[A] WCQF Game One: Chicago Blackhawks vs. Minnesota Wild

[PatrickShart]

Every team will have a 12th forward that will play 7min a game.</p>


 </p>


They don't play PP and they don't play PK.</p>


 </p>


They're not on the ice right after a penalty and they're not on the ice the last few minutes of a close game.</p>


 </p>


Therefore, their minutes are only going to be 7 min.</p>


 </p>


He had 3 hits (and at his size, they're effective hits) and 2 SOG in that time.  That's decent production.  And if anything happens after the whistle - he's smart enough to know he needs to get his nose in there, so when the refs take 2 guys off the ice - he's going...not anyone else.</p>


 </p>


There's only so many minutes to go around.  If Pirri (or insert any AHL alleged skill player) is in the lineup...then they have to bring something in that 7 minutes of time.  And for most all skill players - 7-8minutes will not produce much offensively...and if you don't get anything physically...it's a more of a waste than a less skilled role player.  While you despise physical players, they have a role on the team, and right now - Bollig, Carcillo or Mayers will be in the lineup.  Or Hayes if someone else is needed in that role.</p>


 </p>


There are 180 forward minutes in a game (LW, C, RW - all play 60min in a full game)</p>


 </p>


When you break down the minutes - there's only so many to go around.  Here is the regular season breakdown</p>


Toews is going to play 20</p>


Kane - 20</p>


Hossa - 18</p>


Sharp - 18</p>


Saad - 16</p>


Bolland - 16 (usually much more in playoffs)</p>


Shaw - 15</p>


Stalberg - 15</p>


Kruger - 14</p>


Bickell - 13</p>


 </p>


There's 165 game minutes for the forwards...which includes the special teams time in there.  PK time removes minutes from the 180 total forward minutes.  These 10 forwards here should (and do) get the most minutes on the team.  Hossa and Sharp are 2 guys time that will go up over the 20.</p>


 </p>


So there's 15 min of game time to go for Frolik and the 12th forward.  All they need is a guy that will play 7-8 min and play a specific role.  With the firepower on the team...Pirri is not needed for some sort of pretend spark he may (or may not) bring.  While some claim Handzus to be too slow - he plays his position very well, and is a smart player. He's rarely out of position...very much the way Brent Sutter was in his last years.  Kane needs Sharp to start producing - not Handzus, or Pirri.  Handzus is a smarter player with the puck than Bolland is (who many times throws the pucks in areas in hopes of someone being there...backhanded or blindly)</p>


 </p>


Handzus isn't the ideal 2nd line center...but right now, he's the teams best option between Kane and Sharp.  He's big, smart,  able to play physically, wins faceoffs (puck possession for an offensive line), and goes to the net.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxclland" data-cid="193530" data-time="1367502639">
<div>


Every team will have a 12th forward that will play 7min a game.</p>


 </p>


They don't play PP and they don't play PK.</p>


 </p>


They're not on the ice right after a penalty and they're not on the ice the last few minutes of a close game.</p>


 </p>


Therefore, their minutes are only going to be 7 min.</p>


 </p>


He had 3 hits (and at his size, they're effective hits) and 2 SOG in that time.  That's decent production.  And if anything happens after the whistle - he's smart enough to know he needs to get his nose in there, so when the refs take 2 guys off the ice - he's going...not anyone else.</p>


 </p>


There's only so many minutes to go around.  If Pirri (or insert any AHL alleged skill player) is in the lineup...then they have to bring something in that 7 minutes of time.  And for most all skill players - 7-8minutes will not produce much offensively...and if you don't get anything physically...it's a more of a waste than a less skilled role player.  While you despise physical players, they have a role on the team, and right now - Bollig, Carcillo or Mayers will be in the lineup.  Or Hayes if someone else is needed in that role.</p>


 </p>


There are 180 forward minutes in a game (LW, C, RW - all play 60min in a full game)</p>


 </p>


When you break down the minutes - there's only so many to go around.  Here is the regular season breakdown</p>


Toews is going to play 20</p>


Kane - 20</p>


Hossa - 18</p>


Sharp - 18</p>


Saad - 16</p>


Bolland - 16 (usually much more in playoffs)</p>


Shaw - 15</p>


Stalberg - 15</p>


Kruger - 14</p>


Bickell - 13</p>


 </p>


There's 165 game minutes for the forwards...which includes the special teams time in there.  PK time removes minutes from the 180 total forward minutes.  These 10 forwards here should (and do) get the most minutes on the team.  Hossa and Sharp are 2 guys time that will go up over the 20.</p>


 </p>


So there's 15 min of game time to go for Frolik and the 12th forward.  All they need is a guy that will play 7-8 min and play a specific role.  With the firepower on the team...Pirri is not needed for some sort of pretend spark he may (or may not) bring.  While some claim Handzus to be too slow - he plays his position very well, and is a smart player. He's rarely out of position...very much the way Brent Sutter was in his last years.  Kane needs Sharp to start producing - not Handzus, or Pirri.  Handzus is a smarter player with the puck than Bolland is (who many times throws the pucks in areas in hopes of someone being there...backhanded or blindly)</p>


 </p>


Handzus isn't the ideal 2nd line center...but right now, he's the teams best option between Kane and Sharp.  He's big, smart,  able to play physically, wins faceoffs (puck possession for an offensive line), and goes to the net.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


You're a ****** and I hate you.  However, posts like this make me almost want to +1 you.</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

And by +1ing me...you mean you want to bend over and present yourself to me</p>

 

[Variable]

That was 7 minutes over nearly 4 periods PMX. But besides that, I'm saying if he's completely bad, yes just for the remainder of that game, until the next game comes where you can re-insert Bollig if you have to, just relegate him to that 12th forward role on the 4th line, just to get through the game. Otherwise, give him 2nd line center minutes.  Bollig is not going to be the difference maker here. Pirri can be one if he clicks with Kane and Sharp. The pros completely outweigh the cons. You lose nothing if it doesn't work out. You can go right back to Handzus on that line during that game if need be.</p>


 </p>


To recap, because it seems like one is always needed: I'm not saying continually give him 4th line, 12th forward minutes every game. That was just to say if things went horribly, that's what you'd do in that scenario for the rest of that game. That whole tangent you went on with that was pointless.</p>

 

[Pez68]

Agreed....</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

You lose a physical player - which this team doesn't have too many of</p>


 </p>


You lose a guy that if/when the playoff games get a bit physical/tough/after whistle business - someone that can handle himself...for a 5'10 180lb AHL perimeter player - that may or may not click offensively....but won't be responsibly defensively.  So if/when he doesn't click offensively...your theory of just putting him on the 4th line...you essentially lose a player.  Because putting him on the 4th line to bring nothing is a waste.</p>


 </p>


You continue to  try to prove some sort of no fighting or no physical play movement - and that those players are unneccesary..but thankfully smarter hockey people see the value in it and that won't happen.</p>


 </p>


The pro's of having a 12th forward that is physical outweigh the cons of having an undersized perimeter player in the playoffs...with wishes and dreams that he's the second line saviour the team doesn't need at this time.</p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Ashor-redtribe" data-cid="193403" data-time="1367436516">
<div>


who was the chick?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VtcOCHePB4</p>



I knew you were going to ask me that.</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

And as far as my "waste of a post" for you.  That's how ice time works and is explained at the professional level in the coaching area.</p>


 </p>


They get down to what role needs to be filled to what minutes need to be played.  When they get down to the 7-8 minutes a game...they figure out what will be needed and put that type of player in.  They don't simply say - Pirri is the leading scorer in the AHL...so we'll give him that 7 min or bump everyone else.  If/when it doesn't work...we'll just redistribute as the game goes.</p>


 </p>


If they decided to add a 2nd line center - they'd plan on him playing 18min a game.  If it didn't work out early in the game, they lose an 18min player...and now people have to play outside their role.</p>


 </p>


Now if/when Bolland comes back...he's proven he can be an 18min a guy player...and plugging him in the 2nd line makes sense.  Not putting some AHL guy in there with dreams of him being good there - in the playoffs.</p>


 </p>


But that's a waste of time for you</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxclland" data-cid="193538" data-time="1367505809">
<div>


You lose a physical player - which this team doesn't have too many of</p>


 </p>


You lose a guy that if/when the playoff games get a bit physical/tough/after whistle business - someone that can handle himself...for a 5'10 180lb AHL perimeter player - that may or may not click offensively....but won't be responsibly defensively.  So if/when he doesn't click offensively...your theory of just putting him on the 4th line...you essentially lose a player.  Because putting him on the 4th line to bring nothing is a waste.</p>


 </p>


You continue to  try to prove some sort of no fighting or no physical play movement - and that those players are unneccesary..but thankfully smarter hockey people see the value in it and that won't happen.</p>


 </p>


The pro's of having a 12th forward that is physical outweigh the cons of having an undersized perimeter player in the playoffs...with wishes and dreams that he's the second line saviour the team doesn't need at this time.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I'm not against physical play, I'm against players like Bollig, who bring very little when it comes to playing hockey. I know,  I know, it would be scary PMX, very scary to not have a guy like him dressed out there to "protect" people. But the Hawks' game doesn't pend on that. It doesn't pend on outhitting their opponent either. And yet it's clamored for like it's some kind of cornerstone of this team or something. Even though going around racking up hits and that "eye for an eye" bullshit style of revenge taking isn't something the Hawks have really ever engaged in since......when? At least since Q has been coach? So why pretend they need it?</p>


 </p>


Again, to this situation in particular to THIS team, I don't see what the big deal would be if you put Pirri there and if you had to move Handzus back if he wasn't doing well. Is he incapable of being put back on the 2nd line if things aren't going well? They all of a sudden cannot make that change through shift changes or after a period at the very extreme? Adjustments like that can't be done? Because a guy that plays 7 minutes a game being scratched and not available to take his role back (again one in which the Hawks don't depend on)  fucks up the plan that much? That's giving Bollig WAY too much credit.</p>

 

[winos5]

If it aint broke, don't tinker with it.</p>

 

[Variable]

Do you consider it....working? Kane carrying that line like he has been all season long? Not only because he can be that good, but because he has to?  I don't know, I guess to some people that's okay. But imagine if he had a center that actually had somewhat of an offensive game.</p>

 

[winos5]

You don't think the team is playing well?    You don't think Q is doing a good job?    Management is handling the team poorly?   By what fucking measuring stick.    Your hunch?   Your preference?</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

Who said I want the Hawks to change their style?  Let me know when anyone said they want that to be the corner stone.</p>


 </p>


It is valuable to have toughness in the lineup...and if you've ever been around the game other than reading doctors theories on concussions and clamoring for the pussification of the game, you'd know that.</p>


 </p>


"Racking" up hits - as you moronically put it...matters at times in wearing down a defenceman that played 41min.  In Bollig's 7min...if he hit Suter once or twice...he'll feel it.  Have you ever been hit on the ice?  And I'm not clamoring for Bollig to start fights or an eye for an eye - no one ever has, so keep living in make believe land.  What is actually being said...is if/when there is pushing or shoving after a whistle...and things get testy..where a ref is going to take someone off the ice...it's better to have it be Bollig..then say Seabrook?  Who if he's on the ice - he'll be the guy to step in.</p>


 </p>


I know you're in denial that stuff actually happens during the game.  And you want everyone to simply skate away with their heads down.  But actually being on the ice, a players compete level, testosterone, intensity is at it's highest level.  Players fight for every inch of ice.  It matters.  It happens.</p>


 </p>


As far as fucking up the game plan?  Yes, it actually can.  You're going into a game commiting 16min to Pirri as the second line center.  A guy that's never played in the NHL playoffs, to a team that's dominated the regular season without him.  You don't go in thinking - well, if it doesnt work, we'll move this guy here...then that guy there.  If it doesn't work - you're down a 16min guy.  And for no reason.</p>


 </p>


You ask any coach at any competitive level - from Jr's to Pro's - and he'll be able to give you his lineup's/players game minutes and be damn near on the mark - before the game.  If/when changes or injuries happen during the game...it's unplanned and not wanted by any team or coach.  Those are facts.</p>

 

[Variable]

You aren't down a 16 minute forward. You're not scratching Handzus. You're down a fucking 8 minute a game goon.  And there are scrums after a whole bunch of whistles and Bollig isn't out on the ice nearly enough for the majority of them for your argument of him being out there to "take the bullet" of a potential after the whistle penalty to work.</p>

 

[winos5]

Hard to argue with the results the team (players, coaching and management) has achieved.   That's all I'm saying.   It's not broke, there isn't anything to fix IMO.</p>

 

[PatrickShart]

Yes you are.  You are putting Pirri on the 2nd line center - which ES is 15-16min a game.  When Handzus, Bolland or even Kruger have played on the second line - that's their ES time.  I tried explaining how minutes are slotted through a coaches mind to give you an idea of how it works in the real world - but that was simply a waste of your time to read or try to understand.</p>


 </p>


Then, you are putting Handzus now to Bollig's role - a 4th line physical winger, that plays 7 min a game.</p>


 </p>


You're idea to - "well, if it doen't work...just move them back" - in a playoff game, not to smart.</p>


 </p>


Yes, you can then "flip" Handzus back to his original role...and now Pirri is a 4th line checking/physical winger.  Which you're essentially saying he would be better suited at than Bollig, Carcillo, Mayers or even Hayes.  Guys that have proven to do that at the professional level for their entire careers.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="193549" data-time="1367507687">
<div>


You don't think the team is playing well?    You don't think Q is doing a good job?    Management is handling the team poorly?   By what fucking measuring stick.    Your hunch?   Your preference?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


.....What? I never said that. Any of that. What is with this kind of reaction?  It isn't only ever either rainbows and blowjobs 100% of the time or the End of Days and Gordon Ramsay eating at a restaurant you own, it's simply an observation on one aspect of what the team is doing.</p>

 

[Ton]

If you really wanted Bollig in the line-up, you can always scratch Frolik... Pirri/Handzus would then replace Frolik on the 4th line and you don't lose any physicality.</p>


 </p>


Either way, none of this is going to happen. Quenneville is not giving Pirri a chance. If anything Morin, Smith, or Hayes will get a shot before Pirri does.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxclland" data-cid="193556" data-time="1367508747">
<div>


Yes you are.  You are putting Pirri on the 2nd line center - which ES is 15-16min a game.  When Handzus, Bolland or even Kruger have played on the second line - that's their ES time.  I tried explaining how minutes are slotted through a coaches mind to give you an idea of how it works in the real world - but that was simply a waste of your time to read or try to understand.</p>


 </p>


Then, you are putting Handzus now to Bollig's role - a 4th line physical winger, that plays 7 min a game.</p>


 </p>


You're idea to - "well, if it doen't work...just move them back" - in a playoff game, not to smart.</p>


 </p>


Yes, you can then "flip" Handzus back to his original role...and now Pirri is a 4th line checking/physical winger.  Which you're essentially saying he would be better suited at than Bollig, Carcillo, Mayers or even Hayes.  Guys that have proven to do that at the professional level for their entire careers.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


No, I'm not putting Handzus to Bollig's role or putting Pirri to Bollig's role, neither of them are that type of player. I would never expect them to be that.  I'm putting Handzus to the role of a 4th line center, which he has been before on this team. If Pirri were to have to be moved down during that ONE game, he wouldn't become Bollig Jr, he would still be the same player he is.</p>


 </p>


The idea that those 7-8 minutes of ice time that would be lost of Brandon Bollig getting involved in scrums, getting a hit or two, maybe making a hockey play or two outweighs the potential of having an actual working 2nd scoring line, I don't get how there would be so many feelings against something like that. And that professional athletes wouldn't be able to handle adjustments to their shifts FOR ONE GAME if it didn't work out.</p>



 </p>

 

[winos5]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="193559" data-time="1367508893">
<div>


.....What? I never said that. Any of that. What is with this kind of reaction?  It isn't only ever either rainbows and blowjobs 100% of the time or the End of Days and Gordon Ramsay eating at a restaurant you own, it's simply an observation on one aspect of what the team is doing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


You said you want Bollig on the bench, Zus on the 4th and an AHL player plugged into the 2nd line during the play-offs.   That's a lot of tinkering with a successfull team just because.    Or did I miss the intent of your post?  </p>