EHM The Blue Line

Gallant is number 2

2nd one to go. Not a shock I guess. Gary Agnew, CBJ assistant to be named as interim coach.

Its about time, there's too much talent on that team for them to not be playing better.

I'll refer you all to the "Worst NHL Coach" topic in this thread in which I nominated none other than Gallant for the worst coach in the league! Hooray for me!

I can picture the "Front Office" convo going a little something like this:

"I think the time has come to find a new coach; but let's see what he can do with this game in Chicago tommorow maybe the team will show us something." Losing 1-0 to the Hawks with their injuries I'm sure was part of what made this decision a little easier.

Firing the head coach is an easy way, but he his is not always responsible for the bad results of his team.

Talking about the Hawks-Jacks game, i've seen it, and i never really felt that the Jackets wanted the win or did their best to at least tie the game. Their offensive organisation and animation (decided by Gallant) put the Hawks in some troubles, but then the players always failed to concluded, because the willing to fight and to win wasn't there. On the other hand, the Hawks leaved everything on the ice, no matter their injuries problems, and their will was honoured by a shutout victory.

So maybe Gallant is not the best coach of the league, but coaching a lazy team that already feels like in holidays in an impossible task, no matter who is the coach.

Shadd666 wrote:So maybe Gallant is not the best coach of the league, but coaching a lazy team that already feels like in holidays in an impossible task, no matter who is the coach.

See that's the thing, the coach is ultimately seen as responsible for the effort the players give on the ice. This might not be necessarily fair in all cases, but it certainly is the coach's job to motivate his players and if he can't do that, it's time for him to go. I agree that firing the coach isn't always the best move, sometimes teams are just plain bad and firing the coach is a way of placating fans, saying "look, we did something! You complained by not coming to the games and we did something about it!". But when a team is loaded with talent and they're not producing, there's little else to do but fire the coach.

Of course, it's a part of the coach's role to motivate the players... But it's also the role of every player to be motivated when the game comes! And the captain is also here to motivate his teammates. Assistant coaches should also play a part in motivating the players.

But it's ALWAYS the head coach who is fired...

We never see a big trade, sending a player off the team because he is accused to be too complacent. We never see assistant coaches being fired.

Of course, sometimes it's really the head coach fault if something runs wrong, but it's not always the case!!!

Head coaches are always fired when the team runs wrong, no matter the sport. And most of the time it's worse with the new head coach. So i'm a bit fed up with this systematic targetting system on head coaches

Maybe this group of underachievers can finally pull themselves out of that there rut they seem to have fallen into, eh?

Shadd666 wrote:But it's ALWAYS the head coach who is fired...

We never see a big trade, sending a player off the team because he is accused to be too complacent. We never see assistant coaches being fired.

Of course, sometimes it's really the head coach fault if something runs wrong, but it's not always the case!!!

Head coaches are always fired when the team runs wrong, no matter the sport. And most of the time it's worse with the new head coach. So i'm a bit fed up with this systematic targetting system on head coaches

I definitely agree, I think that firing coaches is often a cop-out but there's still a lot to be said for a coach whipping a team into shape. Sutter did it with the Flames, who (I admit it) aren't that strong a team on paper. In the NFL the New Orleans Saints are on top of their division and everybody is pointing to their new coach Sean Payton as being responsible for the turnaround (they're 6-3 so far this year, they were 3-13 last year). It's a tough situation when there's so much talent on a roster, those guys can be disrespectful or arrogant....there's a reason the Ducks gave up Federov for Todd Marchant.

It's also tough in a franchise like Columbus which has been consistently awful and is heavily relying on their young talent to produce. Trading away their future doesn't make sense for the long-term interests of the team and there's little else they could move for a shakeup--trading Foote would be foolish and Federov is hard to move because he's probably garnered himself something of a reputation and you could get a better player for his price. It's unfortunate for Gallant but firing him was really the only move available. I think Doug MacLean is on his way out, too...

Still, I'm critical of teams firing their coaches as an excuse for making changes. There's something to be said for establishing consistency in a franchise (read: Nashville).

I mostly agree with you, but i'm not that sure that the Jacks needed a shakeup. For sure, their season is a bit disappoitning at once, as they have a lot of talent there. But as you mentionned, it's mainly young talent... Maybe the problem is just a certain lack of experience. And if so, changing the head coach won't change anything

edit: 500th post!

I really thought the Jackets were going to be a playoff team this year. They shouldn't be last in the Central.
Heck, they're even worse than the Hawks.