EHM The Blue Line

Been monitoring the boards for a bit but I think this is my first post after picking up the game on sale.

Started as my newly beloved Calgary Flames and think I made the mistake of picking my rosters like the team is now rather than at the start of last season when these players weren't developed yet. Johnny G is the only one to be shining thus far although I have just got Giordano back.

Anyway, I wanted to know more about how much input the coaches had IRL in the NHL. I've been leaving all the coaching details to Bob Hartley as I rate him highly as a coach IRL while all I've been doing is making the trades and picking the lines. Team isn't performing that well though and I'm wondering if I should get more involved. I'm pretty new to hockey in this depth so I doubt I'd make any improvements although it'd be good to learn more.

If a GM really isn't involved in the coaching and tactic side of things then it does make the game quite different to the traditional side of Football Manager although I suppose that too is becoming two games with the DOF role.

Any help appreciated

Just pointing out that picking the lines is also a coach's job. Not GM. GM does the contract negotiations, trading and hiring, and such. The tactics and lines, and day-to-day interacting with the players is mainly for the coaches. He / they are the one wearing the tie and barking at the players at the bench, picking who goes on the ice.

I personally do all, except leave practice to the coach. I pick my lines and my tactics, and do all the contracts / trading and what not. The upside of this game is that you can pick the way you play it and there's no "wrong" or "right way" to play.

I used to always do everything as Tasku described but in my last 2 games I have just left the coaching to the AI and concentrated purely on setting my roster, making trades, drafting and Free agency etc. It has made the game feel more challenging in some aspects to me but as Tasku said, it's personal preference how you want to play the game really.

Historically there were quite a few GMs who were also the Head Coach of their NHL team (e.g. Punch Imlach, Mike Keenan, Scotty Bowman) and even more recently with Bryan Murray, Lou Lamoreillo, and Pat Quinn.

However, the majority of clubs have specialized GMs and Coaches as separate jobs, as each carries enormous duties.

In EHM its a matter of preference. I've played both ways. I've been enjoying, however, not hiring a Head Coach and having to watch every game my team plays (on very fast). Each game takes approximately 30 minutes to watch, and it's great fun to be able to make line changes on the fly throughout the game adjusting for performance, penalties, injuries, and the game situation. I find also, compared to just being GM, that it is far harder to be patient with players, development and so on since the game takes much longer. Thus, you never want to engage in a 5-year rebuild, or anything like that. As a coach you really want to win now. I've found that hard, as early in my career with a team I knew the team wasn't going to contend for a title by the trade deadline. I reluctantly shipped out several of my veterans in exchange for prospects & picks. It's a lot tougher to make the important GM-type moves when you also have to watch the team play every day.

It's great that the game has such flexibility that allows you to handle what you want to handle.

Thanks for the replies.

The more recent examples given as both roles are either going back a few years or were interim positions so it certainly seems unlikely to happen any time soon that a NHL team would permanently hire one person to cover both roles. From what I can see anyway.

As a Flames fan I'm a huge Bob Hartley fan too so I want to leave it to him but it seems the game should have the option of being only a head coach and then leave the GM to make trades perhaps with the help of your recommendations.

Haven't played much FM in the past few years but I saw they brought in the Director of Football role which would be similar to a GM.

Does a NHL GM generally have say in what lines the team plays or would that, along with tactics and training all be down to the Head Coach. I'd like to play the most realistic way even if it is a shame to miss out on the intricacies of the game. That said, I don't have a clue about tactics!

stevethedog wrote:Does a NHL GM generally have say in what lines the team plays or would that, along with tactics and training all be down to the Head Coach. I'd like to play the most realistic way even if it is a shame to miss out on the intricacies of the game. That said, I don't have a clue about tactics!

IMO most GMs do not typically have direct day-to-day involvement with Lines, Training or Tactics (that would be the Head Coach).

I do think the GM and Head Coach "sit down and talk at times" (weekly to monthly I'd guess), and that's not modeled in EHM currently.
The GM usually hires his own Head Coach, and in that hiring the GM has a significant say (by hiring a Head Coach who's Tactics/Training ideas represent what the GM wants).

There are a few times I think it's realistic that a GM might "get involved more"
1. A GM might have a bit of a say in Lines at times by wanting certain players to play (for example maybe a youngster/prospect the GM wants to see in action, or a player who the GM wants "showcase" to trade)
2. When a GM's job is on the line, often after the GM has already fired a Head Coach, I can see a GM being involved in Lines/Tactics (and maybe the GM brought in an "interim" replacement, one who might be more likely to accept the GM's involvement)
3. When a GM has fired the Head Coach and (at least for a time, maybe until the end of the season) takes over the team and acts as GM/Head Coach

I think in general it's a combination of "GM/personality style" and also the situation/circumstance, and some GMs are likely to be more involved and some less...so IMO "leaving it to the Head Coach" & "being more involved" are both reasonable/realistic choices (allowing the user's "GM style" to determine things!).

FYI - for the AI there's actually an Attribute (Interference) that affects how much "involvement" the Chairman has with the GM, and for the GM towards the Head Coach too. Given the Attribute is called "Interference" it doesn't seem GM involvement with the Head Coach is necessarily appreciated! HaHa

The level of "interference" by GMs has also evolved somewhat over time, in addition to varying from GM to GM.

In the older days (70s & 80s) it was much more common for a GM to tell their coach what players were going to make the team out of training camp, who would be called up, and even make strong "suggestions" on players in the line-up.

Nowadays, coaches really call a lot of the shots and decide who plays for the team. Lines, Training, and Tactics though have always been the domain of coaches and not GMs.

ccmequip wrote:The level of "interference" by GMs has also evolved somewhat over time, in addition to varying from GM to GM.

In the older days (70s & 80s) it was much more common for a GM to tell their coach what players were going to make the team out of training camp, who would be called up, and even make strong "suggestions" on players in the line-up.

Hmmm....I'm not sure I'd agree. I don't recall hearing about such involvement regularly myself.....Harold Ballard was without doubt in a category to himself HaHa after that I think most "dominating style" GMs had pretty involved Head Coaches too; for example Pollock had Bowman, Torey had Arbour, Allen had Shero, Sinden had Cherry

ccmequip wrote:Nowadays, coaches really call a lot of the shots and decide who plays for the team.

Again I'm not sure I agree. The GM can fire the Head Coach, not the other way around! I think nowadays there's a lot more "group discussion" and then there's "further smaller group discussion" and then the Head Coach "decides" (I'd say there's a LOT more influence from outside/additional sources nowadays, and no Head Coach "calls the shots" with the kind of power Head Coaches used to have decades ago)