If you HAD to keep one, who?

[Club]

Hello, here from HFSabres. But there was a question I found of who you would keep if you were presented with the choice between Blashill or Holland, and you HAD to pick one, and say why!


Interested in hearing feedback. Thanks!

Click to read more...

 

[Pavels Dog]

Holland, easy.

1. I think it’s easier to find competent coaches than competent managers.
2. Holland has flaws but he’s SUPER patient and pretty much never loses a young player that goes elsewhere and succeeds (Jarnkrok, a decent bottom 6 guy, is one of the best he’s ever ”lost”). Great qualities in a rebuild.
3. Switching GMs mid-rebuild feels more risky than switching coaches. Could see a lot of GMs wanting to immediately make the playoffs rather than sticking it out and draft.

 

[Dotter]

I am 100% certain Ken Holland will rebuild this team back into above average powerhouse (in today's standards). I have worries his replacement will put this team back into another permanent "dead things era". I am alread starting to worry about ownership and his intentions.

That said, a coach is much easier to replace.

 

[RedWingsfan55]

Blashill easy. Because I don know if he is a bad coach or a good one.

I do know holland ruined this team and isn't capable of accepting the fact that we need to rebuild.

 

[TheMule93]

Blashill and it's not even remotely close for me. The franchise is getting nowhere unless we get extremely lucky in the draft, or until Holland leaves.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Blashill, because he's still a relatively unknown commodity. There was noticeable regression with this team towards the end of Babcock's tenure, despite maintaining the playoff streak, so it's no surprise the team continued that trend after he was gone. Blashill has been put in a situation where there was minimal assets added to this team, and the ones that have been added (Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou) have all appeared to take steps forward in some way, shape, or form. Don't get me wrong, there is still room (and need) for those players to grow, but those guys today are better than they were breaking in. I just don't think we know what Blashill is yet; he came in to run a sinking ship, and unfortunately that's a death sentence of a first NHL gig, especially if it's with a franchise with a history of longstanding success.

It's not like replacing Holland would be interrupting a rebuild plan, because we haven't truly started one yet, mostly because of his stubbornness. The organization feels stale. Yes, the way things were run gave us one of the greatest runs in modern sports history, but like everything else in the world, trends change, rules change, and those that don't adapt and evolve will be the ones who stand to lose the most. We need to stir up the organization from the top down and see if a fresher way of thinking can kickstart another run.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Blash.

Kenny is far more incompetent.

Blash is coaching a garbage roster.

 

[Heaton]

Haven't been impressed with Holland's drafting for quite a while and since the team is the reflection of the GM and the team is in terrible shape, it's fairly easy to decide to get rid of the GM.

Coaches are always better with better players, remember how 'bad' Babcock was here at the end? Crazy how 'good' he is again when he has Auston Matthews, Marner, JVR, Nylander, Rielly, Andersen etc...

 

[jkutswings]

I'm not a huge fan of either, but if I had to keep one, it's Blashill. There were very frustrating decisions being made before Jeff ever coached his first game with the big club.

Additionally, I believe that part of the problem is the scouting department, and that only changes with a significant shake up to the front office.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I would keep Blash. I don't think he is a particularly good coach at the moment and I won't cry if we let him go this summer (my prediction). Holland, however, is most responsible for the current condition of this team. Our issues are more related to a lack of elite talent than they are a lack of good coaching. The acquisition of elite talent (admittedly a very difficult task) is Holland's responsibility. Given the current state of the blue line, the prospect pool, our pro scouting and our cap/contract issues, I think it is imperative that we see a meaningful change in the GM chair. I say this as someone who is well aware that Holland has and does act at the direction of ownership.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Blashill.

No need to worry that much about the coach until the roster is actually halfway decent.

 

[Frk It]

Haven't been impressed with Holland's drafting for quite a while and since the team is the reflection of the GM and the team is in terrible shape, it's fairly easy to decide to get rid of the GM.

Additionally, I believe that part of the problem is the scouting department, and that only changes with a significant shake up to the front office.

Let me start by saying we are not bad at drafting. But if people don't think we could do better in that area, I really just don't know what to tell them. Right now people who get paid to evaluate prospects don't think very highly of anyone in our system.

The real question for me would be if you could replace Holland or Wright (only 1), who would you pick? Honestly I'm not sure what I would do if given that option. No GM is going to draft well if they are being given bad info. Wright's track record is just not that impressive. He's basically a 1 hit wonder at this point with Larkin, and I'm not sure if that wasn't just dumb luck at this point. He compared the kid to Helm of all people.

It's early still, but I just don't trust that duo, and drafting is the most important thing right now.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Keep blashill

Start clearing house from the top not the bottom

Only micky mouse franchises or companies start from the bottom

 

[TheMule93]

A bad coach only affects the team in the short term IMO. You could argue that a coach could potentially harm the development of players, but who knows. Taylor Hall had the shittiest coaches ever yet still turned into a great player. If you think your coach sucks because you're not getting results with a talented roster, then fine, you can easily replace him.

If your team sucks because the GM is bad at his job and the roster sucks, you cant easily fix that. I do not believe Holland is a good GM, he has assembled a bad roster with no elite players, and no elite prospects either. Our most talented forward prospects are Rasumussen and goddamn Svechnikov. Do you guys even understand how awful that is? We're going to be a low scoring team for a looong time. We have one of the worst defenses in the NHL, a defense corps which consists entirely of bad veterans, and we have no projected top pairing dmen. Our best prospects are Cholowski, a guy in hi draft+2 year whos numbers are being beaten out by 17 year olds who havent been drafted yet, Hronek who couldn't spell defense even if his last name was defense, and Saarijarvi who cant even make the GR squad. Our roster is an untalented salary-capped mess of a few decent young players and a lot of veterans, and our prospect pool is garbage. This is all the GMs doing. No new coach is going to come in and turn this mess into a good team, we need new management.

 

[kliq]

For me its easy.....Holland.

Holland has shown that he can build a cup winner in the NHL, and I believe he can do it again despite mistakes he has made in the past.
Blashill is is simply a lower end NHL coach, and has shown nothing to make me think otherwise. I cannot see us winning a cup with Blashill.

 

[Heaton]

For me its easy.....Holland.

Holland has shown that he can build a cup winner in the NHL, and I believe he can do it again despite mistakes he has made in the past.
Blashill is is simply a lower end NHL coach, and has shown nothing to make me think otherwise. I cannot see us winning a cup with Blashill.

I'd argue that Holland is one of the best maintainers of a winning team ever, but I don't believe he's ever built a team from the ground up. He took over a cup winning team in 1998 and 2008 he definitely had his draft picks like Datsyuk and Z leading the way, but it was still anchored by Lidstrom. Holland is terrible at drafting defenseman and that has been one of, if not the biggest, downfall of this franchise.

 

[kliq]

I'd argue that Holland is one of the best maintainers of a winning team ever, but I don't believe he's ever built a team from the ground up. He took over a cup winning team in 1998 and 2008 he definitely had his draft picks like Datsyuk and Z leading the way, but it was still anchored by Lidstrom. Holland is terrible at drafting defenseman and that has been one of, if not the biggest, downfall of this franchise.

I don't think it's fair to say someone didnt build a cup winner because 1 player on the roster was there before he become GM. With that logic, if Yzerman wins in TB, he built nothing.

 

[Flowah]

(Jarnkrok, a decent bottom 6 guy, is one of the best he’s ever ”lost”).

I'd include Janmark in there.

Also, that might actually speak to our poor drafting more than anything else. We've not drafted well at all for defense and we're just a bit above average for forwards.

I don't think it's fair to say someone didnt build a cup winner because 1 player on the roster was there before he become GM. With that logic, if Yzerman wins in TB, he built nothing.

While I agree he deserves credit for 2008, let's not characterize Lidstrom as "just one player." In 2008 he was top3, probably the top d-man in the league. He was a generational talent, one of the best of all time.

What was the 2008 team without him? What are the Pens without Crosby?

 

[Heaton]

I don't think it's fair to say someone didnt build a cup winner because 1 player on the roster was there before he become GM. With that logic, if Yzerman wins in TB, he built nothing.

That's not what I said, but Lidstrom being there made everything else much easier.

 

[Frk It]

I'd argue that Holland is one of the best maintainers of a winning team ever, but I don't believe he's ever built a team from the ground up. He took over a cup winning team in 1998 and 2008 he definitely had his draft picks like Datsyuk and Z leading the way, but it was still anchored by Lidstrom. Holland is terrible at drafting defenseman and that has been one of, if not the biggest, downfall of this franchise.

He absolutely deserves credit for covering more ground in Europe and having an advantage there which resulted in acquiring Datsyuk, Z, Franzen, Kronwall. He set up and oversaw that scouting network, and it was a huge success.

But we have been trending towards average for awhile with our drafting now.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Blashill, because he's bad enough that he'll get himself fired pretty quickly. But until that happens, he helps the rebuild. Meanwhile there's a new GM who could embrace the rebuild and do it right. A guy can dream.

 

[Flowah]

But we have been trending towards average for awhile with our drafting now.

I calculated the average PPG and GP and "bust" rate forwards and defensemen from 2005-2015.

We do a little bit better than league average at drafting forwards who play at least 41 games and meet or exceed league average PPG for that round. Only 6 out of 29 other teams did better than us at doing that, however we aren't that far ahead of most of the teams behind us in hitting on our picks. We also picked up "regular" NHL players (forwards who played at leas 41 career NHL games) at a 40% rate after the 1st round. The league average for doing that is ~24%. So that's damn good.

On defense, we haven't drafted a single defenseman who played at least 41 games and met/exceeded league average PPG for that round. Not a single one since 2005.

Which confirms what most of us already suspected. Forwards? We're not bad! Defense? We have been awful. And we have been awful for a very very long time.

 

[Ingvar]

I'd include Janmark in there.

Also, that might actually speak to our poor drafting more than anything else. We've not drafted well at all for defense and we're just a bit above average for forwards.

While I agree he deserves credit for 2008, let's not characterize Lidstrom as "just one player." In 2008 he was top3, probably the top d-man in the league. He was a generational talent, one of the best of all time.

What was the 2008 team without him? What are the Pens without Crosby?

Just look at Sens - one can definitely fail having the best d-man in the league.

 

[Frk It]

I calculated the average PPG and GP and "bust" rate forwards and defensemen from 2005-2015.

We do a little bit better than league average at drafting forwards who play at least 41 games and meet or exceed league average PPG for that round. Only 6 out of 29 other teams did better than us at doing that, however we aren't that far ahead of most of the teams behind us in hitting on our picks. We also picked up "regular" NHL players (forwards who played at leas 41 career NHL games) at a 40% rate after the 1st round. The league average for doing that is ~24%. So that's damn good.

On defense, we haven't drafted a single defenseman who played at least 41 games and met/exceeded league average PPG for that round. Not a single one since 2005.

Which confirms what most of us already suspected. Forwards? We're not bad! Defense? We have been awful. And we have been awful for a very very long time.

Fenton as GM + Holland as advisor = problem solved

 

[kliq]

While I agree he deserves credit for 2008, let's not characterize Lidstrom as "just one player." In 2008 he was top3, probably the top d-man in the league. He was a generational talent, one of the best of all time.

What was the 2008 team without him? What are the Pens without Crosby?

Clearly Lidstrom is not just some guy, I'd argue is the the best D-man off all time. My point is that I would argue that most teams that win a cup had someone who was acquired from a previous regime. I give Holland credit for 2008, it takes more then an elite D-man to win a cup (almost 2).