Joe Sakic & Co - Record with Colorado Avalanche

[Ivan13]

I don't think Avs had any chance of winning a Stanley Cup with Roy as a coach. It seems not even Roy had faith in his ability as a coach since he decided to quit. Perhaps not even his ego prevented him from recognizing how badly he has been out-coached, especially the last two years when the book was out on him. When the odds of looking really bad are greater than the odds of looking good, perhaps quitting is pure self-preservation. Now he can go to Quebec where he's the big fish.

Just like players have ceilings, so do coaches.

Personally I always figured Roy would go scorched earth on us, depleting everything for one or two shots at a cup so I'm happy this happened. By the comments he made about him wanting to have more influence this off-season I suspect he was starting to switch to that mode.

Before the Stuart buyout Avs might have been able to squeeze Radulov in, but after it was obvious the only way to do it is to get rid of Varlamov/Duchene/Barrie or perhaps even Landeskog.

worthy as always. Great stuff Freudian.

 

[dahrougem2]

Before the Stuart buyout Avs might have been able to squeeze Radulov in, but after it was obvious the only way to do it is to get rid of Varlamov/Duchene/Barrie or perhaps even Landeskog.

The one thing I wonder about is could Roy have been letting some players know about him wanting Radulov/pushing hard for him? Given Varlamov made that comment earlier in the summer about all Rads needs to do to play in Colorado is call Roy, or something along those lines.

 

[avsfan09]

I'm sorry, you're the one not getting it here. Take out all the coaches, their tenure, where they are now, the players named to simplify it for you.

I'm suggesting that the problems here are deeper than the coach that has been behind our bench. I think it has been pretty unfair how some have ripped Roy today.

End of the day, you can't turn a Dodge, into a Ferrari, no matter how much paint you splash around, or who drives it. Under the bonnet, it's still that old beaten up Dodge, breaking down.

Fact of the matter, is there is an entrenched under current of mediocre that runs through our club - it's culture. Roy & Joe spoke about "bringing that winning mentality - that Stanley Cup attitude back to the fanbase and team.

It hasn't happened.

But they knew what was required, and I agree with them. Give Roy the Hawks, Blues, Caps rosters - he'd be killing it (in a good way).

Therefore, despite who is coaching, we will be, who we will be. We've all said our piece on where we will end up next season due to this. I just feel bad for whoever gets the gig, because they are going to be on a hiding to nothing, with players who appear they feel the world owes them something.

. Of course coaches make a difference. Yes some of it is on the players but they are young and learning the game and Roys system wasn't effective and was holding this team back. You point to us being hemmed in the zone as a reason as to why it's the players rather than Roys fault but perhaps if his system provides proper support and didn't include Nick Holden trying to make goal line to redline passes it wouldn't have been an issue. Look at the Penguins after their coaching change.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Of course coaches make a difference. Yes some of it is on the players but they are young and learning the game and Roys system wasn't effective and was holding this team back. Look at the Penguins after their coaching change.

Same thing happened back in 2009 with Bylsma, who ended up getting fired a few years later. Did Bylsma just forget how to coach or something? Obviously everyone plays a role in having a successful team, but the players are by far the most important pieces.

 

[avsfan09]

Same thing happened back in 2009 with Bylsma, who ended up getting fired a few years later. Did Bylsma just forget how to coach or something? Obviously everyone plays a role in having a successful team, but the players are by far the most important pieces.

Nope. I edited my post btw my last one made me cringe haha. But it does how that sometimes a fresh perspective and change can be positive for the team. I was okay with Roy getting one more season but the guy liked to make excuses. Yes could his system been more effective with the right players, yes. But he didn't have those players and everyone saw that. You have to be able to see that and make the appropriate changes. Roy never did.

Edit: I just want to say that he did make some changes that made a difference-and showed a little flexibility but him completely blaming the players seems like preservation of ego.

 

[EdAVSfan]

Same thing happened back in 2009 with Bylsma, who ended up getting fired a few years later. Did Bylsma just forget how to coach or something? Obviously everyone plays a role in having a successful team, but the players are by far the most important pieces.

Because just like players, coaches have to have an ability to adapt, develop new strategies and modify what they coach, when their previous tactics stop being effective.

Teams have dedicated personnel to study how teams play to look for weaknesses.

It's not just about the coaches strategy. It's also whether that specific strategy works with the players they have. Roy may have a fantastic strategy, but if it doesn't work for the type of players he has, then it's never going to work.

The Pittsburgh Penguins are a perfect example of how if a coaches philosophy doesn't match with his players, they're bound to falter.

IMO, the best coaches are the ones who can tailor their strategies to their players, rather than force players to do things that aren't working.

3 years of being pinned in our zone like no other team and being outshot like no other team is enough evidence to show thatRoys system doesn't work with these players.does it work for other players? Maybe. But we'll have to wait to find that out.

 

[JLo217]

I'm sorry, you're the one not getting it here. Take out all the coaches, their tenure, where they are now, the players named to simplify it for you.

I'm suggesting that the problems here are deeper than the coach that has been behind our bench. I think it has been pretty unfair how some have ripped Roy today.

End of the day, you can't turn a Dodge, into a Ferrari, no matter how much paint you splash around, or who drives it. Under the bonnet, it's still that old beaten up Dodge, breaking down.

Fact of the matter, is there is an entrenched under current of mediocre that runs through our club - it's culture. Roy & Joe spoke about "bringing that winning mentality - that Stanley Cup attitude back to the fanbase and team.

It hasn't happened.

But they knew what was required, and I agree with them. Give Roy the Hawks, Blues, Caps rosters - he'd be killing it (in a good way).

Therefore, despite who is coaching, we will be, who we will be. We've all said our piece on where we will end up next season due to this. I just feel bad for whoever gets the gig, because they are going to be on a hiding to nothing, with players who appear they feel the world owes them something.

I'm not sure I've read anything I've ever disagreed with more on here. I don't mean it in a bad way towards you. But Roy in reality hasn't had the most success even at the junior level for how much time he was down there. He hopped, skipped and jumped to a league about 4-5 steps above where he had been coaching at, and was given the keys to making personnel decisions? He for sure got experience out of working with the Avs. But in reality nothing changed in 3 years, nothing really ever got better.

I'm not saying the Avs are an unreal team, but there is a reason the teams you listed are successful beyond their players. They have good systems. We complain about the passing ability of this team, but to me it seems like a systematic error. Lots of players on the Avs are players elsewhere in the NHL, they know how to complete a pass... the system just didn't let that happen properly with players on the blue line with no speed.

Watch the Avs bring someone in who can implement a game plan, and adjust and maybe they're not a top team, but they'll compete. However I personally don't think Roy, given any team right now would have a lot of success. I think the talent that is on this roster, be it Offense, Defense, or Goaltending really propped them up to even be in the 10th spot in the west.

 

[AslanRH]

IMO, the best coaches are the ones who can tailor their strategies to their players, rather than force players to do things that aren't working.

This is my opinion as well. The foundation is the same, but they find a way to build something good with whatever materials they are provided

 

[Pokecheque]

No, Roy would not be "killing it" with the Blues or Hawks rosters. He'd be more successful, yes, but he's nowhere near the coach Quenneville or Hitchcock are.

It'd be silly to blame 100% of this team's failures on the coach, but it'd also be silly to blame 100% of it on the players. No, this isn't a good team, not even on paper. But we as fans have the right to expect the development of not just the players, but the coach as well. While I have seen indications of the former, I've not seen any of the latter. Roy, if anything, has regressed since his stellar debut coaching season. He has become more cautious and more reticent in the past two seasons, and at times inexplicably slow in making the right adjustments. After yet another bad start, Roy finally realized the Avs were playing shoddily in the neutral zone and made efforts to fix that. Naturally, their play improved, at least for a little while. The same thing happened last season when the Avs stumbled out the gate and Roy took too long to see the mile-wide gaps between the forwards and defense and stressed "puck support." You don't have to be for or against analytics to know that big gaps like that as well as essentially yielding 2/3rds of the ice are simply not conducive to success. Much as he touted up-tempo aggressive hockey, more and more often we were seeing more passive, more conservative schemes from him.

Roy is a great motivator, and he definitely deserves credit for completely changing coaching strategy when it comes to pulling the goalie (ironically, that's something the analytics crowd has been saying to do for years). But as a tactician he falls short, and never really seemed to improve or learn over the past two seasons. Until he does that, he will never be a successful coach at the NHL level.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Because just like players, coaches have to have an ability to adapt, develop new strategies and modify what they coach, when their previous tactics stop being effective.

Teams have dedicated personnel to study how teams play to look for weaknesses.

It's not just about the coaches strategy. It's also whether that specific strategy works with the players they have. Roy may have a fantastic strategy, but if it doesn't work for the type of players he has, then it's never going to work.

The Pittsburgh Penguins are a perfect example of how if a coaches philosophy doesn't match with his players, they're bound to falter.

IMO, the best coaches are the ones who can tailor their strategies to their players, rather than force players to do things that aren't working.

3 years of being pinned in our zone like no other team and being outshot like no other team is enough evidence to show thatRoys system doesn't work with these players.does it work for other players? Maybe. But we'll have to wait to find that out.

Um? Yeah, I agree. It still doesn't mean coaching is more important than the players. Players are almost always more influential than their coach, regardless of the system. You guys keep mentioning Pitt and their coaching changes leading to New systems winning them cups. But you are not mentioning the crazy amount of talent they have. coaching changes do a lot more than just change the system as well. Pitt won first and foremost because Crosby, Letang, Kessell, Martin, etc etc etc. I'm not saying coaching didn't help, but to act like it was more important??? No system is that influential.

Nope. I edited my post btw my last one made me cringe haha. But it does how that sometimes a fresh perspective and change can be positive for the team. I was okay with Roy getting one more season but the guy liked to make excuses. Yes could his system been more effective with the right players, yes. But he didn't have those players and everyone saw that. You have to be able to see that and make the appropriate changes. Roy never did.

Edit: I just want to say that he did make some changes that made a difference-and showed a little flexibility but him completely blaming the players seems like preservation of ego.

Fresh perspective and change does usually have a positive influence on the team. Players tend to play harder when change happens and players who had issues feel like they now have a fresh start.

Him making excuses has nothing to do with who is more influential towards the success of a program. That might make him a worse coach than he could be but that doesn't mean his role as coach is suddenly going to be more important.

His system, a new system, my system, your system, it doesn't matter when you have the D group we had and the lack of top6 forwards we had last year. Maybe (probably) a better coach could have gotten a little bit better results, but nothing game changing. The only time a coach is more important than the players is when talking about the extremes, guys like Sacco and Babcock. Guys who can take an average group of players and either turn them to pure crap or make them much more dangerous than they should be.

 

[Sea Eagles]

No, Roy would not be "killing it" with the Blues or Hawks rosters. He'd be more successful, yes, but he's nowhere near the coach Quenneville or Hitchcock are.

It'd be silly to blame 100% of this team's failures on the coach, but it'd also be silly to blame 100% of it on the players. No, this isn't a good team, not even on paper. But we as fans have the right to expect the development of not just the players, but the coach as well. While I have seen indications of the former, I've not seen any of the latter. Roy, if anything, has regressed since his stellar debut coaching season. He has become more cautious and more reticent in the past two seasons, and at times inexplicably slow in making the right adjustments. After yet another bad start, Roy finally realized the Avs were playing shoddily in the neutral zone and made efforts to fix that. Naturally, their play improved, at least for a little while. The same thing happened last season when the Avs stumbled out the gate and Roy took too long to see the mile-wide gaps between the forwards and defense and stressed "puck support." You don't have to be for or against analytics to know that big gaps like that as well as essentially yielding 2/3rds of the ice are simply not conducive to success. Much as he touted up-tempo aggressive hockey, more and more often we were seeing more passive, more conservative schemes from him.

Roy is a great motivator, and he definitely deserves credit for completely changing coaching strategy when it comes to pulling the goalie (ironically, that's something the analytics crowd has been saying to do for years). But as a tactician he falls short, and never really seemed to improve or learn over the past two seasons. Until he does that, he will never be a successful coach at the NHL level.

Well, I can't argue with any of that to be honest. Well stated. Ok, Roy definitely had room to improve. But I'm just saying there are multiple facets as to the reason our team is ordinary (and WILL be ordinary this coming season).

I just don't think it's all Roy like some people are stating here.

 

[McMetal]

Well, I can't argue with any of that to be honest. Well stated. Ok, Roy definitely had room to improve. But I'm just saying there are multiple facets as to the reason our team is ordinary (and WILL be ordinary this coming season).

I just don't think it's all Roy like some people are stating here.

You're correct that there are multiple reasons we're not a playoff team right now, but Roy was at least a large part of it. Our reliance on untested youth this next season is going to be a real issue for sure, but I think we may be in a position to capitalize on some breakout seasons by players if we have a new structure to go with it. Obviously it depends on what kind of coach we can get, but I think there is now reason for hope for next season where there was little before.

 

[Pokecheque]

Well, I can't argue with any of that to be honest. Well stated. Ok, Roy definitely had room to improve. But I'm just saying there are multiple facets as to the reason our team is ordinary (and WILL be ordinary this coming season).

I just don't think it's all Roy like some people are stating here.

Thanks. I agree. Definitely not all on Roy, and he still deserves some credit for that first season. It's just too bad he and the team simply never built off of it.

I think it's going to be a very long time before we see another arrangement like this in the NHL. I think Babcock has a say in personnel decisions in Toronto, but he didn't get the title of VP in addition to coach. I just don't think you can make it work, the amount of control has to be defined clearly.

 

[Foppa2118]

No, Roy would not be "killing it" with the Blues or Hawks rosters. He'd be more successful, yes, but he's nowhere near the coach Quenneville or Hitchcock are.

It'd be silly to blame 100% of this team's failures on the coach, but it'd also be silly to blame 100% of it on the players. No, this isn't a good team, not even on paper. But we as fans have the right to expect the development of not just the players, but the coach as well. While I have seen indications of the former, I've not seen any of the latter. Roy, if anything, has regressed since his stellar debut coaching season. He has become more cautious and more reticent in the past two seasons, and at times inexplicably slow in making the right adjustments. After yet another bad start, Roy finally realized the Avs were playing shoddily in the neutral zone and made efforts to fix that. Naturally, their play improved, at least for a little while. The same thing happened last season when the Avs stumbled out the gate and Roy took too long to see the mile-wide gaps between the forwards and defense and stressed "puck support." You don't have to be for or against analytics to know that big gaps like that as well as essentially yielding 2/3rds of the ice are simply not conducive to success. Much as he touted up-tempo aggressive hockey, more and more often we were seeing more passive, more conservative schemes from him.

Roy is a great motivator, and he definitely deserves credit for completely changing coaching strategy when it comes to pulling the goalie (ironically, that's something the analytics crowd has been saying to do for years). But as a tactician he falls short, and never really seemed to improve or learn over the past two seasons. Until he does that, he will never be a successful coach at the NHL level.

I just can't agree with this sentiment. The Avs defenseman have been SO bad forever, and the Avs core all have had sub par performances especially last year (EJ had a down year, Barrie wasn't quite the same, Duchene put up a lot of points but only in the second half in an inconsistent year like always, Mack is young but still hasn't taken that next step, Landy had a down year, Varly wasn't the same).

To see all of those players play more like secondary players, and fail to step up and take leading roles, and the dog crap defense they've employed forever, and the goaltending unable to perform superman acts regularly, and isolate the main problem as behind the bench is just doesn't add up IMO.

The main problem I see that Roy contributed to in terms of the players underperforming was taking his partnership mentality too far, and it took until halfway through last season to realize it.

I just can't see how you can objectively assess the performance of the "system" with such a crap defense especially. It's like trying to judge the nautical skills of the Captain of a cruise liner with a giant hole that was left in the underbelly of his ship as he sailed out of port.

 

[Pokecheque]

I just can't agree with this sentiment. The Avs defenseman have been SO bad forever, and the Avs core all have had sub par performances especially last year (EJ had a down year, Barrie wasn't quite the same, Duchene put up a lot of points but only in the second half in an inconsistent year like always, Mack is young but still hasn't taken that next step, Landy had a down year, Varly wasn't the same).

To see all of those players play more like secondary players, and fail to step up and take leading roles, and the dog crap defense they've employed forever, and the goaltending unable to perform superman acts regularly, and isolate the main problem as behind the bench is just doesn't add up IMO.

The main problem I see that Roy contributed to in terms of the players underperforming was taking his partnership mentality too far, and it took until halfway through last season to realize it.

I just can't see how you can objectively assess the performance of the "system" with such a crap defense especially. It's like trying to judge the nautical skills of the Captain of a cruise liner with a giant hole that was left in the underbelly of his ship as he sailed out of port.

Again, the fact the team two years ago played with giant gaps between the O and D and had a disastrous start that doomed them by December before Roy finally started preaching "Puck Support" (his words, not mine) is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

And last year, when the team once again faceplanted to start the year, the team was overemphasizing defensive zone play and shot-blocking, going full matador in the neutral zone before finally realizing that getting out of the defensive zone is really, really hard when you're yielding the other two, is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

Did the players decide to ice a "third line" to start the year of Rendulic-Soderberg-Rantanen? Nope. That was the coach. Did the players decide that Nate Guenin and Nick Holden should be out there on the PK...together? Nope. That was the coach.

And how many times can you watch man-to-man defensive coverage fail before finally realizing there's a reason no one else in the NHL employs that system? Would better players have done it better? Probably, but man, opposing coaches sure had fun tying the Avalanche up in knots in the attacking zone because they knew exactly how to exploit the M2M system.

You seem to be implying that the Avalanche roster is that of an expansion club, and I don't think that's the case. I am every bit as frustrated as you are that this effin' club can't for the life of themselves develop an elite defender, or even a viable stay-at-home guy. But to say they didn't have a very talented puckmover and at least a decent top pairing guy is just plain wrong. And while he was waaaaaay overworked, Beauchemin is still a legit NHL defender.

You can say that Roy wasn't given the right tools, and you'd be right to an extent. But don't tell me that Roy did the best he possibly could with what he had, because he didn't. He continually used bad schemes, made adjustments far, far too slowly, and was absolutely abysmal when it came to in-game adjustments.

I don't expect this club to suddenly vault up Ye Olde Corsi Ladder under a different coach, but for Christ's sake, when you're pretty much dead last when it comes to shots taken and shots given up and your roster still sports some pretty damned good players, that's not all on the players. That's on the coach.

We can also look at your ship analogy the other way: A ship so shiny and invincible that a chubby opera singer who had never so much as jumped in a swimming pool could captain it to the promised land. That shiny ship was the Anaheim Ducks when they had not one, but TWO elite franchise defensemen and some pretty fearsome firepower up front. Am I not allowed to say that team won the Cup in spite of its coach, because that's exactly what happened. To try and definitively say it's the players or it's the coach is near impossible, all we can do is observe, analyze, and extrapolate. And the conclusion I drew is that the Avalanche have a multitude of problems...and the head coach was one of them. It remains to be seen if that particular problem will be solved.

 

[DanishAvsfan]

Again, the fact the team two years ago played with giant gaps between the O and D and had a disastrous start that doomed them by December before Roy finally started preaching "Puck Support" (his words, not mine) is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

And last year, when the team once again faceplanted to start the year, the team was overemphasizing defensive zone play and shot-blocking, going full matador in the neutral zone before finally realizing that getting out of the defensive zone is really, really hard when you're yielding the other two, is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

Did the players decide to ice a "third line" to start the year of Rendulic-Soderberg-Rantanen? Nope. That was the coach. Did the players decide that Nate Guenin and Nick Holden should be out there on the PK...together? Nope. That was the coach.

And how many times can you watch man-to-man defensive coverage fail before finally realizing there's a reason no one else in the NHL employs that system? Would better players have done it better? Probably, but man, opposing coaches sure had fun tying the Avalanche up in knots in the attacking zone because they knew exactly how to exploit the M2M system.

You seem to be implying that the Avalanche roster is that of an expansion club, and I don't think that's the case. I am every bit as frustrated as you are that this effin' club can't for the life of themselves develop an elite defender, or even a viable stay-at-home guy. But to say they didn't have a very talented puckmover and at least a decent top pairing guy is just plain wrong. And while he was waaaaaay overworked, Beauchemin is still a legit NHL defender.

You can say that Roy wasn't given the right tools, and you'd be right to an extent. But don't tell me that Roy did the best he possibly could with what he had, because he didn't. He continually used bad schemes, made adjustments far, far too slowly, and was absolutely abysmal when it came to in-game adjustments.

I don't expect this club to suddenly vault up Ye Olde Corsi Ladder under a different coach, but for Christ's sake, when you're pretty much dead last when it comes to shots taken and shots given up and your roster still sports some pretty damned good players, that's not all on the players. That's on the coach.

We can also look at your ship analogy the other way: A ship so shiny and invincible that a chubby opera singer who had never so much as jumped in a swimming pool could captain it to the promised land. That shiny ship was the Anaheim Ducks when they had not one, but TWO elite franchise defensemen and some pretty fearsome firepower up front. Am I not allowed to say that team won the Cup in spite of its coach, because that's exactly what happened. To try and definitively say it's the players or it's the coach is near impossible, all we can do is observe, analyze, and extrapolate. And the conclusion I drew is that the Avalanche have a multitude of problems...and the head coach was one of them. It remains to be seen if that particular problem will be solved.

Great post. I agree with almost everything in it. Especially the bolded parts. As everyone else I was taken aback by Roy's decision to quit as coach. I did not see that coming. With the benefit of hindsight and the things that are emerging I can see that there were signs. Like Av-merican I don't think it makes much sense to attribute all the blame for the failures of the past two season to a single actor or set of actors, be it the ensemble of the FO, Sakic, Roy, the players etc. They have been collective failures, which have been conditioned by post-lock-out management in general.

 

[Avs91]

Again, the fact the team two years ago played with giant gaps between the O and D and had a disastrous start that doomed them by December before Roy finally started preaching "Puck Support" (his words, not mine) is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

And last year, when the team once again faceplanted to start the year, the team was overemphasizing defensive zone play and shot-blocking, going full matador in the neutral zone before finally realizing that getting out of the defensive zone is really, really hard when you're yielding the other two, is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

Did the players decide to ice a "third line" to start the year of Rendulic-Soderberg-Rantanen? Nope. That was the coach. Did the players decide that Nate Guenin and Nick Holden should be out there on the PK...together? Nope. That was the coach.

And how many times can you watch man-to-man defensive coverage fail before finally realizing there's a reason no one else in the NHL employs that system? Would better players have done it better? Probably, but man, opposing coaches sure had fun tying the Avalanche up in knots in the attacking zone because they knew exactly how to exploit the M2M system.

You seem to be implying that the Avalanche roster is that of an expansion club, and I don't think that's the case. I am every bit as frustrated as you are that this effin' club can't for the life of themselves develop an elite defender, or even a viable stay-at-home guy. But to say they didn't have a very talented puckmover and at least a decent top pairing guy is just plain wrong. And while he was waaaaaay overworked, Beauchemin is still a legit NHL defender.

You can say that Roy wasn't given the right tools, and you'd be right to an extent. But don't tell me that Roy did the best he possibly could with what he had, because he didn't. He continually used bad schemes, made adjustments far, far too slowly, and was absolutely abysmal when it came to in-game adjustments.

I don't expect this club to suddenly vault up Ye Olde Corsi Ladder under a different coach, but for Christ's sake, when you're pretty much dead last when it comes to shots taken and shots given up and your roster still sports some pretty damned good players, that's not all on the players. That's on the coach.

We can also look at your ship analogy the other way: A ship so shiny and invincible that a chubby opera singer who had never so much as jumped in a swimming pool could captain it to the promised land. That shiny ship was the Anaheim Ducks when they had not one, but TWO elite franchise defensemen and some pretty fearsome firepower up front. Am I not allowed to say that team won the Cup in spite of its coach, because that's exactly what happened. To try and definitively say it's the players or it's the coach is near impossible, all we can do is observe, analyze, and extrapolate. And the conclusion I drew is that the Avalanche have a multitude of problems...and the head coach was one of them. It remains to be seen if that particular problem will be solved.

Great post, agree pretty much 100%. This is why I am not upset to see him go, although it really is awful timing on his part.

The onus may be on the players to 'step up' and perform, but Roy was making bad decisions. I'm excited to see who Sakic hires, at least we have an opportunity at this point to see if he finds a 'smart' or 'thinking/innovative' coach that will try different things on the ice.

 

[Foppa2118]

Again, the fact the team two years ago played with giant gaps between the O and D and had a disastrous start that doomed them by December before Roy finally started preaching "Puck Support" (his words, not mine) is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

And last year, when the team once again faceplanted to start the year, the team was overemphasizing defensive zone play and shot-blocking, going full matador in the neutral zone before finally realizing that getting out of the defensive zone is really, really hard when you're yielding the other two, is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

Did the players decide to ice a "third line" to start the year of Rendulic-Soderberg-Rantanen? Nope. That was the coach. Did the players decide that Nate Guenin and Nick Holden should be out there on the PK...together? Nope. That was the coach.

And how many times can you watch man-to-man defensive coverage fail before finally realizing there's a reason no one else in the NHL employs that system? Would better players have done it better? Probably, but man, opposing coaches sure had fun tying the Avalanche up in knots in the attacking zone because they knew exactly how to exploit the M2M system.

You seem to be implying that the Avalanche roster is that of an expansion club, and I don't think that's the case. I am every bit as frustrated as you are that this effin' club can't for the life of themselves develop an elite defender, or even a viable stay-at-home guy. But to say they didn't have a very talented puckmover and at least a decent top pairing guy is just plain wrong. And while he was waaaaaay overworked, Beauchemin is still a legit NHL defender.

You can say that Roy wasn't given the right tools, and you'd be right to an extent. But don't tell me that Roy did the best he possibly could with what he had, because he didn't. He continually used bad schemes, made adjustments far, far too slowly, and was absolutely abysmal when it came to in-game adjustments.

I don't expect this club to suddenly vault up Ye Olde Corsi Ladder under a different coach, but for Christ's sake, when you're pretty much dead last when it comes to shots taken and shots given up and your roster still sports some pretty damned good players, that's not all on the players. That's on the coach.

We can also look at your ship analogy the other way: A ship so shiny and invincible that a chubby opera singer who had never so much as jumped in a swimming pool could captain it to the promised land. That shiny ship was the Anaheim Ducks when they had not one, but TWO elite franchise defensemen and some pretty fearsome firepower up front. Am I not allowed to say that team won the Cup in spite of its coach, because that's exactly what happened. To try and definitively say it's the players or it's the coach is near impossible, all we can do is observe, analyze, and extrapolate. And the conclusion I drew is that the Avalanche have a multitude of problems...and the head coach was one of them. It remains to be seen if that particular problem will be solved.

These are your opinions of what "doomed them" that I don't share. The complete lack of defensive awareness from too many defenseman, and lack of puck skills from too many defenseman, contributed to not being able to get the puck back once it was in their zone, and take it into the offensive zone. Then they couldn't outscore their mistakes like they did their first year, and needed someone from their core of forwards to step up on a consistent basis. These IMO were WAY bigger factor than any of the other ancillary issues like their gap or their shot blocking.

Put a good defense on this team, have at least one core player step up and take lead, and get good goaltending, and they could play the exact same way, with all the little issues people complained about, and they'd be a legit playoff team that was looked upon in a much better light. Not far off from how people view Florida, Minnesota, or the Islanders. They'd have vastly improved analytics as well.

 

[Pokecheque]

These are your opinions of what "doomed them" that I don't share. The complete lack of defensive awareness from too many defenseman, and lack of puck skills from too many defenseman, contributed to not being able to get the puck back once it was in their zone, and take it into the offensive zone. Then they couldn't outscore their mistakes like they did their first year, and needed someone from their core of forwards to step up on a consistent basis. These IMO were WAY bigger factor than any of the other ancillary issues like their gap or their shot blocking.

Put a good defense on this team, have at least one core player step up and take lead, and get good goaltending, and they could play the exact same way, with all the little issues people complained about, and they'd be a legit playoff team that was looked upon in a much better light. Not far off from how people view Florida, Minnesota, or the Islanders. They'd have vastly improved analytics as well.

Well, put enough talent on any club and they can do whatever. Again, Anaheim was so stacked that an absolutely abysmal coach who preached nothing but goon-it-up, dump-and-chase hockey led them to a Cup win.

I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that the players aren't to blame. Yes, Duchene, MacKinnon, and Landeskog have all been guilty of inconsistency and bad mental lapses. And we've heard the story plenty of times where good players get good coaches fired because he got "tuned out" by the room. Players are streaky, they fail their coaches at inopportune times, but even the best of players have done that. I'm not sure what you would suggest though...are you saying the Avs can't build a winner around those three? Because I think they can.

But I'm not buying this notion that Roy's system would've worked with some better pieces. Sure, if you gave Roy and absolutely ridiculously good team like what Carlyle had in Anaheim, then ANY system would look good. Fact of the matter is this team got stalled in their own end way too often, rarely looked organized in the slightest whether it came to coverage or moving the puck out, and clearly the coaches didn't even give a damn about neutral zone play in the slightest until it was essentially too late. Yes, that's due to the fact that guys like Nate Guenin were busy floating and pointing in the defensive zone, but it's also the fault of a disorganized, discombobulated, and fundamentally bad on-ice strategy. I honestly don't know if Roy truly knew what he really wanted to see out there. It was sure as hell clear opposing coaches knew how to exploit both systemic and personnel weaknesses, and Roy rarely, if ever countered.

One example of a good system looking bad is in Carolina. They are one of the best teams in the league when it comes to shot suppression (note, shot suppression is much, much better than shot blocking). Now...if they could at least get something resembling a real goaltender between the pipes and some firepower up front that might actually get the puck in the net on a regular basis, they'll be going places (see, possession isn't all that matters, and the fancy stats crowd knows that too).

Of course, that's just talk at this point--they gotta execute, and there's where I agree with you that the players have to step the **** up. Where you and I disagree is that I believe Roy's systems held the players back. A new system ain't going to turn them into contenders overnight. You can't build something solid without the right materials. But you can sure make progress to that end, and under Roy, I simply wasn't seeing it.

 

[Foppa2118]

Just getting back to the track record this group has had, I was going over all the moves they've made the last few years, and these are the things I personally think were mainly influenced by Roy. Either due to his connections in the hockey world, past relationships with players, or due to his preferences as coach. Just speculation on my part.

• Francois Allaire as goaltending coach
• Jerome Mesonero as QMJHL scout
• Nathan MacKinnon
• Mikhail Girgorenko
• Tourigny who did a lot for EJ and Barrie
• Hepple replacing Pracey
• Downie for Talbot
• PAP for Briere with a shorter contract
• Greer getting his development back on track thanks to his Q connections
• Possibly a big part of bringing in Beauchemin
• Eric Veilleux replacing Dean Chenoweth
• Inviting a bunch of Q players as tryouts this year (Shawn Ouellette-St Amant, Jeffrey Truchon-Viel, and Chase Marchand)
• Almost had a hand in bringing in Radulov

 

[Pokecheque]

Just getting back to the track record this group has had, I was going over all the moves they've made the last few years, and these are the things I personally think were mainly influenced by Roy. Either due to his connections in the hockey world, past relationships with players, or due to his preferences as coach. Just speculation on my part.

• Francois Allaire as goaltending coach
• Jerome Mesonero as QMJHL scout
• Nathan MacKinnon
• Mikhail Girgorenko
• Tourigny who did a lot for EJ and Barrie
• Hepple replacing Pracey
• Downie for Talbot
• PAP for Briere with a shorter contract
• Greer getting his development back on track thanks to his Q connections
• Possibly a big part of bringing in Beauchemin
• Eric Veilleux replacing Dean Chenoweth
• Inviting a bunch of Q players as tryouts this year (Shawn Ouellette-St Amant, Jeffrey Truchon-Viel, and Chase Marchand)
• Almost had a hand in bringing in Radulov

Actually, you got the Downie/Talbot trade backwards. Downie came to CO for Quincey, he went to Philly for Talbot. FTR I don't think that was a bad move, even though both players ended up washing out of the NHL soon afterwards.

That said, I tend to agree with this list, and Roy actually did do a lot of good. One thing I'd add is that he was instrumental in delivering on the promise of more transparency after years and years of ridiculous amounts of secrecy and cronyism from Lacroix & Co. Roy was nothing if not up front and honest.

I think he and Sakic were also on the same page in trying to get more Euro talent into the system by any means necessary, hence the gambles on Rendulic, Everberg, etc. Doesn't matter that a lot of those moves didn't work out, they were chances worth taking rather than trying to stock the system with a bunch of AHL vets, which ended up being disastrous in Lake Erie previously.

 

[twostroke27]

Again, the fact the team two years ago played with giant gaps between the O and D and had a disastrous start that doomed them by December before Roy finally started preaching "Puck Support" (his words, not mine) is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

And last year, when the team once again faceplanted to start the year, the team was overemphasizing defensive zone play and shot-blocking, going full matador in the neutral zone before finally realizing that getting out of the defensive zone is really, really hard when you're yielding the other two, is not just on the players. That's on the coach.

Did the players decide to ice a "third line" to start the year of Rendulic-Soderberg-Rantanen? Nope. That was the coach. Did the players decide that Nate Guenin and Nick Holden should be out there on the PK...together? Nope. That was the coach.

And how many times can you watch man-to-man defensive coverage fail before finally realizing there's a reason no one else in the NHL employs that system? Would better players have done it better? Probably, but man, opposing coaches sure had fun tying the Avalanche up in knots in the attacking zone because they knew exactly how to exploit the M2M system.

You seem to be implying that the Avalanche roster is that of an expansion club, and I don't think that's the case. I am every bit as frustrated as you are that this effin' club can't for the life of themselves develop an elite defender, or even a viable stay-at-home guy. But to say they didn't have a very talented puckmover and at least a decent top pairing guy is just plain wrong. And while he was waaaaaay overworked, Beauchemin is still a legit NHL defender.

You can say that Roy wasn't given the right tools, and you'd be right to an extent. But don't tell me that Roy did the best he possibly could with what he had, because he didn't. He continually used bad schemes, made adjustments far, far too slowly, and was absolutely abysmal when it came to in-game adjustments.

I don't expect this club to suddenly vault up Ye Olde Corsi Ladder under a different coach, but for Christ's sake, when you're pretty much dead last when it comes to shots taken and shots given up and your roster still sports some pretty damned good players, that's not all on the players. That's on the coach.

We can also look at your ship analogy the other way: A ship so shiny and invincible that a chubby opera singer who had never so much as jumped in a swimming pool could captain it to the promised land. That shiny ship was the Anaheim Ducks when they had not one, but TWO elite franchise defensemen and some pretty fearsome firepower up front. Am I not allowed to say that team won the Cup in spite of its coach, because that's exactly what happened. To try and definitively say it's the players or it's the coach is near impossible, all we can do is observe, analyze, and extrapolate. And the conclusion I drew is that the Avalanche have a multitude of problems...and the head coach was one of them. It remains to be seen if that particular problem will be solved.

It was during this part of the season that I decided Roy wasn't an NHL coach. After that first round Minny series, one would have thought that he would have realized at the very least that the Man on Man system had Major flaws. If it wasn't apparent during that series, it should have been the first 12 games of the next season when they ran into the same problems against multiple teams. I just don't understand how I can watch the games and identify what the problem is, but a supposed NHL level coach couldn't. Either he couldn't see that it was a problem, or he was flat out too stubborn to admit it.

I don't hate Roy. Nor do I think that he is the one to blame 100%. I do think he was in way too far over his head and that he pulled the plug because he knew it.

 

[Foppa2118]

Actually, you got the Downie/Talbot trade backwards. Downie came to CO for Quincey, he went to Philly for Talbot. FTR I don't think that was a bad move, even though both players ended up washing out of the NHL soon afterwards.

That said, I tend to agree with this list, and Roy actually did do a lot of good. One thing I'd add is that he was instrumental in delivering on the promise of more transparency after years and years of ridiculous amounts of secrecy and cronyism from Lacroix & Co. Roy was nothing if not up front and honest.

I think he and Sakic were also on the same page in trying to get more Euro talent into the system by any means necessary, hence the gambles on Rendulic, Everberg, etc. Doesn't matter that a lot of those moves didn't work out, they were chances worth taking rather than trying to stock the system with a bunch of AHL vets, which ended up being disastrous in Lake Erie previously.

I was referring to the trading of Downie for Talbot, as I think that was due to Roy's preference, and he spearheaded that decision.

I agree about the Euro talent a lot. I was gonna put that down as well, but it's hard to really know that one because Joe could have really wanted that as well.

Like you though, I have a strong feeling the influx in European talent, and the expanded presence in scouting over there, had a lot to do with Roy. I think he's a big believer in not ignoring pools of talent when building a team, and the Avs did that for a long time.

 

[hoserthehorrible]

To those that are blaming Roy for the last two seasons of not making the playoffs... are you also giving Roy "all" the credit for the first regular season behind the bench when the Avs won their division and beat out the Blackhawks, Blues, Stars, Wild, and others?

Roy is a contributing factor to the last two season's poor results but he is far from the only reason. Sakic shares some blame for not getting the right players; specially the defense. The core forwards that underperformed also share in some of the blame. So does Varlamov; he too owns some of the blame.

Making the playoffs and winning the Stanley Cup requires a lot of things to go well and lots of people all working together including ownership, the GM, the head coach, the assistant coaches, the core forwards and defense, the role playing forward and defense, the goaltending, etc.

The Avs are missing a lot of key components when it comes to making a Stanley Cup run right now and Roy wasn't the reason they couldn't and didn't.

 

[tucker3434]

The Avs clearly aren't a contending roster, but they seem to be more well rounded than they've been in a while. There's blame to go around. I just don't feel like Roy was willing to shoulder enough of it.

One of the things that bothered me was we'd add a guy like Beauchemin who was Corsi neutral in the PY with Anaheim. He comes here and immediately his corsi goes to hell. Maybe he was just a passenger, but he was the guy facing the hardest QOC in Anaheim. I know Anaheim was the better team overall, but you just aren't going to convince me that systems don't have a lot to do with it.