DA HAWKS SIGNING DA RUNNING MAN, BOWSTINKISTERRIBLE 2014-2015

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

[Eli]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Yeah, that should have been singular.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

So I'll qualify it a littler more concretely...6 seasons, 4 appearances in the WCF.  They've won 2 and lost 2. The first one they lost was in his first season when nobody expected them to get that far, and the other one was last year wherein they lost in Game 7 in OT and from which would have--most people agree-- won their 3rd cup.  In the other two seasons where they didn't reach the WCF, one was a team that had been gutted, barely got into the playoffs and then nearly came all the way back to stun the #1 seed.  The other was when they got stoned by a super hot goalie (3 OT losses).  In short, even when they don't win, they lose valiantly (compare this to all of the post-SB XX Bears teams that kept stepping on their own dick at home, heading into the offseason with a whimper and never coming close to another championship).

Quenneville's not perfect, but I'd rather stay with the guy who--for all of his seemingly-mystifying moves-- always manages to have the team in a good position to take it all by season's end.  If you wish to argue that they win in spite of him, be my guest--I guess you can't really prove it either way; it's an exercise in futility regardless.  I mean as worthless as Versteeg was in the playoffs--and as good as Morin played down the stretch last year-- nobody can so for sure that they would've won last year had the latter been on the playoff roster and the former had been jettisoned.  As it was, they were a bounce or two away from winning the whole goddamn thing and anyone whose watched as much playoff hockey as we all have the last several years would (should?) agree that it's quite an accomplishment just to win one.  It's a goddamn slog and yet the Hawks always seem to be there toward the end.

And that's not even getting into the whole "devil that you don't know" business with bringing in a new coach.  Criticize Quenneville  all you like, but hoping the guy gets fired is just dumb, I'm sorry.  I'll take my chances with him and live with his more questionable moves.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Yeah, that should have been singular.

1 (championship)  X 3 = 3...had the Hawks won last year, they'd have had 3 times as many championships as the White Sox in the last 50 years (same goes for the Bears)...what am I missing?

[flannj]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

[SKO]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

[Richard Chuggar]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

Hockey now, huh?  Cool.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

No, Quenneville shouldn't get fired. And I'm pretty sure Dineen will be a head coach somewhere else before there's a vacancy in Chicago.

Joel Quenneville - he of over 700 wins and 2 Stanley Cups, and shoo-in for the Hall of Fame - will be coach until he doesn't want to be coach any more. And yes, the roster pretty much ensures that he'll be winning as long as he's here.

And sure, he's maddening at times, but find me a coach/manager in any sport who isn't. At least this one drives us crazy on the way to parades.

[SKO]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

Hey I wasn't saying I agree. I am nowhere near smart enough at hockey to have an opinion. That was just a summation of some of the grief I've seen on Twitter directed at him. I mean I think the CI guys frequently say something to the effect of "remember Quenneville cost them the cup last year". At least it feels like it to me.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

Hey I wasn't saying I agree. I am nowhere near smart enough at hockey to have an opinion. That was just a summation of some of the grief I've seen on Twitter directed at him. I mean I think the CI guys frequently say something to the effect of "remember Quenneville cost them the cup last year". At least it feels like it to me.

The CI guys love to heap it on Q for last year's missing the Final by a fluke goal - and yes, a big part of that was the fact that Sutter could roll 4 lines while Queneville rolled three. But the fact that Brandon Bollig had just signed a three-year deal, Michal Handzus was re-signed, and Kris Versteeg was there at all is on Stan Bowman. Sure, Q could have dressed Peter Regin, Jeremy Morin and another warm body in the playoffs (where there's no salary cap), but I'm not sure the outcome would have been any different.

[SKO]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

Hey I wasn't saying I agree. I am nowhere near smart enough at hockey to have an opinion. That was just a summation of some of the grief I've seen on Twitter directed at him. I mean I think the CI guys frequently say something to the effect of "remember Quenneville cost them the cup last year". At least it feels like it to me.

The CI guys love to heap it on Q for last year's missing the Final by a fluke goal - and yes, a big part of that was the fact that Sutter could roll 4 lines while Queneville rolled three. But the fact that Brandon Bollig had just signed a three-year deal, Michal Handzus was re-signed, and Kris Versteeg was there at all is on Stan Bowman. Sure, Q could have dressed Peter Regin, Jeremy Morin and another warm body in the playoffs (where there's no salary cap), but I'm not sure the outcome would have been any different.

I accept this explanation. I STAND WITH Q UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE SAYS I SHOULDN'T.

[Slaky]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

I know he can be aggravating but I'll take my chances with him as opposed to bringing in someone else who could just as conceivably turf the whole goddamn thing.

I didn't peg Huard as a "HOW MANY CUPS" guy.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

That's quite the qualifier. And not that it matters at all in judging his coaching, but I assume you're forgetting the White Sox championships.

I'm discounting Stew, as I'm pretty sure he's the only one here born before 1960.

Hey I was 5 months old!

I took this discussion as CT and Slaky were kidding.
Most here are far more knowledgeable about hockey than me, are there really those among us that think Q should be fired?

I think there's a general feeling that his lineup decisions are very odd, anti-logic, that he doesn't pair Kane and Toews up enough, that his mismanagement of the roster is a big reason why they were even "a cunt hair away" from the SCF instead of just ahead of the Kings by a mile, and there's a feeling of "how long does the two cup wins thing excuse the fact that he might be blowing their chances at more". I don't know if anyone's just outright "FIRE HIM" yet but the mood seems to be that he's not doing a great job and is running out of slack.

That's some serious Fro-logic right there.

Winning a championship in any sport is difficult.  To expect that the Hawks to have done so easily is glow-in-the-dark stupid.  The Kings are pretty fucking good themselves. 

Hey I wasn't saying I agree. I am nowhere near smart enough at hockey to have an opinion. That was just a summation of some of the grief I've seen on Twitter directed at him. I mean I think the CI guys frequently say something to the effect of "remember Quenneville cost them the cup last year". At least it feels like it to me.

The CI guys love to heap it on Q for last year's missing the Final by a fluke goal - and yes, a big part of that was the fact that Sutter could roll 4 lines while Queneville rolled three. But the fact that Brandon Bollig had just signed a three-year deal, Michal Handzus was re-signed, and Kris Versteeg was there at all is on Stan Bowman. Sure, Q could have dressed Peter Regin, Jeremy Morin and another warm body in the playoffs (where there's no salary cap), but I'm not sure the outcome would have been any different.

I accept this explanation. I STAND WITH Q UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE SAYS I SHOULDN'T.

Of course, if Mike Babcock wants to become Joe Maddon on skates, I wouldn't say no.

[SKO]

Yeah fire the coach who's come within one red cunt hair away from winning three championships--which is 3 times as many non-Bulls championships in this town as any other team in our lifetime.  

I know he can be aggravating but I'll take my chances with him as opposed to bringing in someone else who could just as conceivably turf the whole goddamn thing.

I didn't peg Huard as a "HOW MANY CUPS" guy.

*sits back gleefully waiting for Huard to respond in Huard fashion*