** Official 2013 Fire Sacco Thread: Part 1 **
View Single Post
03-17-2013, 05:40 PM
Join Date: Dec 2007
Originally Posted by
It would basically put Quinn in a preassure cooker, he would be set up to fail (again much like Cunneyworth was in Montreal). An interim tag pretty much means the FO isn't sure in you, so why would it be any different when it comes to players? And I fail to remember any instance in which an interim coach was put in a situation like this and succeeded. They're put in a position in which you can't say no, if you say no you look like a guy who isn't sure in himself and if you say yes you can potentially ruin your whole career (and for what, 20 games worth of coaching) if your team fails to improve, which is given our talent on the defense more than a likely outcome.
As for it being unfair to players that's a bit harder for me to explain in English (you should all learn Croatian), it basically sends a message to the players that you aren't sure in which direction your team should be going and that you still aren't sure if the poor performance was the coaches fault or theirs. I hope that makes some sense to you.
Again, I disagree it is a bad situation for Quinn. Anyone that reaches the Head Coach position in the NHL has talent to begin with. No one is going to write him off as a good coach if he took over a bottom five team he didn't improve our position at all. He very well may not be here next year anyways if we bring in a new head coach.
Do you think it is worse for him to fail as an interim head coach or fail as an assistant coach? In my opinion, neither are particularly bad situations for a guy as green in the league as he is, doubt a GM will look at his resume and go "Sorry, you failed to have a winning record during your 20 games as a head coach three years ago, we can't hire you."
The future of this club is more important, we need to start evaluating our players under a new system now, before it is too late. We've been waiting too long as it is to get rid of Sacco.
As for the players... I disagree. I think firing the coach and hiring an interim simply shows them you're committed to bringing in the right coach to help them succeed. Rather than rush a decision, you're going to take your time while someone else gets a shot to win the role.
Guess we've got differing perspectives on this.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Lonewolfe2015