GDT: Game 30: Avs @ Capitals | Tuesday, December 12th, 5pm MT | No Sleep

[henchman21]

Nathan Mackinnon, Tyson Barrie and (arguably) Nikita Zadorov have all at one point or another played the best hockey of their careers this season under Jared Bednar. EJ has also looked the best he has since he got hurt at the all star break in 2015. The careers of Soderberg and Comeau also seem to be back on the right track. It's probably not fair to place all that success on the coach, but it would be equally unfair to put the negatives on him.

I may have been the one who originally built the "fire Bednar" wagon. I wanted no part of that man being anywhere near the team this year. But I'm giving him lots of credit this year and that isn't going to stop just yet. There are lots of things I'd like to see him do differently, but my opinion of him is completely different than it was a few months ago.

The players speak very highly of him and he has a history of doing well with youth which is showing well this year. He isn't our coach of the future, but as weird as it sounds I think he's a great coach to lose with.

I think Barrie has played better hockey over the course of 30 games under Roy before. Barrie had an excellent first 17-20 and has been average or worse since. MacK and Z are playing their best... but is that Bednar or is that just them hitting their stride? MacK is right at prime age and should be becoming that guy. Roy didn't even have him at 21. Z is a young D and still has a long, long ways to go. He has shown improvement, but I wouldn't say it is drastic.

Soda and Comeau both still looked better under Roy than Bednar so far. Both have been better so far this season, but that is a low bar IMO.

Players will almost always speak highly of their coach, while their coach is around. Then the next guy they will speak very highly of and throw a bit of shade on the old coach. This happens over and over again. I think Bednar only works with youth because his shtick is basically work your ass off. Young guys will do that without questioning... vets have been around the block enough to know there are parts where you need to just work smarter instead of harder. Bednar doesn't have that in his arsenal.

To me there are 3 basic levels of coaches... those who improve teams (Babcock and Coopers of the world), those who don't hurt or help (Gulutzan and Trotz), and those who hurt teams. Bednar is in that last group to me. He is consistently over matched in systems, he can't make effective adjustments (when he does, they are too late), makes real poor goaltending choices, and he has shown a real tendency to lose the locker room. I do think Bednar is a very effective plan A guy. He can come up with a base that works and the first strike can be his. Teams quickly adjust to his base strategy, and on a game by game basis, he simply can't counter. One interesting stat right now... in the first period the Avs are +3 in goal differential. Second period -9.

 

[Pokecheque]

Pens won in-spite of Bylsma.

Bylsma deserves the same credit as Sullivan.

 

[Pokecheque]

There's a lot about Bednar I like, there's some I don't like. Either way we'll see how much he either helped or hindered the team soon enough. I'll be beyond shocked if things continue at their current pace and he remains on board.

 

[Nalens Oga]

If potato didn't fire him after last season's 48 points then I doubt he fires him mid-way through this season assuming the team keeps playing 0.400ish hockey till January or so. I'd expect a new coach in the off-season.

 

[dahrougem2]

If you want to compare good Pens coaches to bad ones, compare Sullivan to the albatross known as Mike Johnston who singlehandedly wasted a season and a half of prime Crosby and Malkin

 

[Foppberg]

Ah! My mistake. Yeah I meant to compare Johnston to Sullivan, not Blysma. My bad.

 

[the_fan]

What a ****ing dumb cherry pick of a thing to say. Bob Hartley had Patrick Roy in net and a peak Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Foote, etc. Q had no goaltending and an aging roster. What the **** are you doing comparing both of them to Bednar, those two are actual proven NHL coaches.

Why are you arguing about stupid **** like the coach is just there to guide the roster. This isn't the 80s. There are thin margins between teams. Coaching is the biggest way to overcome those margins? You think the Leafs are doing as well as they are or even make the playoffs last year without Babcock? Or the Pens suddenly win the cup after playing like **** without Sullivan? Or the Blues start playing elite hockey without Yeo? Or the Kings have a sudden bounceback despite the same roster without a coaching change?

I'm not saying that our team is good to begin with but we don't have a 48 point season if we have a decent coach and we probably do better than we are doing now without Bednar. Ironically, Bob Hartley would have been a better hire.

I can't believe how dumb some people are if they don't see the value in having the best coaching possible in the salary cap era. There's no cap on coaches, if the guy isn't doing well or looks like he's lost the team or never did well to begin with then hire a new one till you get the results.

What a ****ing dumb cherry pick of a thing to say. Bob Hartley had Patrick Roy in net and a peak Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Foote, etc. Q had no goaltending and an aging roster. What the **** are you doing comparing both of them to Bednar, those two are actual proven NHL coaches.

Why are you arguing about stupid **** like the coach is just there to guide the roster. This isn't the 80s. There are thin margins between teams. Coaching is the biggest way to overcome those margins? You think the Leafs are doing as well as they are or even make the playoffs last year without Babcock? Or the Pens suddenly win the cup after playing like **** without Sullivan? Or the Blues start playing elite hockey without Yeo? Or the Kings have a sudden bounceback despite the same roster without a coaching change?

I'm not saying that our team is good to begin with but we don't have a 48 point season if we have a decent coach and we probably do better than we are doing now without Bednar. Ironically, Bob Hartley would have been a better hire.

I can't believe how dumb some people are if they don't see the value in having the best coaching possible in the salary cap era. There's no cap on coaches, if the guy isn't doing well or looks like he's lost the team or never did well to begin with then hire a new one till you get the results.

Thank you for making my point. Coaches aren't magicians, they need a winning roster to work with to be a winning coach. Q is a much better coach than Hartely but he couldn't win because he didn't have a winning roster but Hartley could because he did have a winning roster.

 

[Pokecheque]

If potato didn't fire him after last season's 48 points then I doubt he fires him mid-way through this season assuming the team keeps playing 0.400ish hockey till January or so. I'd expect a new coach in the off-season.

Potato?

 

[McMetal]

Potato?

Burnaby Potato.

 

[Balthazar]

Bednar is learning his job at the NHL level the same way Sakic did. IMO he's in for at least 2-3 more years and will get better with time. Sakic will give him at least a year of coaching post-rebuilding.

I think he's a smart coach but was placed in a position to fail from the start (see: Phil Housley).

 

[The Kingslayer]

Bednar is learning his job at the NHL level the same way Sakic did. IMO he's in for at least 2-3 more years and will get better with time. Sakic will give him at least a year of coaching post-rebuilding.

I think he's a smart coach but was placed in a position to fail from the start (see: Phil Housley).

Sounds to me like Bednar should have been an assistant coach first before given the keys to the tank.

 

[Balthazar]

Sounds to me like Bednar should have been an assistant coach first before given the keys to the tank.

Hiring Bednar was one of Sakic's "rookie" mistake. Handing the keys of a very dysfunctional team to a coach fresh from the AHL wasn't the best idea (even though his choices were extremely limited).

Too bad neither the Sabres or the Yotes learned from the AVS.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I think Barrie has played better hockey over the course of 30 games under Roy before. Barrie had an excellent first 17-20 and has been average or worse since. MacK and Z are playing their best... but is that Bednar or is that just them hitting their stride? MacK is right at prime age and should be becoming that guy. Roy didn't even have him at 21. Z is a young D and still has a long, long ways to go. He has shown improvement, but I wouldn't say it is drastic.

Soda and Comeau both still looked better under Roy than Bednar so far. Both have been better so far this season, but that is a low bar IMO.

Players will almost always speak highly of their coach, while their coach is around. Then the next guy they will speak very highly of and throw a bit of shade on the old coach. This happens over and over again. I think Bednar only works with youth because his shtick is basically work your ass off. Young guys will do that without questioning... vets have been around the block enough to know there are parts where you need to just work smarter instead of harder. Bednar doesn't have that in his arsenal.

To me there are 3 basic levels of coaches... those who improve teams (Babcock and Coopers of the world), those who don't hurt or help (Gulutzan and Trotz), and those who hurt teams. Bednar is in that last group to me. He is consistently over matched in systems, he can't make effective adjustments (when he does, they are too late), makes real poor goaltending choices, and he has shown a real tendency to lose the locker room. I do think Bednar is a very effective plan A guy. He can come up with a base that works and the first strike can be his. Teams quickly adjust to his base strategy, and on a game by game basis, he simply can't counter. One interesting stat right now... in the first period the Avs are +3 in goal differential. Second period -9.

Funny enough, most of your concerns with him are the same ones I have. There are a few things in your post i'll disagree with such as Barrie or Comeau ever looking better in their careers but in general your concerns are on point with me. The difference in you and I is how much stock we put on those concerns.

I don't think Bednar is anywhere near a world class coach. I think he has potential to be because of his structure and the way he puts the entire team on the same page, but he certainly isn't yet. But I don't think he's nearly as bad as you or anybody else makes him out to be. I think he's very good to the development of our kids which to me is the most important thing this team needs in a coach right now. As I said before, he's the perfect coach to lose with.

His adjustments (which by the way is the most irritating thing I read on here because while true, I know everyone read you speak about it and now they all think they're experts and mention it without explaining what they mean lol) are much improved from last year. He's still not overly quick on those but he has improved. I cant put many losses on our coach this year (aside from the Ottawa games where he had no idea how to do anything against Boucher).

Also for all his faults, I think Bednar is the best coach the Colorado Avalanche have seen since coach Q so that obviously makes me a little more okay with him. We're approaching 10 years of having horrific coaching so seeing even a slight improvement is a bit of an eye opener. It's a refreshing change of pace seeing 18 skaters on the same page.

 

[klozge]

There's no reason to keep Girard here if he's only going to get 10-12 minutes. EJ and Barrie are clearly 1 and 2, and Bednar has a very clear liking for Barberio and Nemeth. Couple that with Zadorov NEEDING minutes, and you've got limited minutes for Girard. Where's the benefit in that?

Well, it's 10-12 minutes in the NHL. Plus he gets to practice with an NHL team.

 

[henchman21]

Funny enough, most of your concerns with him are the same ones I have. There are a few things in your post i'll disagree with such as Barrie or Comeau ever looking better in their careers but in general your concerns are on point with me. The difference in you and I is how much stock we put on those concerns.

I don't think Bednar is anywhere near a world class coach. I think he has potential to be because of his structure and the way he puts the entire team on the same page, but he certainly isn't yet. But I don't think he's nearly as bad as you or anybody else makes him out to be. I think he's very good to the development of our kids which to me is the most important thing this team needs in a coach right now. As I said before, he's the perfect coach to lose with.

His adjustments (which by the way is the most irritating thing I read on here because while true, I know everyone read you speak about it and now they all think they're experts and mention it without explaining what they mean lol) are much improved from last year. He's still not overly quick on those but he has improved. I cant put many losses on our coach this year (aside from the Ottawa games where he had no idea how to do anything against Boucher).

Also for all his faults, I think Bednar is the best coach the Colorado Avalanche have seen since coach Q so that obviously makes me a little more okay with him. We're approaching 10 years of having horrific coaching so seeing even a slight improvement is a bit of an eye opener. It's a refreshing change of pace seeing 18 skaters on the same page.

I think you are giving Bednar a bit too much credit based upon the disaster of a season that was last year. The team was going to improve, simply because there was almost no way to be worse. This still looks like a bottom 5 team (and based on the roster, I don't think they should be). The kids... MacK, Z, and Rants are improving, but I'm not super quick to assign that to a coach as much as they are hitting their strides as NHL players. MacK was just a matter of time. I'll give more credit to Bednar on Z, but I'm not ready to say Z is there yet either. I really don't see the massive growth in the kids. I see some talented young players.

Bednar might become a better coach over the years, but the way I see him right now.... he'd be an excellent assistant coach, but makes a poor head coach. The growing pains he is going through now probably help the team he coaches 5 years from now, not the Avs. I could go through all the different parts of his structure, gameplans, and adjustments, but those would be very long-winded posts. I know we both are seeing the same things there.

I really don't agree with Bednar being the best coach since Q... Bednar is no better than Sacco was. I think Bednar has some upside that Sacco didn't since their strengths lie in different areas (Bednar is more strategic, Sacco was a player's coach), but the Avs won't benefit from Bednar's upside.

 

[the_fan]

I think Avs are where they're suppose to be given their young roster, young players still developing etc... They have 30 points, just 5 points out of playoff spot right now and they are a 500 team, and most likely will be this way the entire season, win one lose one kind of season.

I'm not saying Bednar is a good coach, but a good coach would not make that big of a difference right now with this roster. It might make a couple of win difference, but it's not gonna make this team a playoff team, because they simply don't have the roster yet to be any better than they are right now.

You got bunch of young kids both on defense and offense, weak second line, and still a weak defense, and goaltending has been mediocre. It's not Bednar's fault that Varly isn't having a vezina type of season like in 2013 20 14.

I think you judge a coach whether he's right or wrong for the team when you know you have a winning roster and ready to make the playoffs. Sakic knows that this isn't a playoff roster yet, and he's not gonna fire Bednar right now.

 

[Pokecheque]

I think you are giving Bednar a bit too much credit based upon the disaster of a season that was last year. The team was going to improve, simply because there was almost no way to be worse. This still looks like a bottom 5 team (and based on the roster, I don't think they should be). The kids... MacK, Z, and Rants are improving, but I'm not super quick to assign that to a coach as much as they are hitting their strides as NHL players. MacK was just a matter of time. I'll give more credit to Bednar on Z, but I'm not ready to say Z is there yet either. I really don't see the massive growth in the kids. I see some talented young players.

Bednar might become a better coach over the years, but the way I see him right now.... he'd be an excellent assistant coach, but makes a poor head coach. The growing pains he is going through now probably help the team he coaches 5 years from now, not the Avs. I could go through all the different parts of his structure, gameplans, and adjustments, but those would be very long-winded posts. I know we both are seeing the same things there.

I really don't agree with Bednar being the best coach since Q... Bednar is no better than Sacco was. I think Bednar has some upside that Sacco didn't since their strengths lie in different areas (Bednar is more strategic, Sacco was a player's coach), but the Avs won't benefit from Bednar's upside.

...and as always I don't think you give Bednar enough credit. If we're comparing coaches, then I'd argue it was Roy who was no better than Sacco. And I'll say this--if Roy were still here and MacKinnon were on this hot streak you'd be giving him full props. Yet you refuse to do so with Bednar.

You and a few others here keep saying that the roster based on what it was on paper was nowhere near 48-pts bad. I beg to differ. It was an abhorrently slow roster full of perimeter players and shoddy goaltending that went from bad to nonexistent. Once EJ went down with a broken leg it's not surprising in hindsight that team was doomed. When you get a chance, take a look at how many players that played on opening night in 2016 are still in the NHL. I haven't done the research but I believe it was TV who told me on Twitter it's roughly half. And the only reason Beauchemin is still in the NHL is because the Ducks are banged-up-to-all-hell and Randy Carlyle is a bad coach.

I'll agree that I don't think Bednar is a great coach. I'm not even sure he's a good coach in the NHL. At least not yet. But I'm not with you at all when it comes to comparisons to Sacco. I'll admit though that I'm not quite yet ready to say he's the best coach Colorado's had since Quenneville either. But Roy was and continues to be wildly overrated by posters on here.

 

[dahrougem2]

...and as always I don't think you give Bednar enough credit. If we're comparing coaches, then I'd argue it was Roy who was no better than Sacco. And I'll say this--if Roy were still here and MacKinnon were on this hot streak you'd be giving him full props. Yet you refuse to do so with Bednar.

You and a few others here keep saying that the roster based on what it was on paper was nowhere near 48-pts bad. I beg to differ. It was an abhorrently slow roster full of perimeter players and shoddy goaltending that went from bad to nonexistent. Once EJ went down with a broken leg it's not surprising in hindsight that team was doomed. When you get a chance, take a look at how many players that played on opening night in 2016 are still in the NHL. I haven't done the research but I believe it was TV who told me on Twitter it's roughly half. And the only reason Beauchemin is still in the NHL is because the Ducks are banged-up-to-all-hell and Randy Carlyle is a bad coach.

I'll agree that I don't think Bednar is a great coach. I'm not even sure he's a good coach in the NHL. At least not yet. But I'm not with you at all when it comes to comparisons to Sacco. I'll admit though that I'm not quite yet ready to say he's the best coach Colorado's had since Quenneville either. But Roy was and continues to be wildly overrated by posters on here.

Lmao just for ***** and giggles here's a list of the forwards and defensemen from opening night 2016:

Joe Colborne (AHL)
Matt Duchene (Traded to Ottawa)
Jarome Iginla (Unsigned UFA)
Blake Comeau
Rene Bourque (SHL)
Ben Smith (AHL)
Mikhail Grigorenko (KHL)
Andreas Martinsen (AHL)
Nathan MacKinnon
Carl Soderberg
Gabriel Bourque
Gabriel Landeskog

Tyson Barrie
Erik Johnson
Nikita Zadorov
Patrick Wiercioch (AHL)
Francois Beauchemin (Anaheim)
Fedor Tyutin (Unsigned UFA)

Semyon Varlamov
Calvin Pickard (AHL)

Scratches: Eric Gelinas (AHL); Cody McLeod (Traded to Nashville); John Mitchell (DEL)
IR: Mikko Rantanen

Good god.

 

[henchman21]

Roy won a division title and was in the running for a wild card spot the other two seasons in March. The results were far better under Roy thus far, and it isn't even close. Though I wouldn't be giving Roy credit for MacK right now... MacK is finally showing signs of being the player he has the talent to be. That is upto expectation of his draft slot, not exceeding anything. Roy wouldn't get credit for that. Saying that I would is putting words in my mouth, and I don't believe that is a proper thing to do.

A comparable roster (I'd argue worse) finished with 82 points and 5 points out of a playoff spot the season before. Either Roy had them playing above their capability or that team was 34 points better. I'll agree it wasn't a great roster, but 48 points is nearly unheard of levels of bad in the modern NHL. If you were saying it was a 70 point team, yeah fine, I wouldn't argue. That is still nearly the worst in the NHL... but 48 is epic levels of suck.

 

[dahrougem2]

I will say, however, that I do think Roy was a better coach than Bednar. I don't like some of the personnel decisions he wanted to make or did make, but when speaking from purely a coaching standpoint I like him more than Bednar. His ability to motivate and to get players to trust him is uncanny.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Yeah I really dont understand some of the hate Bednar gets. I think he's done quite well from a developmental standpoint with a number of guys on our team.

Mackinnon and Zadorov especially are playing significantly better then they ever have before. He's take two different approaches pretty much with both players and while the results were slow to start showing with Zadorov, they are definitely starting to show.

I also think Compher has done well under him even dating back to his 20 games down the stretch last year and into this year. Noticeable improvements both offensively and defensively.


Last year he had an inability to adjust, this year I think he's done a much better job with it. Sure we might have a + Goal differential in the 1st period and - in the 2nd, but the eye test paints a very different story. Especially over the last few games. Where I really felt like we've shown some good adjustments from the 1st to 2nd periods especially against Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh.



He's not some amazing coach by any means, but I do think he has the potential to become a very good one. I'm not sure it happens with the Avs or somewhere else but I think he'll be a great coach in the league one day.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Roy no better than Sacco? That's crazy talk. As for Bednar? It's not like Roy had such an amazing roster. The results speak for themselves. You can even ignore Roy's first year if you want since Varly was so great.

Roy used those same slow perimeter players that Bednar did in the 48 point season. Besides, the more important factor than player ability is how quickly everyone quit on him. That's why we got 48 points, not because of talent.

And the only reason we are even .500 right now is because of MacK and our ability to score this year. We are still getting scored on just as much as last year. The offense is great, but 3.3 goals against is unacceptable. A decent coach would have better results regardless of personnel. Offense fluctuates a lot more than defense. We will quickly fall further behind when the offense dries up for a couple weeks.

 

[Pokecheque]

Roy won a division title and was in the running for a wild card spot the other two seasons in March. The results were far better under Roy thus far, and it isn't even close. Though I wouldn't be giving Roy credit for MacK right now... MacK is finally showing signs of being the player he has the talent to be. That is upto expectation of his draft slot, not exceeding anything. Roy wouldn't get credit for that. Saying that I would is putting words in my mouth, and I don't believe that is a proper thing to do.

A comparable roster (I'd argue worse) finished with 82 points and 5 points out of a playoff spot the season before. Either Roy had them playing above their capability or that team was 34 points better. I'll agree it wasn't a great roster, but 48 points is nearly unheard of levels of bad in the modern NHL. If you were saying it was a 70 point team, yeah fine, I wouldn't argue. That is still nearly the worst in the NHL... but 48 is epic levels of suck.

Fair enough, I'll take that part back.

I'll say it again though, take away the NHL-level goaltending and I think pretty much any team would be demonstrably worse. So yeah, if they had even acceptable netminding talent then I could see them being a 70-point team, but yes, horrid goaltending would indeed shave off as many as 20 points.

But no, the team before last year's was not worse IMO. I think Tyutin, Wiercioch, and yes--COLBORNE would have been decent-enough adds to most other teams. But on a team that was already too slow and too soft they merely added to the roster's already-severe flaws.

 

[the_fan]

The difference between Roy and Bednar and why the team was better under Roy was Varly and nothing else. If Varly was in vezina mode this year like he was under Roy, the Avs would at least be in a wild card playoff race, still don't think they would make the playoffs, but they'd certainly be better. Varly is just no where near that level this year, and Bernier is no better. So the goaltending what made Roy look good

 

[Pokecheque]

Roy no better than Sacco? That's crazy talk.

Keep in mind I said one could make that argument. I didn't necessarily agree with the assessment.

Sacco was given a team that was in Year One of a rebuild. He was given a bargain-bin goalie (who turned out to be well above-average) and a stripped-down roster. His payroll never exceeded the salary floor. Yet he somehow managed to get THAT team to the playoffs. Turned out to be a bit of a fluke, yes, but he deserves credit there.

Roy, on the other hand, was given carte blanche to do what needed to be done. Mind you, in his first season he didn't make any radical changes, but he also had a seasoned O'Reilly and Duchene, Erik Johnson, Semyon Varlamov, a Landeskog not far removed from his Calder win, and the first overall pick that he used on a guy who went on to win a Calder himself. Add to that the luxury of Stastny putting up career numbers in a contract year, and you have a pretty good team. Turns out that was a bit of a fluke run but Roy also deserves some credit there.

Bottom line, both of these runs are different because Roy flat-out had a much better team than Sacco ever did. I don't think Sacco was a good coach, and I guess the league agrees because he hasn't had so much as a sniff at a head coaching job since. But I don't think Roy's stellar run was wildly different than Sacco's. And I don't think that Roy was a good coach either. Better than Sacco? Probably. But not by much.

This is, again, why I want Roy to get another shot and prove me wrong.