Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,935
- 5,727
I was over Hitch about 2.5 years earlier than Yeo’s hire. I was ready for someone different, because Hitch was not going to move us forward, especially because he couldn’t adjust his game to the modern NHL, nor could he make in series or in game adjustments. He was also implementing a system that didn’t maximize our players potential.
So while I was ready for a change, it wasn’t merely for a different team. It was for a coach with a coaching strategy that could improve upon the team that was built. I won’t get into the fact that we poorly supported that core with the proper strategic moves. That doesn’t mean we needed a different team or a huge chunk of the team changed. But, I firmly believe that our previous core significantly underperformed due to coaching strategy. It was the single most important flaw we faced.
I wasn’t in love with the Yeo hiring largely because I didn’t care for his systems. His defense was passive and his offense was both relatively ineffective and uncreative. I wasn’t impressed by Yeo based on what he had done before. I actually saw Yeo as a lateral at best but potentially worse coach than Hitch.
For all his faults Hitch got the guys to battle hard, although not necessarily smart. Yeo didn’t bring the strategy or the inspiration. In his first go as head coach here, Yeo largely was able to benefit from the quality things that Hitch did (like getting guys to go after pucks and play sound defense). Hitch had also grated on the players and the change away from Hitch was obviously a boost in their step, breath of fresh air. So, even Yeo’s “successful” beginnings as a head coach here wasn’t a sample size that we should glean too much from.
To Yeo’s credit, he did get the D more active and it’s one of the things that we knew would improve the system, if only Hitch would try it.
It’s not like I hate Yeo. I think the guy seems like a rock solid person. I enjoy his honesty and candor. He just wasn’t the type of coach we needed to rectify our structural problems at the time, hasn’t shown much different since and possibly not in the future as well. That doesn’t mean I was getting the noose ready the day he was hired. I just was uninspired and unconvinced.
Now, there were some interviews where he discussed how Minny didn’t work out and that he needed to learn and change things to become more successful. That offered some promise. His post season interview this year illustrates that he still sees things he needs to work on. So that is positive. But we are starting to get to the point where it’s time to show improvement, not just talk about the need to do it.
Next year we have to see a better all around set of schemes. The defense has to be more aggressive at the blue line and the front of the net. Our neutral zone transition has to be quicker. Our offensive zone strategy has to foster quick decisions and get off the perimeter. Our forwards have to be tenacious on pucks. Our PP has to be dynamic by having a host of set plays focused on cross ice seams and a center ice threat.
I am certainly willing to see what he can do this year. He has a massive amount of room for improvement. If he shows improvement (and there is no reason that should be difficult with all the opportunity he has) then let’s see if he can continue to develop and grow. Progress bids a longer stay/more chances IMO. However, if he shows the same as this past season or his time in Minny, then we need to start looking at a succession plan. It’s only the smart thing to do.
Last edited:
