Speculation: The coaching search continues

[BankStreetParade]

So much negativity! Stop letting your PTSD scar tissue control your discourse.

I really do trust our brass until they make some bad moves, and I'll even give them next year before I change that feeling. They're investing in most if not every aspect from the top down.

All Sens fans really need a phycologist to help us through the Melnyk era trauma amiright?

It's not PTSD, it's an aversion to wanting another throwaway season while things get figured out. I don't know about you but I'm not interested in a "we made some progress" season that ends with us at 85 points and talking about how we're "heading in the right direction". I'm done with the platitudes, it's time for results. Results are all that have mattered for the last 2 years. Sure, there's been some really unexpected stuff that happened to lend context to those results but it's not something I expect to see every year (major injuries/surgery/recover, gambling suspension, etc.) It's time for results. All I care about is seeing how each step is calibrated towards that goal. And it starts with a solid coaching hire. So, if they go and hire a guy getting his first crack at the NHL HC job, I'm not going to be very confident that results will follow.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

It's not PTSD, it's an aversion to wanting another throwaway season while things get figured out. I don't know about you but I'm not interested in a "we made some progress" season that ends with us at 85 points and talking about how we're "heading in the right direction". I'm done with the platitudes, it's time for results. Results are all that have mattered for the last 2 years. Sure, there's been some really unexpected stuff that happened to lend context to those results but it's not something I expect to see every year (major injuries/surgery/recover, gambling suspension, etc.) It's time for results. All I care about is seeing how each step is calibrated towards that goal. And it starts with a solid coaching hire. So, if they go and hire a guy getting his first crack at the NHL HC job, I'm not going to be very confident that results will follow.

The current regime has been here for under a year. This organization was just involved in a billion dollar sale.

 

[BankStreetParade]

The current regime has been here for under a year. This organization was just involved in a billion dollar sale.

What does any of that have to do with wanting to see on-ice results?

 

[GCK]

What does any of that have to do with wanting to see on-ice results?

It means they have a ton of work to do to clean up the Melnyk/Dorion shart marks that were left on the franchise.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

What does any of that have to do with wanting to see on-ice results?

You are talking about change to the status quo, platitudes, etc.

We are operating in a completely new context but you refuse to accept that.

It means they have a ton of work to do to clean up the Melnyk/Dorion shart marks that were left on the franchise.

Bingo.

 

[Senscore]

I don't think we should hold out for Cooper

 

[BankStreetParade]

It means they have a ton of work to do to clean up the Melnyk/Dorion shart marks that were left on the franchise.

No one is saying that the team was operated on a shoe-string budget, so I don't know why you'd even bring that up.

They still need to hire a coach for the upcoming season, right? And when the list of names being considered includes 2 AHL guys and Travis Green, it's not exactly instilling confidence that we're going to get a great HC to help this team.

The current betting favourite, according to FanDuel Sportsbook, is John Gruden, a guy with limited head coaching experience at any level of professional hockey. Then there's a rumour about Todd Nelson, another guy with no NHL experience. And another rumour about Travis Green, a guy with a career .473 pts% in 335 NHL games.

I didn't realize that saying we need to hire an experienced, veteran head coach with an excellent resume over unknowns was so blasphemous on here.

 

[BankStreetParade]

You are talking about change to the status quo, platitudes, etc.

We are operating in a completely new context but you refuse to accept that.

Bingo.

Completely new context or not, hiring an inexperienced coach is going to be a tough sell to a fanbase that doesn't want anymore excuses for why the team didn't make the playoffs.

I don't know what that has to do with me supposedly not accepting "that" (whatever "that" is)...

 

[Big Muddy]

Really?

Yes, really.

 

[Micklebot]

Really? If they hire some AHL guy with no head coaching experience at the NHL level, you're going to fully reserve your judgement until after game 82?

That would be the rationale thing to do unless you think Tbay should have judged Cooper as a bad hire right out of the gate, Col with Bednar,, Carolina with Brindamour, or Was with Boudreau, Anaheim with Babcock, or when StL gave Scotty Bowman his first NHL HC job and he took them to the finals 3 consecutive years.

 

[Clamshells]

It means they have a ton of work to do to clean up the Melnyk/Dorion shart marks that were left on the franchise.

They can start by not hiring a bargain bin coach

 

[BankStreetParade]

That would be the rationale thing to do unless you think Tbay should have judged Cooper as a bad hire right out of the gate, Col with Bednar,, Carolina with Brindamour, or Was with Boudreau, Anaheim with Babcock, or when StL gave Scotty Bowman his first NHL HC job and he took them to the finals 3 consecutive years.

Oh I see, the rational thing to do is pick out all of the AHL guys who have had success at the NHL level and say "See, it can work!"

You know what? Sure! Order us up 1 Jon Cooper from the AHL to come and coach this team next year, please. Never mind all of the Calder cup winning coaches who have not landed jobs in the NHL or who have mediocre/pedestrian results at this level. Let's only focus on the good ones, that's rational.

 

[Micklebot]

Oh I see, the rational thing to do is pick out all of the AHL guys who have had success at the NHL level and say "See, it can work!"

You know what? Sure! Order us up 1 Jon Cooper from the AHL to come and coach this team next year, please. Never mind all of the Calder cup winning coaches who have not landed jobs in the NHL or who have mediocre/pedestrian results at this level. Let's only focus on the good ones, that's rational.

The rationale thing to do is understand that a past history as a HC at the NHL isn't a requirement to be successful, as evidenced by the examples I provided. That doesn't mean just anybody is a good hire, but if you have trust in the GM, you should trust that if he chooses someone without prior NHL experience over the guys who do, there is likely a reason for that, and if you don't trust the GM, then why would you trust the choice he makes if they do have NHL experience?

The reality is, most people here have no clue what makes a good HC, and even less understanding of what attributes the candidates being considered have, so a rationale thing to do no matter who is hired would be to wait and see how things play out, but fans and rationale seldom go hand in hand,

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Presumably, it won't be like Melnyk where they're hiring from the bargain bin only, because of setting their own limitations.

If this new regime hires a less experienced coach, it will presumably be because he was in their opinion the best candidate that wanted to sign, not because they limited their hiring pool to 500k or less only coaches and picked only from that.

 

[BankStreetParade]

The rationale thing to do is understand that a past history as a HC at the NHL isn't a requirement to be successful, as evidenced by the examples I provided. That doesn't mean just anybody is a good hire, but if you have trust in the GM, you should trust that if he chooses someone without prior NHL experience over the guys who do, there is likely a reason for that, and if you don't trust the GM, then why would you trust the choice he makes if they do have NHL experience?

The reality is, most people here have no clue what makes a good HC, and even less understanding of what attributes the candidates being considered have, so a rationale thing to do no matter who is hired would be to wait and see how things play out, but fans and rationale seldom go hand in hand,

This entire post is basically the appeal to authority fallacy. Also, it should be noted that you're arguing possibility while I'm arguing probability. Is it possible to get a great HC with no prior experience at the NHL level? Obviously, duh. Is it probable? Not a great success rate, in that regard. In fact, the odds are pretty slim.

You remove possibility from the equation if you go out and hire a veteran head coach with an excellent resume and an established track record of success. Meaning, you don't have to wonder if they can do the job. Now we settle on probability again. Sure, nothing is guaranteed. Good/great coaches get fired all the time because they lose the room or whatever else might happen.

Let me ask you this hypothetical: you have the opportunity to hire Rod Brind'Amour or John Gruden. Who do you pick and why?

 

[jbeck5]

No one is saying that the team was operated on a shoe-string budget, so I don't know why you'd even bring that up.

They still need to hire a coach for the upcoming season, right? And when the list of names being considered includes 2 AHL guys and Travis Green, it's not exactly instilling confidence that we're going to get a great HC to help this team.

The current betting favourite, according to FanDuel Sportsbook, is John Gruden, a guy with limited head coaching experience at any level of professional hockey. Then there's a rumour about Todd Nelson, another guy with no NHL experience. And another rumour about Travis Green, a guy with a career .473 pts% in 335 NHL games.

I didn't realize that saying we need to hire an experienced, veteran head coach with an excellent resume over unknowns was so blasphemous on here.

I thought it was agreed we needed someone with experience who is a recent proven winner.

The idea that anyone is against that idea is alarming.

It's almost as if they want a scapegoat so we can have another excuse for a failed season next year.

"See, management knows what they're doing. They've realized inexperience didn't work, so NEXT YEAR they'll get it right. Strap on tight sens fans! Wooo"


Please no.

That would be the rationale thing to do unless you think Tbay should have judged Cooper as a bad hire right out of the gate, Col with Bednar,, Carolina with Brindamour, or Was with Boudreau, Anaheim with Babcock, or when StL gave Scotty Bowman his first NHL HC job and he took them to the finals 3 consecutive years.

Every good head coach started somewhere.

While that's a good point in your arguments favour, it's also not hard to cherry pick stats to make your post look good.

You could have made the exact same post by cherry picking failed starting coaches and made the exact opposite argument successfully lol.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I thought it was agreed we needed someone with experience who is a recent proven winner.

The idea that anyone is against that idea is alarming.

It's almost as if they want a scapegoat so we can have another excuse for a failed season next year.

"See, management knows what they're doing. They've realized inexperience didn't work, so NEXT YEAR they'll get it right. Strap on tight sens fans! Wooo"


Please no.

Agreed by fans, but that doesn't mean anything. We should want these guys to hire the guy THEY think is the best coach, not be doing it with a restriction of veterans only. That's not far off from Melnyk's requirement that they have to make bottom dollar.

 

[jbeck5]

The rationale thing to do is understand that a past history as a HC at the NHL isn't a requirement to be successful, as evidenced by the examples I provided. That doesn't mean just anybody is a good hire, but if you have trust in the GM, you should trust that if he chooses someone without prior NHL experience over the guys who do, there is likely a reason for that, and if you don't trust the GM, then why would you trust the choice he makes if they do have NHL experience?

The reality is, most people here have no clue what makes a good HC, and even less understanding of what attributes the candidates being considered have, so a rationale thing to do no matter who is hired would be to wait and see how things play out, but fans and rationale seldom go hand in hand,

We haven't been able to build trust in our GM. He hasn't done anything. Trust is earned through repeatedly proving yourself right.

Agreed by fans, but that doesn't mean anything. We should want these guys to hire the guy THEY think is the best coach, not be doing it with a restriction of veterans only. That's not far off from Melnyk's requirement that they have to make bottom dollar.

I thought they said the team needed more experience.

Why is experience valuable for the roster, but not for the coach?

I keep hearing that this roster is good, but it's inexperienced and that's a big problem.

So why not apply that logic to the coach?

Also, why is it one or the other? Why is it good or experienced, why can't we look for both?

 

[BondraTime]

Agreed by fans, but that doesn't mean anything. We should want these guys to hire the guy THEY think is the best coach, not be doing it with a restriction of veterans only. That's not far off from Melnyk's requirement that they have to make bottom dollar.

There is always a struggle to understand there's a difference, myself included

 

[h2]

How do you know this? Id love to know. Players like Shane Obrien and Scotty Upshall seem to like him. Think he's a good coach and they have actual relationships with players and people in the league.

13 years of coaching experience. Almost 1000 NHL games. 7 seasons of an NHL head coach, 4 seasons as an AHL head coach and 1 season as WHL head coach and GM.

I find coachs in their second tour of duty have the best NHL results. He's a good age he's 53. He knows the modern player but knows what it takes to compete and win. Frankie Corrado had him as a coach their mantra on an AHL playoff championship run was start heavy. He coached an aggressive heavy hockey mantra. Exactly what this team needs to embrace as they are so soft.

Green's resume as pointed out by you literally means nothing to me (neither does Scottie Upshall or Shane O'Brien's endorsement), DJ Smith has a good resume as well and was defended by more notable players than Upshall and O'Brien, and we saw how that went. Players rarely talk shit about coaches.

Have you read what Devils fans think of Travis Green? That fan base is ready to jump off a cliff if he's retained in the HC job. Do fans know all the inner workings and have an accurate portrayal of how things actually are? Probably not, but fans still have a very good read on how the coach is during the game when in-game decisions are made. I know looking back at coaches from a Sens fan perspective, the fan base is usually right when a coach is a good fit or not after they get to see the coach in action. I mean, we've all known DJ wasn't an ideal head coach for years, but management/players felt different. From reading Canucks and Devils thoughts on the subject, I can see a very clear consensus. That's good enough for me.

 

[jbeck5]

Gruden over Green why? Green has had way more success played in the league for along time and way more NHL experience.


How do you know this? Id love to know. Players like Shane Obrien and Scotty Upshall seem to like him. Think he's a good coach and they have actual relationships with players and people in the league.

13 years of coaching experience. Almost 1000 NHL games. 7 seasons of an NHL head coach, 4 seasons as an AHL head coach and 1 season as WHL head coach and GM.

I find coachs in their second tour of duty have the best NHL results. He's a good age he's 53. He knows the modern player but knows what it takes to compete and win. Frankie Corrado had him as a coach their mantra on an AHL playoff championship run was start heavy. He coached an aggressive heavy hockey mantra. Exactly what this team needs to embrace as they are so soft.

People don't like him as a person. They don't like his attitude around hockey. He was a pretty shitty player(and I don't mean skills) and many probably hold him accountable.

It's not like he was a douchy player at 21. He was a douchy player in his 30s. In your 30s, you generally are who you are.

Go watch his antics on the ice to know what type of person he is when emotions get high. I don't want that around our team. Same reason I wouldn't want Tucker as a coach either. And it has nothing to do with playing for the Leafs, but rather how they played. I wouldn't want Matt cooke coaching this team or Sean Avery either. They're spineless little rats who are tough when they want to be and a little p***y most of the time. It's not a mentality I want around the team.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

We haven't been able to build trust in our GM. He hasn't done anything. Trust is earned through repeatedly proving yourself right.



I thought they said the team needed more experience.

Why is experience valuable for the roster, but not for the coach?

I keep hearing that this roster is good, but it's inexperienced and that's a big problem.

So why not apply that logic to the coach?

Also, why is it one or the other? Why is it good or experienced, why can't we look for both?

They did say that, but I don't think it HAS to be the hiring criteria is more what I'm going for. I had my preferences based on name, veterans obviously since the inexperienced names mean nothing to me, but I'm confident they're ultimately going to choose the coach they believe is the best.

I don't think you could ever say that under Melnyk. It was the best of what was in the bargain bin. I think there's a huge difference.

There is always a struggle to understand there's a difference, myself included

It is hard not to get emotionally attached to the big names I think, but there's no exact science to it. Seems like its best to trust the professionals, or at least give them a chance, since they haven't failed us yet and seem to potentially be actually competent unlike the last group.

 

[Butchy Dakkar]

One side of me agrees with the sentiment that we need a proven NHL coach.

The other side knows that every experienced coach with a solid NHL was a rookie at some point. That may be the path to finding an absolute gem (vs an “all-star” HC willing to sign in Ottawa). Cooper comes to mind, Tampa found a gem.

So my mind is open. Our new ownership and management may not be on the same timeline that we (long time scarred/impatient fans) are on with this group.

What I don’t want is an experienced NHL head coach with a poor résumé that other fan bases have loathed.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

That would be the rationale thing to do unless you think Tbay should have judged Cooper as a bad hire right out of the gate, Col with Bednar,, Carolina with Brindamour, or Was with Boudreau, Anaheim with Babcock, or when StL gave Scotty Bowman his first NHL HC job and he took them to the finals 3 consecutive years.

If a single person who states with authority that X, Y or Z is “bargain bin” has predicted coach success, even at a blind luck accuracy, I will eat my hat

Oh I see, the rational thing to do is pick out all of the AHL guys who have had success at the NHL level and say "See, it can work!"

You know what? Sure! Order us up 1 Jon Cooper from the AHL to come and coach this team next year, please. Never mind all of the Calder cup winning coaches who have not landed jobs in the NHL or who have mediocre/pedestrian results at this level. Let's only focus on the good ones, that's rational.

Yeah, most things dont seem rational to people who completely misunderstand the argument beint made

 

[Gil Gunderson]

If Brind'Amour leaves it'll be because Dundon lowballs him and he'll just reunite with Ron Francis in Seattle.