View Single Post
06-13-2005, 11:57 AM
Registered User
ReggieMoto's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Originally Posted by jt
1) I have no problems with the Monarchs not filling Lehoux' spot. Let the kids get the extra ice time rather than bringing in a #1/#2 center who will take that ice time away. It's the only way the kids will learn and that's the Monarchs' #1 reason for existence.
So, you lose your #2 center, don't replace him, and then you what, hope? And when your team's level of play drops to an unacceptable level, you scratch your head and say to yourself, "Gee, they were playing so well and now they're not. Must be the coach." There's no logic there.

While I understand your argument and don't necessarily disagree with it, I don't think it's an appropriate observation regarding what happened here. Once an organization makes a decision to not replace an injured top six forward - the league's leading scorer at the time to boot, the organization's expectations have to be set lower than they were, otherwise you're going to be in for a whole lot of disappointment. Losing Lehoux and not replacing him and then depending on a weak #3 and a rookie to "step it up" is not a recipe for successful development. That one's on the Kings and Gilmore, not Boudreau.

Originally Posted by jt
2) This year's playoff failures were for one of three reasons:
(a) either the coaches couldn't get the players to step it up and play to their level of ability...
(b) or the players couldn't get themselves to play up to their level of ability...
(c) or the players DID play up to their level of ability and it's not as high as many believed.

I sure don't know which it was but the fact of the matter is that certain players either weren't actually as good as they appeared to be in terms of either talent or mental fortitude (i.e. Cammy not scoring enough goals) or the coaching was the problem.
There's also:

(d) the bench wasn't appropriately deep enough; or
(e) the Monarchs coaching staff wasn't calling the shots.

Coaching may have been the problem, but you have to consider whether the coaching was being done from the SMG suite at the VWA and not from the players' bench, or not.

Originally Posted by jt
3) As for his firing, IMO it's all about whether he was getting the most a coach could get out of his players...particularly when the chips are down (the playoffs). In the AHL, it's not about winning per's about whether the players are developing properly and whether the coaches are getting them to reach the highest potential coaches can get out of them. It seems clear to me that the Kings didn't think Boudreau was doing that.
My gut tells me that Boudreau is being scapegoated. Boudreau at least made it to the playoffs all of his years as coach, even with the non-stop drain on his roster due to call-ups. What's Andy Murray ever done for the Kings? He's only 3 for 5 and his team ranks as a top contender for man-time lost due to injury. Perhaps he should be next, though I'd settle for Gilmore at this point.

ReggieMoto is offline