How do you develop run of the mill prospects into stars as a coach? Just curious, do you think that coaches are able to create talent that isn't there? How much of the development do you place on a coach vs. how much do you place on the player?
What is a winning attitude when your team is so talent deprived that you lose 2 games for every 1 you win? What is a winning attitude in general? I get the idea of avoiding a defeatist attitude, and I do think the team played hard most nights and kept things close despite being outclassed.
What major pieces did he develop that are being traded away? Athanasiou? Not a major piece. Mantha? Was a "major" piece by definition that he was one of the top 3 players on a horrible team; but by the way that the majority of this forum feels about him, he was the biggest problem with his own success, not Blashill. At a certain point you need to (fans need to) be able to admit that their shit does in fact stink. Not every player is a potential star, or even a potential first line player. We have not given Blashill a single player with the potential of becoming a star. Now that may be coming with a Seider or a Raymond. Maybe we get lucky and see some growth from Zadina (who by the way is 21 and only has played 86 games). The players who actually carry pedigree haven't even started to make their mark on this franchise.
Moving on from him is one thing, but saying that he has failed is another. Don't fall into the trap believing that Blashill was given the proper tools to survive, and more importantly, don't think that a new coach is coming into a perfect situation.
Okay, thanks for the response.
I don't agree on this point:
Blashill knew the predicament he was taking on when he was offered the job with the Wings and he agreed to it. So, if you accept that premise, what were our expectations of him at that point?
Well, not necessarily winning, but I think ideally we wanted more than a stopgap. And I think Jeff can be a good coach in certain situations, but I think we learned that he wasn't the kind of coach who could have a lot of success in a rebuild at this level. And that's exactly what we needed him to be when he signed the contract. -That was what would decide whether he was really successful here, not whether he could come into a bad situation and just kinda tread water.
I don't want to put words in your moth, but it seems like you're kinda saying the situation was bad and that's more or less the whole story on him as an NHL coach. I think we both agree that the situation was bad. What I'm saying is we needed a guy who can make the best of a bad situation and he was not that person.
For me, he has to optimize the situation, he has to own it and make it into something good in some way, not just point to the fact of the team sucking and say
I can't do anything with this mess. For me, the terms of success are that he needs to be able to do
something with this mess. That was either the whole point of hiring him or else he was just a stopgap and in either case it's time to move on.
I think when you reach a point where you have to trade away pieces of the rebuild, like Mantha, rather than are able point to those pieces as big successes after having them reach their full potential, then it's time to reassess.
Part of it could be that Jeff was learning extemporaneously and maybe he'll do better in the future elsewhere (and I wish him luck). But I think when you hear the cliche "We just needed a fresh face," it has something to do with the "face" in question.
Why do we need a fresh face? What do we need that isn't happening? Etc.