Thread: Speculation: Locker room riff?
View Single Post
Old
02-27-2012, 09:28 PM
  #30
zac
Registered User
 
zac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayP View Post
I don't disagree with you at all, but am curious to know who you think they could bring in that would bring that type of mentality/attitude...?
I'd be lying if I said I watch enough non-Blackhawk hockey to even know.

But I really don't think it's that hard to scout coaches and get a feel for who's good and who's not. I think there are enough scouts out there that know NHL and lower level rosters enough to accurately gauge their talent. Once that talent is assessed, scrutinize the coach's utilization of that talent. By that I mean evaluating STs construction, line construction, and tactical systems by the said team. How does the c coach react during games? Are knee-jerk reactions being made? Key changes made that consistently produce results? Do the players seem receptive to the coaches message. With the number of games seen by scouts I don't even think it would be that hard.

IMO EVERY team should constantly have an up-to-date list of current coaches, former coaches, and lower level coaches who are considered future replacements. Once you start to question your current coaches abilities, those lists should be pared and further scrutinized. If the Blackhawks accurately did their homework on such a list it would be filled with 5 guys who are better suited to running this team than Q. Problem is with Stan's recent statements I have doubts on this process even being initiated.

If I watched enough non-Blackhawk hockey to through names out there I would, but the only teams outside the Hawks I feel confident commenting on are those within our division (and about 5 others). Otherwise I certainly don't watch enough hockey.

zac is offline   Reply With Quote