THE Fire Torts Thread

[MAHJ71]

Count me in for the "bring in Quenneville" rally...

Unfortunately I think we would have to act sooner than later.. which makes it highly unlikely... but nobody saw Q being let go this early either.

 

[blahblah]

Given that those other teams are our direct competition, what they actually have and what we have in relation to them is frequently quite relevant.

I was evaluating our team. At no point did I say we couldn't compete, because we have proven we can (that would be more relevant to the point you were making). This is about our area of needs, of which the Rangers, Sens, etc mean less than nothing. Some suck more, some less, some a quite a bit better. Doesn't change that we need two upgrade on that second line (center/LW).

Context matters.

 

[Viqsi]

I was evaluating our team. At no point did I say we couldn't compete, because we have proven we can (that would be more relevant to the point you were making). This is about our area of needs, of which the Rangers, Sens, etc mean less than nothing. Some suck more, some less, some a quite a bit better. Doesn't change that we need two upgrade on that second line (center/LW).

Context matters.

I would point out that it's possible for them to be meaningful because if our direct competition doesn't have those sorts of players themselves, then it hardly constitutes a weakness. Or at least, not a unique one.

But whether or not that applies to the situation is, of course, dependent on the precise details of what was being discussed, and I'm not quite in the mood to dig that back up just to try to give my contrarian thought a little more weight.

 

[EDM]

It almost feels like we are close to tipping point: lose a 4-5 in a row and then the question of whether Torts has lost the room looms larger and larger. But perhaps the Jackets inconsistency of not being able to maintain a reliable streak in either direction protects and immediate pressure on Torts within the context of this season.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I had no major problem with Richards-I thought he was an OK coach. I was not in favor of his dismissal though I will submit that I may have been wrong. I was at his last game-a 4-0 loss to the NYI at Nationwide Arena and the team was listless-as they had been for all 7 games of that season. So while I wasn't in favor of his dismissal, I certainly understood the reasons behind it-the team stumbled out of the gate dreadfully. Add in that the normal GM wants his "own guy" behind the bench and Richards was toast.

I think it's fairly impressive that someone whose GM was fired, and who wasn't "the guy" of the new front office, lasted three full seasons despite never being any more than one bad week away from being fired.

The CBJ wouldn't have the playoffs in 2015-16 had they kept Richards-they were already in historically impossible territory given their 0-7 start. So it was more than likely that they wouldn't have made the playoffs for a second consecutive season. The idea that Richards was some sort of wonder coach is an absurdity. He was a run-of-the-mill NHL coach. After his 0-7 start, most GMs would have probably done the same thing. Pretending that Richards was anything special is ridiculous. He's been out of head coaching for 3 years. With the turnover in the NHL, a top coach doesn't stay unemployed (as a head coach)for 6 months let alone 3 years. Claude Julien and Barry Trotz were hired within days of their partings with their previous clubs.

Scotty Bowman was fired by Buffalo in 1986 and didn't end up back behind a bench until 1991. In between, he was in broadcasting and left that in 1990 (four years after being fired) to take a job with the Penguins. Sure, that's an outlier, but so is Scotty Bowman.

I've never referred to Richards as "some sort of wonder coach". What I do know is that for the first twelve years of this franchise, we all bitched about how the team:

- Played games in a manner that looked more like sleepwalking than playing hockey
- Had zero creativity
- Had zero excitement
- Couldn't develop young players
- Would get a lead and then blow it
- Showed no consistency from game to game
- Had a power play that was as lethal as a toothpick
- Had a penalty kill that might as well have been a turnstile

And what I also know is that, under Richards, that all changed. The team played an up-tempo style, showed creativity, brought along young players, was able to get and then keep leads, and finally showed some firepower on special teams. And it was like that game in and game out. We even saw it in the last half of 2011-12 despite the Jeff Carter and Rick Nash drama, and despite having half the defensemen injured and being replaced by guys like Brett Lebda.

I don't think that Richards was any sort of tactical genius, but that's not the important part of coaching. A good coach can make anything, even outdated systems and tactics, work if he's able to get his players to buy into it, and for whatever reason Richards was able to get the team to finally play like an actual NHL team instead of the country club that we all decried for over a decade. Bruce Boudreau isn't a tactical genius, but he's always been able to get his team to play hard. Guy Boucher was universally lauded for his tactical knowledge and his advanced way of thinking, and he lasted two and a half season before being fired because he lost the locker room.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Which is it over the past two seasons?

Not voodoo magic and aliens.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I've never referred to Richards as "some sort of wonder coach". What I do know is that for the first twelve years of this franchise, we all *****ed about how the team:

- Played games in a manner that looked more like sleepwalking than playing hockey
- Had zero creativity
- Had zero excitement
- Couldn't develop young players
- Would get a lead and then blow it
- Showed no consistency from game to game
- Had a power play that was as lethal as a toothpick
- Had a penalty kill that might as well have been a turnstile

And what I also know is that, under Richards, that all changed. The team played an up-tempo style, showed creativity, brought along young players, was able to get and then keep leads, and finally showed some firepower on special teams. And it was like that game in and game out. We even saw it in the last half of 2011-12 despite the Jeff Carter and Rick Nash drama, and despite having half the defensemen injured and being replaced by guys like Brett Lebda.

I don't think that Richards was any sort of tactical genius, but that's not the important part of coaching. A good coach can make anything, even outdated systems and tactics, work if he's able to get his players to buy into it, and for whatever reason Richards was able to get the team to finally play like an actual NHL team instead of the country club that we all decried for over a decade. Bruce Boudreau isn't a tactical genius, but he's always been able to get his team to play hard. Guy Boucher was universally lauded for his tactical knowledge and his advanced way of thinking, and he lasted two and a half season before being fired because he lost the locker room.

Is all of this in any way instructive to the team's current situation?

 

[Viqsi]

Is all of this in any way instructive to the team's current situation?

Potentially. Richards was ultimately fired because the team stopped buying in and executing, and the same could be Torts' eventual fate. (Indeed, folks have been predicting that since before he was hired here.)

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Potentially. Richards was ultimately fired because the team stopped buying in and executing, and the same could be Torts' eventual fate. (Indeed, folks have been predicting that since before he was hired here.)

Possibly, but I don't see Mayor making that connection. Maybe it's intended, but it's not specified. I'm just seeking some context is all.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Is all of this in any way instructive to the team's current situation?

Is this a rhetorical question???

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Is this a rhetorical question???

Could be interpreted as such but not intended.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Potentially. Richards was ultimately fired because the team stopped buying in and executing, and the same could be Torts' eventual fate. (Indeed, folks have been predicting that since before he was hired here.)

Agree 100% same thing happened to Hitch here.

 

[major major]

You'd be fools to not go for Quenneville. He would be expensive, in addition to paying the rest of Torts salary. Ownership will likely have some say on that expense.

The team buy-in under Torts keeps sinking, I don't see the point in waiting for it to sink further.

 

[Maylo]

You'd be fools to not go for Quenneville. He would be expensive, in addition to paying the rest of Torts salary. Ownership will likely have some say on that expense.

The team buy-in under Torts keeps sinking, I don't see the point in waiting for it to sink further.

Was it Porty who reported that owner is not ready to play "star players" money to coach? Q is making $6M for this year and next, plus Torts $2M this year(who knows how much more than $2M for next 2 years. )
Plus i don't think we will be on his list.

 

[major major]

You'd be fools to not go for Quenneville. He would be expensive, in addition to paying the rest of Torts salary. Ownership will likely have some say on that expense.

The team buy-in under Torts keeps sinking, I don't see the point in waiting for it to sink further.

Wait, the Hawks PP has been even worse? FO should be able to hire the PP coach directly.

 

[EspenK]

I'm not sold on Q as a guy who would work here. I know he's won 3 Cups but is any good at developing young players? Kane & Toews probably didn't need much development. Saad seems to be struggling under Q. Debrincat seems to be doing ok. Duclair washed out. I'd be more inclined to look for a young up and coming assistant who can relate to the younger players.

 

[thebus88]

The team buy-in under Torts keeps sinking, I don't see the point in waiting for it to sink further.

Where are you getting this? You're talking in "absolutes" and making claims you have no actual idea about.

Stick to "mathematics".

 

[thebus88]

Not voodoo magic and aliens.

"Voodoo magic" and "aliens" exist.

Do you have any PROOF or numbers that they don't?

That's how this works, right?

 

[Viqsi]

Where are you getting this? You're talking in "absolutes" and making claims you have no actual idea about.

Yes, Pot, we're quite aware of Kettle's current hue.

 

[thebus88]

Yes, Pot, we're quite aware of Kettle's current hue.

Quite literally every (important or heavily contested) claim and prediction I have made in the past 4 or so years has come to fruition.

Stick to perception, I will deal in reality.

 

[Viqsi]

Quite literally every (important or heavily contested) claim and prediction I have made in the past 4 or so years has come to fruition.

You'll pardon me if I have a hard time believing that.

 

[thebus88]

Joel Quenneville's nephews played on my hockey team, AMA.

With that said I understand he has a long history in the game and is probably very good and knowledgeable coaches. I'll also add, seems to be very similar TO TORTS, In regards to both their "pedigree" and past, but also how they "treat" their team/players. What I'm trying to say is that hiring Joel isn't gonna get Milano on the ice any more than he is now.

And really, I mean you people realize you are claiming that the very 1st coach fired in the league this year is a better option than the guy who JUST coached us to back to back playoff berths (and IN POSITION NOW) and a league wide all times wins in a row record in the past 2 years.

I'll ask you people this, in the "Fire Torts" thread, who and what caused, and when did your expectations become so high for the CBJ? Serious question. "I'm fed up after 15 years and 10 thousand dollars!!" is not an acceptable answer.

 

[thebus88]

You'll pardon me if I have a hard time believing that.

I wish the current search function went back farther and included my missing "22", but feel free to attempt to "prove" me wrong. Bobrovsky going "bye-bye" is another perfect example. Only time will tell.

I'll add that I thought we shouldn't have gotten rid of Hitchcock. At least not then. We got rid of all those players that were around anyway.

 

[major major]

I think there would be some mutual interest between Coach Q and the Jackets FO, but it would be unlikely that they seal the deal.

The convo would be like:

Jarmo: "We're very interested in bringing you on board, there's just a few caveats. You'd get paid about a third as much"

(Coach Q grizzles)

Jarmo: "And we'd be in charge of picking the PP coach, not you. I know there was a big fight in Chicago over who hires the PP coach, but surely you understand that we can't fire a coach for a bad PP and then hire someone who was just as bad at it."

Coach Q: "I just remembered that I left some potatoes in the fridge. You'll have to excuse me." -click-

 

[blahblah]

I would point out that it's possible for them to be meaningful because if our direct competition doesn't have those sorts of players themselves, then it hardly constitutes a weakness. Or at least, not a unique one.

But whether or not that applies to the situation is, of course, dependent on the precise details of what was being discussed, and I'm not quite in the mood to dig that back up just to try to give my contrarian thought a little more weight.

It's all good. I'm evaluating what our team has. I'm not evaluating what other teams have. As I said we have two top six slots that need immediate improvement. We, per usual, have under performing players. The FO has been going with either the "we have faith" or "there is nothing we can do about it right now" approach(s), depending on the player. Neither has been terribly effective.