Re: Fire Coach --> ?? --> Cup
posted at 4/22/2013 9:19 PM EDT
In response to kelvana33's comment:
Probably a little biased since Julien is the coach of a Bruins team that has won the Cup for the first time in my lifetime, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. The man knows his hockey, but, is he too stubborn to make adjustments?
Here is some of the concerns I have:
1.Have Lucic and Horton tuned him out? Seems he has tried everything, especially with Lucic, but to no avail. I sure expected a different Lucic yesterday after his very public benching. I just saw the same.
2. The power play. Blame Geoff Ward all you want,and you'd be right, but this ultimatley falls on Julien. Should they have an early exit from this years playoffs, this will be his downfall. Seems he has tried every formula, but the right one.
3. The use of Tyler Seguin. Is he beng put in the right enviorment where his skill level is being utilized correctly? Before the injuries, Campbell, on more than one occasion, was getting more 5 on 5 ice time than him.
4. The use of all four lines. Too many times we've seen the Bruins down a goal in the waining minutes only to see Shawn Thornton and the fourth line on the ice. Perhaps shortening the bench and using a timeout would bring different results.
5. Too quick to go into protect mode. Too many times we've seen the Bruins establish a lead only to see them literaly stop trying to score. This is a concerning trend that you can literally see happening on your television.
I like Julien. But I don't play for him. Some coaches just have a shelf life no matter how good they are. They have a couple of their higher end players that almost seem to refuse to play up their potential. Whats the reason? I have no doubt the man knows his hockey, and he knows his system. But does he know his team? Lou Lammiarello didn't think so one year.
Good fodder for a discussion Kel
#1. You'd be amazed at how many guys never "tune a coach in". There are "systems" as defined by the team that one must play within, but the whole concept of playing for the coach is hopelessly overblown. I have some issues with the Lucic thing too, but I know there is so much critical information that I don't know. I do know that Lucic, and everbody else on that team plays for each other, not the coach, and even less so... the farther up the corporate ladder it goes.
2. I really don't blame CJ. It's really a committee thing. Maybe a new PP coach is in order, but that's not CJ's call. It's PC's. Like you...the PP drives me nuts. I think there are things that need to be done there,,,things that are pretty obvious to me...but for whatever reason, it just keeps sputterring. Again, from Neely down, they're all over this thing, so I don't think it's fair to blame it all on CJ.
3. Seguin. I think he needs to get his head out of his arze. He's looking like Samsonov lite to me. He's regressed for some reason. Could say he's been over programmed defensively, and if that were true, one could blame the coach...but what's killing me about Seguin...is what he's doing when he's playing offensively.
4. I agree with the 4 lines stuff, but I think the nutrition, conditioning folks are shaping that philosophy. It seems to me this should be easily fixed, if it were an issue that the brass had a problem with. Again coaching by committee. I just can't see Cam Neely, or somebody saying, "play your best down the stretch if need be". Coaches do have to take orders, and it would seem to me that someone would have laid down that edict...if a few people in the company agreed with our assessment.
5. That drives me fluckin nuts. Don;t think that has anything to do with coaching though. The B's have a very deliberate system, and when played out...doesn't include "sitting around". To me...it's all about hunger, coupled with the right amount of discipline and confidence. In 11, they sure didn't have it for most of that Montreal series, and it was on and off until game 3 of the finals. Last year it didn't show up at all. This year ,it's business as usual.
The one thing I'm pretty sure of, is that champions don't rely on "coaches" to summon their "game". Gamers don't need a kick, they need to be reigned. If I put that responsibility on the coach, and it didn't happen, I guess I'd have to suggest the team needs blown up too. Regardless of this years outcome, I think that'd be a mistake.
Stability is a great thing. Sometimes it's a good idea to turn over a coach though. The key , is having concrete rationale for the move...explaining it in detail, and holding the GM accountable if improvement isn't made. Anything else...it's just spin. Over the 45 plus years i've been watching and playing competitive hockey, I have witnessed very few examples where a coaching change has brought better short term results. Long term improvements are generally associated with other changes. My experience is that the majority of times, a coaching change is the function of "no idea", rather than a "better idea".
Whenever this C J stuff comes up, there's always the New Jersey thing. Some people really like to hang off that. Well. CJ led that group to the 3rd best record in the league. LL whacked him, went behind the bench and got hammered by a lower seed in the second round. With the luxury of hindsight, I find it really difficult to see how anyone could see the wizardry in that move.