Speculation: The coaching search continues

[GCK]

Why is McLellan considered a bad coach? He did good stuff with LA and his structure was great for their goalies.

It’s what fans say when their team doesn’t win.

 

[LiseL]

(Also Todd Nelson has two first names like Jacques Martin and Bryan Murray which is a good omen and smart way to hire)

And the one that got away: Patrick Roy lol.

 

[JungleBeat]

LOL, ok

McLellan's history speaks for itself. Every stop the same complaints..

This is a reddit thread from 6 years ago when he was hired in Edmonton. It was an Oilers fan asking SJ fans what to expect



These are all the same complaints Kings and Oilers fans had

Todd McLellan is a terrible coach. Watched him with the Oilers a lot and he was terrible.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Just put Julien on the list and let Jacques do the evaluations.

 

[h2]

DJ's resume is nothing like this. So I dunno what to tell you, people go back to it and its strange so I am not going to entertain a discussion about it.

DJ had 14 years of coaching experience at various levels and won an OHL Championship and a Memorial Cup before joining the Sens. Green has 13 years of experience at various levels with a WHL Championship and more NHL experience right now compared to DJ at the time.

There are some factors that make a valid comparison, and they don't need to be exact for the discussion to happen.

What is very similar is that both coaches are in the same tier of garbage IMO. If you want Travis Green, feel free, I don't think you'll find many others here agree with that choice.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

DJ had 14 years of coaching experience at various levels and won an OHL Championship and a Memorial Cup before joining the Sens. Green has 13 years of experience at various levels with a WHL Championship and more NHL experience at the time.

There are some factors that make a valid comparison, and they don't need to be exact for the discussion to happen.

What is very similar is that both coaches are in the same tier of garbage IMO. If you want Travis Green, feel free, I don't think you'll find many others here agree with that choice.

So we should choose the coach by HFsens poll... great idea. Green is nothing like DJ btw, This is a vapor conversation with nothing but emo as the differentiator.

 

[KnuckChuckinTkachuk]

Not at all a fan of McLellan. I feel it would be another Boucher experience. Good first year and then the boys tune him out because his style/system goes stale.

Would much muchhhhh rather Berube, Nelson, Brind'amour or hell even Julien+Martin+Alfy.

 

[h2]

So we should choose the coach by HFsens poll... great idea. Green is nothing like DJ btw, This is a vapor conversation with nothing but emo as the differentiator.

Uh, ok?

I explained where the comparisons start, and pointed out some differences between the two. That's certainly more effort than you put in your retort. There's nothing wrong comparing the two, and it's a valid discussion.

Very strange post.

 

[BankStreetParade]

...if you have trust in the GM, you should trust that if he chooses someone without prior NHL experience over the guys who do, there is likely a reason for that...

...most people here have no clue what makes a good HC, and even less understanding of what attributes the candidates being considered have...

Come on man, read these sentences you wrote. It's literally "he's an expert and we should trust his opinion because the average person doesn't know as much about this subject/topic as that person does". If that's not the appeal to authority fallacy, what is?

Anyway, we'll disagree on this one. I don't think it makes a ton of sense to hire an inexperienced coach and I've provided some pretty logical reasoning for it.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

Brady Tkachuk and Josh Norris to LAK E4.

 

[Micklebot]

Come on man, read these sentences you wrote. It's literally "he's an expert and we should trust his opinion because the average person doesn't know as much about this subject/topic as that person does". If that's not the appeal to authority fallacy, what is?

Anyway, we'll disagree on this one. I don't think it makes a ton of sense to hire an inexperienced coach and I've provided some pretty logical reasoning for it.

I'm not saying if he chooses a guy from the AHL we should trust his decision, I'm saying we lack the information required to evaluate his choice when it's an AHL coach, so rather than pass judgement immediately based on literally nothing, it would be wise to be patient and wait for more information to become available.

There are more options than immediately call it a good hire, or immediately call it a bad hire, it's ok to admit when you lack the required information to pass judgement one way or another

 

[Ice-Tray]

Trust is typically earned. You're talking about giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is the first big addition this management group will be making.

They get the benefit of the doubt for now, and making the right move here will help engender trust.


No, but it does mean hiring the best of the bunch that most suits the team they want to build, and the players on it.

If it comes down to a Grey beard who's proven and has found success, vs someone green who's taking their first crack at an NHL coaching job? Hiring the green horn doesn't scream best in class now, does it.

And yet… the best coaches in the league right now were hired by their respective teams as such.

This guys been hating on them since they took over and all he did was defend the last management group and patronize people. His opinion doesnt matter its an agenda. But good on you with the level headed response.

You are right to trust them, they are doing exactly the opposite of the previous regime. Taking their time, evaluating and enacting a legitimate well thought out plan. No emotional responses, no unnecessary trades just to make them. Its been a long time since this organization and hockey ops have been run by real professionals. Sens fans especially all the new ones that are on twitter that dont represent the fan base at all just have never seen this type of management. These are the people that loved Pierre. Summer of pierre lol look how that worked out. this franchise has been set back 5 years. Its a big mess to clean up but thankfully we have committed ownership and methodical management. The last time we had management like this was with Marshall Johnston which built this team into a contender for a decade. Most fans that post here werent even sens fans at the time.

I’m on record agreeing with Bert!

 

[bert]

DJ had 14 years of coaching experience at various levels and won an OHL Championship and a Memorial Cup before joining the Sens. Green has 13 years of experience at various levels with a WHL Championship and more NHL experience right now compared to DJ at the time.

There are some factors that make a valid comparison, and they don't need to be exact for the discussion to happen.

What is very similar is that both coaches are in the same tier of garbage IMO. If you want Travis Green, feel free, I don't think you'll find many others here agree with that choice.

Green coached 6 + years in the NHL DJ never did anything like that. I dont necessarily want Green but what im tired of is people losing their minds over a GM that is actually doing his due diligence. Saying things that have no relevance, with a regime that has nothing to do with the last one. You can dislike the interview all you want just try and be accurate.

 

[Super Cake]

 

[BankStreetParade]

I'm not saying if he chooses a guy from the AHL we should trust his decision, I'm saying we lack the information required to evaluate his choice when it's an AHL coach, so rather than pass judgement immediately based on literally nothing, it would be wise to be patient and wait for more information to become available.

There are more options than immediately call it a good hire, or immediately call it a bad hire, it's ok to admit when you lack the required information to pass judgement one way or another

Ok, so we lack information on a number of significant topics that would impact our judgement and yet people judge without that information anyway. Some examples: don’t know what goes on in the locker room, don’t know if players are nursing injuries, don’t know what gets said in coaches meetings, don’t know what gets said in video breakdowns between coaching staff and players, don’t know what leadership says and does in the locker room to keep each other accountable and motivated, don’t know what discussions the GM has on trades, signings, etc., don’t know how much ownership authorizes in spending every year, and many other things.

Every one of those things adds the same important context you’re implying is needed and yet it’s never stopped us from judging the team. So is there any point to this forum? How can I comment on anything if I don’t have all the available information before I make up my mind?

I also noticed you didn’t answer my hypothetical.

 

[Micklebot]

Ok, so we lack information on a number of significant topics that would impact our judgement and yet people judge without that information anyway. Some examples: don’t know what goes on in the locker room, don’t know if players are nursing injuries, don’t know what gets said in coaches meetings, don’t know what gets said in video breakdowns between coaching staff and players, don’t know what leadership says and does in the locker room to keep each other accountable and motivated, don’t know what discussions the GM has on trades, signings, etc., don’t know how much ownership authorizes in spending every year, and many other things.

Every one of those things adds the same important context you’re implying is needed and yet it’s never stopped us from judging the team. So is there any point to this forum? How can I comment on anything if I don’t have all the available information before I make up my mind?

I also noticed you didn’t answer my hypothetical.

Which is why if you lack the info, you can put in caveat, Stützle is really underperforming this year, I wonder if he's playing through something, for example. Leadership debates are always dumb, and I've called out people who make grand claims without the required insight in the past, no different.

Your hypothetical is answered by the nature of my position, as someone who lacks the information to evaluate Gruden, I'd naturally choose Brindamour, but that doesn't mean I'd say Gruden is a bad choice, just not one I'm in a position to make. So for me, I'd have to wait and see what happens to evaluate a hire of Gruden, just like if I get into an Uber in a city I'm less familiar with, I don't immediately assume if he takes a different route than the one I know will get me to the destination that he took a wrong turn, I have to wait and see as more information becomes available.

I get the desire to hire a more known commodity, there's nothing wrong with that, it's even my preference given the other options to me are unknowns that I can't evaluate, but if we do hire someone less known, all I can do is wait and see. When Bannister replaced Berube this year, he got significantly more out of the blues than Berube was getting the last two years despite zero NHL HC experience, yet people are generally on board with Berube, Edmonton under Knoblauch with his zero games as a NHL head coach turned their season around and had the highest pts % under him the team has had since the 80's with Gretzky, even with experience there's no guarantees.

If we are hiring a less known guy because we can't attract or afford a more well known guy, then that would be a problem, but is there any reason to believe that is the case? We shouldn't be reading into any hire now the same motivations we assumed under the previous regime. All I'm saying is if we go that route, the logical thing to do is wait to see how in pans out, otherwise you'll look like the people complaining we didn't take Brink or Kaliyev over Pinto without ever having seen any of the three play a single game.

 

[Dan Patrick]

Poor LA fans, at least they got their cups. They haven’t won a series since their last cup and I definitely don’t think the Deej is the answer. Just going to keep spinning their tires with a good team.

 

[GCK]

My predictions

Berube to Toronto
Keefe to Pitt
Sullivan to NJ
Brindamour to Seattle
Hakstel to Columbus
Blysma to Carolina
Nelson to LA
McClelland to Ottawa

 

[Burrowsaurus]

DJs biggest strength is probably he ability to be friends with some top coaches. He’s tight with a lot of the best coaches around the league. That goes a loooooooooooong way Ina. Profession like pro sports. Longer way than in most professions

My predictions

Berube to Toronto
Keefe to Pitt
Sullivan to NJ
Brindamour to Seattle
Hakstel to Columbus
Blysma to Carolina
Nelson to LA
McClelland to Ottawa

Garrioch has mentioned evason quite.a bit. Smoke? Fire?

 

[GCK]

DJs biggest strength is probably he ability to be friends with some top coaches. He’s tight with a lot of the best coaches around the league. That goes a loooooooooooong way Ina. Profession like pro sports. Longer way than in most professions


Garrioch has mentioned evason quite.a bit. Smoke? Fire?

Gas.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Gas.

At least coaches are actually taking interviews

 

[BankStreetParade]

Which is why if you lack the info, you can put in caveat, Stützle is really underperforming this year, I wonder if he's playing through something, for example. Leadership debates are always dumb, and I've called out people who make grand claims without the required insight in the past, no different.

Your hypothetical is answered by the nature of my position, as someone who lacks the information to evaluate Gruden, I'd naturally choose Brindamour, but that doesn't mean I'd say Gruden is a bad choice, just not one I'm in a position to make. So for me, I'd have to wait and see what happens to evaluate a hire of Gruden, just like if I get into an Uber in a city I'm less familiar with, I don't immediately assume if he takes a different route than the one I know will get me to the destination that he took a wrong turn, I have to wait and see as more information becomes available.

I get the desire to hire a more known commodity, there's nothing wrong with that, it's even my preference given the other options to me are unknowns that I can't evaluate, but if we do hire someone less known, all I can do is wait and see. When Bannister replaced Berube this year, he got significantly more out of the blues than Berube was getting the last two years despite zero NHL HC experience, yet people are generally on board with Berube, Edmonton under Knoblauch with his zero games as a NHL head coach turned their season around and had the highest pts % under him the team has had since the 80's with Gretzky, even with experience there's no guarantees.

If we are hiring a less known guy because we can't attract or afford a more well known guy, then that would be a problem, but is there any reason to believe that is the case? We shouldn't be reading into any hire now the same motivations we assumed under the previous regime. All I'm saying is if we go that route, the logical thing to do is wait to see how in pans out, otherwise you'll look like the people complaining we didn't take Brink or Kaliyev over Pinto without ever having seen any of the three play a single game.

You've finally arrived to the point I've been making. You don't have the information to evaluate Gruden because he's an unknown quantity at the NHL level, while Brind'Amour is a known quantity. I never said it's impossible for an inexperienced head coach to succeed with this team but it's about possibility and probability. Is it possible? Yes. There's a spectrum that we can go back and forth on (is it 15%? 30%? More? Less?). Is it probable? Historically, inexperienced coaches don't perform well. A lot of them do better their second time around but first time coaches are a complete mixed bag. You don't know if you get the next Cooper or the next Eakins.

So why would this team want that uncertainty? There's performance expectations, there's PR, there's marketing...

From a performance expectation perspective: imagine they hire an inexperienced coach and they get off to another rough start. Can you imagine what the reaction is going to be?

From a PR perspective: the casual fan is going to say "another nobody instead of a big name coach?" because not every fan who spends money follows the team as closely as the people who write here do.

From a marketing perspective: you go out and get a veteran coach with an excellent resume and track record so you can sell it to the public. It gets the average fan excited because it brings a sense of stability and trust to the position.

I'm not saying an unknown quantity can't succeed but why do they even want to try to find out? It makes so little sense from so many different angles.

 

[PlayOn]

You've finally arrived to the point I've been making. You don't have the information to evaluate Gruden because he's an unknown quantity at the NHL level, while Brind'Amour is a known quantity. I never said it's impossible for an inexperienced head coach to succeed with this team but it's about possibility and probability. Is it possible? Yes. There's a spectrum that we can go back and forth on (is it 15%? 30%? More? Less?). Is it probable? Historically, inexperienced coaches don't perform well. A lot of them do better their second time around but first time coaches are a complete mixed bag. You don't know if you get the next Cooper or the next Eakins.

So why would this team want that uncertainty? There's performance expectations, there's PR, there's marketing...

From a performance expectation perspective: imagine they hire an inexperienced coach and they get off to another rough start. Can you imagine what the reaction is going to be?

From a PR perspective: the casual fan is going to say "another nobody instead of a big name coach?" because not every fan who spends money follows the team as closely as the people who write here do.

From a marketing perspective: you go out and get a veteran coach with an excellent resume and track record so you can sell it to the public. It gets the average fan excited because it brings a sense of stability and trust to the position.

I'm not saying an unknown quantity can't succeed but why do they even want to try to find out? It makes so little sense from so many different angles.

The best PR is building a winning team. Staios’ job is to block out the noise and make the best decisions for this franchise - he will convince people with results. If you can’t do that as a GM, you end up with the Summer of Pierre.

Setting hard lines that aren’t a key determinator of success is just a sign of inflexibility. If Staios and Jacques understand why some coaches transition well and others don’t, at some point they have to have confidence in themselves to make the right choice if that’s the best candidate available for what they’re looking for.

 

[GCK]

You've finally arrived to the point I've been making. You don't have the information to evaluate Gruden because he's an unknown quantity at the NHL level, while Brind'Amour is a known quantity. I never said it's impossible for an inexperienced head coach to succeed with this team but it's about possibility and probability. Is it possible? Yes. There's a spectrum that we can go back and forth on (is it 15%? 30%? More? Less?). Is it probable? Historically, inexperienced coaches don't perform well. A lot of them do better their second time around but first time coaches are a complete mixed bag. You don't know if you get the next Cooper or the next Eakins.

So why would this team want that uncertainty? There's performance expectations, there's PR, there's marketing...

From a performance expectation perspective: imagine they hire an inexperienced coach and they get off to another rough start. Can you imagine what the reaction is going to be?

From a PR perspective: the casual fan is going to say "another nobody instead of a big name coach?" because not every fan who spends money follows the team as closely as the people who write here do.

From a marketing perspective: you go out and get a veteran coach with an excellent resume and track record so you can sell it to the public. It gets the average fan excited because it brings a sense of stability and trust to the position.

I'm not saying an unknown quantity can't succeed but why do they even want to try to find out? It makes so little sense from so many different angles.

If you base a coach hiring on marketing you are following the Dorion plan. Just a terrible way to build a winner.

 

[Micklebot]

You've finally arrived to the point I've been making. You don't have the information to evaluate Gruden because he's an unknown quantity at the NHL level, while Brind'Amour is a known quantity. I never said it's impossible for an inexperienced head coach to succeed with this team but it's about possibility and probability. Is it possible? Yes. There's a spectrum that we can go back and forth on (is it 15%? 30%? More? Less?). Is it probable? Historically, inexperienced coaches don't perform well. A lot of them do better their second time around but first time coaches are a complete mixed bag. You don't know if you get the next Cooper or the next Eakins.

So why would this team want that uncertainty? There's performance expectations, there's PR, there's marketing...

From a performance expectation perspective: imagine they hire an inexperienced coach and they get off to another rough start. Can you imagine what the reaction is going to be?

From a PR perspective: the casual fan is going to say "another nobody instead of a big name coach?" because not every fan who spends money follows the team as closely as the people who write here do.

From a marketing perspective: you go out and get a veteran coach with an excellent resume and track record so you can sell it to the public. It gets the average fan excited because it brings a sense of stability and trust to the position.

I'm not saying an unknown quantity can't succeed but why do they even want to try to find out? It makes so little sense from so many different angles.

Marketing perspective is irrelevant, PR is irrelevant, we're talking about evaluating a hire. I was quite clear that fans do not typically act rationally, they react emotionally.

The original point was it is very hard to judge a coaching hire with anything but hindsight since the information required is not something fans have access to. This was brought up by Bert and seconded by Big Muddy, and you acted incredulous that they would take the wait and see approach. If the question is "is coach A a good hire" you will need to wait and see how he does to answer that question, particularly when he doesn't have an existing track record. That is, and always was my point.

Why did Edmonton want to find out if Knoblauch could cut it (or woodcroft before him), why did StL want to find out if Bannister would cut it (or Berube before him who had limited NHL HC experience, why did Dallas try Montgomery a few years back (he'd likely still be there if not for "unprofessional conduct", why did the leafs try our Keefe, the TbL Cooper, Det Lalonde, Col Bednar, Nashville Brunnette, the Wild Evanson, Arz Tourigny, the Capitals Cabery, all guys who are either recent AHL hires, or had limited NHL experience before landing with their current teams.

So back to the original point, I'll wait and see how the new hire performs, regardless of their background, before passing judgement, becuase as an outsider without much to go on other than brand name recognition, that's the rational thing to do.