After listening to some podcasts and articles I feel like these are the pros and cons of the top four.
Nelson:
PROS: tactically forward thinking, offensive focused mindset, has NHL head coaching experience and a great resume as a bench boss. Reminds me the most of Boudreau, in a good way
CONS: seems like he let's the x's and o's do the talking, hard to gauge if he is a true motivator or how he values work ethic over skill (man would he have been perfect four years ago). difficult to understand if he is prone to develop players or prefers guys who understand the speed of game already to execute his system. I haven't heard as much on player feedback as the other guys
Grouxl
PROS: feels like everything we like in MVR but with more head coaching experience. Seems like a developer and motivator first and foremost. Knows what it takes to develop a franchise from the bottom up. Players seem to love him. Plandowski connections. Has success in turning NHL caliber players from later picks.
CONS: Lacks NHL experience. How much of his success is from a top tier organization vs his coaching style? I have a hard time gauging if he leans offensively or defensively in coaching styles. (Honestly I'm struggling to find many cons haha)
Tourigny
PROS: Seems like the ultimate motivator. Extremely hardworking, much like BA. Philosophically seems very inline with BA. Has coached with success at so many different levels. Feels like a defensive first type coach. Seems to hold players accountable both on and off ice. Feels like the quickest way to have a culture change.
CONS: Hard to judge if his coaching style wears out on players. Feels a little more reliant on getting players who play his style of game (shades of Tocchet there) than Grouxl. FEELS the least forward thinking of the three, but I could be way off here. Does a defense first coach fit with our current roster build?
Lambert:
PROS: Has been Trotz's AC for seemingly ever.
CONS: Seemingly has only been Trotz's AC.
Feel free to copy/paste this post and add to it or correct me if you feel I'm off on some of my gut feelings. This is mostly me scribbling down some thoughts.
Todd Nelson
I see Nelson as the most creative, outside-the-box on the Xs and Os of the three. Many of the quotes you'll find from players and management have less to do with his interpersonal, motivational, and development strengths and more to do with his on-ice philosophies and strategies and adjustments. I think he's the most mellow, player's coach of the three. I don't see him as the cage rattler and more of teacher than a motivator.
I've read a bunch of articles on Nelson and they all focus on his tactical strengths and team execution in games. The interpersonal stuff seems much more surface-level, and all about "trust" and "communication", etc. The team environment when in reference to Nelson seems to be all about the open exchange of ideas.
It seems he's really appreciated by cerebral players who want tactical input. They seem to talk about what they were able to accomplish with regard to team results, and wins and tactical development. I've seen a lot less about the nitty, gritty personal stuff with him. Less about personal involvement with players, families, etc. However, this may have a lot to do with him only having pro experience. The other guys have a ton of amateur experience working with kids. Nelson has coach pros the whole time.
Benoit Groulx
I see Groulx as the hard-ass of the three. Even Tourigny said "I've
never been as hard as Ben". So many of the Groulx quotes are about accountability and shaping and developing players. Less about his systems and tactics in games and more about molding and improving the players he coaches. And how he does it his way. He seems more the stubborn one and the tough one. And it seems the right kind of player recognizes that they needed it and it made them better. He seemed to rub people the wrong way in Rochester and that didn't work out well. But he's been a smash hit in Syracuse. So maybe he changed and adapted. Maybe he had too many bad apples in Rochester. Who knows?
I wonder how tough an NHL coach can be. I'm not sure it works that well on millionaires. Especially if you aren't a proven, household brand-name like Torts. He gets called a hockey genius an awful lot (BriseBois, Tourigny, former Syracuse players). But he seems really focused on team-identity, and player mindset rather than in-game tactics. At least that's what he talks about in interviews. Identity and mindset and accountability.
Players talk about him making them better all-around players, harder workers, more committed athletes, and about how he motivated them to work hard and round out their games and habits and become solid pros.
Some of the hard-ass stuff may be left over from earlier in his career. He talks more about evolving (being less tough) and focusing more on personal connections with players.
Andre Touringy
Tourigny doesn't talk much about X's and O's at all. He seems to be a mastermind of interpersonal skills. He seems to focus his energy and passion on motivation and development and getting the most out of his guys. He seems obsessive about self-improvement, and he seems to measure his success in the improvement he sees in his players. I almost get the impression that he sees winning hockey games as a byproduct of improving players.
I think he's probably the middle-ground in the Groulx to Nelson continuum of tough coach to player's coach. He just wants to get his guys obsessing about working harder at getting better like he is. And it feels like what comes next is just a natural and obvious increase in individual and team success. It does seem to work. He's had an unbelievable amount of success.
Tourigny seems like he's super hands on. He's going to know every player inside and out. He's going to have his arms around you and be pushing or pulling always. Like Nelson sees everything out on the ice and Tourigny sees everything inside the player.
Where Nelson might see winning games as developing players, or players develop by doing the things that win, I think Tourigny sees developing players as winning games, and their improvement leads to wins. I see Tourigny as more similar to Groulx and Groulx more similar to Tourigny. I see Nelson as the most different of the three. I also see Nelson as maybe more typical of an NHL HC. Where as Tourigny might have the biggest presence. And that aura of a big-time NHL HC.
