Proposal: Guy Boucher

[Crossbar]

If I'm not mistaken, Robinson does not want to be a head coach again, he prefers being in the assistant coaching role and wants to be close to his grandchildren in SoCal.

 

[ProjectPanthers]

IIRC, Robinson was brought in to improve the special teams, after a season which saw him have huge succees at that with New Jersey.

McLellan (aka. Coach Koala, or just Koala) is still the head coach and has a way bigger saying on how the team plays than Robinson, but the main thing you have to look at is how different the team is compared to previous years.

The often so enigmatic Havlat has been replaced by Hertl, the big net presence that wasn't filled after Heatley left has been fixed with moving Burns to forward position, Stuart brings stability to the defense, development of Demers & Braun has made the D stronger, Niemi isn't as shaky as he used to be, Kennedy is a legit bottom6 forward (biggest reason why they lost to LA last year, lack of bottom6 scoring), Couture rising up to the spotlight and the list goes on.

There's a lot of things that have clicked for SJ recently, and could have clicked already last season if the bottom6 wasn't so weak. Yes, Robinson probably plays a part in that, but how big of a role? Personally I don't see him as a (good) head coach, just a good assistant.

Of course San Jose's success isn't all thanks to Robinson, but I think he'd be a great fit for this franchise.

Like I said, he's a proven winner on and off the ice. He's a tough coach that doesn't take BS, and boy is this team full of that.

But if he doesn't want to be a HC anymore than there is no point in discussing him any longer.

 

[Panthers607]

Seems like firing Kevin would be a move just for the sake of a move.
Terrible team is terrible anyway but yes, I do question some of his actions from time to time too.
Lavi would be cool to see here, but give Kevin an honest chance first.

 

[IceManCat]

Seems like firing Kevin would be a move just for the sake of a move.
Terrible team is terrible anyway but yes, I do question some of his actions from time to time too.
Lavi would be cool to see here, but give Kevin an honest chance first.

He does make questionable moves but I would prefer to keep him for a while longer

 

[CHGoalie27]

He does make questionable moves but I would prefer to keep him for a while longer

I too have no problem giving him a little more time, but not much. He has til the end of the month in my eyes before I'm completely solid on his riddance.

Again, it's not who's the best available coach with the best track record, but who would be the best fit for the team?

 

[Vieille Barbe]

Boucher got so much attention for the 1-3-1 even though the Lightning didn't use it all the time, but what didn't get as much attention was his somewhat unorthodox defensive zone coverage. It was a system that the Tampa players seemed to struggle with.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Boucher got so much attention for the 1-3-1 even though the Lightning didn't use it all the time, but what didn't get as much attention was his somewhat unorthodox defensive zone coverage. It was a system that the Tampa players seemed to struggle with.

Thanks for input, please explain further on the d-zone system?

 

[Vieille Barbe]

Thanks for input, please explain further on the d-zone system?

Boucher would have both D men skate over to the puck carrier in the corner, leaving a forward to cover the front of the net/back side. I watched them spend a good bit of time working on this in practices, and it seemed pretty foreign to the players. For the life of me I could never understand why you would want a F and not a D patrolling the front of your crease.

 

[RogerRoger]

Boucher would have both D men skate over to the puck carrier in the corner, leaving a forward to cover the front of the net/back side. I watched them spend a good bit of time working on this in practices, and it seemed pretty foreign to the players. For the life of me I could never understand why you would want a F and not a D patrolling the front of your crease.

My guess would be that the role are more clearly define and it could prevent breakdown in the play.
The forward knows that whatever happens, he's got the front of the net while both D know they get the corners which ever it is. In the normal system, one D can over pursue and you get 3 guys in the corner and an opponent unaccounted for in front of the net.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Boucher would have both D men skate over to the puck carrier in the corner, leaving a forward to cover the front of the net/back side. I watched them spend a good bit of time working on this in practices, and it seemed pretty foreign to the players. For the life of me I could never understand why you would want a F and not a D patrolling the front of your crease.

Actually I could see some logic in this if the forward is say Nick Bjugstad or someone else thats of size or of Datsyuk skill with the stick, encouraging back checking, cycling, etc.

However "foreign to the players" might mean he doesn't teach the lesson well...

 

[zeroG]

Actually I'm warming up to Boucher more and more. At least he'd install a strong defensive structure, which is what I think we need to play with right now. When we try to play loosy goosy it's a nightmare on ice.

agree.

Boucher got so much attention for the 1-3-1 even though the Lightning didn't use it all the time, but what didn't get as much attention was his somewhat unorthodox defensive zone coverage. It was a system that the Tampa players seemed to struggle with.

late the party here - was away all last week with no time to post.

as vb points out, boucher's trap was A tool, not the ONLY tool in his toolbox. in fact, like most teams, the lightning pressured when there was an opportunity. in response to the question "why play a conservative trap with a lot of skill?", we could first consider the main reason for trapping - the counter attack. i'd say a good defense (no pun intended) of the trap in TB is that they felt they had a better chance generating offense off turnovers than depending on their D to generate it by moving the puck (hmm, sound familiar?). teams certainly figured out ways to combat it (better dump-ins, better pressure on the lone Dman retrieving the puck, exploiting the lack of low support, etc.) but you can say the same for every other type of trap yet they persist because they still can work well and generate turnovers. the lightning didn't drop off because teams "figured out the 1-3-1". boucher's a smart guy - he had his team working multiple forechecks with very good structure and they were successful, getting within a goal of the SCF his first year. that's no fluke. it'll be interesting to see how he'll approach things systems wise when he gets his next chance.

i haven't heard about the D zone coverage but again, there's sound, if unconventional reasoning if take a moment to think about it. standard coverage down low at every level has the center supporting the strong side D (who's attacking the puck) while marking the 2nd low forward. the weak side D patrols net front and marks the 3rd forward. why is the Dman the first guy on the puck? because he's knows and works the techniques required constantly and thus is generally better at it. if that's the case, and you quite often end up having two guys working the wall down low, why not have the guys best equipped to do the job doing it? checking the 3rd forward is often not a physical job but more about positioning. one negative i can see is that your Dman will typicallly have a longer reach and thus be able to mark the 3rd F at a greater distance. one upside of this coverage is that your C is now in the slot and likely in a better position to support the wings breaking out. this coverage would be foreign and difficult for players no matter what as it goes against deeply ingrained habits. that doesn't mean it's not a good idea or can't work.

i don't have a strong opinion on boucher but i think he's a smart, innovative coach who'll get another shot.

 

[Dread Clawz]

If I'm not mistaken, Robinson does not want to be a head coach again, he prefers being in the assistant coaching role and wants to be close to his grandchildren in SoCal.

That's what I've heard about Robinson as well.

 

[CHGoalie27]

agree.



late the party here - was away all last week with no time to post.

as vb points out, boucher's trap was A tool, not the ONLY tool in his toolbox. in fact, like most teams, the lightning pressured when there was an opportunity. in response to the question "why play a conservative trap with a lot of skill?", we could first consider the main reason for trapping - the counter attack. i'd say a good defense (no pun intended) of the trap in TB is that they felt they had a better chance generating offense off turnovers than depending on their D to generate it by moving the puck (hmm, sound familiar?). teams certainly figured out ways to combat it (better dump-ins, better pressure on the lone Dman retrieving the puck, exploiting the lack of low support, etc.) but you can say the same for every other type of trap yet they persist because they still can work well and generate turnovers. the lightning didn't drop off because teams "figured out the 1-3-1". boucher's a smart guy - he had his team working multiple forechecks with very good structure and they were successful, getting within a goal of the SCF his first year. that's no fluke. it'll be interesting to see how he'll approach things systems wise when he gets his next chance.

i haven't heard about the D zone coverage but again, there's sound, if unconventional reasoning if take a moment to think about it. standard coverage down low at every level has the center supporting the strong side D (who's attacking the puck) while marking the 2nd low forward. the weak side D patrols net front and marks the 3rd forward. why is the Dman the first guy on the puck? because he's knows and works the techniques required constantly and thus is generally better at it. if that's the case, and you quite often end up having two guys working the wall down low, why not have the guys best equipped to do the job doing it? checking the 3rd forward is often not a physical job but more about positioning. one negative i can see is that your Dman will typicallly have a longer reach and thus be able to mark the 3rd F at a greater distance. one upside of this coverage is that your C is now in the slot and likely in a better position to support the wings breaking out. this coverage would be foreign and difficult for players no matter what as it goes against deeply ingrained habits. that doesn't mean it's not a good idea or can't work.

i don't have a strong opinion on boucher but i think he's a smart, innovative coach who'll get another shot.

There ya are and that's why I called for ya~!