Confirmed with Link: Ken Hitchcock Returning as Head Coach (Wilson, Barnes, Fraser as Asst. Coaches)

[Satan]

missed press conference, appreciate the quick notes abilify


i like the prospect of ignoring the 16-17 Stars too


erased from memory

 

[Archgoat]

Sounded like he definitely has one guy already picked out for assistant coach. He said you will see when he comes in that he is the type of guy who can tell him when to step away.

I am curious about the multi-year deal. Some people were speculating a single year deal for coaching. I wonder if he has some sort of clause that he can step down from coaching into a consulting job after the first year if he wants. Jim Nill mentioned they did not have a plan for transition and they are just focused on next year. I think that is most likely not completely true.

 

[Morry83]

After watching the press conference, I'm 100%, completely on board with Hitch (not that my opinion matters, but still...)

He's bviously an incredibly smart guy and knows the game better than anyone. What excites me most is how it really sounds like he's not going to take away the excitement, offense, and energy that the Stars have. He realizes what Nill's built so far. I think he's just gonna implement defense and discipline.

 

[Hockey Dad]

I think this years team is weird because of the injuries and I really don't think Ruff was coming back reguarless. I think the team tuned him out because of that.

 

[ZeHockeyFan]

http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2016/10/2016-17-nhl-teams-by-height-weight-and.html

2nd/3rd/5th in h/w/age. Is this seriously the first time you are hearing about this? I feel like my entire time on HF has featured a consistent stream of "Player X isn't a center here because he's too short" and "Prospect Y won't be given a chance because he isn't big" from Kings fans on the trade board. St Louis is 12/6/15 btw,

I haven't been on much this season, but yeah I encountered one who wanted Tufte over Gurianov because the former was a mere 2" taller. That said, the question is not whether some Kings fans don't want small(er) players. The question is whether Sutter influenced bringing in bigger sized players (why'd they bring in Gaborik?) or did he make do effectively with what he had that already existed? There's no evidence for this besides some fans wanting size, and most fans of teams seem to be in awe of size. Do recall how Bogo/Razer/Strader introduced Stephen Johns to the party crowd.

and we were 3/4/3.

So does the above mean our management and/or coaching staff is obsessed with size?

And the reason they don't score is none of those, it's that the system suppresses offense on both ends.

They scored 2.8 gpg in 2012 and a whopping 3.4 gpg in 2014 in the playoffs. In 2012-13 and last season, they scored 2.77 and 2.74 gpg in the regular season. If that's a system that's suppressing offense in OZ, I don't know what to tell you. There is obvious regression from players whom were relied for offense, namely Kopitar and Gaborik.

Meanwhile, plenty of Blues still get their goals.

Not in the playoffs when it matters, though. Last season's playoffs was when they actually came close to 3 gpg @ 2.85 gpg out of which 3.5 gpg was offered on a platter by our swiss cheese defensive play. Also, they had 219 goals in the regular season last year to 223 by the Kings.

The Stars succeeded last year by playing high event hockey and Hitch even said that is the future we are headed towards. That's not Daryl Sutter's way, and as I said before I'm not really sure where you are getting your information about him from.

I agree Hitch said that, but whether he's going to endorse that philosophy for this squad when he coaches it, is another thing. It may not be Sutter's way, but unless Hitch actually employs a high event system (not bloody likely), all he's offered is lip-service. All said and done, he is here and there's nothing to be done but hope for the best.

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

 

[Satan]

whats his corsi number x.x

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

Ken Hitchcock was just on primetime sports...half of the questions were about the Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

[Satan]

lmao

 

[Benneguin]

Doesn't matter if it doesn't translate to playoff success but it's certainly a better record than Ruff's.

 

[Satan]

"playoff success"

 

[________]

 

[Satan]

Called Klingberg an great player, he's really impressed with Lindell and Like what he saw from Honka


Shapiro must've been on a day buzz

 

[Archgoat]

Hitchcock mentioned at the press conference and on the ticket yesterday that there was only one other team he would of considered coaching again. He of course would not say which team that was. Any speculation?

I am assuming he is only referring to teams that were looking for coaches. If he just wants to win, I think you can rule out the Golden Knights. Probably the Kings, right? I could see the Islanders as a possibility as well.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

I get the reason behind the hiring, but fear we are getting in some kind of treadmill, not unlike in the Niewy years, i.e., we feature offense for a few years, see the flaws, hire a defensive coach, etc. If Hitch, probably hired before the draft to have some input, starts asking for big players, it will in some ways negate five years of drafting for skill, although, honestly, Nill seemed to be leaning that direction anyway. Obviously you still need balance, but the coaching carousel doesn't seem to be a sign of constant forward progress.

Overall, I am happy. As Nill said, if you look at his record compared to available coaches, its not even close. Sutter would probably be a fairly close second. As to playoff success, you only have one winner a year, an average of 3% to win. Hitch has been an NHL coach about 20 years, with one Cup, a 5% success rate.

His teams always compete and are close, but to win, everything has to go right. And that includes, no injuries, good draws (would we have won if a lowly Buffalo didn't come out of the East?) and a young to in its prime team where older vets fill in the supplementary roles. Oh, and great goaltending (most years)

Our stars are reaching their prime. Hitch can elevate our young D. Our role players are a mix of very young and somewhat old (if we resign Sharp and Hemsky for secondary scoring)

The pieces are mostly in place, but it sure doesn't feel like the glory days where we were a top 3 team in the west, without doubt. But, maybe.

 

[Troy McClure]

Doesn't matter if it doesn't translate to playoff success but it's certainly a better record than Ruff's.

Consistently making the playoffs is a prerequisite to playoff success.

 

[Magic Mittens]

I get the reason behind the hiring, but fear we are getting in some kind of treadmill, not unlike in the Niewy years, i.e., we feature offense for a few years, see the flaws, hire a defensive coach, etc. If Hitch, probably hired before the draft to have some input, starts asking for big players, it will in some ways negate five years of drafting for skill, although, honestly, Nill seemed to be leaning that direction anyway. Obviously you still need balance, but the coaching carousel doesn't seem to be a sign of constant forward progress.

Overall, I am happy. As Nill said, if you look at his record compared to available coaches, its not even close. Sutter would probably be a fairly close second. As to playoff success, you only have one winner a year, an average of 3% to win. Hitch has been an NHL coach about 20 years, with one Cup, a 5% success rate.

His teams always compete and are close, but to win, everything has to go right. And that includes, no injuries, good draws (would we have won if a lowly Buffalo didn't come out of the East?) and a young to in its prime team where older vets fill in the supplementary roles. Oh, and great goaltending (most years)

Our stars are reaching their prime. Hitch can elevate our young D. Our role players are a mix of very young and somewhat old (if we resign Sharp and Hemsky for secondary scoring)

The pieces are mostly in place, but it sure doesn't feel like the glory days where we were a top 3 team in the west, without doubt. But, maybe.

I was wondering if Nill had a plan to hire Hitchcock for awhile now. They might have even talked before the season ended. Even Nills trade deadline deals you could say are more Hitch players then his usual fast, pmd etc guys. Who knows if Heatherington will make it as a bottom pairing LHD, but he seems like a Dman that Hitch would love

McNeil reminds me of a Kyle Brodziak kind of player that Hitch seemed to trust/like

Maybe they were all Nill could get, or maybe he's starting to change in a different direction. Who knows, let's just get better asap!

 

[Indianation65]

If you do not take the Dallas Morning News, see if you can get a copy of today's paper, Friday the 14. There is a long Hitchcock interview in it.

He goes on and on about all the potential Dallas has and how he's going to "change" this and that, and more of that, and so on. It pretty much seemed to be nothing but slamming Ruff's system and "choices" of coaching ideas.

Yes, Dallas was bad this year, but under Ruff Dallas was awesome last season. What happened from last year to this year was very odd, but what's done is done.

The interview pretty sounded "all defense." Oh, and yea, he still wants the team to score a few goals.

I'm not happy about this, but I will gladly change my tune if Dallas turns it around and goes deep in the playoffs. The Stars are my team, and the team is more to me than the coach.

Go Dallas!

 

[Hockey Dad]

Ruff could not adjust to injuries and his stubbornness to players such as Eakin cost the team. By not having a contract he lost the team. I think Hitch will be a good short term hire. At any rate I am just glad Ruff is gone.

 

[Mr Misty]

Ruff could not adjust to injuries and his stubbornness to players such as Eakin cost the team. By not having a contract he lost the team. I think Hitch will be a good short term hire. At any rate I am just glad Ruff is gone.

He adjusted to injuries fine in previous years. He couldn't adjust to having a whole new defense and also a bunch of injuries up front all at once. Jamie Benn didn't hit anybody for like half the year, how much winning is possible if your best player is hurt?

All coaches have favorites and how much did playing Eakin really cost this team?

It is bananas to blame Ruff's contract on Ruff instead of the GM. That wasn't Ruff's choice because that's not how it works.

By all means be glad Ruff was let go, just base your decision to do so on stuff he actually was responsible for.

 

[Hockey Dad]

I think Ruff's contract was a reflection of himself. In his years here the Stars were average. They had one year that they overachieved. If they were better then Ruff would have had an extension.

 

[Mr Misty]

I think Ruff's contract was a reflection of himself. In his years here the Stars were average. They had one year that they overachieved. If they were better then Ruff would have had an extension.

They made the playoffs for the first time in 5 years in his first year, and were a whisker from game 7.

They improved on their point total the next year but missed the playoffs.

They won the conference and got to game 7 of round 2.

Why is this not worthy of an extension about 12 months ago?

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Why is this not worthy of an extension about 12 months ago?

Actually a good question. Three possibilities:

Nill simply doesn't do that with coaches (or most player contracts, although Benn got an extension early, and maybe Klingberg?

He had an inkling that overall, the Stars over performed one year, not a trend, and the vaunted Ruff offense first system might not work long term. Hard to believe he was willing to endure a 4 year experiment in offense first if that was the case......

We know Ruff wasn't his first choice, and now we know Hitch was Galardi's first choice from the get go. As mentioned, they certainly knew Hitch was going to be available, since STL had their coach in waiting, and wanted at least the chance to hire Hitch. That info I think was known prior to last year, perhaps affecting the extension.

 

[Hockey Dad]

Yes they were better with Ruff than before but they were still mediocre.

 

[Mr Misty]

Why is this not worthy of an extension about 12 months ago?

Actually a good question. Three possibilities:

Nill simply doesn't do that with coaches (or most player contracts, although Benn got an extension early, and maybe Klingberg?

He had an inkling that overall, the Stars over performed one year, not a trend, and the vaunted Ruff offense first system might not work long term. Hard to believe he was willing to endure a 4 year experiment in offense first if that was the case......

We know Ruff wasn't his first choice, and now we know Hitch was Galardi's first choice from the get go. As mentioned, they certainly knew Hitch was going to be available, since STL had their coach in waiting, and wanted at least the chance to hire Hitch. That info I think was known prior to last year, perhaps affecting the extension.

None of these are convincing reasons. Nill doesn't extend coaches because he wants to risk having a disaster season when they tune out a lame duck?

There was a trend of improvement, and just take a look back at the 13-14 season if you want to see how offense-first Ruff's coaching is. Thinking 15-16 was a fluke isn't a terrible position, but Nill was largely responsible for making it a fluke by throwing away Goligoski and Demers. And that doesn't account for the possibility that Ruff could have succeeded. If we were playing today I have no doubt Ruff would be the coach on opening night in October.

And this last is the most convoluted of all. If Hitch was still coaching the Blues today he would be set to retire. Nobody plans 12 months ago to not extend a coach with the best results in recent history in the hopes that he will fail so we can replace him with a different coach.

I understand that these are not your deeply held beliefs, just an attempt to fit the events into a world of reason, but these are not explanations that make any sense to me.