View Single Post
06-13-2005, 01:18 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Let's have double-arguments just in case someone at HF is interested or wants to add something...

Originally Posted by ReggieMoto
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.
If you're the Kings and your #1 goal is winning, rather than player development (which it sort of is and sort of isn't, but that's another argument), then you replace your #2 center. But when you're the AHL affiliate and your #1 goal is player development, you develop the players who remain. You put them in spots to test them and to see what they can do. The players learn what they need to do to succeed and then they either do it or they don't. Now, if you really don't have ANYONE to step into that role and putting any of the remaining players in it will damage their development, then you replace that #2 center with whomever you need to. Was that the case in Manchester? I'm not asking in retrospect, I mean at the time was it better to play Ryan (or whoever) as the #2 center (SOLELY in terms of player development and not trying to win) or was it better to keep him on the 3rd/4th line and bring in someone else (and as someone who hasn't followed the AHL enough to know who's who I'd love to hear who anyone thinks would have been a good replacement for Lehoux---and why)?

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,
I fully terms of winning and losing. I absolutely disagree in terms of player development. In fact, losing Lehoux and moving other players into his roles (ES, PP, SH), may actually RAISE my expectations for development of certain players.

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.
I may be in the minority but my disappointment wasn't in the 1st round loss. It was that the ONLY players who apparently stepped it up in the playoffs were Brown and Gleason (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Now that may be the fault of the players...or it may be the fault of the coaches...or it may be nobody's fault (if the players simply don't have the talent level to step it up in the playoffs). But the failure of certain players to step it up is certainly not the fault of the Kings or Gilmore.

There's also:

(d) the bench wasn't appropriately deep enough; or
That is a failure to win and not a failure of player development (stepping it up in the playoffs). And IMO, that's an argument to have about a team in a league where their #1 goal is winning...not player development.

(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.
I would need to learn more about this to comment on it. I don't have a problem with the Kings "telling" the Monarchs certain things about whom to play (or not play) or in what situations certain players should (or should not) play. That's part of being a developmental team. But if Boudreau really wasn't calling any shots at all, he shouldn't be the coach anyway and it doesn't matter who is because whomever it is is just a mouthpiece.

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.
I would be VERY disappointed in the Kings if they're scapegoating. Since DT has run the franchise I have seen virtually no scapegoating at all and it would be VERY out of character for DT to allow that.

As for AM and what he's done, it's really a question of what he's done with what he's been given. IMO, AM has done far more with far less than most NHL coaches. Boudreau has done ok with what he's been given but the fact (assuming I have my facts straight) that only two players stepped it up in the playoffs says that either Boudreau didn't do well...or the players who were playing just aren't good enough...and if that's that case, they shouldn't have fired him, they should have gutted the prospect cupboard and start fresh.

jt is offline