EHM The Blue Line

Some good discussion so far and as for the last question posed to the masses, it looks like most want NHLers to play in the Olympics.

So now on to the next question:

Should coaches get more chances to succeed before getting fired?

With the near-constant carousel of coaching changes in the NHL (and other leagues for that matter), is it too much? Are coaches fired too easily or are they given just enough rope to hang themselves so to speak?

I think how coaches get treated in the NHL now is just about right.

It depends on case... sometimes yes, sometimes not.

I think a lot of teams are a little too quick to fire the coach when things are going wrong. In the end, it's the players that are out on the ice playing the game. I think they should be held more accountable. I guess I'd say that I'd like to see coaches get a little more of a chance to succeed than they are presently. If you've gone through 2 coaches in 2 or 3 seasons, maybe it's the GM that needs to be replaced?

I believe that often when a team has success over more than one or two seasons, it is because of the stability. I think that stability is extremely important in pro sports.

Not just in hockey, but also in the NFL, NBA and MLB. When a team has success over 5 years or more, the core doesn't change much and the coaching staff doesn't either.

The Wings had not change much over the last ten years prior to this season. In the pre-lockout era, the Avs, Stars and Devils were pretty good at keeping their core players and had stability behind the bench. (The Avs a bit less.)

Same thing with other sports. The Steelers, Patriots and Colts have had continued success and kept their coaches for good periods of time.

The Braves, Yankees and Cards have had success for extended period of time under the same coaching staff, etc.

I think that this is a problem for my beloved Canadians. We haven't had stability behind the bench basically since the Bowman era. It was believed that the Carbo-Gainey duo would stay for ten years when they were brought here, but it didn't happen...

Coaches should be banned from the sport. Then we would see hockey the way it is meant to be played. Creative, fast paced, exciting. Coaches suck rocks. They screw up players big time, by not allowing to show the skill that got them there in the first place. I hate coaches.

batdad wrote:Coaches should be banned from the sport. Then we would see hockey the way it is meant to be played. Creative, fast paced, exciting. Coaches suck rocks. They screw up players big time, by not allowing to show the skill that got them there in the first place. I hate coaches.

Hello Dany, hows life in San Jose ?

No..not Dany. Not at all. He thinks he is god's gift to the world. All I mean by this is that players (Especially in development years) make mistakes, and coaches lose it on them. Mistakes are what make the game exciting. Without them...game would be soooo boring. Skill makes good games. Ovechkin anyone? Heatley is an arse. He whined about ice time. Period.

But to the extent that coaches screw up the skill players in many ways with their systems..Dany is right. How many good rushing dmen are there? Very few now. Few few few. A dman rush end to end is super exciting. But you do not see them, because by the time they are 12 or 13 coaches have beat it out of them. They are not permitted to do anything save make the safe play. This does not help them develop at all. I can think of several players who are quite capable of dancing a whole team but are not allowed (Brent Burns until this year is maybe tops on the list--now a more skill based coach), also guys like Doughty, etc) They have incredible puck/stick skill levels...but they are not allowed to use them even to half of their ability because of silly coaching.

bruins72 wrote:I think a lot of teams are a little too quick to fire the coach when things are going wrong. In the end, it's the players that are out on the ice playing the game. I think they should be held more accountable. I guess I'd say that I'd like to see coaches get a little more of a chance to succeed than they are presently. If you've gone through 2 coaches in 2 or 3 seasons, maybe it's the GM that needs to be replaced?

Four words: Don Waddell. Bob Clarke.

batdad wrote:Coaches should be banned from the sport. Then we would see hockey the way it is meant to be played. Creative, fast paced, exciting. Coaches suck rocks. They screw up players big time, by not allowing to show the skill that got them there in the first place. I hate coaches.

Everyone would then try to round the rules. It wouldn't be possible.

batdad wrote:Coaches should be banned from the sport. Then we would see hockey the way it is meant to be played. Creative, fast paced, exciting. Coaches suck rocks. They screw up players big time, by not allowing to show the skill that got them there in the first place. I hate coaches.

That's because all the proffesional sports are only about money. Managers figure out that if the team wins everything is fine and you got a lot of fans and money.
On the other hand managers don't like risks at all. And coaches don't like risks either. So everyone tells the players to protect first.. then there will be chances to attack. And every team plays some trap or other defense first, "tactics win over skill" rubbish.

And fans don't care as long as the team wins, but when the team looses a series they scream there is no creativity in the lineup, and players run around like they don't know what to do. Of course they don't know because like Batdad said they never learned or simply forgot it. You find that in every sport.

selne wrote:

batdad wrote:Coaches should be banned from the sport. Then we would see hockey the way it is meant to be played. Creative, fast paced, exciting. Coaches suck rocks. They screw up players big time, by not allowing to show the skill that got them there in the first place. I hate coaches.

That's because all the proffesional sports are only about money. Managers figure out that if the team wins everything is fine and you got a lot of fans and money.
On the other hand managers don't like risks at all. And coaches don't like risks either. So everyone tells the players to protect first.. then there will be chances to attack. And every team plays some trap or other defense first, "tactics win over skill" rubbish.

And fans don't care as long as the team wins, but when the team looses a series they scream there is no creativity in the lineup, and players run around like they don't know what to do. Of course they don't know because like Batdad said they never learned or simply forgot it. You find that in every sport.

What I was trying to say is.. when team is loosing fans blaim the players first (for their lack of skill or commitment).
But managers and board blaim coaches because they think it's his tactics and strategical decisions that lost.
(quoted myself today )

Not having coaches won't cause more fighting or more cheap hits than there already are. Having no coaches will cause more fun. Beer league hockey with actual skill. Coaches are brutal. Having no refs would cause issues with rules, but not having no coaches,

Coaches suck. They take all the fun out of it. Really they do. Watching a game with thornton, Marleau, Setoguchi, Clowe, Blake, Vlasic, Boyle, Heatley, Sedin, Sedin, Luongo, Nabby, Erhoff, Burrows, Kesler, Samuelsson, Bieksa, Edler, Pavelski, should not make one fall asleep. Ever. This one did.

As a side note...If Dany hated the trap and rubbish in Ottawa, and not playing on the pk...wait til he figures out what is going on in San Jose. It will take him awhile maybe 2 years...because he is not the brightest bulb.