HFBoards

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

Ryan McGill New Head Coach for Omaha

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2005, 05:46 PM
  #1
jacketsfan29
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Ryan McGill New Head Coach for Omaha

While on vacation in Columbia Falls, Montana, I spoke with Ryan McGill, a former NHL player and WHL and AHL coach, who told me that he has been hired as the new Head Coach of the Omaha Ak Sar Ben Knights. He was most recently a coach for the Hartford Wolf Pack.

jacketsfan29 is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 06:15 PM
  #2
Sec of Partying Down
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketsfan29
While on vacation in Columbia Falls, Montana, I spoke with Ryan McGill, a former NHL player and WHL and AHL coach, who told me that he has been hired as the new Head Coach of the Omaha Ak Sar Ben Knights. He was most recently a coach for the Hartford Wolf Pack.
Link?

Sec of Partying Down is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 06:32 PM
  #3
jacketsfan29
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder
Link?
I don't have a link because I was talking to him on his cabin at Lake Blaine. Trevor Linden has a cabin next door to him.

jacketsfan29 is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 07:19 PM
  #4
readynwilling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 163
vCash: 500
When did he tell you this?

readynwilling is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 07:21 PM
  #5
Jessie Lumsden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
the guy has no reason to lie, let's not jump all over him

thanks for the info guy

Jessie Lumsden is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 07:25 PM
  #6
readynwilling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 163
vCash: 500
I am interested in when he found out....I am not being skeptical at all.

readynwilling is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 08:34 PM
  #7
jacketsfan29
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by readynwilling
When did he tell you this?
Last Sunday when I was on the lake.

jacketsfan29 is offline  
Old
07-26-2005, 05:44 PM
  #8
jacketsfan29
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 49
vCash: 500
What did I tell you, annouced today.

jacketsfan29 is offline  
Old
07-26-2005, 07:00 PM
  #9
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,189
vCash: 500
Good Signing. Can't believe the Rangers fired him.

Hedberg is offline  
Old
07-27-2005, 01:29 AM
  #10
Large_Farva*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Large_Farva*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg16
Good Signing. Can't believe the Rangers fired him.
He's a good coach, but he's not that great at developing players.

Large_Farva* is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 01:30 PM
  #11
Bobs your uncle
Registered User
 
Bobs your uncle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sadly, in Calgary
Posts: 592
vCash: 500
Good signing.

Bobs your uncle is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 01:42 PM
  #12
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg
Good Signing. Can't believe the Rangers fired him.
He 2 concerned with winning he did a crappy job developing our prospects.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 08:06 PM
  #13
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88
He 2 concerned with winning he did a crappy job developing our prospects.
He seems very similar to Sutter in that regard. Sutter not a huge fan of the young guys, but he's really into getting results. I can see why Sutter hired him, they certainly have similar personalities from what I hear.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 11:05 PM
  #14
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
He seems very similar to Sutter in that regard. Sutter not a huge fan of the young guys, but he's really into getting results. I can see why Sutter hired him, they certainly have similar personalities from what I hear.
I disagree, Kruezer. Darryl doesn't hand out free jobs, but he doesn't play favourites with over-the-hill pylons the way Brain did. I believe Darryl's comments about "getting younger" and his 5-year plan are evident of his commitment to young players, and giving guys like Matthew Lombardi minutes in key situations. Also, look at some of his prospects like Nystrom and Phaneuf... I'm not sure you can say Sutter isn't a fan of "young guys." What Sutter wants is winners, hard workers, size and speed. Pretty little dances and stickwork isn't his cup of tea.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 11:31 PM
  #15
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
I disagree, Kruezer. Darryl doesn't hand out free jobs, but he doesn't play favourites with over-the-hill pylons the way Brain did. I believe Darryl's comments about "getting younger" and his 5-year plan are evident of his commitment to young players, and giving guys like Matthew Lombardi minutes in key situations. Also, look at some of his prospects like Nystrom and Phaneuf... I'm not sure you can say Sutter isn't a fan of "young guys." What Sutter wants is winners, hard workers, size and speed. Pretty little dances and stickwork isn't his cup of tea.
I can definetaly agree with that, your right, I think I stated it incorrectly, what I mean is more that Darryl is really hard on the young guys, he really doesn't hand out free jobs. The younger cats take longer to bring along than most people assume, and the older players are generally the guys who are pulling the teams weight in terms of results and I think he understands that they are the key to the team, as seen in his comments about having his key contributors being in their prime (was it 26 to 29 he said?), I think this is a lot different than most people on this board feel young players should be treated.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 11:44 PM
  #16
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
I can definetaly agree with that, your right, I think I stated it incorrectly, what I mean is more that Darryl is really hard on the young guys, he really doesn't hand out free jobs. The younger cats take longer to bring along than most people assume, and the older players are generally the guys who are pulling the teams weight in terms of results and I think he understands that they are the key to the team, as seen in his comments about having his key contributors being in their prime (was it 26 to 29 he said?), I think this is a lot different than most people on this board feel young players should be treated.
Yup, I think that goes for all players, kruezer. He was hard on Kobasew, but he was hard on Lydman too. In fact, his two favourite whipping boys seemed to be Conroy and Lydman.

I definatly agree with you that younger guys need to develop their overall game, and cannot be rushed. I'm in the same boat with you that I would rather see Nystrom and Phaneuf in Omaha, and Lydman and (? would have liked Clark? Maybe Ritchie or McDonald?) be in Calgary.

As for core age... your looking probably at 26 and 27. But moreover, when your talking about Sutter's preference for ages, Sutter operates on the 5-year plan. While I'm not 100% sure what that exactly means yet, I'm guessing he wants guys in the range of 22-27 or 23-28, and have them rotate on that cycle - hence the contract legnths for some. (However, saying that, I found it somewhat bizzare that he signed a couple older guys like Amonte and McCarty - don't get me wrong, I really like the McCarty signing, but I thought Chris Clark really fit in what Sutter was looking for, in a player and age wise. To this day, I still don't understand why he was moved.)

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 12:00 AM
  #17
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
Yup, I think that goes for all players, kruezer. He was hard on Kobasew, but he was hard on Lydman too. In fact, his two favourite whipping boys seemed to be Conroy and Lydman.

I definatly agree with you that younger guys need to develop their overall game, and cannot be rushed. I'm in the same boat with you that I would rather see Nystrom and Phaneuf in Omaha, and Lydman and (? would have liked Clark? Maybe Ritchie or McDonald?) be in Calgary.

As for core age... your looking probably at 26 and 27. But moreover, when your talking about Sutter's preference for ages, Sutter operates on the 5-year plan. While I'm not 100% sure what that exactly means yet, I'm guessing he wants guys in the range of 22-27 or 23-28, and have them rotate on that cycle - hence the contract legnths for some. (However, saying that, I found it somewhat bizzare that he signed a couple older guys like Amonte and McCarty - don't get me wrong, I really like the McCarty signing, but I thought Chris Clark really fit in what Sutter was looking for, in a player and age wise. To this day, I still don't understand why he was moved.)
Thats for sure, I find it odd as well that Kobasew, Conroy and Lydman were three of the players that he gave some of the toughest ice time to (I ripped that off Dawgbone as a reference btw).

Its a strange situation, especially with Kobasew, who just got hammered 5on5 last year, but it appeared as though Gelinas-Conroy-Clark/Kobasew was the line that grabbed the hardest minutes (along with Iggy who did a lot of line hopping), its really counter my intuition of how he would handle Chuck.

It seems he picks out certain players that he feels can do more and gives them the chance to show if they are up to snuff against the leagues best.

But getting back on topic (I guess if I'm modding now I can't just ramble ) I think having Nystrom and Phaneuf on Omaha at least for a bit would be just fine, I think so long as the players the Flames have in the minors continue to be players that fit into Sutter's mold, then it shouldn't be a problem for them to fit into McGill's mold as well and thats gotta be key, hopefully we can get some continuity in our development system that hasn't been around in quite some time.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 12:06 AM
  #18
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Thats for sure, I find it odd as well that Kobasew, Conroy and Lydman were three of the players that he gave some of the toughest ice time to (I ripped that off Dawgbone as a reference btw).

Its a strange situation, especially with Kobasew, who just got hammered 5on5 last year, but it appeared as though Gelinas-Conroy-Clark/Kobasew was the line that grabbed the hardest minutes (along with Iggy who did a lot of line hopping), its really counter my intuition of how he would handle Chuck.

It seems he picks out certain players that he feels can do more and gives them the chance to show if they are up to snuff against the leagues best.

But getting back on topic (I guess if I'm modding now I can't just ramble ) I think having Nystrom and Phaneuf on Omaha at least for a bit would be just fine, I think so long as the players the Flames have in the minors continue to be players that fit into Sutter's mold, then it shouldn't be a problem for them to fit into McGill's mold as well and thats gotta be key, hopefully we can get some continuity in our development system that hasn't been around in quite some time.
I'd like to see this "though minutes" post. I was curious one day, HF searched it, and found one igor did Andrew Ference actually led the Flames in igor's stats.

In most cases, being critical of a player is a good thing - it shows you care, and you want them to improve. In that case, I think Kobasew is in the good books of Darryl Sutter. Conroy and Lydman, on the other hand, seemed to get alot of backhanded remarks from Sutter - not good IMO.

And feel free to drift... I'm just trying to generate some traffic for you to easen up your modding here (before I go back to my lurker self, especially once school starts).

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 12:47 AM
  #19
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,273
vCash: 500
Hmmm, the post I ripped from was dawgbone's in this thread .... http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=161120 post #9, DB is normally a fairly reliable guy, though he admitted some shortcomings in his numbers (being total minutes and not average).

I agree I think Sutter thinks highly of Kobasew, and is trying to bring him along as best he can, I think the one bonus of the lockout that Sutter must have enjoyed is that he could put Chuck in the minors for a year, which was a year he certainly needed.

And hey more traffic is great, I can't create much being as politically correct as I need to be now , but hey I get a free signature out of it, its not all bad.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 12:47 PM
  #20
Badger Bob
Registered User
 
Badger Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in my happy place
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,286
vCash: 500
Somebody set up two threads on the Oilers board ("playing the tough minutes" & "playing the soft minutes"). The concept is a good one, if there's an objective and quantifiable method of evaluating the ice time. The disciples of the results littered the board, as if it was the truth from up above. They took it as fact that Regehr was "nothing," and that Ference was definitely always the guy Sutter would want out there to handle the more difficult shifts. One (unbiased) Oilers fan, was a little embarrassed at what his cohorts were trying to "prove," so he whacked that theory with a blunt instrument. That was that.

Badger Bob is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 01:07 PM
  #21
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger Bob
Somebody set up two threads on the Oilers board ("playing the tough minutes" & "playing the soft minutes"). The concept is a good one, if there's an objective and quantifiable method of evaluating the ice time. The disciples of the results littered the board, as if it was the truth from up above. They took it as fact that Regehr was "nothing," and that Ference was definitely always the guy Sutter would want out there to handle the more difficult shifts. One (unbiased) Oilers fan, was a little embarrassed at what his cohorts were trying to "prove," so he whacked that theory with a blunt instrument. That was that.
Ah, I remember the days fondly, I think the lockout got to everyone.

It is a nice concept though, but I think the focus should be more on seeing what match ups the coaches go for when they have home ice, it seems to me that will get you a more accurate read on a coaches game plan. Its also good to remember that some guys are going to get softer minutes, because that is what the coach wants, obviously their are situations where Sutter is going to try and get Regehr and Leopold minutes against lesser players, same with Iginla, its been this way forever, hence why Iginla line hops at times in an effort to get him better scoring chances.

Its flawed to make declarations from it, but it definetaly can change your views on certain players.

kruezer is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 11:17 PM
  #22
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
I agree with you that dawgbone is a very respectable poster, but I just don't like the "tough minutes" being showed, when you look over some of the other players, and other posters (ie. igor) who had discrepencies based upon what your criteria is (in igor's case, another respectable poster, it was Ference leading the Flames).

I think it goes without saying that Regehr and Leopold are the top tandom (before Hamrlik). I think its safe to say that, aside from all the "tough minutes" that was a great idea, but has alot of flaws to it IMO.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:01 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.