Blackhawks, Joel Quenneville Agree On 3-Year Extension

On Friday afternoon, the Chicago Blackhawks announced a three-year contract extension for Head Coach Joel Quenneville, which runs through the end of the 2016-17 season.

Since Quenneville took over as head coach on Oct. 16, 2008, the Blackhawks have a record of 222-106-44 and have won two Stanley Cups.

Q

This entry was posted in Here come the Hawks... and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Blackhawks, Joel Quenneville Agree On 3-Year Extension

  1. Clawsun says:

    Well deserved!!

  2. Kyle says:

    Dat moustache….

  3. EbonyRaptor says:

    Q-stache
    Gets his cash

    Cool

  4. Sr. Brad says:

    Its a great mix because Q is a great teacher and this organization moving forward is all about bringing up new faces every year. Q has a tough side which every coach must have to push players to another level, at the same time, he understands and rewards veterans for giving their all…this we need now is a powerplay.

  5. John Wangsauce says:

    Dat chin dimple.

    When will Q be mentioned in the same breath as Babcock?

  6. Tim G says:

    Babcock’s Win %, and Points % are both a good amount higher than Q’s…

    That said, Q does have the 2-1 Cup egde, albeit in more games.

    If Q gets a 3rd before Babcock gets a 2nd, I think they will be on the same page in the eyes of the hockey world, but right now, Babs gets a slight favor.

  7. Tab Bamford says:

    Tim wants to point at Babcock’s win pct & pts pct as being “a good amount higher than Q,” but let’s take a step back from that for a moment.

    As the head coach of the Detroit Red Wings, Mike Babcock has a 60.45 win pct & a 66.56 pts pct.
    As the head coach of the Chicago Blackhawks, Joel Quenneville has a 59.68 win pct & a 65.50 pts pct.

    “A good amount higher” – no.

    Let’s also remember that the Red Wings team Babcock inherited in 2005 had four 80-point producers in Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Shanahan & Lidstrom, and also had Yzerman & Chelios still skating. When Quenneville took over on the Hawks’ bench, he inherited a team with a teenage captain that hadn’t been in the playoffs in a decade. There’s a difference between an offense led by 4 Hall of Famers and one led by Martin Havlat.

    If we look at current coaching stops, I would argue Quenneville has been the better of the two. And I haven’t mentioned the TWO rings Quenneville has won yet.

    Please understand that I’m not taking anything away from Babcock as a coach; he’s one of the best in the world. And the job he did with the Wings in 2013 was arguably his best yet. But there really isn’t an enormous separation between Quenneville & Babcock.

  8. Peter says:

    I never really thought Q was an elite coach until this year and I put some thought into it.

    Q had to deal with major on-ice changes the season after the 1st cup. He had to count on the likes of Fernando Pisani and Ryan Johnson (whom I thought could play well on a PK/4th line center/FO% role). The team struggled mightily, but made it to the playoffs as and 8th seed and was potentially a Chris Campoli turnover away from beating the Canucks in 7 games. Additionally, before the season one assistant coach changed (Kitchen for Torchetti (went to another team)).

    2011-2012 saw the Blackhawks on ice performance improve to a 6th seed in the West. While we faced a higher seeded team in the playoffs, I think I remember most “experts” giving the Blackhawks the edge. We lost due to a hot goalie and Raffi Torres being agregious in his hits (yet again). I think Q did all right that year, I firmly believe the hit did more to the team than only losing Hossa.

    2013 the Blackhawks changed one assistant (Kompon for Haviland…PP still sucks). I am sure Q and the front office discussed this, but the plan for this season was flawless with a practice schedule that emphasized rest and preparedness. Q has to be given some credit for this. Additionally there was the point streak which he did help earn. Finally, the playoffs this year really had me elevate my opinion of Q. He could look like he got totally pantsed in some games. I mean really look bad, but if we notice he would do some line changes see if he could spark his team. Maybe it wouldn’t work for one game, but then he got tape on that combination and could make further adjustments for the next game. Stretching the defense against Detroit by leaking a forward or having his d men not go stick to stick to stick when the opponents thought that was coming was good strategizing on his part.

    My opinion of him has really changed. He is probably the best Hawk coach since D. Sutter or Keenan (although rosters didn’t help the coaches in between them). We are lucky to have him. I am glad he got the extension…he deserved it.

  9. Tim G says:

    You are very correct Tab in the sense for current coaching stops, and yes, I dont want to discount the fact that Babs inherited a very good lineup. I didn’t mean to be misleading with my post, because i agree with every you posted lol.

    I was just looking at it as career #’s and that is what the Causal eye or “mainstream media eye” looksat. Since that is what they see, i can undersatand why so Q “isn’t in that conversation” to some people . As Hawks fans, and seeing Q day in day out, we know what type of coach he is and how great of an assest he is to our franchise.

    I was just thinking that it will take that one more ring for “everyone” to see Q on the same level as Babs, because when you just look at numbers (which dont tell the whole story), Babs has a “perceived advantage”.

  10. Mike says:

    I think you could make a reasonable argument that Q is the more successful coach. The stats are so close as Tab points out. The difference, I think, is that Q has instilled his players to be, by and large, overachievers. Babcock, especially the past 3 or 4 years, has had to deal with more underachievers than the Hawks. The “Scotty Bowman” effect is fading in Detroit while it is growing in Chicago.

  11. Sr. Brad says:

    Great post Peter…I agree the thing that was truly elite about Q this year, was how he responded, and thus the team, after those games when we were outcoached. Without exception, he responded to what was being done, and then threw new wrinkles for the oppostion coach to deal with. He made this talented, “undersized” group hard to play against, and put enormous pressure to bear on the oppostion, including Boston. That’s impressive coaching. Honestly, the PP thing is the only component that is missing…and what’s funny is that Q knows exactly what’s makes a good PP…quick puck movement, guys in front of the net, and lots of shots…how we can be so bad is really beyond me. But something for everyone to consider is that Jeremy Morin scored a number of PP goals in Rockford because he crashes the net fearlessly…and he may become a key component to our group…also Adam Clendening is a true PP QB…he wants the puck and he has no problems bringing it into the opposition zone…Duncan Keith strikes me as a guy that doesn’t want anything to do with the puck.

  12. Ratboy36isaleaf says:

    Q is elite,he is a line juggling master.He is without a doubt the best coach the Hawks have had since Keenan.With that said,see you all at the convention.

  13. Milton says:

    Babcock is a dirty coach. He encourages his players to try to get away with violating the rules and if the refs don’t call it, his team gets a huge advantage. What Zetterberg did to Toew was certainly not within the rules of the game. Q would NEVER allow his players to play like that.

  14. Mike says:

    Speaking of Q and next season….ESPN Chicago ran a story about Saad working out at 2C. While I do not hate this idea I not sure I understand why. Maybe because the Hawks have a lot of depth at LW. Hawks have a logjam at center albeit without a true 2C, so the job is up for grabs. So IF you work Saad at center and line up Toews, Saad, Shaw and Kruger it leaves Zues as your 5th center. Pirri, McNiell and LeBlanc would remain in Rockford or be used as trade bait. Camp and PreSeason should be interesting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>