Wither Ken Hitchcock?
- Thread starter The Typo Truther
- Start date
I think anyone would be hard pressed to find one NHL player that plays good "for" the coach.
Meaning these guys play for themselves. They don't play for the coaches, media, fans or anything else. They play because they love the game and the money it brings.
Meaning these guys play for themselves. They don't play for the coaches, media, fans or anything else. They play because they love the game and the money it brings.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,912
- 14,888
We already knew that Hitch has an expiration date for how effective he is, but that wasn't the problem at the end of the season or playoffs.
At the end of the season, we got decimated with injuries, and in the playoffs, we just got beat by a better team and didn't get the job done. Also didn't have the center depth to play without a full-strength Backes. If that Seabrook hit never happened, it would've been a different series.
At the end of the season, we got decimated with injuries, and in the playoffs, we just got beat by a better team and didn't get the job done. Also didn't have the center depth to play without a full-strength Backes. If that Seabrook hit never happened, it would've been a different series.
The Typo Truther
Registered User
Exactly.
And I don't believe for a second that a group of Blues players are out there saying things like that to anyone. That's not to say that I think everyone loves him, there will be frustrations, but they aren't exactly not going to give 100% in the playoffs because they aren't keen on a coach.
Also, Hitchcock has said he doesn't know how much longer he'll be coaching for. He didn't really sign a 1 year deal, it was the 1 year option on his contract that was picked up, something Armstrong had told him they planned on doing early last season.
542365
2018-19 Cup Champs!
- Mar 22, 2012
- 22,329
- 8,706
When did he supposedly talk to this group of Blues players? If they were going through a rough patch, or right after they were eliminated from the playoffs, I guarantee they were fed up with Hitch, and with each other. They're basically a family. You spend so much time around the same guys throughout the year that there are bound to be arguments and disagreements along the way.
I can't recall a time when I played a full season and was never annoyed with the coach or my teammates at some point.
I think the relationship between the players and Hitch is fine. When Hitch took over the Blues twitter to answer a few questions over the summer, a couple different players asked silly questions(I remember specifically Osh asked something about increasing the amount of toe drags) to him. If you hate the guy, you're going to avoid him as much as possible. I'm sure he's a tough guy to play for, but his record with the Blues speaks for itself. Even if you're pissed at him, you can look at how much better guys like Oshie and Steen are than they were before he got here. He gets the most out of his players, and I'm sure that's tiring at some point. I don't think it's anything to be concerned about.
I can't recall a time when I played a full season and was never annoyed with the coach or my teammates at some point.
I think the relationship between the players and Hitch is fine. When Hitch took over the Blues twitter to answer a few questions over the summer, a couple different players asked silly questions(I remember specifically Osh asked something about increasing the amount of toe drags) to him. If you hate the guy, you're going to avoid him as much as possible. I'm sure he's a tough guy to play for, but his record with the Blues speaks for itself. Even if you're pissed at him, you can look at how much better guys like Oshie and Steen are than they were before he got here. He gets the most out of his players, and I'm sure that's tiring at some point. I don't think it's anything to be concerned about.
The Typo Truther
Registered User
Got the impression it was earlier this summer. Like I said, I didn't put much stock in it until I read the NBC article. And we all knew that Hitch has a shelf like (read the linked story about Derian Hatcher's feelings that are linked in the NBC article). Just interesting, that's all.
Last edited:
Dr Robot
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2011
- 1,457
- 1,116
I doubt hate is the word but i don't doubt that working for someone who likes to constantly keep the pressure on you gets tiresome. I can see Muller being groomed for the next head coaching job here, he didn't work out in Carolina but that doesn't mean it will be the same in STL. You are right though about the one year contract, whenever DA was asked about it his answers seemed kind of dodgy. Maybe its sort of a behind closed doors understanding that Hitch gets one more year and then he gets pushed upstairs. The blues have chased too many coaches out of town in the past for them to continue doing so whenever the players don't like it.
Just like everywhere else, he will wear out his welcome. Games aren't won 1-0. Fans don't like to watch 1-0 games of boring trap hockey. I'm sure he will work himself out of yet another job. No worries. Hopefully, it happens sooner rather than later and not at the expense of losing good players for stiffs like Ott. We have more talent than we've ever had and the least knowledgeable hockey coach to screw it up. Don't like him. Never have. Never will. 
EastonBlues22
Registered User
I'm not going as far as to say Hitchcock is a bad coach or that he can't communicate with his players. But I was ready for him to go after last season. I know the arguments, but his handling of the special teams was very bothersome. Just sending out the Power Play over and over and over to play an umbrella that the Blackhawks easily countered (because they knew it was coming) screamed futility under a coach with no more ideas.
I like Hitch, but I just don't think he has it this year. He seemed out of ideas last year. Now his firing will be reactive to a dire struggle for instead of proactive from some easy-to-spot warning signs.
Oh well.
I like Hitch, but I just don't think he has it this year. He seemed out of ideas last year. Now his firing will be reactive to a dire struggle for instead of proactive from some easy-to-spot warning signs.
Oh well.
Lord Helix
Registered User
- Nov 12, 2010
- 14,418
- 2,777
Whatever this team's problems are, shriveling up Hitchcock probably won't solve them.
Chojin
Tiny Panger...
- Apr 6, 2011
- 4,301
- 573
I don't know why you'd think he'll get fired. This is the option year on his contract, and I'm not convinced that they'll continue with him after that, but it would take an awfully bad year for Hitch to get straight-up fired. I mean like significantly sub-500 for half the year.
That's a good point. I wasn't really thinking about his contract when I posted that. Change "fired" to "let go," I suppose.
And I will admit, management has brought in some help for Hitch in Corsi, Muller and Gainey. So maybe with some extra smarts(again, not that Hitch isnt hockey smart), we'll be able to keep up tactically.
taylord22
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2009
- 1,529
- 323
I can't speak to the player's current sentiment toward Hitch, but I feel like I can nearly objectively say that it's significantly better with him than it was with Payne and Murray. There was negativity from the players leaking through multiple layers of the organization. It's nowhere near that, right now.
I think the player's relationship with the coach is like any relationship. You have to work to repair it. By the end of the year, I'm sure everyone feels like they've been cut at some point or another. Once the player or coach turns their back on making it right, that's when things start to rot. I get the sense that Hitch probably remains stubborn, but is better at the 1-1 relationship than he was in the past. He's much more jovial.
I don't think he's that perfect blend of intensity and 1-1 relatable skills that Quenneville is, but I find it hard to believe that the Blues could find themselves in a position to land a better option over the next year or two. Are they going to pay Babcock 4 million? Are they going to hand the keys of a contender to a green, or recently exiled head coach?
I would rather see them roll the dice on a CHL or NCAA coach than a castaway or a current internal option. You don't dare run the risk of downgrading when you have a loaded crop of personnel.
The only thing that I have heard rumblings of is something that's being mentioned in blogs and articles. He might need a better measure of how tired they're getting, and react to it with some level of empathy. The good news is that Armstrong and Hitchcock have both addressed that has being something they're keeping a closer eye toward.
I think the player's relationship with the coach is like any relationship. You have to work to repair it. By the end of the year, I'm sure everyone feels like they've been cut at some point or another. Once the player or coach turns their back on making it right, that's when things start to rot. I get the sense that Hitch probably remains stubborn, but is better at the 1-1 relationship than he was in the past. He's much more jovial.
I don't think he's that perfect blend of intensity and 1-1 relatable skills that Quenneville is, but I find it hard to believe that the Blues could find themselves in a position to land a better option over the next year or two. Are they going to pay Babcock 4 million? Are they going to hand the keys of a contender to a green, or recently exiled head coach?
I would rather see them roll the dice on a CHL or NCAA coach than a castaway or a current internal option. You don't dare run the risk of downgrading when you have a loaded crop of personnel.
The only thing that I have heard rumblings of is something that's being mentioned in blogs and articles. He might need a better measure of how tired they're getting, and react to it with some level of empathy. The good news is that Armstrong and Hitchcock have both addressed that has being something they're keeping a closer eye toward.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
Bingo. If you listen to Brett Hull on the subject, he's very honest in saying that he's a hard coach to play for. But if it were really that bad, how likely do you think it would be for the Blues to be able to lure in Stastny, Lehtera, Lindstrom, etc.? All it takes is one guy having a bad day to give a wildly skewed impression, but if you sat down and picked the brains of most Blues players, you'd almost certainly see that their feelings about Hitch are more complex and less extreme.
Also, this idea that Hitchcock has a shelf life more so than other coaches is unfounded. Look at the average duration of coaching tenures around the league and on the teams for which he coached. No one has coached more games in Stars' or Jackets history. And no one had lasted as long as Hitchcock did in Philly for over twenty years. There are currently 9 coaches who have been tenured for longer than Hitchcock has been with the Blues - only five who were with their current teams for an entire season or more before Hitchcock.
So, sorry to burst that bubble, but coaching in the NHL is just a volatile position. Hitch only has that reputation because he's one of the most prolific coaches of all time, so he's been around long enough for multiple fanbases to see their Hitchcock-coached team stumble. Of the 11 coaches all-time who have coached more games than he has, only Arbour, Quenneville, and Ruff have coached for fewer teams (Lemaire coached for three teams, but New Jersey twice).
If that's true that doesn't make any sense. If little kids can be taught that then surely he could have learned it in like one practice. There's no way lol.
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
thedustman
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2013
- 4,200
- 1,246
As long as Hitchcock can skate backwards, he stays.
I'm a big Hitch fan. Even if he were to depart, his impression would remain heavy on the players. Schwartz and Tarasenko would not have become the same under Coach Q. I'd rather have Hitch than anyone in league... except for maybe Sutter... I hate him, but I envy him.
JustOneB4IDie
Duel Cancer Survivor
Hitchcock is gone if the Blues don't have a deep playoff run this spring. and some Blues players already have tuned Hitch out since his message hasn't changed since the day he arrived here. Where have we heard that before? Just ask any Blues coach with this current core of players.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,108
- 3,285
You hear that with absolutely any core of players who hasn't gotten it done. Sometimes you just run up against better teams, regardless of the quality of character of the players or how much they enjoy playing for a coach.
I definitely agree, though, that Hitchcock is gone if the Blues don't go deeper. Hell, I think Armstrong might well be gone, too. GM's tend to hang around for a year or two longer than they should; but if it seems like Muller is the right guy to take over and if Armstrong was key to bringing him in, then I could see Armstrong staying. But if you have as many sweetheart contracts as the Blues do, spend to the cap, and see no improvement, you don't necessarily scrap and rebuild, but you definitely say goodbye to the original builder.
