the second line in the WCF, a move people were calling for in the middle of the regular season.</p>


 </p>


It's bigger than just a 4th line forward problem, it's indicative of a problem Q has had pretty much ever since he's been here. It's not just "hating" on one player or trying to find a whipping boy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Regin SUCKED and Q didn't have confidence Morin wouldn't make dumb rookie mistakes. Its no wonder all NHL teams turned you down for GM. </p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Good lord. .. time for the first gdt of the year.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="236105" data-time="1412208286">


See that's the PMX route you're going there with the Cup rings bullshit. No one is infallible. You can't tell me him leaving Handzus on the second line as long as he did or playing Bollig over those other guys was part of some master plan or something. They were just bad decisions, that's all they were. Every coach makes them, and he made them at some pretty critical junctions during last season and during the playoffs. All I'm expecting is that he learns from them, even though he already saw how well it worked without dressing a guy like Bollig in the past and it played a huge part in getting him his second Cup ring with having that kind flexibility and depth of 4 effective lines.


I don't need a team with zero fighting majors to make any point, because the argument you're making is insanity. What you're talking about is like saying a team has never won a Cup that has had their captain wake up on the left hand side of the bed before the clinching game. That's how fucking irrelevant and inane the argument you're making about fighting and how important it is. All I heard when Toews got drilled by Backes or Jackman or whoever it was late in the season that took him out until the playoffs was how there was no "response" afterward, how the Hawks were pussies and how they'd get bounced in the first round. And yet, one goal away from back to back Cups. It doesn't matter even a tenth of the amount you think it does.</p></blockquote>You do realize we won the cup in 2010 with Eager and Burish on the 4th line right? I wouldn't consider either skilled hockey players.


My point was many teams have and will win cups with a 4th line that has a guy who is less skilled but is around for his physical presence and fighting. Does it make it right or make sense? Eh, depends on the player and team.


I don't disagree about running 4 lines without Bollig, but in my opinion he wasnt as much of a hindrance as you are saying. Mashinter supposedly has more skill, so hopefully that's a boost to the team.

 

[Variable]

Eager back then I would consider a viable option, he was at one point twice the player Bollig will ever be. Burish never. And both were barely played, like I already said.</p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Eager is a bump away from a blackend silent room for years...