Speculation: Gerard Gallant fired

[Claypool]

Wait, didn't everyone want to hire Laviolette just a few weeks ago? Now you've all moved onto Gallant?

No point in making a coaching change until the offseason.

 

[TCNorthstars]

The Harm?
1) You're telling everyone on this roster that performance doesn't matter. You're telling everyone that efforts like last night's 8-2 loss are acceptable. That ****show performances are OK.
2) You ****ting on your fans who spend their time and money on your product.

And for what? Nothing.
We're so far back the best coach in NHL history couldn't change our fortunes.

But I'd like to go into next season having played 30 games of competitive, solid hockey.

You think a coaching change would give 30 games of competitive, solid hockey? But the best coach in history couldn't change our fortunes? The fortunes of a shitty roster? Don't your last 2 sentences conflict with each other?

 

[MBH]

You think a coaching change would give 30 games of competitive, solid hockey? But the best coach in history couldn't change our fortunes? The fortunes of a ****ty roster? Don't your last 2 sentences conflict with each other?

No, they don't contradict each other.
A decent coach for the last 30 games gives us... what? 12-15-3 record or something.
When I say, "doesn't change our fortunes," I mean that a 30-game stretch of mildly bad hockey (about what we are capable of) doesn't take us out of last place.

The first 47 games of hockey were so bloody awful.
We do not need to maintain this ugliness to finish last.

Let the last 47 be the rock bottom. Time to start improving.

 

[MBH]

Wait, didn't everyone want to hire Laviolette just a few weeks ago? Now you've all moved onto Gallant?

No point in making a coaching change until the offseason.

Still want Laviolette. He doesn't want to come here, if I was a betting man.

 

[jkutswings]

For anybody thinking Gallant is an instant no-brainer of a hire, I found this on the main board thread. Seems like a fairly informed and reasonable critique of his style:

Personally I've been feeling since early last season that Gallant is just too much of a "player's coach" and not enough of a taskmaster. By his own words he doesn't make micromanagement type adjustments on a game to game basis and puts trust in his players to play the right way (a paraphrase of something he said in the inaugural season). And there's some benefit to having a good relationship with your players, of course. But you can't leave them entirely to their own devices either. Many games this year the Knights just didn't play well and didn't seem to try hard enough and in the postgame Gallant would say that the team played well but it didn't go their way. He's said it a couple times after some truly terrible efforts by this team's standards. Of course that could have just been media posturing to protect his players as a complete inverse to a guy like Tortorella, but it really seems to correlate with how this team has suffered from some fundamental and coachable flaws going back to early last season where the team also struggled.

I believe firmly that Gallant has the capacity to adapt and change so I feel this firing was premature and too knee jerk. After all it was Gallant's 2017 Knights along with teams like the Penguins and Capitals that really helped change the NHL to its present focus on higher speed and endurance with 5 man zone defensive systems and high speed counter attack strategies. The '17 VGK model has basically become the standard that coaches now have to improve off of. The problem is that many of them have. In the meantime without the hype of the inaugural year pressing the players and without the coach insisting on meeting certain fitness based benchmarks in weight/endurance training days, the Knights have gotten slower than the 17 team while the rest of the NHL has gotten faster.

I've been saying for weeks that Gallant needs to get it together and take his players to task and while I think he earned more of a chance to do so, I've been saying it for weeks so I don't think this is exactly something that fell out of the sky and was completely and totally knee jerk. My tinfoil hat theory is that management asked him to get tougher on the players and he basically refused. It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

I don't disagree that he's a better coach than Blashill. But just like when Laviolette was fired, I want a thorough search for the best possible option, not a kneejerk hire when a big name becomes available.

 

[Frk It]

The Harm?
1) You're telling everyone on this roster that performance doesn't matter. You're telling everyone that efforts like last night's 8-2 loss are acceptable. That ****show performances are OK.
2) You ****ting on your fans who spend their time and money on your product.

And for what? Nothing.
We're so far back the best coach in NHL history couldn't change our fortunes.

But I'd like to go into next season having played 30 games of competitive, solid hockey.

I guess we have different expectations of how this should go. As someone who was invited to many Sabres games during their tank years, I am not expecting us to not experience some lopsided efforts/outcomes. If people are paying their money to go, they have to know that is a very possible outcome on any given night. It's not easy to motivate guys to try hard when whether they try their best or not it's pretty clear you just don't have the horses to pull it off most nights.

 

[DatsMagic]

Doesn't matter who is coaching this team. Wings WILL have the best chance at #1 overall.

I agree. Why do people think if we get a new coach we will suddenly sky rocket up the standings? This team is terrible no matter who the coach is.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

It ended poorly because of how they treated Gallant, not because of anything he did. Gallant coached them to the most wins and points in franchise history.

And his time in Columbus?

 

[Hammettf2b]

I agree. Why do people think if we get a new coach we will suddenly sky rocket up the standings? This team is terrible no matter who the coach is.

I don't think anyone thinks that tbh. I think the compete level of this team needs to change and a new coach might be the way to doing that.

 

[DetroitRed]

I think it's just a matter of getting the coach you like when he becomes available. I don't think it's a question of trying to turn this season around.

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

I agree. Why do people think if we get a new coach we will suddenly sky rocket up the standings? This team is terrible no matter who the coach is.

It's not about "sky rocketing up the standings", it's about not losing by 5 goals every single game.

 

[guinness]

Blashill out, Gallant in.

I'd be fine with this, I like Blashill OK, and the roster is what it is, but Gallant is the coach I want for this team. Seems harsh for Vegas to fire a guy that got an expansion team to the SCF though.

 

[DatsMagic]

It's not about "sky rocketing up the standings", it's about not losing by 5 goals every single game.

I originally quoted the post agreeing with him on hiring Gallant. I was saying that to the people that don't want to hire a new coach to ensure we finish dead last. I'm saying no matter who the coach is, we are finishing dead last.

 

[TCNorthstars]

It's not about "sky rocketing up the standings", it's about not losing by 5 goals every single game.

Is the new coach coming with a new roster?

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

I originally quoted the post agreeing with him on hiring Gallant. I was saying that to the people that don't want to hire a new coach to ensure we finish dead last. I'm saying no matter who the coach is, we are finishing dead last.

My bad, read that wrong.

 

[Bondurant]

Whatever happens this is the most excited we've been since the Yzerman presser. You know it's rough when coach speculation is what excites us the most.

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

Is the new coach coming with a new roster?

No, but if you think different coaches can not get different results then I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

And his time in Columbus?

I'm honestly not as familiar with his time in Columbus. My memory is the team improved slightly in the full season he was there and then he got fired early the next season.

I'm not saying he's perfect, just that his tenures as head coach haven't been long enough for anything I'd call a falling off. If anything him repeatedly getting canned so early is more of a concern. Could be bad luck/fickle GMs, could be something else.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Is the new coach coming with a new roster?

It's not that far-fetched to think Larkin could find his game again. And maybe AA could start trying again when he gets back. And then Mantha comes back, and who knows. It's not just that this team is bad, it's that they're playing a style of game that isn't suited to their lack of talent. If you bring in somebody to shake things up and get the guys fired up again, you could get a team capable of winning more games. The question is just: why should we? Is that in our best long-term interest?

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

It's not about "sky rocketing up the standings", it's about not losing by 5 goals every single game.

If you don't want to lose by five goals a night, you probably should not run out a defense that simultaneously includes Alex Biega, Brian Lashoff and Madison Bowey and your top-six forwards probably should not include Adam Erne and Val Filppula and you probably shouldn't start Jimmy Howard in net.

I think a hire like Gallant could be great long term, but we need to stopy lying to ourselves about the immediate impacts of a coaching change. Gallant can only play the players he has available. Talent does matter. It is the reason that the two of us aren't playing in the NHL.

 

[13to40]

Red wings just fired Blashill and hired Gallant....

Oh wait this is reality and not a dream

lol.

 

[Snuggs]

Wait, didn't everyone want to hire Laviolette just a few weeks ago? Now you've all moved onto Gallant?

No point in making a coaching change until the offseason.

There actually is "IF" Yzerman is just going to hire Laviolette or Gallant anyways. They'll have a 4 month head start to familiarizing themselves with the players/organization and future moves that'll need to be made.

Record wise, sure pointless, Rebuild and future preparations/moves. There's lots of advantages on bringing in someone now vs May/June. Having the future staff here before the TDL helps with anyone we bring in or up for the future prior to the season ending.

From an organizational/ownership stand point.... They're saving a lot of money over 4 months to just wait... If we're honest with ourselves. Money more than anything is why this whole staff isn't washed out. Red Wings have three good coaches to choose from imo, they'll get a good one if they want one of the three. They're just waiting and saving a few million dollars letting the season play out with this coaching staff.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Based on Blash's recent post game pressers (~1 month+) & SY reaffirming his faith in Blash, I don't think Blash is sweating his job, even a bit. Earlier in the season his body language & voice inflection etc. were different. Now, he seems relaxed/care free, last night's presser was a perfect example. Unfortunately this likely means we miss out on Gallant until the offseason, if he still available by then...

 

[SimonEdvinssonAtSix]

If you don't want to lose by five goals a night, you probably should not run out a defense that simultaneously includes Alex Biega, Brian Lashoff and Madison Bowey and your top-six forwards probably should not include Adam Erne and Val Filppula and you probably shouldn't start Jimmy Howard in net.

I think a hire like Gallant could be great long term, but we need to stopy lying to ourselves about the immediate impacts of a coaching change. Gallant can only play the players he has available. Talent does matter. It is the reason that the two of us aren't playing in the NHL.

I agree that we lack talent. It's why we are bad. But to suggest that another coach can not get more out of the players we have is false. If that were the case, coaching would be a pointless position because the team would only perform up to it's talent level. Never above it, never below it.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

At what point do you put some of this on the players? The low end defensemen on this team being uncomfortable handling the puck and deciding to chip the puck out of the zone and essentially give the possession back to the opposition...that's on the player. The grinders playing up the lineup like Helm or Glendening getting a pass from a skilled player like Zadina and not having the offensive ability to get pucks on net and instead end up in the corner in a battle along the boards...that's on the player. I find it hard to isolate things strictly down to the coaching and scheme when watching this team because I know that if I blindly pick a player off the bench and put him on the ice, there's probably a 60-70% chance they shouldn't be in the NHL, or at a maximum they should be playing about 10 minutes on the 4th line.

There are players who aren't flailing around and who do know what to do with the puck, and those players are the only competent players on the team. There is a staggering difference between Larkin/Bertuzzi/Zadina/Hronek and the Glendening/Erne/Helm/Daley type. The problem is that latter group is being forced to creep up into the former group on the ice, and that latter group make up over 50% of the roster. I understand the appetite for change, but the way you are framing the argument doesn't hold as much weight as you are implying. Hire Gallant and Laviolette, and guess what? Zadina's linemates are still not able to think and/or act quickly enough to keep up and play off of him. That doesn't change. We still have players who are mentally or physically chasing the play, and coaching alone can't make up that gap.

Don't you see though? It must be the coaching because only coaching can provide a quick fix for this team. If coaching doesn't make us materially better, it means there are no quick fixes and that we may be in for a very, very long rebuild and many more years of only a marginally better product. No one wants to think of a long, nasty, ugly rebuild. We are seeing what it looks like on a nightly basis. People are terrified of multiple more years of this which is why they keep looking for the short cut and the quick fix.