Speculation: 2020-21 Management/Coach/Owner Discussion

[CrazyDuck4u]

Just Firing Eakins is not going to fix the problem. Eakins hasn’t made the best decisions but he has little to work with and the injuries haven’t helped.

Injuries? Like the one St louis is dealing with and still winning? Our organization is a joke right now.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Just Firing Eakins is not going to fix the problem. Eakins hasn’t made the best decisions but he has little to work with and the injuries haven’t helped.

I'm not a fan of Eakins, but he needs to finish this season out. Eakins probably needed the pre-season the most to implement his stuff, but he also wasn't banking on his top scorer to go ice cold in Rico. Eakins is stressing offense, offense, offense, but our defense cannot keep up. It's possible we don't have the horses on defense as we've lost Manson and Lindholm, but it appears the team isn't fully buying in or the message isn't being accepted well enough.

This team has talent, but it's also about effort and strategies. How did we improve our PK, but not our PP? During this time of establishing defense, our offense should slowly develop. Instead, we stop skating at odd points. Why can't Eakins wake up the troops like his counterpart in Arizona when they were down 3-0 to win 4-3 twice in back to back games? Eakins needs to develop as a coach, but I guess he doesn't possess the gravitas to command respect for his wishes to be implemented.

This query of is it the coach or the gm is brought up again. This question was brought up with Bruce Boudreau and his losing ways in the playoffs with being ahead on home ice with a series lead only to lose it on home ice... like 3 or 4 times? We went to the Conference finals with Bruce and lost in that fashion. Why do people keep blaming GM Murray for Bruce's inability to close out series on home ice? Similarly, we've witness this team look dominant for 2 periods + as well as score, but we somehow manage to find a way to lose. In all of the post game interviews, each player cites the same thing after a loss, "we need to play all 60".

It could be a coach thing and that's all, but landing a good coach is similar to the draft... you never know until you have him on your squad. Bruce is a regular season great coach, but abysmal playoff coach. No idea why we went back to Randy, I wasn't a fan of it, but, apparently, the players were. The player who probably did like his style wasn't healthy enough to implement it with Kesler. There were other candidates for HC that I liked more than Eakins, but I guess GM Murray wanted that continuity with his youth group.

We can win low scoring, boring games. In order to do that we need max effort on execution. We're doing it in spurts. It's the coach's job to make sure we're doing it for all 60 minutes or more. We lost the defensive edge when we started losing our fourth line: Grant fell to injury and came back not quite himself on the fourth line, then we lose another in Rowney. Des isn't in sync with anyone right now. That fourth line doesn't have a lot of talent, but they executed well at the start of the year when they were all healthy. We do have more talented forwards than the fourth line, but their execution isn't all there right now. We found a line with high chemistry with Comtois-Lundy-Rakell, but it's been separated. Why?!

It's coaching and effort. The GM supported the coach in waiving one of their highly vested veterans, who was their top scorer last year. If the coaching staff sees D Shatty as a top pairing defenseman, then isn't that on the coach who controls who get what ice time? I want high effort all of the time consistently. That's the very least a coach can show if he's a good coach. We are an inconsistent bunch. That's on the coach.

 

[bsu]

We have 0 offense from our defense and none of our forwards can finish. Our power play is a joke because the defense of the other team doesn't respect anyone on our blue line, they will let Fowler shoot his rainbow muffins from the point all day that's why there's never any space for our forwards.

EDIT: wrong thread but still relevant.

 

[Leonardo87]

We have 0 offense from our defense and none of our forwards can finish. Our power play is a joke because the defense of the other team doesn't respect anyone on our blue line, they will let Fowler shoot his rainbow muffins from the point all day that's why there's never any space for our forwards.

EDIT: wrong thread but still relevant.

LOL, Rainbow muffins got me a chuckle. Still, Fowler on pace for over 40 points again (Full 82 game season)on a shitty offensive Ducks team, not really too shabby. I’m hoping to see Drysdale up there with Zegras real soon on the 1st PP unit.

 

[Ducks DVM]

If true, BM absolutely needs to be canned ASAP

 

[robbieboy3686]

On nhl network, they are talking about sutter in Calgary , “ I heard but it is unconfirmed that Anaheim offered the job to him” that dude that used to be a gm. Forget his name and they aren’t showing his name . When they do I’ll edit

 

[Paul4587]

LOL, Rainbow muffins got me a chuckle. Still, Fowler on pace for over 40 points again (Full 82 game season)on a shitty offensive Ducks team, not really too shabby. I’m hoping to see Drysdale up there with Zegras real soon on the 1st PP unit.

He’s riding some pretty unsustainable shooting percentages currently though, I’m not sure that pace continues. The Ducks on ice shooting percentage with him on the ice is 11.3%. The highest it’s ever been before this season for Cam is 8.5%.

He’s been lights out the past 5 games though, if he can continue that I can see the pace continue but that’s a pretty tall ask.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

If true, BM absolutely needs to be canned ASAP

Given Sutter himself said he would've coached the Blackhawks if offered, that confirms the border part isn't at all true, that doesn't really help that rumors credibility.

Now, I'm not sure I believe Sutter, but that's only because I have a hard time believing he would turn down any coaching job. It's the exact same thing with Burke, I think its just pride.

 

[Hey234]

The Ducks rarely leak information especially something about possibly firing a coach. I'm not sure why some random radio station in Calgary would know before anyone else and there has been no confirmation that it is true anywhere.

Firing Eakins right now doesn't really make any sense for a team that just lost Lindholm for 6 weeks and can't win. What's the point? The young players are improving which is the only realistic goal left this season other than not getting injured. Everything about this screams not true.

 

[DavidBL]

The Ducks rarely leak information especially something about possibly firing a coach. I'm not sure why some random radio station in Calgary would know before anyone else and there has been no confirmation that it is true anywhere.

Firing Eakins right now doesn't really make any sense for a team that just lost Lindholm for 6 weeks and can't win. What's the point? The young players are improving which is the only realistic goal left this season other than not getting injured. Everything about this screams not true.

8 straight losses I think puts any coach on the hot seat.

 

[Hey234]

8 straight losses I think puts any coach on the hot seat.

Sure, but what really changes if Eakins is fired? The Ducks will not make the playoffs especially while Lindholm and Manson are still injured. The players aren't going to start scoring out of nowhere. A coaching change would just be for show. Maybe the PP improves but that doesn't change the fact that the playoffs are gone.

 

[DavidBL]

Sure, but what really changes if Eakins is fired? The Ducks will not make the playoffs especially while Lindholm and Manson are still injured. The players aren't going to start scoring out of nowhere. A coaching change would just be for show. Maybe the PP improves but that doesn't change the fact that the playoffs are gone.

While I agree its unlikely a win streak can put us right back in it too. There still a lot of eb and flow.

 

[Bergey37]

Sure, but what really changes if Eakins is fired? The Ducks will not make the playoffs especially while Lindholm and Manson are still injured. The players aren't going to start scoring out of nowhere. A coaching change would just be for show. Maybe the PP improves but that doesn't change the fact that the playoffs are gone.

It's 8 straight losses AND none of the veterans (at least FWs) are playing well. Rico and Silf have BOTH fallen off a cliff from last year - what causes that? Raks is working hard but he has to if he wants to maintain a SoCal lifestyle. Grant's fallen off too, Heinen is getting jerked around like he did in Boston. Getzlaf has taken a downturn too, though that may be partly injury related. And then Gibby; he started out great (as did Shattenkirk for 2 games) and then downhill. Makes one wonder if DE has difficulty with veteran players, since the kids are mostly all stepping up, some big-time.

 

[GreatBear]

If I look at the coaching situation from a business perspective, it makes little sense to fire Eakins at this point in time. The club is losing money, and firing Eakins will only cause the club to lose more money, as it pays two coaches instead of just one. With no fans in the stands it doesn't matter if the club wins or loses, so why take on more expense at this point in time.

If I look at the coaching situation from a long term hockey management perspective I think it is pretty clear that Eakins is not the proper choice for this team. While he could argue that it is a matter of bad luck that he coached both the Ducks and Edmonton at their worst times, the proof of his capability is in the results. There is no reason why the Ducks should be this bad, losing 8 games in a row, including some in very embarrassing fashion. Other, far more successful coaches may not be able to have the Ducks in a playoff position, but they would at least have the team competitive and winning more games than they have won.

In my opinion Eakins is out of his depth. He may be a good minor league coach, but he is not capable at the NHL level. I don't blame BM for giving Eakins a shot, since he allegedly "learned" from his Edmonton experience and had good results with the Gulls. However, just as some players are capable at the AHL level but not at the NHL level, I would put Eakins in the same category.

It is time for the Ducks to move on to a different coach, and to bring in a new set of assistant coaches. In other words, clean house and start again. I would probably due this after the season is over, as there will be more choices at that point in time. I would also do a GM change at the end of the season as well. BM has one season left on this contract, and he can easily be made a "special advisor" for that year. Let the new GM pick the new coach.

I don't want to dump completely on BM. He did a good job at various times in the past. But for the last few years the team has been bad, and at some point the GM has to take responsibility for those results. GM's and coaches are hired in hockey with a relatively short term employment expectancy. The phrase is that coaches are hired to be fired. The same is true for the GM. It is only the exceptional coach and GM who have long term employment at a particular team. And at this point neither BM or Eakins meets this standard of being exceptional.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I don't want to dump completely on BM. He did a good job at various times in the past. But for the last few years the team has been bad, and at some point the GM has to take responsibility for those results. GM's and coaches are hired in hockey with a relatively short term employment expectancy. The phrase is that coaches are hired to be fired. The same is true for the GM. It is only the exceptional coach and GM who have long term employment at a particular team. And at this point neither BM or Eakins meets this standard of being exceptional.

You're not wrong this is how teams act but I don't think it's a smart practice when it comes to the GM. It's more unfortunate than anything with coaches because a lot of them don't stop being good coaches but it's just reality that eventually their voice is going to wear out with a group and it's time to change. With a GM, though, this factor just isn't there. It's probably not possible to have a coach around for much more than a decade but there's really no reason a GM can't and we're seeing that right now with a couple.

I don't think it there needs to be some exceptional standard, either. It's so easy to bring in someone worse, especially if you're going after someone who's never done it, and if you have a good GM, which I think we do, you're just best off keeping them. There's been a good deal of GMs fired mostly because it was "time to go" and I feel it ends badly more often than not.

 

[Masch78]

Can we please scout Junior and Minor leages and sign the coach of the best powerplay as an assistant! Thank you!

 

[Opak]

If true, BM absolutely needs to be canned ASAP

Needs to go regardless of this rumor.

 

[GreatBear]

You're not wrong this is how teams act but I don't think it's a smart practice when it comes to the GM. It's more unfortunate than anything with coaches because a lot of them don't stop being good coaches but it's just reality that eventually their voice is going to wear out with a group and it's time to change. With a GM, though, this factor just isn't there. It's probably not possible to have a coach around for much more than a decade but there's really no reason a GM can't and we're seeing that right now with a couple.

I don't think it there needs to be some exceptional standard, either. It's so easy to bring in someone worse, especially if you're going after someone who's never done it, and if you have a good GM, which I think we do, you're just best off keeping them. There's been a good deal of GMs fired mostly because it was "time to go" and I feel it ends badly more often than not.

GM's generally have a longer tenure than coaches. But in the end the success of a GM is measured by how the team does over a period of years. If the team continues to do poorly and not progress then it is time to replace the GM. A lack of success during a particular year can be a matter of bad luck. But over a long period of time a lack of success it is a measure of management skill.

I think that BM did a good job in the past. I do not believe that he is doing a good job now. Perhaps it is due to directions from ownership. We don't have access to those communications. But the success of the team on the ice is the measurement of performance of the GM, and it is now lacking. Are there worse GM's? Yes. And could the next GM of the Ducks be worse? Yes. But at some time you have to take a risk and move forward to try to progress, rather than sticking with something that is not working.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

GM's generally have a longer tenure than coaches. But in the end the success of a GM is measured by how the team does over a period of years. If the team continues to do poorly and not progress then it is time to replace the GM. A lack of success during a particular year can be a matter of bad luck. But over a long period of time a lack of success it is a measure of management skill.

I think that BM did a good job in the past. I do not believe that he is doing a good job now. Perhaps it is due to directions from ownership. We don't have access to those communications. But the success of the team on the ice is the measurement of performance of the GM, and it is now lacking. Are there worse GM's? Yes. And could the next GM of the Ducks be worse? Yes. But at some time you have to take a risk and move forward to try to progress, rather than sticking with something that is not working.

As you say, we don't know what ownership thinks, which includes whether they think whatever the plan is is working. I take it for granted that BM is more candid with them than he is with the media--I presume he's laid out a plan and given a timeline of how long it'll take, maybe laid down some milestone markers. By this time we should be seeing some kids contributing, and so forth. So it could be that what we're seeing on the ice is actually increasing ownership's confidence in BM.

 

[Deuce22]

As you say, we don't know what ownership thinks, which includes whether they think whatever the plan is is working. I take it for granted that BM is more candid with them than he is with the media--I presume he's laid out a plan and given a timeline of how long it'll take, maybe laid down some milestone markers. By this time we should be seeing some kids contributing, and so forth. So it could be that what we're seeing on the ice is actually increasing ownership's confidence in BM.

Very interesting point. Fans sometimes assume that everyone (including owners) see things through the same lens that we do. Bad assumption.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

GM's generally have a longer tenure than coaches. But in the end the success of a GM is measured by how the team does over a period of years. If the team continues to do poorly and not progress then it is time to replace the GM. A lack of success during a particular year can be a matter of bad luck. But over a long period of time a lack of success it is a measure of management skill.

I think that BM did a good job in the past. I do not believe that he is doing a good job now. Perhaps it is due to directions from ownership. We don't have access to those communications. But the success of the team on the ice is the measurement of performance of the GM, and it is now lacking. Are there worse GM's? Yes. And could the next GM of the Ducks be worse? Yes. But at some time you have to take a risk and move forward to try to progress, rather than sticking with something that is not working.

I think that's mostly true when the teams at a certain stage, or put differently success is measured differently at those different stages. I don't think its as simple as the team is bad therefore the GM has to go. To me this is pretty close to where I'd want to see things for a rebuild, so the progress is in the right direction.

I also don't think its simply that you can't risk it because the next GM could be worse, I just think Murray is a good GM and it's a fairly unnecessary risk and I'm not sure how much upside there is, especially if a first timer is brought in. I especially think it's not worth it given this team currently drafts well and bringing someone else in greatly puts that in jeopardy.

One reason I'm on board with a Madden succession plan is that it maintains that drafting infrastructure, while bringing in a fresh perspective but also likely some sort of mentorship to help him through the learning process.

 

[duckpuck]

I really believe Murray is gone after the expansion draft. I think that's been the plan all along. It makes perfect sense to keep Eakins until then and then let the new GM decide on his coach. Only other realistic option is to fire Eakins and make an assistant an interim coach. Not sure how that helps because the roster is the real problem.

The guy I think could be an interesting option is Gerard Gallant. Incredible initial success in Vegas and his teams have offense. But again, I think you wait until the offseason.

 

[robbieboy3686]

Can anyone post what the recent Eric stephens mailbag said about “ should eakins and Murray be fired “ or copy and paste plZ Tysm!

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Can anyone post what the recent Eric stephens mailbag said about “ should eakins and Murray be fired “ or copy and paste plZ Tysm!

That was definitely a very clickbaity title, he had no real information there. He figured no and I'd be inclined to agree.

 

[MMC]