Prospect Info: Cole Caufield (Part 7)

[jaffy27]

About Julien : He might not be the right guy, I can accept that, but I feel some posters here are really overconfident about their own ability if they believe they could do a similar or a better job, especially if they never coached at an elite level in minor hockey. Coaching is an art and training high level athletes demands a credibility and knowledge that probably no one here has. There's a reason why all these old coaches get recycled over and over and it's certainly not out of habit. If there was so many proper candidates lingering around, it would make no economical sense for all these teams to always rehire the same coaches. We've seen many highly decorated minor league coaches (AHL, Major junior) join the league to only get spitted out of the NHL after a brief stint. Julien stays in the league because he belongs, that's as simple as that.

Does the word “delusional” come to mind.....?

 

[Scriptor]

So what you’re saying is you’d be able to coach an AHL team no problem, like no issues whatsoever.....develop them, run practices and out coach AHL coaches????

You’re right behind Claude in coaching tactics and managing an NHL roster??

Nope. If you read the post, it says Julien is limited and doesn't meet the bar I would like to set for a head coach on my team, The Habs.

It never says he can't coach professionally or, be successful with the right players.

Although I have enough brain cells to chew and breathe at the same time, I'm not a coach so, I likely couldn't outcoach him.

While I'm insulting in my analysis of Julien as a head coach, you are reductive in your reasoning and fail to see the big picture in an attempt to be trite and win some argument that doesn't even exist.

I think we deserve a BETTER coach, simple as that. I also don't think that the coach needs to not be francophone to be better than Julien. There are better bilingual coaches out there, although they might not have as much experience at the NHL level. Experience, when it limits itself to the same old ideas is not necessarily better in an evolving sport with evolving players.

 

[Scriptor]

Does the word “delusional” come to mind.....?

I don't see many people claiming they want to take Julien's job, nor that they, themselves would be able to do so ( maybe a trained chimp but, not necessarily them ).

Then why do some revert to asking, "Would you do better?" in response to statements that suggest there are better coaches out there than Claude?

There seems to be a major disconnect going on.

Teams, like many large businesses, have a tendency to go with safe rather than take chances and get to bear the blunt of that decision if the gamble doesn't pay off. That way, it's easier to burn a coach without experience and turn to an old dog as a perceived solution. It surely helps that the ones making decisions are, for the most part, old dogs themselves.

 

[Prendan Brust]

I don't see many people claiming they want to take Julien's job, nor that they, themselves would be able to do so ( maybe a trained chimp but, not necessarily them ).

Then why do some revert to asking, "Would you do better?" in response to statements that suggest there are better coaches out there than Claude?

There seems to be a major disconnect going on.

Teams, like many large businesses, have a tendency to go with safe rather than take chances and get to bear the blunt of that decision if the gamble doesn't pay off. That way, it's easier to burn a coach without experience and turn to an old dog as a perceived solution. It surely helps that the ones making decisions are, for the most part, old dogs themselves.

You guys are second guessing him without half of the information he has on the players he coaches, the dynamics during training and so much else. You're also here talking about tactics as if you knew what you were talking about. Yeah, it might sound smart to say he only knows one system but tell me, how many systems do you know? How many variant of these systems do you know? How many times have you implemented them? You're simply out of your league when it comes to coaching (as I am BTW). All most of us have as information, is results on the ice. Yeah, sometimes these point out that it might be time for a change, I agree with that. But when it comes to judging the ability of an NHL coach, I'm sorry but I take what most posters here say with a grain of salt unless there's proof they've been there and done that (coaching high level hockey).

You might be right that hockey exec are conservative and risk averse but many have taken chances before with catastrophic results. They might have learned from that. And even somewhat successful coaches don't seem to last in this league. Just of the top of my head I think about Guy Boucher, Mark Crawford, Bob Hartley and so on... It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

[Mrb1p]

Im confident Id be a better coach than Julien. Those guys arent rocket surgeons, relax.

 

[Supersonic]

Im confident Id be a better coach than Julien. Those guys arent rocket surgeons, relax.

Did you remind the team to get pucks in deep ?

Anyways on Caufield, let him come train with the NHL team after his season and hopefully they see if he is ready or not

 

[Mrb1p]

Did you remind the team to get pucks in deep ?

Anyways on Caufield, let him come train with the NHL team after his season and hopefully they see if he is ready or not

Anyway Clod leaked us his gameplan so we can all match him at best

 

[tooji]

too me it’s only logical that caufield takes tatar’s spot next year. Cost controlled and fills the same role. That being said I don’t think we can expect him to match the production right away.

 

[Scriptor]

You guys are second guessing him without half of the information he has on the players he coaches, the dynamics during training and so much else. You're also here talking about tactics as if you knew what you were talking about. Yeah, it might sound smart to say he only knows one system but tell me, how many systems do you know? How many variant of these systems do you know? How many times have you implemented them? You're simply out of your league when it comes to coaching (as I am BTW). All most of us have as information, is results on the ice. Yeah, sometimes these point out that it might be time for a change, I agree with that. But when it comes to judging the ability of an NHL coach, I'm sorry but I take what most posters here say with a grain of salt unless there's proof they've been there and done that (coaching high level hockey).

You might be right that hockey exec are conservative and risk averse but many have taken chances before with catastrophic results. They might have learned from that. And even somewhat successful coaches don't seem to last in this league. Just of the top of my head I think about Guy Boucher, Mark Crawford, Bob Hartley and so on... It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

It's NOT simple but, just because it's complex, does it mean we have to assume he's great? Want a better coach. There must be better coaches.

You're basically arguing, "You're not a professional coach. You don't know what you're talking about. Shut your hole."

I'm arguing, if that's the logic, shut down this forum. Nobody can say boo about anything, yourself included.

Your reasoning is asinine.

Thanks for participating.

 

[Scriptor]

too me it’s only logical that caufield takes tatar’s spot next year. Cost controlled and fills the same role. That being said I don’t think we can expect him to match the production right away.

Why takes tatar's spot? Why would he not play in the same lineup as Tatar instead and add some scoring punch rather than remove some offensive production because it costs less?. It's not the 1.35M Caufield will make with bonuses that will prevent him from playing, even if Tatar re-signs with Montreal. To begin with, Montreal will need to make choices and keeping Tatar may or may not be a wise move, especially if we shouldn't expect Caufield to match his point totals early on in his career (which seems like an appropriate assumption).

Why keep any of Byron, Lehkonen or Armia over Tatar and Danault? Why keep Kulak, maybe even Chiarot if Romanov can replace him alongside Weber? Push come to shove, why not trade Allen rather than lose him for nothing to Seattle? Is there someone we really want to protect by using Allen as bait -- I mean worth protecting?

I'm not saying we need to keep Tatar, Danault or, Tatar AND Danault. I'm just saying I don't see how the players mentioned before them aren't seen as movable pieces to make room for better players that may or may not cost as much?

Some people are limited in seeing the whole picture or, a larger one, even. It's not an insult to anyone but, rather, an observation. There are other possibilities once you remove the blinders...