MacDonald4MVP
Registered User
- May 7, 2016
- 9,999
- 5,341
The fact that you have Carter Hart and Mitch Korn is available, but you say nope I'm sticking by Jeff is unforgivable negligence on GM's part and he should of been fired right then.
Trotz can play goal?
Trotz wouldn't have made a big difference here because Hakstol had them playing good defense (top ten in scoring chances, HDCA allowed), so his disciplined approach wouldn't provide the same benefits it did in the clusterf--- that Weight left behind him. Trotz has a good goaltending coach, but you have to have the players to coach. We didn't have any healthy goalies.
Trotz would be an upgrade over Gordon in that the Flyers have become sloppy since Gordon took over, more aggressive but less disciplined (way too many easy scoring chances allowed, Hart kept them in games until he got injured).
Trotz broke down Holtby: 72. 66, 63 starts his first three years with Trotz, .923, .922, .925, last two seasons, .907, .908.
The right coach won't fix the flaws on this roster, a coach can use players better, but he can't make them faster or shoot more accurately. When Sullivan took over in Pittsburgh, for example, the GM retooled the roster to fit his style of coaching.
A good system makes a goalie's life easier. That is known fact.
The fact that you have Carter Hart and Mitch Korn is available, but you say nope I'm sticking by Jeff is unforgivable negligence on GM's part and he should of been fired right then.
The fact that this even seems debatable is baffling unless person making the opposite claim has literally never played the game.
I’m certainly not arguing that Trotz is a bad coach.
I’m arguing that Trotz isn’t immune to awful goaltending, which a lot of posters seem to think.
i see the usual contrarians are at it again.
coaching matters. if you think it doesn't, you don't know a thing about hockey.
Everything is always extremes around here, either you agree with me or you must believe the total opposite.
Does coaching matter, of course. The question is HOW much does coaching matter, and when and where.
That is, a good coach in one situation may be a mediocre coach in other situations or with different talent.
See Lavi on the Flyers.
Flyers haven't had bad coaches, they've had mediocre coaches.
Weight was a bad coach, he took a playoff caliber team and buried them.
Both Hextall and Berube got mediocre teams to the playoffs.
Berube has completely turned around St Louis. A hot goaltender helps, but you could say the same for Trotz.
No coach can overcome bad goaltending, a good coach with the right talent can work around mediocre goaltending.
Everything is always extremes around here, either you agree with me or you must believe the total opposite.
Does coaching matter, of course. The question is HOW much does coaching matter, and when and where.
That is, a good coach in one situation may be a mediocre coach in other situations or with different talent.
See Lavi on the Flyers.
Flyers haven't had bad coaches, they've had mediocre coaches.
Weight was a bad coach, he took a playoff caliber team and buried them.
Both Hextall and Berube got mediocre teams to the playoffs.
Berube has completely turned around St Louis. A hot goaltender helps, but you could say the same for Trotz.
No coach can overcome bad goaltending, a good coach with the right talent can work around mediocre goaltending.
Bad coaches don't take mediocre teams to the playoffs.
People engage in hyperbole on the internet almost as if it's a requirement for posting.
In the real world, there's a spectrum, few really bad coaches because they get selected out quickly, a lot of mediocre coaches who get by for a while and have some success, fewer good coaches who consistently have success, and a small group of great coaches who excel.
I'm not sure I'd consider either Lavi or Trotz "great" coaches, probably "very good", but not guys who dominated the sport.
Yepi see the usual contrarians are at it again.
coaching matters. if you think it doesn't, you don't know a thing about hockey.
#ironyBad coaches don't take mediocre teams to the playoffs.
People engage in hyperbole on the internet almost as if it's a requirement for posting.
Your post here is hyperbolic, half the teams in the league make the playoffs, meaning that mediocre teams get there every season.
Capuano had Tavares. Trotz has a team picked by many to be last or next to last in the Metro.
Coaching matters. A lot
It does. The problem is that there aren't that many good ones that can truly adjust effectively to their personnel.Capuano had Tavares. Trotz has a team picked by many to be last or next to last in the Metro.
Coaching matters. A lot
Enjoying the fact that capuano and Trotz had 'similar players' while one had a franchise c and the other didn't.
But I guess when you think Nolan Patrick will be better than Tavares before seasons end, it goes to show how poorly you a) rate tavares or b) evaluate talent or c) rhetmost likely scenario, both.
Uh, Barzal outscored JT on the same team last year playing 2 less minutes a night.
Barzal's scoring is down this year b/c Trotz plays a conservative system.
So JT v Barzal is pretty close to even.