HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Todd Richards

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2011, 11:55 AM
  #26
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today!
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 38,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Thank you for the effort.

Here is the supplement:
Chicago AC 1999-00
Norfolk (Hawks affil) 00-05
Chicago HC 05-07

Notice that the ones who came through are at the end of the tenure, when others started taking over the org. The outset of the tenure was not good. To my mind the evidence presented falls a little more on my side of the argument.

The Sharks are OK on defense, not great. There are other orgs that are the pinnacle for dmen. Nashville is way up there now.
Or you could say he continued to learn and get better as time went on. That's what I would expect out of an AC. If not, I'd fire him. Instead, he was hired by the Sharks. I guess they got the wrong reporting on his failures.

__________________

It disappoints me that you can write a lyric very flippantly—and not a particularly good lyric—and it can mean so much to so many people. That's disillusioning for a writer - George Michael, Careless Whisper
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 12:38 PM
  #27
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Or you could say he continued to learn and get better as time went on. That's what I would expect out of an AC. If not, I'd fire him. Instead, he was hired by the Sharks. I guess they got the wrong reporting on his failures.
His admission came regarding failure in the early years with the Hawks came near the time of his hiring. I have been looking for exactly what you say. The thing is that the Sharks are going for bottom pairing vets. He was very vet centric as HC in Chicago. He was the one who recommended Huskins and as we now see, Joslin is playing better than Huskins in Carolina.

From going over all the press, results on players, etc. and comparing him as a teacher/coach, I arrived at my hypothesis. His emphasis is hard work and he doesn't have time for those who are putting out less than their best. There also appears to a strong tilt on like/dislike for players, teacher's pets and then all others. When he runs across a player who is not extremely driven, he doesn't have the tools in the toolbox to turn it around. If it is an issue of dislike, there is nothing that will save that player. ICDB gave the list, but he didn't break out when those players broke through. With the exception of Keith, it was after Yawney. Ruutu is his other success. The final issue is his record as HC, not so much win/loss but the dramatic turnaround when Savard took over. Savard wasn't that good, but the team response could not be missed and that was after a relatively short tenure for Yawney.

I do hope he has learned and is learning but the signs are not pointing in that direction.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 03:37 PM
  #28
The Architect
When weasels fly...
 
The Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
His admission came regarding failure in the early years with the Hawks came near the time of his hiring. I have been looking for exactly what you say. The thing is that the Sharks are going for bottom pairing vets. He was very vet centric as HC in Chicago. He was the one who recommended Huskins and as we now see, Joslin is playing better than Huskins in Carolina.

From going over all the press, results on players, etc. and comparing him as a teacher/coach, I arrived at my hypothesis. His emphasis is hard work and he doesn't have time for those who are putting out less than their best. There also appears to a strong tilt on like/dislike for players, teacher's pets and then all others. When he runs across a player who is not extremely driven, he doesn't have the tools in the toolbox to turn it around. If it is an issue of dislike, there is nothing that will save that player. ICDB gave the list, but he didn't break out when those players broke through. With the exception of Keith, it was after Yawney. Ruutu is his other success. The final issue is his record as HC, not so much win/loss but the dramatic turnaround when Savard took over. Savard wasn't that good, but the team response could not be missed and that was after a relatively short tenure for Yawney.

I do hope he has learned and is learning but the signs are not pointing in that direction.
Not that Joslin was lighting it up, but when I saw him on the Canes towards the end of the season he looked like a brand new Dman. He was on the PP too, and looked much more confident with the puck.

The Architect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 04:08 PM
  #29
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post
Not that Joslin was lighting it up, but when I saw him on the Canes towards the end of the season he looked like a brand new Dman. He was on the PP too, and looked much more confident with the puck.
A little on what I see happening around the league on coach hiring. They are getting away from hiring the old tried and true coaches. Hitchcock, Keenan etc. are without jobs. The success has come from newer coaches who have established a winning record on the lower levels. That fits Richards, McLellan and DeBoer to a tee.

There have been two paths to promotion. Merit and knowing someone. Knowing someone usually means a former player and frequently before they have had a chance to get their feet wet on lower levels. The jump from lower levels is dramatic. The motivations change. In the show, even the lowest paid players are making substantial multiples of what they got at the lower levels and the contracts are guaranteed. The ability to persuade rather than command comes to the forefront when they jump to the show. This was not always the case, even as late as the mid 90s. And some of the current crop learned from those coaches who used an iron hand. The iron hand style can still work at lower levels but not so much in the NHL. It is pretty evident that iron hand is going by the board just reading the side stories around the league. Even Torts seems to have softened a bit. We even see that McLellan admits that it is finally up to the players on motivation.

My concern is coaches who are awarded positions without the requisite teaching skills which falls into areas of motivation. Favoritism is not a good quality. It unnecessarily demotivates players who are not in favor. The constant harping of an iron hand can have that same demotivating effect. Finally, the coach must have a plan that has some chance of success. Poor planning (lack of knowledge or refusal to acknowledge obvious issues) will quickly become evident to the players and will act as a demotivator. The coaches must learn to walk fine lines all over the place. How hard do they have to be on youngsters with burgeoning egos? How much do they have to rein in hazing and other negative reinforcements from veteran teammates? What sorts of tools do they use to rein the sense of entitlement of some vet players? All sorts of lines.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 05:47 PM
  #30
icandobetter
Registered User
 
icandobetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: chico
Country: United States
Posts: 2,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Thank you for the effort.

Here is the supplement:
Chicago AC 1999-00
Norfolk (Hawks affil) 00-05
Chicago HC 05-07

Notice that the ones who came through are at the end of the tenure, when others started taking over the org. The outset of the tenure was not good. To my mind the evidence presented falls a little more on my side of the argument.

The Sharks are OK on defense, not great. There are other orgs that are the pinnacle for dmen. Nashville is way up there now.
really? which side were you expecting to fall?

Most of the NHL scouts reported in the past that Dmen take longer to develop than forwards; it is said to be 3 to 5 years to fully developed. the Hawk dmen draftees from 2002 onward should reach their full development in 2005-07. Yawney left the organization in 2005 which is when his products are supposed to fully or near end developed.

icandobetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 06:13 PM
  #31
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icandobetter View Post
really? which side were you expecting to fall?

Most of the NHL scouts reported in the past that Dmen take longer to develop than forwards; it is said to be 3 to 5 years to fully developed. the Hawk dmen draftees from 2002 onward should reach their full development in 2005-07. Yawney left the organization in 2005 which is when his products are supposed to fully or near end developed.
I agree with the longer development issue. I have been over his record and articles all over the web, highs and lows. I also went over the lineup/trade policies while he was coach as he had the ability to recommend/evaluate. When I evaluated, I went back to the 97 draft because of the normal two year delay to hitting the A where he would have made first contact. I summarized the hypothesis above both here and elsewhere. Most elsewhere agree that it is not a good resume and those others have read the articles that led to that conclusion.

LZ had a point about getting the feet wet and learning. IMO, that is the best that can be hoped for. If he continues with the Sharks, the development of Vlasic, Joslin, Braun, Demers and others will measure his success. Are they taking leaps forward under his tutelage? Do they only take leaps after he has departed? . . .

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 07:10 PM
  #32
Lars Bjorn
Registered User
 
Lars Bjorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
A little on what I see happening around the league on coach hiring. They are getting away from hiring the old tried and true coaches. Hitchcock, Keenan etc. are without jobs. The success has come from newer coaches who have established a winning record on the lower levels. That fits Richards, McLellan and DeBoer to a tee.

There have been two paths to promotion. Merit and knowing someone. Knowing someone usually means a former player and frequently before they have had a chance to get their feet wet on lower levels. The jump from lower levels is dramatic. The motivations change. In the show, even the lowest paid players are making substantial multiples of what they got at the lower levels and the contracts are guaranteed. The ability to persuade rather than command comes to the forefront when they jump to the show. This was not always the case, even as late as the mid 90s. And some of the current crop learned from those coaches who used an iron hand. The iron hand style can still work at lower levels but not so much in the NHL. It is pretty evident that iron hand is going by the board just reading the side stories around the league. Even Torts seems to have softened a bit. We even see that McLellan admits that it is finally up to the players on motivation.

My concern is coaches who are awarded positions without the requisite teaching skills which falls into areas of motivation. Favoritism is not a good quality. It unnecessarily demotivates players who are not in favor. The constant harping of an iron hand can have that same demotivating effect. Finally, the coach must have a plan that has some chance of success. Poor planning (lack of knowledge or refusal to acknowledge obvious issues) will quickly become evident to the players and will act as a demotivator. The coaches must learn to walk fine lines all over the place. How hard do they have to be on youngsters with burgeoning egos? How much do they have to rein in hazing and other negative reinforcements from veteran teammates? What sorts of tools do they use to rein the sense of entitlement of some vet players? All sorts of lines.
Interesting how RW fits many of the criteria for an old-style coach, especially in his tenure in SJ, and the decreasing returns of having him as a coach. In several instances you could almost be describing him. How much did that factor in to this account? Looking at successful coaches over the long term, how do you fit the gentlemen in Nashville, Buffalo, Anaheim and Detroit on this scale, and does it say anything? My feeling in terms of tone in interviews from The Todd is that he is professional, setting expectations and giving instruction for the good of the team without being demeaning but not much for "rah rah" either. I've seen your positive reviews in terms of some experimentation with lines and x's and o's.

Lars Bjorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2011, 09:21 PM
  #33
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars Bjorn View Post
Interesting how RW fits many of the criteria for an old-style coach, especially in his tenure in SJ, and the decreasing returns of having him as a coach. In several instances you could almost be describing him. How much did that factor in to this account? Looking at successful coaches over the long term, how do you fit the gentlemen in Nashville, Buffalo, Anaheim and Detroit on this scale, and does it say anything? My feeling in terms of tone in interviews from The Todd is that he is professional, setting expectations and giving instruction for the good of the team without being demeaning but not much for "rah rah" either. I've seen your positive reviews in terms of some experimentation with lines and x's and o's.
I went over stories on all sorts of coaches, among them Ruff, Wilson, Trotz, Lavi, Torts, Maurice, Lemaire, and Carlyle.

I will use a short hand in some of the descriptions. Demanding is hard without being demeaning. Fair means giving earned chances to youngsters over vets. Starstruck means special treatment for star players. Upbeat means encouraging.

Wilson - somewhat demeaning, erratic on fairness. Starstruck. Knowledgeable.

Torts - demanding. Hard on goalies. Not starstruck.

Lavi - gruff. Fair. Usually has a vet player be the demanding one.

Ruff - very demanding, very fair. Knowledgeable. Can be upbeat.

Trotz - very hard on young forwards. Knowledgeable.

Lemaire - very fair. Very knowledgeable. Can be upbeat.

Carlyle - Very gruff. Knowledgeable.

Maurice - not so demanding, very fair. Knowledgeable.

Babcock is interesting because he tunes his demands to the needs of the team. He changes based on the tone of the players each year. Not demanding if the team is self-motivated; demanding if it is not. Moderately fair. Very knowledgeable. Can be upbeat.

Tippett - not a lot of info, but very knowledgeable.

Bylsma - upbeat, knowledgeable, fair.

Boudreau - upbeat, not knowledgeable, not fair. Starstruck.


Last edited by SJeasy: 04-12-2011 at 09:30 PM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2011, 10:45 AM
  #34
icandobetter
Registered User
 
icandobetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: chico
Country: United States
Posts: 2,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I agree with the longer development issue. I have been over his record and articles all over the web, highs and lows. I also went over the lineup/trade policies while he was coach as he had the ability to recommend/evaluate. When I evaluated, I went back to the 97 draft because of the normal two year delay to hitting the A where he would have made first contact. I summarized the hypothesis above both here and elsewhere. Most elsewhere agree that it is not a good resume and those others have read the articles that led to that conclusion.

LZ had a point about getting the feet wet and learning. IMO, that is the best that can be hoped for. If he continues with the Sharks, the development of Vlasic, Joslin, Braun, Demers and others will measure his success. Are they taking leaps forward under his tutelage? Do they only take leaps after he has departed? . . .
I still don't understand why would you go back to 97 draft because it was something that Yawney couldn't have control. He wasn't coaching in AHL until 2000. He started out as assistant coach in NHL. I think your mind clouded by his coaching record of wins and losses. When you have a losing record or mediocre coaching career, you are inevitably judged by it.

Look at Murray and Vlasic, for example, they are improving as they ages, and I still consider them a product of Wilson's assistant (hunter??). We'll see how Braun and Demers develop, but they are still bi-product of Yawney and Sommers.

icandobetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2011, 11:20 AM
  #35
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icandobetter View Post
I still don't understand why would you go back to 97 draft because it was something that Yawney couldn't have control. He wasn't coaching in AHL until 2000. He started out as assistant coach in NHL. I think your mind clouded by his coaching record of wins and losses. When you have a losing record or mediocre coaching career, you are inevitably judged by it.

Look at Murray and Vlasic, for example, they are improving as they ages, and I still consider them a product of Wilson's assistant (hunter??). We'll see how Braun and Demers develop, but they are still bi-product of Yawney and Sommers.
97 because they were showing up in Norfolk when Yawney was there. When I was checking, I did it by going over the Norfolk roster; I didn't count players who never showed or only had a limited stay in Norfolk. AHL coaches generally do not influence the draft either. They get the players where it is their responsibility to improve the talent that they get. NHL coaches can influence trades and sometimes the draft where the responsibility changes slightly. For all coaches, Yawney and otherwise, I count influence when they have had a player for minimally a year. I don't credit Sommers for Pavelski or Couture as their stay under Sommers was minimal. OTOH, he does get credit for Clowe, Murray, Gorges and Ehrhoff.

On the coaching record, I looked at his AHL record as well. It is marginally better than the his NHL record. I don't buy the winning record fluff when they are using shootouts. What I do is see if they are above or below average for the standings points per season. The average is around 55% of possible points in the A which gets around the change to shootouts. Winning is above, mediocre is near 55% and poor is below 55%. Sommers comes up on poor. Yawney came up mediocre. Obviously, the issues in Chicago would put him at poor when the team immediately improves upon his departure. Merit coaching hires out of the A generally come up on excellent records. Most of the merit hires switch orgs (exceptions Bylsma, Woods, Stevens, Boudreau), the knowing someone hires tend to stay within their own org when promoted (eg Carbonneau, Yawney, Clouston).

On Wilson's assistants, Zettler was the d coach and Hunter the forwards coach. If given credit for guys who go onto regular careers after being handled as rookies, both of Wilson's ACs come up on the good side.


Last edited by SJeasy: 04-13-2011 at 11:29 AM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2011, 03:12 PM
  #36
icandobetter
Registered User
 
icandobetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: chico
Country: United States
Posts: 2,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
97 because they were showing up in Norfolk when Yawney was there. When I was checking, I did it by going over the Norfolk roster; I didn't count players who never showed or only had a limited stay in Norfolk. AHL coaches generally do not influence the draft either. They get the players where it is their responsibility to improve the talent that they get. NHL coaches can influence trades and sometimes the draft where the responsibility changes slightly. For all coaches, Yawney and otherwise, I count influence when they have had a player for minimally a year. I don't credit Sommers for Pavelski or Couture as their stay under Sommers was minimal. OTOH, he does get credit for Clowe, Murray, Gorges and Ehrhoff.

On the coaching record, I looked at his AHL record as well. It is marginally better than the his NHL record. I don't buy the winning record fluff when they are using shootouts. What I do is see if they are above or below average for the standings points per season. The average is around 55% of possible points in the A which gets around the change to shootouts. Winning is above, mediocre is near 55% and poor is below 55%. Sommers comes up on poor. Yawney came up mediocre. Obviously, the issues in Chicago would put him at poor when the team immediately improves upon his departure. Merit coaching hires out of the A generally come up on excellent records. Most of the merit hires switch orgs (exceptions Bylsma, Woods, Stevens, Boudreau), the knowing someone hires tend to stay within their own org when promoted (eg Carbonneau, Yawney, Clouston).

On Wilson's assistants, Zettler was the d coach and Hunter the forwards coach. If given credit for guys who go onto regular careers after being handled as rookies, both of Wilson's ACs come up on the good side.
Am I missing something here? how it is possible that Yawney showed up in AHL Norfolk in 97 when he was still playing for hawks from 97 to 98. I checked the hockeydb to see if he was sent down, but they never played a game for Norfolk.

I said it before and I am going to say it again, you're evaluating Yawney based on his coaching record, not on his ability to produce talent dman. Yes, his coaching resume is less than stellar. Yes, when it comes to hockey tactics or Xs & Os, he had minimal clue. I believe he is pretty good at mentoring young defensemen.

icandobetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2011, 03:45 PM
  #37
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icandobetter View Post
Am I missing something here? how it is possible that Yawney showed up in AHL Norfolk in 97 when he was still playing for hawks from 97 to 98. I checked the hockeydb to see if he was sent down, but they never played a game for Norfolk.

I said it before and I am going to say it again, you're evaluating Yawney based on his coaching record, not on his ability to produce talent dman. Yes, his coaching resume is less than stellar. Yes, when it comes to hockey tactics or Xs & Os, he had minimal clue. I believe he is pretty good at mentoring young defensemen.
The players in the 97 draft showed up in Norfolk during Yawney's tenure there. I worked by checking the rosters of the teams during his years, not just the draft and presuming.

I think he does OK with guys who are already talented and motivated; I think he has serious shortcomings with players who are slightly less motivated or are Euro or some other dislike factor. I agree about him being short on X's and O's especially after this year's PK. IMO, the inference from what I saw in the information is the lack of interpersonal skills to relate to a wide variety.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2011, 04:03 PM
  #38
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
that too.

but with the talent we have, we could be the best PP in the league. heck, he had Minnesota at #1 for the first few months of the season. imagine what we could do.
We have the second best PP in the league at 23.5%, almost 2 full points higher than last year.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.