Confirmed with Link: Boucher: to return or not to return, that is the question

[BatherSeason]

After 50 games, last season, with EK65, Hoffman and the rest ..... Ottawa had 43 points, with 17 Wins in Regulation

After 50 games this season, without EK65, Hoffman etc ..... playing a rookie on every line and every defensive pairing (for the most part) ...... Ottawa has 43 points, with 19 Wins in Regulation.


Average attendance at the CTC last season was 15,376
Average attendance so far this season 14424
A difference of 952.

Freebies last year: 0
Freebies this year: probably close to 10000.

 

[Boud]

Crawford is the logical choice to finish the season. Veteran head coach, will have respect of the players.

Why all the hate?

Mann might not be ready (although he fits the profile as a good teaching coach and good with young guys),

Does anyone prefer Marty Raymond? I certainly dont.

In this scenario you created why are our only options terrible and even worse than terrible?

 

[topshelf15]

I'd be ok with this as a temporary measure only. Maybe Crawford's Full Metal Jacket drill sergeant routine scares the players into playing just well enough to deny Colorado a lottery pick, until they inevitably tune out his screaming.

Wouldnt mind this approach with some of the deadwood players

 

[DJB]

In this scenario you created why are our only options terrible and even worse than terrible?

Lol just going on past history with this franchise. The EL cheapo way is the Sens way.

 

[Clayonator]

Couldnt win in the playoffs,but as a coach for the X,s and O,s he was really good

Yeah, he’d fall under the umbrella as a specialist coach in my mind. Assistant’s role, not the top dog however.

 

[Cloud]

Or a money issue. Can't forget that money drives everything for this franchise.

That's certainly probable.

 

[JungleBeat]

Boucher’s contact is up this summer and I don’t think there’s anyway possible way they extend him or his staff.

The worst this the team can do is hire old relics like Hartley,McLellan,Sutter etc. Aim to land Keefe or Groulx to help with the rooks.

 

[Boud]

Boucher’s contact is up this summer and I don’t think there’s anyway possible way they extend him or his staff.

The worst this the team can do is hire old relics like Hartley,McLellan,Sutter etc. Aim to land Keefe or Groulx to help with the rooks.

I mean.. I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't want an experienced coach, for once, that'll have credibility and could potentially last more than 1-2 years.

 

[Silencio]

Boucher’s contact is up this summer and I don’t think there’s anyway possible way they extend him or his staff.

The worst this the team can do is hire old relics like Hartley,McLellan,Sutter etc. Aim to land Keefe or Groulx to help with the rooks.

I'm totally on board the Chief Keefe train.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Yeah.....

 

[JungleBeat]

I mean.. I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't want an experienced coach, for once, that'll have credibility and could potentially last more than 1-2 years.

The only good experienced coach on the market is Quenneville and he’s definitely not going to join the team.

 

[topshelf15]

The only good experienced coach on the market is Quenneville and he’s definitely not going to join the team.

And why not??.....NVM

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I agree...would be nice to see what he could actually do if he had something resembling a talented team to work with. I continue to fail to understand what people expect when you barely have an AHL defense core.

So what is your explanation for his poor performance last season? And his poor performance in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Tampa bay?

I am not sure if this influenced you, but it does seem like his success in his first season in Ottawa and Tampa Bay have lead some people to potentially overvalue his abilities as a coach. They look at going to the Eastern Conference Final in his first season with both Ottawa and Tampa and potentially jump to the conclusion that he is a great coach and just needs a good roster. It is like the anchoring effect in cognitive biases where the first piece of information distorts the perspective of all subsequent information.

Tampa Bay finished near the bottom of the league under Boucher in his 2nd Ave 3rd season. Ottawa is on track to finish near the bottom of the league in its 2nd and 3rd season under Boucher. Therefore in six seasons as an NHL coach he has 2 ECF finishes and is on track for 4 bottom of the league finishes.

Certainly the small sample size can be misleading but so far under Boucher a team is twice as likely to finish in the bottom of the league than to make it to the ECF. We could also evaluate where the team finished in regular season for the ECF runs. Ottawa barely made it into the playoffs and I am not sure where Tampa finished.

Given the fact that the playoffs are difficult to predict we could take the performance and make a tentative conclusion that based on historical data that under Boucher a team is twice as likely to finish in the bottom of the league than to make the playoffs.

To make a different conclusion one would have to come up with compelling explanations as to the poor performance in his other 4 seasons. They would have to be so compelling that the majority would make the conclusion that any other reasonably competent NHL coach would have the same results given the same conditions and same challenges. Or in other words they would have to prove that the majority of coaches would be powerless to that outcome and should therefore be excused of any responsibility.

 

[BonkTastic]

The only good experienced coach on the market is Quenneville and he’s definitely not going to join the team.

I still think the best guys for the job (with the caveat of being a realistic target, not a "perfect scenario but we can't afford him and/or he won't come here" guy) are John Stevens and Sheldon Keefe.

Stevens got a raw deal in both Philadelphia and LA. In Philly, he got fired as a knee-jerk reaction to an early-season record caused by injuries. In LA, he was the scapegoat for an old, bad team whose braintrust can't come to terms with the fact that their cup window is closed and they need to rebuild. As far as experienced coaches are concerned, he's probably the best one that would consider our meager salary constraints.

Keefe is going to be a great coach, and he might consider coming here on a budget (because lets be honest, we're not going to be paying top dollar for a coachany time soon) to "prove himself" at the NHL level.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I still think the best guys for the job (with the caveat of being a realistic target, not a "perfect scenario but we can't afford him and/or he won't come here" guy) are John Stevens and Sheldon Keefe.

Stevens got a raw deal in both Philadelphia and LA. In Philly, he got fired as a knee-jerk reaction to an early-season record caused by injuries. In LA, he was the scapegoat for an old, bad team whose braintrust can't come to terms with the fact that their cup window is closed and they need to rebuild. As far as experienced coaches are concerned, he's probably the best one that would consider our meager salary constraints.

Keefe is going to be a great coach, and he might consider coming here on a budget (because lets be honest, we're not going to be paying top dollar for a coachany time soon) to "prove himself" at the NHL level.

What was Stevens salary in LA? That might give us an idea of how realistic it is to hire him

 

[BonkTastic]

What was Stevens salary in LA? That might give us an idea of how realistic it is to hire him

No idea, it was never announced.

Sutter made $2.5mil before Stevens, and I read that Stevens made "significantly less".

Seems like a good target, IMO.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

No idea, it was never announced.

Sutter made $2.5mil before Stevens, and I read that Stevens made "significantly less".

Seems like a good target, IMO.

He should be within melnyk price range then. He could be the best coach within that price range as well.

 

[Cloud]

So what is your explanation for his poor performance last season? And his poor performance in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Tampa bay?

I am not sure if this influenced you, but it does seem like his success in his first season in Ottawa and Tampa Bay have lead some people to potentially overvalue his abilities as a coach. They look at going to the Eastern Conference Final in his first season with both Ottawa and Tampa and potentially jump to the conclusion that he is a great coach and just needs a good roster. It is like the anchoring effect in cognitive biases where the first piece of information distorts the perspective of all subsequent information.

Tampa Bay finished near the bottom of the league under Boucher in his 2nd Ave 3rd season. Ottawa is on track to finish near the bottom of the league in its 2nd and 3rd season under Boucher. Therefore in six seasons as an NHL coach he has 2 ECF finishes and is on track for 4 bottom of the league finishes.

Certainly the small sample size can be misleading but so far under Boucher a team is twice as likely to finish in the bottom of the league than to make it to the ECF. We could also evaluate where the team finished in regular season for the ECF runs. Ottawa barely made it into the playoffs and I am not sure where Tampa finished.

Given the fact that the playoffs are difficult to predict we could take the performance and make a tentative conclusion that based on historical data that under Boucher a team is twice as likely to finish in the bottom of the league than to make the playoffs.

To make a different conclusion one would have to come up with compelling explanations as to the poor performance in his other 4 seasons. They would have to be so compelling that the majority would make the conclusion that any other reasonably competent NHL coach would have the same results given the same conditions and same challenges. Or in other words they would have to prove that the majority of coaches would be powerless to that outcome and should therefore be excused of any responsibility.

I didn't follow his tenure in Tampa so I don't have an opinion on his time there nor the teams performance or lack thereof.

His first season in either place didn't and doesn't influence me at all. I tend to judge him against the previous coaches that we had. I could ask the same questions you did regarding Clouston, Mclean, Hartsburg and Cameron...all of them failed just as miserably with a fairly talented team. In fact you could make a sound argument that we had more talented teams under some of those coaches.

All that being said Boucher obviously isn't the best coach we could have hired but I try to be a realist....no chance we are going after a Quennville or someone of that ilk...and I was honestly getting tired of the carousel. At least Boucher is capable of employing a system and altering as need be based on what he's being given to work with. That and I appreciate the fact that he's honest about things during interviews...and while I realize some people may like the more generic hockey related answers we usually get from coaches and players alike..I've personally never been a fan of being lied to.

Bottom line...you don't like him..and think we can do better...and that's fine. But to use the evidence based argument that you used I could make the argument that none of our previous four coaches were able to get as much out of this team than Boucher did. He clearly is able to come up with a plan and system that is capable of winning....it's on the players to buy in and more importantly...execute. Last year the locker room and chemistry was a disaster so I doubt anyone was buying in to anything...and this year the talent simply isn't there for an execution stand point.

And while this clearly isn't the year to do it...at some point you have to hold the players accountable...they could just as easily tune out a Quennville or Boudreau..and fail to buy in or execute. Boucher has proven twice and more ( in Europe ) that he has the systems capable of winning....but the players need to do it.

 

[BondraTime]

I didn't follow his tenure in Tampa so I don't have an opinion on his time there nor the teams performance or lack thereof.

His first season in either place didn't and doesn't influence me at all. I tend to judge him against the previous coaches that we had. I could ask the same questions you did regarding Clouston, Mclean, Hartsburg and Cameron...all of them failed just as miserably with a fairly talented team. In fact you could make a sound argument that we had more talented teams under some of those coaches.

All that being said Boucher obviously isn't the best coach we could have hired but I try to be a realist....no chance we are going after a Quennville or someone of that ilk...and I was honestly getting tired of the carousel. At least Boucher is capable of employing a system and altering as need be based on what he's being given to work with. That and I appreciate the fact that he's honest about things during interviews...and while I realize some people may like the more generic hockey related answers we usually get from coaches and players alike..I've personally never been a fan of being lied to.

Bottom line...you don't like him..and think we can do better...and that's fine. But to use the evidence based argument that you used I could make the argument that none of our previous four coaches were able to get as much out of this team than Boucher did. He clearly is able to come up with a plan and system that is capable of winning....it's on the players to buy in and more importantly...execute. Last year the locker room and chemistry was a disaster so I doubt anyone was buying in to anything...and this year the talent simply isn't there for an execution stand point.

And while this clearly isn't the year to do it...at some point you have to hold the players accountable...they could just as easily tune out a Quennville or Boudreau..and fail to buy in or execute. Boucher has proven twice and more ( in Europe ) that he has the systems capable of winning....but the players need to do it.

Neither of these are ture, he's terrible in interviews, literally saying that we deserve a better fate, pucks weren't going our way, etc. after every embarassing loss. And he never once changed the way he plays the game or alters his system, he literally said as much in our 8 game losing streak, that they were going to continue to play their game and not change anything. He never altered the game-plan at all when we started losing non stop last season.

He's incredibly stubborn and rigid, that's been his downfall in Tampa, Bern, and here

 

[Cloud]

Neither of these are ture, he's terrible in interviews, literally saying that we deserve a better fate, pucks weren't going our way, etc. after every embarassing loss. And he never once changed the way he plays the game or alters his system, he literally said as much in our 8 game losing streak, that they were going to continue to play their game and not change anything. He never altered the game-plan at all when we started losing non stop last season.

He's incredibly stubborn and rigid, that's been his downfall in Tampa, Bern, and here

you're giving our current roster way too much credit...you know...the one that can barely skate and make simple passes...and yet you expect them to adapt to a complete system change mid period?....sure....

 

[BondraTime]

you're giving our current roster way too much credit...you know...the one that can barely skate and make simple passes...and yet you expect them to adapt to a complete system change mid period?....sure....

Not what I'm doing whatsoever, I know how bad this team is, I also know how to identify game structure and systems.

I also know how to identify piss poor coaching, honestly not sure how anyone with an understanding could think he's done a good job.

You think he's done a good job? That's fine, I'm not going to try and change your mind, that's your opinion. Definitely don't agree with it, and definitely wouldn't take any tips.

 

[Cloud]

Not what I'm doing whatsoever, I know how bad this team is, I also know how to identify game structure and systems.

I also know how to identify piss poor coaching, honestly not sure how anyone with an understanding could think he's done a good job.

You think he's done a good job? That's fine, I'm not going to try and change your mind, that's your opinion. Definitely don't agree with it, and definitely wouldn't take any tips.

I think he's done a good job comparing him to our previous 4 coaches...i never said he was the best coach available or even the best coach period...obviously there are better coaches available...the question is...are we going to bother hiring any of them?

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I didn't follow his tenure in Tampa so I don't have an opinion on his time there nor the teams performance or lack thereof.

His first season in either place didn't and doesn't influence me at all. I tend to judge him against the previous coaches that we had. I could ask the same questions you did regarding Clouston, Mclean, Hartsburg and Cameron...all of them failed just as miserably with a fairly talented team. In fact you could make a sound argument that we had more talented teams under some of those coaches.

All that being said Boucher obviously isn't the best coach we could have hired but I try to be a realist....no chance we are going after a Quennville or someone of that ilk...and I was honestly getting tired of the carousel. At least Boucher is capable of employing a system and altering as need be based on what he's being given to work with. That and I appreciate the fact that he's honest about things during interviews...and while I realize some people may like the more generic hockey related answers we usually get from coaches and players alike..I've personally never been a fan of being lied to.

Bottom line...you don't like him..and think we can do better...and that's fine. But to use the evidence based argument that you used I could make the argument that none of our previous four coaches were able to get as much out of this team than Boucher did. He clearly is able to come up with a plan and system that is capable of winning....it's on the players to buy in and more importantly...execute. Last year the locker room and chemistry was a disaster so I doubt anyone was buying in to anything...and this year the talent simply isn't there for an execution stand point.

And while this clearly isn't the year to do it...at some point you have to hold the players accountable...they could just as easily tune out a Quennville or Boudreau..and fail to buy in or execute. Boucher has proven twice and more ( in Europe ) that he has the systems capable of winning....but the players need to do it.

Our previous 4 coaches have not received another opportunity as an NHL head coach. That likely reveals something about their quality. Such as maybe they aren't good enough to coach in the NHL.

I thought Paul MacLean was decent and I could see him as a worthwhile interim coach. But even with that stated the fact he hasn't received another head coaching gig in the NHL creates questions about his flaws.

Given how many coaches are hired and fired I would suspect the average career length for an NHL coach is 3 years. That is about the amount of time our previous coaches lasted. Boucher is finishing his 6th season so in some way that could support an argument that he is at least somewhat better than the average. But with that stated he looks like he will be out of the NHL this offseason .

It seems like as fans we have been faced with mediocrity for so long that at least some fans are willing to be satisfied with something marginally better than mediocre.

I think a better comparison is to look at the coaches that have lasted a while and have coached consistently successful teams and then compare Boucher to them.

 

[slamigo]

Does anyone honestly believe that Boucher gets another Head/asst coach job in the NHL? Or Crawford? Or poor Uber guy?

You get what you pay for.

 

[Cloud]

Our previous 4 coaches have not received another opportunity as an NHL head coach. That likely reveals something about their quality. Such as maybe they aren't good enough to coach in the NHL.

I thought Paul MacLean was decent and I could see him as a worthwhile interim coach. But even with that stated the fact he hasn't received another head coaching gig in the NHL creates questions about his flaws.

Given how many coaches are hired and fired I would suspect the average career length for an NHL coach is 3 years. That is about the amount of time our previous coaches lasted. Boucher is finishing his 6th season so in some way that could support an argument that he is at least somewhat better than the average. But with that stated he looks like he will be out of the NHL this offseason .

It seems like as fans we have been faced with mediocrity for so long that at least some fans are willing to be satisfied with something marginally better than mediocre.

I think a better comparison is to look at the coaches that have lasted a while and have coached consistently successful teams and then compare Boucher to them.

agreed on all points. I certainly wouldn't compare Boucher to any of the more illustrious coaches that we've seen throughout history or even some of the more prominent ones now. Of course we could do better...i guess i just wonder if hiring a coach with a better track record at his moment in time would make much of a difference. You mention mediocrity..management, ownership...at least half of our current roster. The list goes on...even hiring Quenneville at this point would be like putting lipstick on a pig. Might look good for a while...but it's still a pig. I mean just look at what's happening in Edmonton..and they arguably have a substantially more talented team than we do. Brought in a respected head coach in Hitchcock...and after a brief uptick they are right back at being mediocre. At least ownership there decided to move on from Chia... now trying to illicit change properly from the top down...but unfortunately i don't think we'll have the same luxury here.