Q - hockey newb question #1,466

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
If you take what Q has done in the NHL and compare it to the NBA/NFL he's be considered a genius. Yet I read this board and others and people kill him. Why? People give Thibs, myself included, the benefit of the doubt but he's delivered nothing really. Q has 2 Stanley cups in 4 years and people motherfuck him.

Is this a hockey thing?
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Id say he compared to very well to Tom Coughlin and they both seem treated in a similar way.

They get a lot of extra flack for being conservative and defensive in approach to their sport. Even though they produce all around performances. They're not the greatest but great coaches that learned how to be looser and more flexible after several stints around their leagues.

Cynjcal People will just hang up one their trends as if it's responsible for their failures despite the success it also grants.. Like Q and frequent line shifting. And I bet Tom is on the hotseat to many people this year because his team caved last year.

Sent from my LGL85C using Tapatalk 2
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
Just seems his approach is often criticized despite the results, which I just don't understand. And again, I'm not a big hockey guy, so maybe I'm wrong.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
BTW, I'd honestly love to hear from people who are anti-Q, I want to read the arguments.
 

nwfisch

Hall of Famer
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Nov 12, 2010
Posts:
25,055
Liked Posts:
11,499
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Minnesota United FC
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
I think a lot of the Anti-Q sentiment is from bandwagon fans who know nothing about sports, particularly hockey.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
I think a lot of the Anti-Q sentiment is from bandwagon fans who know nothing about sports, particularly hockey.
I can be considered a bandwagon fan, and I think what Q has done is nothing short of amazing. So I don't understand what your statement really means. I'm not trying to be a dick or argumentative or combative. I'm asking an honest question here.
 

nwfisch

Hall of Famer
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Nov 12, 2010
Posts:
25,055
Liked Posts:
11,499
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Minnesota United FC
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
I can be considered a bandwagon fan, and I think what Q has done is nothing short of amazing. So I don't understand what your statement really means. I'm not trying to be a dick or argumentative or combative. I'm asking an honest question here.
No its an honest question, and maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Most "fans" who have been around pre-2009 know how good Q is and what the Blackhawks were and are appreciating the success currently. "Bandwagon fans" who are also meatballs think the Blackhawks should win every game 82- (-)2 and if they don't "FIRE DAT Q GUY, HE DOESNT HAVE THE PASSIONZ MY FRIENDZ"

In short, most "bandwagon" fans are also meatballs and that's why those people don't like Q. If that makes sense :shrug:

Your a smart guy. You think things out and logically. So You think with your head and your heart, unlike meatball bandwagon fans, if that makes sense.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
No its an honest question, and maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Most "fans" who have been around pre-2009 know how good Q is and what the Blackhawks were and are appreciating the success currently. "Bandwagon fans" who are also meatballs think the Blackhawks should win every game 82- (-)2 and if they don't "FIRE DAT Q GUY, HE DOESNT HAVE THE PASSIONZ MY FRIENDZ"

In short, most "bandwagon" fans are also meatballs and that's why those people don't like Q. If that makes sense :shrug:

Your a smart guy. You think things out and logically. So You think with your head and your heart, unlike meatball bandwagon fans, if that makes sense.
Well I'll be honest, I wasn't a Hawks fan pre-2009 because, as I've mentioned before, they weren't on tv to watch and I didn't grow up with them. So I fully understand that in the eyes of most I'm a bandwagon fan.

I guess what I mean to say is, I read some threads/game threads and I see some Q hate - and I just don't understand why. I fully realize it could be because I don't understand the nuances of the game, but I'm hard pressed to find - maybe Claude Julian and Dan Bylsma - other coaches who have been as successful as recently as Q.

I'd never deny your knowledge of hockey over mine, because it would be a silly argument for me to make. But you haven't really answered my question - why do people who seemingly know a lot about hockey (specifically Blackhawks hockey), not like Q?
 

Jntg4

Fire Forum Moderator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
Posts:
26,017
Liked Posts:
3,297
Location:
Minnesota
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  2. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Fire
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Chicago State Cougars
  2. DePaul Blue Demons
  3. Illinois-Chicago Flames
  4. Loyola Ramblers
  5. Northern Illinois Huskies
  6. Northwestern Wildcats
I think a lot of the Anti-Q sentiment is from bandwagon fans who know nothing about sports, particularly hockey.

You and I got into an argument on Facebook when we went down 3-1 to Detroit because you wanted Q fired...
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
FWIW, since I will openly admit I don't understand the nuances of hockey, maybe I don't understand the criticism of Q. If that is the case, just tell me.
 

nwfisch

Hall of Famer
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Nov 12, 2010
Posts:
25,055
Liked Posts:
11,499
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Minnesota United FC
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
You and I got into an argument on Facebook when we went down 3-1 to Detroit because you wanted Q fired...
I did. Now I'm a believer. Win two championships and its not a fluke.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,718
Id say he compared to very well to Tom Coughlin and they both seem treated in a similar way.

They get a lot of extra flack for being conservative and defensive in approach to their sport. Even though they produce all around performances. They're not the greatest but great coaches that learned how to be looser and more flexible after several stints around their leagues.

Cynjcal People will just hang up one their trends as if it's responsible for their failures despite the success it also grants.. Like Q and frequent line shifting. And I bet Tom is on the hotseat to many people this year because his team caved last year.

Sent from my LGL85C using Tapatalk 2

Why did he take a defensive approach on the road in the 3rd period?.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,718
Well I'll be honest, I wasn't a Hawks fan pre-2009 because, as I've mentioned before, they weren't on tv to watch and I didn't grow up with them. So I fully understand that in the eyes of most I'm a bandwagon fan.

I guess what I mean to say is, I read some threads/game threads and I see some Q hate - and I just don't understand why. I fully realize it could be because I don't understand the nuances of the game, but I'm hard pressed to find - maybe Claude Julian and Dan Bylsma - other coaches who have been as successful as recently as Q.

I'd never deny your knowledge of hockey over mine, because it would be a silly argument for me to make. But you haven't really answered my question - why do people who seemingly know a lot about hockey (specifically Blackhawks hockey), not like Q?

I see Yankees, Heat, Cowgirls in your profile.

So if I ask why you care, do not be offended.

He's too conservative.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
I see Yankees, Heat, Cowgirls in your profile.

So if I ask why you care, do not be offended.

He's too conservative.
Yes, because my username and favorite teams on a message board mean anything.

What does him being too conservative mean. The guy has won 2 cups with your favorite team. So again, I ask - why all the hate?
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Well I'll be honest, I wasn't a Hawks fan pre-2009 because, as I've mentioned before, they weren't on tv to watch and I didn't grow up with them. So I fully understand that in the eyes of most I'm a bandwagon fan.

I guess what I mean to say is, I read some threads/game threads and I see some Q hate - and I just don't understand why. I fully realize it could be because I don't understand the nuances of the game, but I'm hard pressed to find - maybe Claude Julian and Dan Bylsma - other coaches who have been as successful as recently as Q.

I'd never deny your knowledge of hockey over mine, because it would be a silly argument for me to make. But you haven't really answered my question - why do people who seemingly know a lot about hockey (specifically Blackhawks hockey), not like Q?

Bylsma is a guy who has more hate than any coach. You'll find many fans who think he's one of the worst coaches and that stemmed far before the olympics. His is far wider reaching than one fanbase. Idk exactly why not seeing Pittsburgh constantly but he seems to stick rigid to not flexing things much and expecting his team to carry on offensively.

Some common specific reasons fans don't like Q:

Penchant for defensively players over offensive players. (this is legit, but while his teams constantly been amongst the top scoring teams and not ok need of offensive big boosts)

What partly goes hand in hand with this, is people claiming he overly loves Vets over young players. For instance lots of this is used to slam Zeus or Mayers previously. But really defensive ability and PK skill gives them their boosts. He had no qualms playing Saad at 20 in the top 6 despite no scoring production for over a dozen games... Because Saad still brought sold playing without the puck and on D. Better than Stalberg, Bickell, or anyone else who wasn't rising up above him.

People also rag that he always wants an enforcer type body, Bolig, carcillo, John Scott, or brookbank(at wing) over another potential player. That bothers many who deem the player worthless.

An as mentioned before, his line juggling and role matching are details that get criticized by some but praised by others. Sometimes it's finding anything to hate.

Sent from my LGL85C using Tapatalk 2
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Wasn't last year his third cup?

He won as an assistant coach in Colorado in 96-97. He never won as a HC before the Hawks.

As exemplified by Sunbiz, people associate defensive orientated on a top caliber scoring team to conservative to bad coaching decisions.

Sent from my LGL85C using Tapatalk 2
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,766
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
Penchant for defensively players over offensive players. (this is legit, but while his teams constantly been amongst the top scoring teams and not ok need of offensive big boosts)
Isn't that a part of some rule changes? Everybody wants offense, but if he prefers defense I don't understand how that is a bad thing. (As an aside, as a guy just getting into hockey I find the lower scoring games much more appealing)

People also rag that he always wants an enforcer type body, Bolig, carcillo, John Scott, or brookbank(at wing) over another potential player. That bothers many who deem the player worthless.
Well then this makes me wonder about the Toews in Pittsburgh thing. People wanted the Hawks to retaliate, but they don't want these players. Can't have both.

An as mentioned before, his line juggling and role matching are details that get criticized by some but praised by others. Sometimes it's finding anything to hate.
This doesn't seem any different than any other sport.
 

Top