2023-2024 Coaching/Management/Ownership
- Thread starter Static
- Start date
190Octane
Registered User
After reading this thread… has anyone seen hockey duckie and Dan Wood in the same room ever?
One caveat that I think should be emphasized here is that Pat has constantly used the language "in the discussion to push for the playoffs". I don't think we should take that as him saying that he wants playoffs next season, but rather that he wants us to progress to where we're in the mix.
The latter is probably more realistic and we as fans should temper our expectations accordingly.
The latter is probably more realistic and we as fans should temper our expectations accordingly.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,401
- 35,735
As long as we’re somewhat competitive next year I’m happy…. If the offense takes a nice jump, defense overall looks better and pk/pp take steps up
Sounds like Pat will be bringing in quality in the offseason, like Killorn and Gudas last offseason. I think it gives Pat quite a bit of leverage towards the team to demand better.
If they get another scoring winger and a top4 right handed defenseman, and from his quotes, another move to spice up the bottom 6, then the roster would essentially be complete. If those moved fail to get results it would be time to look at the core players along with coaching and changes that would have to be made. So Verbeek, to me, is right on course.
If next year we end up clearly outside, like bottom 5 again, but Verbeek shakes the core up with, let's just say Terry and Zegras in moves to bring in players more suited to their identity, would you consider it the right thing to do? After all, his vision is what they wanted, he's the ownerships choice, or should he look for a style to maximize his roster even if he finds it flawed? Are you as a fan fine with heartbreak for results?
If they get another scoring winger and a top4 right handed defenseman, and from his quotes, another move to spice up the bottom 6, then the roster would essentially be complete. If those moved fail to get results it would be time to look at the core players along with coaching and changes that would have to be made. So Verbeek, to me, is right on course.
If next year we end up clearly outside, like bottom 5 again, but Verbeek shakes the core up with, let's just say Terry and Zegras in moves to bring in players more suited to their identity, would you consider it the right thing to do? After all, his vision is what they wanted, he's the ownerships choice, or should he look for a style to maximize his roster even if he finds it flawed? Are you as a fan fine with heartbreak for results?
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
I took lose them to mean that the relationship would be damaged, as in being pissed and not listening, because benching is fairly drastic. If true, that says something about whom they chose to bench.
anezthes
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2014
- 4,462
- 2,484
Justice for all!
KelVarnsen
Registered User
Not under Cronin.....seemed like he only benched young guys even though the "Vets" were taking stupid penalties as well.
I think you're right, but maybe not for the reasons you're implying (if I am inferring your point correctly - please let me know if I'm wrong). I also took Cronin's statement that way, that benching guys is a drastic measure, and if you use it improperly, it can sour the relationship between the player and the coach/organization. We've certainly seen that in players who have asked out of other organizations.
But the fact that Cronin only really used that tool against Zegras and Mctavish tells me that A) he thinks it will do the most good for those players in changing their behavior and B) he thinks those players can handle it without holding a grudge against the organization. The latter is actually a compliment to those players and says that Cronin is confident that their relationship won't be ruined by some tough love.
As a coach, there are a bunch of factors that go into how you discipline players. It may not look fair to the outside, but internally, there are legitimate reasons to hold some players to higher standards and punish them differently.
The only time, in my memory, that Cronin benched someone for taking a penalty was when he benched Zegras after Zegras took the unsportsmanlike penalty following the interference penalty. It was when Zegras went ballistic on the referee in a close game and hurt the team.
I don't think Cronin ever benched anyone for taking too many physical penalties. When Zegras was benched the first time, it was for several awful shifts in a row where he was careless with the puck and his backchecking effort was questionable. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall McTavish's benching was him just being generally bad all the way around; I don't remember it being tied to penalties. All that to say, people here have commented a ton about Cronin not benching veterans for taking stupid penalties when the truth (if my memory is correct) is that he only ever benched one player for taking a stupid penalty, and it was of a different type than most of the stupid penalties players were taking.
I think Cronin's quote indicates that he realizes perhaps he SHOULD have benched some players for poor play, which is a good sign. It means he understands he didn't do everything right and, now that he and the players have more knowledge of each other, he feels he has more tools at his disposal to increase accountability. To get back to my point above, I think his benching of Zegras means Cronin has a BETTER relationship with him than other players because he felt he could use that punishment without irreparably damaging their rapport.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
I agree with your take. But I'm also left scratching my head as to why PV intentionally brings in a coach know for holding guys accountable and then fears the results of doing so, to the extent of not holding them accountable? Did he hire the wrong "accountability" coach? Did he take the wrong approach to developing the kids?
Or there are other ways he held them accountable that we did not see. We see these guys for 2.5 hours on game days; there are many, many other hours when they are together. We are not privy to what gets said or done during those times.I agree with your take. But I'm also left scratching my head as to why PV intentionally brings in a coach know for holding guys accountable and then fears the results of doing so, to the extent of not holding them accountable? Did he hire the wrong "accountability" coach? Did he take the wrong approach to developing the kids?
My interpretation of this is that Cronin, despite making the effort to go talk to a lot of these guys last summer, did not feel entirely comfortable in throwing the whole disciplinary book at them so early in their relationship. That's understandable - he's a brand new NHL coach for a brand new organization. It's not great because it might have hampered accountability, but it sounds like Cronin understands that and will be more prepared to use his entire toolbox next season now that he has a better understanding of all of his players.
I think next season will tell us a lot about Cronin's long-term viability as a head coach. I don't think he should get a complete pass for this season - there are a lot of things that we should, rightly, question about how he managed the team. But I think there are also a lot of things we didn't see, and I'm encouraged that Cronin seems to understand he needs to be better and has a plan to do so.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I agree with your take. But I'm also left scratching my head as to why PV intentionally brings in a coach know for holding guys accountable and then fears the results of doing so, to the extent of not holding them accountable? Did he hire the wrong "accountability" coach? Did he take the wrong approach to developing the kids?
We keep hearing this word accountability to find out after the season there wasn't any for the team, just one person in particular. More Verbeekanisms.
- This club is ready to take the next steps b/c they have players in the NHL, young players, and players on the way. Then at the TDL, blows the team up.
- Last year, Verbeek expected to be at .500 to start the season. This year, it's pretty quiet and Verbeek is happy with the same progression on points from last season.
- Verbeek cited he prefers overripen prospects and then proceeds to rush several prospects in Carlsson, Minty, and Luneau.
- Verbeek prefers defensemen to stay on their shooting side. Then trades away RD Drysdale to utilize LD LaCombe and LD Zellweger on the left side. LaCombe, Zell, and Hinds have been playing RD exclusively before going pro. Zell and Hinds are often playing the RD in San Diego.
- Verbeek doesn't want to give the C out to any veterans and withholding it for a youth. Two years later, no youths have stepped up for the C, but Verbeek is planning on awarding the C to someone this summer.
- Verbeek stated he's happy with the competitiveness at this year's Migration event. From Verbeek's latest podcast post-season, he wants more competitiveness consistency for all three periods.
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
I wasn't implying anything specific, there are a number of things that choice could say. It could be the rosy thing you inferred, or it could be that they were reckless with Z because they didn't care how the relationship would respond or because they felt he so badly needed correction that it was worth the risk, or maybe Cronin started benching kids and PV stepped in and said "woah, let's consider the risks," and so stopped Cronin before he could establish a standard in that way. Or maybe PV green-lit this sort of thing for Z but not for others.
But, most of the reasons I can think of for Z being singled out suggest that there's something unique about the approach to Z, so in that way the worries about a double standard are validated. That said, both Cronin and Z have said that they have a good relationship and we don't have much good reason to doubt it, so maybe it's not the end of the world.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I dunno about your interpretation. We got Verbeek saying when Cronin first arrived, the players were drinking fire from a hose type description. In the post-season interviews/tweets, Cronin (or someone) said they all know what to expect now and they'll be able to move forward faster. That doesn't sound like Cronin was holding back.
Although Cronin's a rookie head coach, he's been in the NHL for over a decade as an assistant coach and he's been the head coach for the NCAA as well as AHL programs. To see an interpretation that Cronin's timid with discipline means he talked his way onto the job like Verbeek said to the owners the next step is to make the club competitive just to blow the team up at the TDL.
branmuffin17
Registered User
I am personally more okay with moving Terry than moving Z. I'm okay with potential heartbreak. There's nothing guaranteed in sports. Every team is going to have flaws, and even moves that might look like they're perfect might not work out.
I have high hopes for exciting and competitive hockey next season. I wish they could move away from man-on-man D, but in generally getting more mobile overall (on both front and back end), there should be both more speed and more skill.
I'm okay still experimenting more with forwards in the system. I think if we can just get one good top 4 shutdown D we'd be generally good to go without blocking too many potential spots going forward.
Deuce22
Registered User
A couple of things. Based on their play in the NHL, Minty and Leo weren't "rushed." The Drysdale for Cutter trade was amazing for the Ducks. You have the ability to turn good moves by Verbeek into negatives.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
There's no negative implication in acquiring Cutter. Although, it seems you have a problem with facts. It is a fact that Verbeek wants d-men on their shooting side, but Verbeek created a situation that left him using LD's as RD's. We're using Verbeek's standards, not mine. I'm perfectly fine with LaCombe and Zell on the right side b/c that is what they've been playing for years before going pro. If Murray were the GM, I don't think shooting side matters to him b/c he's set on having an OFD-DFD or 2WD-DFD pairing.
Showing the hypocrisy of the GM via facts isn't a negative implication on acquiring Cutter. Every Duck fan is in love with Cutter. The hypocrisy of d-men staying on their shooting side and acquiring Cutter are separate ideas that you happen to mix together b/c agenda is on your mind.
BTW, Verbeek just stated in his Beeker podcast that he's looking for a top-6RD. Why? Because he traded a top-4RD in Drysdale and lost RD Lyubushkin. Someone or two will be bumped out of the lineup with a new RD acquisition. Zell is currently playing RD with Fowler. If Zell moves to LD, then LaCombe will be on the bench along with Vaak, or are we keeping RD Lindstrom over Vaak. Which could also mean RD Luneau might be in the AHL, unless he's the 8th extra d-man over Vaak and Lindstrom. I guess Verbeek is adamant about a defenseman staying on their shooting side.
In the draft, my preference is RD Lev as our first choice after Celebrini. Why? B/c I'm following the standard our GM set upon the org. Yet, LD Dickinson is my second choice b/c I prefer defensively inclined d-man over OFD's and we can shift Zell or LaCombe to the right side - but I don't think Verbeek thinks that way.
Minty and Leo were rushed.
That whole "load mgmt" program for Leo was shit. And after you agreed that Cronin stifled our offense in a different thread, your support that Leo wasn't rushed weakens.
Keeping Leo with Orebro and having Lekkerimaki as his RW would have had a great season! Orebro developed Leo into the #2 pick in the draft and Orebro was in the playoffs where Leo scored 9 pts in 13 games. That's a great environment for learning 1C, especially since it's the same staff that Carlsson has had for the past two seasons.
Minty's play suffered when he got boosted into a top-4 role.
| Minty | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Game Set | Games | G | A | Pts | +/- | Hit | Blocks | Pair | |
| 1 to 63 | 63 | 4 | 24 | 28 | -20 | 85 | 65 | . | |
| 1 to 20 | 20 | 1 | 10 | 11 | -1 | 30 | 24 | Lybush 3rd pair | |
| 21 to 40 | 20 | 1 | 7 | 8 | -10 | 26 | 19 | Lyubush, 2nd P, injury | |
| 41 to 47 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -2 | 10 | 2 | Lyubush, 2P/3P | |
| 48 to 55 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | -5 | 6 | 13 | Gudas, top pair | |
| 56 to 62 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 11 | 7 | LaCombe, 2P | |
| 63 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 0 | Lindstrom, 2P |
In a Ducks' podcast, both Leo and Minty admitted they had to play through injury. And that that was the first time they've been introduced into it. Minty got injured twice in a year, missing 19 games. I know Leo's been injured through out the season too, including a concussion as an 18-year old. These are not overripen prospects. In fact, physically, they still were underdeveloped. LaCombe played 71 games and the reason he didn't play 82 games is because he was put into a d-man roster rotation, not because of injury.
Deuce22
Registered User
Regarding the trade, the implication of your post was that Drysdale's being traded meant Zell and LaCombe had to play on their off side. So what? I'd rather have Verbeek spewing his BS while improving the roster than following through on what he said to the media. I like Levshunov as well and would hope he's the pick if not picking first. Don't agree that Leo and Minty were rushed. Both proved they could play at the NHL level and gained valuable experience that SHL or AHL couldn't match. Both are far ahead now of where they would have been w/out NHL time. Assuming they wouldn't have been injured elsewhere is faulty. Stop taking Verbeek at his word and your frustration will lessen.
Last edited:
My hopium is that he knows he's going to fire at least one of them and is deciding whether or not to completely clean house with assistant coaches or just make small changes
When it comes to double standards in coaching, it's really, really difficult for us to tell if that's the case without being inside the locker room at games and practices and without reading/hearing the communications with players. Different players have different goals and different weaknesses. Different players respond differently to discipline. As long as standards and expectations have been clearly set and communicated, I don't see punishing one player differently as inconsistent.
But we have no way of knowing. I tend to give coaches the benefit of the doubt until and unless we see obvious effects of a bad environment (like when the team obviously quit on Carlyle in 2019). It doesn't sound like Zegras wants out, so I assume the relationship is good at this point.
70sSanO
Registered User
So far most of what Verbeek has done have been good moves. The one bad move, possibly perceived a desperate need for a center was Ryan Strome. Since that time we have a plethora of quality centers, as well as pinatas, and Strome is at best a 3rd line center and at worst a wing. Killorn contract will continue to a question mark, but Vatrano has exceeded all expectations.
The Lindholm will always be debated, but we have an equal plethora of LHD and it was a good move for Lindholm. I'm glad he has a legitimate chance to get a cup. Something that may never happen if he stayed.
Cronin is another subject. At first I thought he might be a welcome change, but as time has gone on, I don't see him being able to guide this team to its full potential. I think he lacks the vision to utilize the young talent and in pressure situations tends to fall back on preconceived notions of how things should be done. Maybe the worst of all worlds is having a veteran coach that has no veteran NHL experience.
John
The Lindholm will always be debated, but we have an equal plethora of LHD and it was a good move for Lindholm. I'm glad he has a legitimate chance to get a cup. Something that may never happen if he stayed.
Cronin is another subject. At first I thought he might be a welcome change, but as time has gone on, I don't see him being able to guide this team to its full potential. I think he lacks the vision to utilize the young talent and in pressure situations tends to fall back on preconceived notions of how things should be done. Maybe the worst of all worlds is having a veteran coach that has no veteran NHL experience.
John
It's a good point, and one that should pause the fans, because Verbeek seems pretty invested in Cronin still. Is he going to change the roster to the core for Cronin or when will there be a coaching change? To me, obviously what they should do is look at how to maximize the offense while maintaining the defensive ideas Cronin wants.
Should be a new assistant coach there to help the PP and offense, I'm less worried about the PK, as that should sort itself by shuffling the PKers which looks like Cronin is open to. For Cronin's blue collar offense, a captain could help by setting an example, obviously something Cronin figured already. At any rate there can't be another .35% team at 50 game mark where the coach keeps telling it's the players who don't execute.
Last edited:
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
You're drawing a pretty fine semantic line between "different standard" and "double standard." PV said they didn't want to sit guys because they didn't want to lose them, so....? Were Z's turnovers more egregious than anything else we saw? Was he the only guy to take a misconduct for barking at the refs? Cronin was ejected for f***'s sake.
It's blatantly inconsistent. Maybe communication takes the sting out of it and it doesn't matter, as you say.
Yeah you mentioned you were a coach.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
Maybe this is a small point but something I don't think should be overlooked is that in the interview PV admitted it was time the team had a captain beginning next year. There's been some debate around here as to whether we need one now or we wait until somebody "earns" it. While I do still think it will be a short term vet, I'm glad to see that he believes it's time somebody not in management be responsible for trying to make guys play the right way.
