Jump to content

NEXT COACH should be? mega thread ...


Zamboni

Recommended Posts

I think it would be like saying that you wanted Connor Sheary as your #1 LW.  He has a proven level of competence at the NHL level, but we also know his ceiling and it's simply not as a #1 LW (or in Martin's case, as a HC of a Stanley Cup contender).  His ceiling is known, and we should shoot for better than that.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Eleven said:

That and a lack of professional distance from Botterill.

Yes. This is absolutely a serious lack of courage and imagination on Botterill's part, especially if he makes the hire.

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

Were his rosters consistently constructed for real success?

Dunno. If they were, that just makes his record worse.

Edited by ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

Were his rosters consistently constructed for real success?

He had a few good Ottawa teams that underachieved and his first Montreal squad overachieved.

But overall, no.

Its the coaching equivalent of re-signing Jason Pominville.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Curtisp5286 said:

Legitimate question:  Why is Jacques Martin a bad coaching choice?  I want actual reasons relating directly to Martin himself.

Just to clarify, I’m not in favor of Martin, but I would like to hear actual opinions of him as a coach.

My earlier post was not to say I'm for or against his being hired. Simply saying he meets the criteria of what people have been talking about. Experience as head coach. Has, in spite of some posts, won and been even awarded as coach of year in his past I believe. Whether he's my choice or I'd prefer someone else is irrelevant to the fact he seems to check most boxes of what we're saying they will look for. By the way, when I posted questioning if Babcock is a great coach or a good coach I said you need to see the talent he's had to work with. When coaching talented teams Martin won a lot. Babcock won a lot but his playoff record is questionable. Record wise they've both been good coaches.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ... said:

Older re-re-re-tread with no history of real success.

Wrong about "no history of success". Older? Correct. 're-'re-'re-retread? Correct. Sounds like most former head coaches respected enough to have stayed in the business for a long period. The question is do you want new face or experienced? Both have their proponents and those opposed to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Radar said:

My earlier post was not to say I'm for or against his being hired. Simply saying he meets the criteria of what people have been talking about. Experience as head coach. Has, in spite of some posts, won and been even awarded as coach of year in his past I believe. Whether he's my choice or I'd prefer someone else is irrelevant to the fact he seems to check most boxes of what we're saying they will look for. By the way, when I posted questioning if Babcock is a great coach or a good coach I said you need to see the talent he's had to work with. When coaching talented teams Martin won a lot. Babcock won a lot but his playoff record is questionable. Record wise they've both been good coaches.

Dan Dylsma won coach of the year and a Stanley Cup and I wouldn't let him coach me to order a pizza. 

But in all seriousness, I like the idea of a new coach over some older coach who has experience. Just because you have experience doesn't mean you are better or good at your job. He hasn't been a head coach since 2012 I think. Why is that? There have been lots of coaching changes and yet he was not given another shot. Some people are good assistants but as we found out with Housley, they don't make good head coaches. I would rather go younger with more recent head coaching experience. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Dan Dylsma won coach of the year and a Stanley Cup and I wouldn't let him coach me to order a pizza. 

But in all seriousness, I like the idea of a new coach over some older coach who has experience. Just because you have experience doesn't mean you are better or good at your job. He hasn't been a head coach since 2012 I think. Why is that? There have been lots of coaching changes and yet he was not given another shot. Some people are good assistants but as we found out with Housley, they don't make good head coaches. I would rather go younger with more recent head coaching experience. 

Rikard Grönborg ? did u listen to the interview?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I think it would be like saying that you wanted Connor Sheary as your #1 LW.  He has a proven level of competence at the NHL level, but we also know his ceiling and it's simply not as a #1 LW (or in Martin's case, as a HC of a Stanley Cup contender).  His ceiling is known, and we should shoot for better than that.

Okay. Then give us the names you have in mind of the Stanley cup contending coach looking for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Radar said:

Wrong about "no history of success". Older? Correct. 're-'re-'re-retread? Correct. Sounds like most former head coaches respected enough to have stayed in the business for a long period. The question is do you want new face or experienced? Both have their proponents and those opposed to them.

STL 1986–87 80 32 33 15 79 1st in Norris 2 4 .333 Lost in First round
STL 1987–88 80 34 38 8 76 2nd in Norris 5 5 .500 Lost in Second round
OTT 1995–96 38 10 24 4 (41) 6th in Northeast 0 0 Missed Playoffs
OTT 1996–97 82 31 36 15 77 3rd in Northeast 3 4 .429 Lost in First round
OTT 1997–98 82 34 33 15 - 83 5th in Northeast 5 6 .455 Lost in Second round
OTT 1998–99 82 44 23 15 - 103 1st in Northeast 0 4 .000 Lost in First round
OTT 1999–2000 82 41 28 11 2 95 2nd in Northeast 2 4 .333 Lost in First round
OTT 2000–01 82 48 21 9 4 109 1st in Northeast 0 4 .000 Lost in First round
OTT 2001–02 80 38 26 9 7 94 3rd in Northeast 7 5 .583 Lost in Second round
OTT 2002–03 82 52 21 8 1 113 1st in Northeast 11 7 .611 Lost in Conf. Finals
OTT 2003–04 82 43 23 10 6 102 3rd in Northeast 3 4 .429 Lost in First round
FLA 2005–06 82 37 34 11 85 4th in Southeast 0 0 Missed Playoffs
FLA 2006–07 82 35 31 16 86 4th in Southeast 0 0 Missed Playoffs
FLA 2007–08 82 38 35 9 85 3rd in Southeast 0 0 Missed Playoffs
MTL 2009–10 82 39 33 10 88 4th in Northeast 9 10 .474 Lost in Conf. Finals
MTL 2010–11 82 44 30 8 96 2nd in Northeast 3 4 .429 Lost in First round
MTL 2011–12 32 13 12 7 (78) 5th in Northeast - - - (fired)

 

I don't see any Stanley Cups there. Lots of first round exits. Probably very similar to Lindy's record.

Unless he's an actual proponent of using advanced stats as a tool, and actually uses them, I'd prefer to take a chance on a "modern" style coach.  

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Dan Dylsma won coach of the year and a Stanley Cup and I wouldn't let him coach me to order a pizza. 

But in all seriousness, I like the idea of a new coach over some older coach who has experience. Just because you have experience doesn't mean you are better or good at your job. He hasn't been a head coach since 2012 I think. Why is that? There have been lots of coaching changes and yet he was not given another shot. Some people are good assistants but as we found out with Housley, they don't make good head coaches. I would rather go younger with more recent head coaching experience. 

You make good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Radar said:

Names of your choices with detailed reasons please?

There is an entire thread with some of this info. We spent a full page on Sheldon Keefe I am fairly certain. 

https://theathletic.com/935158/2019/04/21/top-candidates-to-fill-nhl-coaching-vacancies-from-the-big-names-to-the-lesser-known/

Edited by LGR4GM
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

There is an entire thread with some of this info. We spent a full page on Sheldon Keefe I am fairly certain. 

Experienced, contended for Stanley cup? I'm not putting down Keefe. Just made the point that he's not experienced as a head coach but Martin is. Frankly I'd be okay with young guy like Keefe but I go back to the criteria we've speculated they will look for matches Martin more so than Keefe. Maybe their not looking for experience as a head NHL head coach but I was commenting based upon hearing those reports.

8 minutes ago, ... said:

Dude, there's 27 pages of that.

Thanks, Dude. Personally I hate that description but since you chose to use it.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Radar said:

Experienced, contended for Stanley cup? I'm not putting down Keefe. Just made the point that he's not experienced as a head coach but Martin is. Frankly I'd be okay with young guy like Keefe but I go back to the criteria we've speculated they will look for matches Martin more so than Keefe. Maybe their not looking for experience as a head NHL head coach but I was commenting based upon hearing those reports.

Thanks, Dude. Personally I hate that description but since you chose to use it.......

Keefe has been a head coach for the last 4 years at the professional level. He has been a head coach more recently than Martin. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kas23 said:

Unfortunately, I just JBotts knows he’s on the hot seat now. This is his last coaching hire. People in these types of situations usually act differently than they did when they were hired. There’s no more taking chances, like Housley. I bet he goes for a self-preservation safe pick, like JM. He’s not spectacular or a sexy pick, but he won’t likely get you fired because they’ll make the playoffs (and that’s about it). 

It's always funny to me how risk is framed. Martin is safe because he was a head coach who made the playoffs in the past. But that past was a decade ago. The guy hasn't been a head coach in 8 years. Eight! There's a huge risk to hiring him. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Keefe has been a head coach for the last 4 years at the professional level. He has been a head coach more recently than Martin. 

Okay. That's why I qualified my remarks NHL head coaching experience. Look I never endorsed hiring or not hiring any one. I think my posts were objective comments but seem to have been met by an assumption I'm advocating Martin. I'm not.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Radar said:

Okay. That's why I qualified my remarks NHL head coaching experience. Look I never endorsed hiring or not hiring any one. I think my posts were objective comments but seem to have been met by an assumption I'm advocating Martin. I'm not.

I know you aren't. I was just contrasting head coaching experience. Keefe has been a head coach more recently at a professional level. I think many view Martin as a failed head coach that we shouldn't give a 4th chance to. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the equivalent of the Bills hiring Dick Jauron.  JBot will be on the curb in two years, Jack will be 25 and we will be starting our 4th rebuild in 10 years.  Rinse repeat... Buffalo Sports main problem is not a curse, but a refusal to hire competent progressive management.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...