clydesdale line
Connor BeJesus
- Jan 10, 2012
- 25,447
- 24,129
If it's true, we should all take the L on Rundblad. He was atrocious.
Not all of us.
If it's true, we should all take the L on Rundblad. He was atrocious.
Kempny on Chi looked and played like a 5-6.
On Wash, he is playing like a good top 4.
Who really knows if he would be a 5-6 or top 4 on a multitude of other teams.
Placed in a high positive energy situation surrounded by a team on a mission....Chi sure wasn't...he has been able to adjust his game to match his teammates aura.
I'm happy for him that he is being successful but at the time of trade, pretty hard to deny that a 3rd rnd'r wasn't decent value for him.
Steven Heinz sight has jumped into focus quite inflatably now where previously, it ranged from 20-10 thru 20-50. I don't think anyone here can say emphatically they had 20/20 and could see the performance he has brought out, otherwise, why didn't we hear from posters demanding that he should have garnered a 1 st rnd'r or 2 2's or even a 2nd.
Could it be possible that the 3rd was the best offer put forward from amongst interested teams or was Wash the only team that inquired or was contacted of his availability?
Am I defending Bowman/Quennville, not at all but just hi-lighting the sudden zealous infatuation of a player playing/matching the abilities surrounding him.
I sure wish I would have bought BreX or Apple in the 90's.
bolded- which speaks to everything on his deployment and horrible usage. so he played like a 5/6 yet was barely dressed half the damn time?? that is interesting, and I absolutely disagree he played like a 5/6 most nights.
anyone with eyes saw how much better the team was with Kempny in the lineup then outside of it. it was beyond frustrating to see him riding the pine here while others less talented were playing over him. there is no hindsight here, we all *****ed from day 1 that Q was a ****ing idiot not using this guy accurately nor playing him enough.
we were happy we got a 3rd round pick back for a player who Q absolutely destroyed the trade value for, and Washington knew they were getting a solid player and jumped all over getting him. I am happy for Kempny and the success he is having, not even Washington could have hoped for this, but a lot of what you are seeing was there in bits and pieces the past year plus sadly wasted away.
for a team so desperate for defensive help it is absolutely hilarious that the potential Cup champs got a player we barely used and saw in him what he was capable of...if that doesn't tell the story on our coaching staff, not sure what the hell else would.
I'm no Daley fan, but it's not like he was Scuderi bad. That's how much the Hawks killed his value. If it's a one off, I wouldn't care. It happens. However, if you collectively look at the puzzling blue line moves, it doesn't paint a flattering picture.Look at where Kempny was on the ice when he scored that huge goal last night. That's not the first time he's been that deep in the Offensive zone these playoffs either.
I still don't think Daley was ever going to work here and, despite the two Cups haven't been very impressed with him in Pitt, but Q failing to utilize Kempny here is inexcusable considering the sorry state of our D Corps and yet another example of how coaching is killing this club.
The system was dead after it was clear no cup finalists for two years in a row played that uber conservative game plan....it's even far more obvious this year. Management saw that, coaching didn't.
Q is certainly capable of adjusting which is exactly what he did after Bruins/Kings championships and the Hawks not being able to out-grind the Yotes.
Dude hasn't adjusted a damn thing since 2013 though while the league has put him in the rear view mirror.
I hope you mean 2015, or did you want to give back the cup
Oh, I didn't realize we had a dramatic system change from 2013-2015
Again, since 2013 he's made no major changes to how we play the game.
So you are upset that Q didn't change systems during the 2 seasons that resulted in a WCF and a Cup?
I'm not arguing in favor of Q, just that it was dumb to use 2013 as a cutoff.No, not at all, he didn't change a thing when it worked but his game plan only worked with having a clear advantage in the top 9 on paper & on the ice, that way you can grind and have a forward core good enough to capitalize on tough 5v5 opportunities.
.......Then the Blues ground us out in the first round, Nashville laughed us out of the playoffs with 3 goals in 4 games, Pens won two cups with a completely different approach....and last year's disaster....lol while the two cup finalists currently don't play anything resembling post 2013 Q hockey.
I'm not arguing in favor of Q, just that it was dumb to use 2013 as a cutoff.
How so? That's when the Hawks transitioned to a more D focused game and learned to play good hockey when stuck in their own zone...that also helped Crow out a lot, just go back and watch the series versus Phoenix then watch some of the 2013 cup run games, a very different game plan. 2012 we'd have the puck for 15 minutes in a row where Crow would be picking his nose then a little boom/boom play would lead to a Yotes goal. 2013 was a much more patient team focused on neutral zone and defensive positioning first & foremost while using the cycle to create opportunities. Hell, the only reason the same basic style worked for the Kings is some idiot GM threw away his first line! Before that, grind'em down hockey was fodder for teams with little offensive talent.
Dude hasn't adjusted a damn thing since 2013 though while the league has put him in the rear view mirror.
Your original comment was ...
The league clearly hadn't put him in the rear view mirror in 2014 and 2015 as he went to the WCF and won a cup.
Don't forget the rhetoric coming out of the organization before last season "we need to get faster" etc etc. So we ice all this youth and within weeks they've been coached back to the damn wait around in your own zone breakout because we'll generate all our offense off the wall/cycle game plan. The players were fast, the system wasn't.
Meanwhile anyone who's watched the Caps can't help but noticed how many smokin' hot first passes Kempny has made under pressure in his zone to guys on the move in the neutral zone keeping their transition game a challenge for any team, dude does it all game long and to my surprise he's even been a beast at tying guys up around Holtby, what more could you want from a "second pairing" guy? The logic that any Dman who doesn't look like Chris Pronger lite is therefore no good has obviously been erased for some time now.
Some of the rhetoric is so far from what has happened its odd. Q didnt like Forsling, Gus, & Oesterle over Kempny at times because of some physical notion. Making better passes to the neutral zone is a reason each of them were more played. The passing is always what they got more praise by Q from while Kempny didnt.
His talent evaluation is ****ing garbage. Kempny is a better all around defenseman than all three of them. The fact that this is obvious to so many people, except Q, is pretty remarkable.
Is that you Q? or is it Stan?They had 7 defensemen. It would've made no sense to keep them all in a lost season. Kempny drew interest, who knows if the others did or did not draw interest. They all played at the #4-#6 level and would follow up a decent game with a less than decent game yet Kempny is now being made into being some big loss because he's looking like a serviceable #4?! Ridiculous. If Washington had not come back from being down to Columbus, or been same ol' Washington against Pittsburgh are you all still wringing your hands at the trade? Which of the 7 defensemen should've been traded instead? Keep the options to the bottom pairing, non-Seabrook guys.
They had 7 defensemen. It would've made no sense to keep them all in a lost season. Kempny drew interest, who knows if the others did or did not draw interest. They all played at the #4-#6 level and would follow up a decent game with a less than decent game yet Kempny is now being made into being some big loss because he's looking like a serviceable #4?! Ridiculous. If Washington had not come back from being down to Columbus, or been same ol' Washington against Pittsburgh are you all still wringing your hands at the trade? Which of the 7 defensemen should've been traded instead? Keep the options to the bottom pairing, non-Seabrook guys.
Is that you Q? or is it Stan?