No. It's a proof that EVERYBODY does that no matter what they based themselves on. Isn't just basing yourself on guys you know a bad way of choosing somebody? Francos are rarely if not NEVER in the talks for any other team than Montreal. Do you hear people elsewhere saying that the pool was limited due to lack of francos in it? Never. Why? Because there's that concept in here and some other places that francos can't be good for some odd reasons. That less candidates means less quality. Not true. There could be 1000 anglos available and 5 francos. It's entirely possible that based on talent alone, when all is said and done, there are still 5 francos, and maybe just 20 anglos. Ratio for ratio, francos win. And then....what is talent for a coach? Wasn't Dallas Eakins suppose to be the next one? And now? Isn't he be portrait as an idiot? Coaching candidates is incredibly suggestive. Isn't it the only job who you could be seen as the best in your job, and then be fired 2 years after? How many players have won individual trophies, and then be traded for nothing 2 years after? Pete DeBoer, the other next one has been fired twice already. And so on. So maybe that the selection includes more people and yet....same result. Personnally, I will always believe that there is a tradition to keep in here. And while we've totally evaded the number of francos playing for the team, at the very least we're going francos for the management. And to this day, Bergevin can be seen as one of the best despite the infamous franco selection. And while we mostly don't like Therrien, seems to me that Hartley could have done a better job....yet Therrien can't be awful. And at one point back in the days, we've groomed guys like Vigneault and Julien who are still great to this present day. Lefebvre might not be a good choice in Hamilton, I would think Groulx would have been better.....or Boucher or even Houle or Ducharme or Veilleux...
