Q wanted "fresh legs" for Game 3

[Shantz My Pants]

Yep, Qs fault for losing a 1 goal game.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Adun]

For me it's obvious that he wanted to put those two ******* back in the line-up and the 3 overtimes gave him an excuse for that.

Or he really thought there was a need for fresh legs and decided to pull the guys that he trusts the least. It's no coincidence that Vermette and TT are always pulled when he wants to tinker around

Or most probably a combination of both

 

[LordKOTL]

Yep blowing up the third line for no apparent reason ... dumb idea.

Screw the third line--Why the smeg did he blow up the 4th line? That line was actually doing something.

Yep, Qs fault for losing a 1 goal game.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

Yes, it is. If Q is all about matchups and gamemanship, then he should have seen that in games 1 and 2 Dejardins/Kruger/Shaw was getting it done. They were giving the Getzlaf line fits and causing matchup issues, thus giving the top lines a bit more room to work. They were going the same job that the 4th lines in 2010 and 2013 were doing--being defenisvly responsible and nullifying the offensive threat--as well as getting the most timely goal in the series when player making 3x the amount they were (on cap AAV) were failing to get it done.

Yet, for some reason, not only did he blow the line up, but he never went back to it throughout the game. Seriously. You would ahve though by about 10 minutes in the third Q qould have dumped Versteeg and Nordstrom with Sharp and put the line back togther since by then even a blonde Goerge W Bush would have seen that they weren't working. But, now, he locked in the controls and steered for the center of the sun.

The fact that we only lost by 1 is more a testament to the team D not being as squirleey and Cumiskey having a pretty decent game (and yes, that was a good decision by Q to keep him in), but really, he had no reason to break up the 4th line in the first place, much less keep it blown up when it was painfully obvious lines 3 and 4 as he had them were dead.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I would say the fact we lost only 2-1 is more a testament to Crawford then our defense who gave up a combined 9 turn overs.

Would I rather see Vermette and Teuvo? Yeah, but Q has his reasons why they didn't play, and I would let place the blame on the coach for the loss.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[HeHateMe]

This thread title is making me crave fresh wings. I got the day off because I came down with my son's cold and it's knocked me on my ass. Maybe I'll ask my wife if she can get some fresh wings from the grocer and see if she'll grill them for me.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Q wanted "fresh legs" for Game 3

If you want to blame anything on Q, and which I think would be fair (though Bowman is to blame as well for not adding better depth), is his lack of playing his 5 and 6th defenseman. All 6 Ducks D played more than 14+ minutes, (14,22,22,23,21). They look fresher.

Remember when everyone said "oh hitting doesn't matter".... Well when your top 4 defenseman are getting beaten up on the forecheck like they are, their going to keep getting physically worn down and account for 7 of the teams 10 turn overs. Q needs to play Cumiskey and Timonen more IMO.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Pez68]

I would say the fact we lost only 2-1 is more a testament to Crawford then our defense who gave up a combined 9 turn overs.

Would I rather see Vermette and Teuvo? Yeah, but Q has his reasons why they didn't play, and I would let place the blame on the coach for the loss.




Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

Congratulations on being the only knowledgeable hockey person I've seen that isn't criticizing Q over this fucking Special person decision. It must be hard to maintain that level of homer through something this idiotic.

If you want to blame anything on Q, and which I think would be fair (though Bowman is to blame as well for not adding better depth), is his lack of playing his 5 and 6th defenseman. All 6 Ducks D played more than 14+ minutes, (14,22,22,23,21). They look fresher.

Remember when everyone said "oh hitting doesn't matter".... Well when your top 4 defenseman are getting beaten up on the forecheck like they are, their going to keep getting physically worn down and account for 7 of the teams 10 turn overs. Q needs to play Cumiskey and Timonen more IMO.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

And Q has nothing to do with that lack of depth?? Strange. I seem to recall Q being completely unwilling to trust defensive call-ups with anything more than 7 minutes a night. During the REGULAR SEASON.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

This thread title is making me crave fresh wings. I got the day off because I came down with my son's cold and it's knocked me on my ass. Maybe I'll ask my wife if she can get some fresh wings from the grocer and see if she'll grill them for me.

Maybe she will get you a whole fresh chicken leg(s)! Make sure it's an organic chicken though. Don't want to get your hormones all out of whack.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Congratulations on being the only knowledgeable hockey person I've seen that isn't criticizing Q over this fucking Special person decision. It must be hard to maintain that level of homer through something this idiotic.

Hahahaha, I watched the game, and it wasn't the lack of Teuvo and Vermette that hurt us. It was the lack of converting on the PP and getting shots on net instead of the Ducks shin guards. When Hossa, Toews and Saad want to start putting the puck in the net (or on it) that'd be great. If our D wasn't turning the puck over so much, that'd be great too. We are talking about a single goal, which was just a tough break that Despres was so wide open (which if Kruger wasn't running around I think could of helped).

Personally, I think Vermette and TT were hurting from the other game on Tuesday and Q isn't saying shit about it because it's the NHL and nobody talks about that shit till the end of the season.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Shantz My Pants]

And Q has nothing to do with that lack of depth?? Strange. I seem to recall Q being completely unwilling to trust defensive call-ups with anything more than 7 minutes a night. During the REGULAR SEASON.

God forbid the players have to earn the coaches trust before they get heavier minutes over 4 established top tier defensemen in the regular season.

Clendening was so great for the Canucks who basically sent him to Utica after some games in the NHL. Dahlbeck basically played because the Coyotes were an AHL at the end of the season.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[DMelt36]

Would I rather see Vermette and Teuvo? Yeah, but Q has his reasons why they didn't play, and I would let place the blame on the coach for the loss.

Oh, I'm sure has his reasons. Doesn't mean they're good ones.

And if the reason is the "fresh legs" argument he told the media last night, it's wholly illogical.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Q wanted "fresh legs" for Game 3

My point is this:

Q takes the blame for taking out Vermette and TT, but he's not on the hook for the whole game and the sole reason we lost like many are crying about and which I disagree with. It's only a small part of the problem.

As I've listed above; Saad, Toews, Hossa and Sharp need to show up offensively. The D need to stop turning the puck over like its a ticking time bomb. Players need to start shooting the puck on net instead of shin pads. Have to give Cumiskey and Timonen more ice time even if it's just 3-4 more shifts as the top 4 need some room to breath.

Nobody is giving the Ducks credit. They've stuck to their game plan of grinding the Hawks down to nothing and being aggressive in the offensive zone and on the forecheck. They've got the players to run that style and their doing it well.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[DMelt36]

The players absolutely must play better, yes. The top line, in particular, hasn't done much of anything this series.

Sharp may have been the biggest loser in this lineup adjustment, because he want from having Vermette and Teuvo as linemates to Shaw and whatever the **** Versteeg is these days.

And you can give the Ducks some credit, but a lot of the Hawks are doing to lose games are self-inflicted wounds, and Q's curious handling of the lineup is just the latest example of that.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

The players absolutely must play better, yes. The top line, in particular, hasn't done much of anything this series.

Sharp may have been the biggest loser in this lineup adjustment, because he want from having Vermette and Teuvo as linemates to Shaw and whatever the **** Versteeg is these days.

And you can give the Ducks some credit, but a lot of the Hawks are doing to lose games are self-inflicted wounds, and Q's curious handling of the lineup is just the latest example of that.

Judging by a lot of posters here, it's all Qs fault.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[mikita's helmet]

hot* daughters

Pirri and Morin did'em and were gone. Rumor is Hayes watched and videotaped it.

 

[HeHateMe]

Congratulations on being the only knowledgeable hockey person I've seen that isn't criticizing Q over this fucking Special person decision. It must be hard to maintain that level of homer through something this idiotic.



And Q has nothing to do with that lack of depth?? Strange. I seem to recall Q being completely unwilling to trust defensive call-ups with anything more than 7 minutes a night. During the REGULAR SEASON.

Spez68, quit spezzing out.

 

[BearsFan51]

So the Hawks scored one goal in game one, two power play goals in the first six minutes of game two and then didn't score again for over five periods and then scored only one goal in game three, at what point does the conversation shift from it's Q's fault to the Ducks' goal tender is REALLY FUCKING GOOD?

 

[HeHateMe]

So the Hawks scored one goal in game one, two power play goals in the first six minutes of game two and then didn't score again for over five periods and then scored only one goal in game three, at what point does the conversation shift from it's Q's fault to the Ducks' goal tender is REALLY FUCKING GOOD?

He's not good. He is just getting lucky at the right time. Do you even watch hockey?

 

[MassHavoc]

I'd rather have tired legs than legs that don't work.

 

[CRM 114]

So the Hawks scored one goal in game one, two power play goals in the first six minutes of game two and then didn't score again for over five periods and then scored only one goal in game three, at what point does the conversation shift from it's Q's fault to the Ducks' goal tender is REALLY FUCKING GOOD?

There's the problem, he's not very good. He's lucky. Ducks have blocked a lot of shots from even reaching him, Hawks have missed the net every other time on the shots that do get through and the ones he does get are usually a result of lucky positioning.

If the Hawks stop shooting themselves in the foot, the goals will start piling on.