What did Serge Savard just say?Would Molson listen to Savard?
He talked about "passion". That's hardly the only requirement for a coach, and actually, it ought to be pretty damned low on the list. Everyone who gets to the level that they are considered for a NHL coaching job is going to be pretty passionnate about hockey. Demonstrating said passion explosively is completely optional.
I'm more interested about tactics, line matching ability, systems, understanding of the game in various aspects... Stuff that matters. Lack of this made Carbonneau fall flat on his face as a coach, because he had no understanding of line matching, and only understood work ethic, valuing it to the exclusion of all else. Cunneyworth's flaw is similar, although of a lesser nature (plus, bonus: he seems to be learning some, which Carbonneau never did).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habaneros
Let's be honest, Cunny over Roy.....?
Cunneyworth is not very good, but I'm seeing little to convince me Roy couldn't be as bad, or worse. In fact as an ex-player he already has one thing in common with Cunneyworth that's making the latter fail (he thinks the game in terms of the fourth-line grinder he used to be).
I'm trying to figure out what makes Roy such a seemingly-attractive choice for head coach, outside of name recognition, and I'm really not seeing it.
Umm because the Remparts are almost always one of the best teams in Canada year after year. And he never let's his team be intimidated. I think those are pretty compelling reasons in his favour.
You and I along with everyone else , know our POOL is small.
We fish out of a 5 gallon bucket, when rest of NHL fishes in the ocean .
Line Roy up in a line of french candidates, who are 2 or 3 others above his name?
Then hire an english one willing to take french lessons.
Roy is a good QMJHL OWNER, he spends the big bucks(which he gets with 7-10,000 fans a night in the building) to get star players...Shishkanov Esposito Radulov Grigorenko Erne Duclair Sorensen Stefanovich Tessier Kugryshev Roman Bashkirov Ruslan Bashkirov Andricopoulos Ryan Lavallee-Smotherman Hennessey Coughlin Gratchev are all players who were NCAA guys or high priced Euros that he brought in.
Umm because the Remparts are almost always one of the best teams in Canada year after year. And he never let's his team be intimidated. I think those are pretty compelling reasons in his favour.
Read my post above...Quebec being above average each year has more to do with getting impact players from Europe and NCAA guys(big bucks to forego a NCAA education) than to do with great trades or coaching.
The fact that he has not won a Q title despite being the biggest market and biggest spender is a red flag to me.
He talked about "passion". That's hardly the only requirement for a coach, and actually, it ought to be pretty damned low on the list. Everyone who gets to the level that they are considered for a NHL coaching job is going to be pretty passionnate about hockey. Demonstrating said passion explosively is completely optional.
I'm more interested about tactics, line matching ability, systems, understanding of the game in various aspects... Stuff that matters. Lack of this made Carbonneau fall flat on his face as a coach, because he had no understanding of line matching, and only understood work ethic, valuing it to the exclusion of all else. Cunneyworth's flaw is similar, although of a lesser nature (plus, bonus: he seems to be learning some, which Carbonneau never did).
Cunneyworth is not very good, but I'm seeing little to convince me Roy couldn't be as bad, or worse. In fact as an ex-player he already has one thing in common with Cunneyworth that's making the latter fail (he thinks the game in terms of the fourth-line grinder he used to be).
Well i can tell you are talking out of your ... .No personal offense but Roy is a former goalie, like JM. He saw the game differently in his whole career. Secondo, Roy has now some good experience behind the bench. I saw the Remparts 3 times this year and he matches his lines quite well. Sends his first line against the fourth one to create momentum etc. In one of the game, Québec was REALLY sloppy and were loosing 2-1 and scored to make it 2-2 early in the first period. Roy called a timeout and talked the **** out of them because they were clearly not taking the opposition seriously. They went on to have a great game after this. My last point is that he talks a LOT. When you're in the lower bowl you can hear him scream at his players on the ice to guide them. Hes constantly active behind the bench. Not at all like carbo.
Plus, like i said earlier, he is great at developing young guys. This is including Europeans. The Remparts are highly recommended among teams as an organisation. This is why every year you can see Roy stealing a guy who didn't want to play in the Q.
Again, nothing personal but you better know the subject before talking like it is facts.
Edit: just saw your post below and i agree JM was a great coach in MTL and i did no want him fired at any point.
You and I along with everyone else , know our POOL is small.
We fish out of a 5 gallon bucket, when rest of NHL fishes in the ocean .
Actually, there's an interesting way of looking at this. Most NHL teams are heavy on using re-treads, guys who have been NHL coaches in the past. Sometimes they bring up an AHL coach, but it remains uncommon; generally, the pool of guys other NHL teams fish from consists of experienced NHL coaches, and that pool is pretty small. They also grab from the OHL and the WHL but, again, this is something they do relatively infrequently, leading to a fairly small pool of NHL coaching talent.
Because Montreal only hires francophones, and most experienced francophone coaches in the NHL are ex-Habs coaches, the Habs tend to graduate rookies, generally from the Q. This is a pool that other NHL clubs do not use at all. They also use the anglophone pool to get assistants and AHL coaches, like other clubs. This makes Montreal one of the primary gateways for new NHL coaches coming into the league, but it also means Montreal has become something of a coaching farm club for the rest of the league. Note the high number of current NHL coaches were graduated by Montreal, either as AHL or as NHL head coaches: omitting Montreal, 4 of the 29 head coaches in the league are Montreal or Hamilton alumni. Montreal tends to be forced to hire rookie coaches, who go on to get hired by the rest of the league.
(It's also what made the hiring of Martin, an experienced, credible francophone coach that had never been in the Montreal system, such a coup, and why firing him willy-nilly was a bad idea. Montreal will be very hard-pressed to replace him with someone is experienced, credible, and francophone at the same time.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habaneros
Line Roy up in a line of french candidates, who are 2 or 3 others above his name?
Jacques Martin, Pascal Vincent, Benoit Groulx?
But seriously, in terms of type of coach, I'd rather go find the next Dan Blysma instead of a "fiery ex-player" type like Roy. The former will do way, WAY more to help your hockey team win than the latter, IMO.
Actually, there's an interesting way of looking at this. Most NHL teams are heavy on using re-treads, guys who have been NHL coaches in the past. Sometimes they bring up an AHL coach, but it remains uncommon; generally, the pool of guys other NHL teams fish from consists of experienced NHL coaches, and that pool is pretty small. They also grab from the OHL and the WHL but, again, this is something they do relatively infrequently, leading to a fairly small pool of NHL coaching talent.
Because Montreal only hires francophones, and most experienced francophone coaches in the NHL are ex-Habs coaches, the Habs tend to graduate rookies, generally from the Q. This is a pool that other NHL clubs do not use at all. They also use the anglophone pool to get assistants and AHL coaches, like other clubs. This makes Montreal one of the primary gateways for new NHL coaches coming into the league, but it also means Montreal has become something of a coaching farm club for the rest of the league. Note the high number of current NHL coaches were graduated by Montreal, either as AHL or as NHL head coaches: omitting Montreal, 4 of the 29 head coaches in the league are Montreal or Hamilton alumni. Montreal tends to be forced to hire rookie coaches, who go on to get hired by the rest of the league.
(It's also what made the hiring of Martin, an experienced, credible francophone coach that had never been in the Montreal system, such a coup, and why firing him willy-nilly was a bad idea. Montreal will be very hard-pressed to replace him with someone is experienced, credible, and francophone at the same time.)
Jacques Martin, Pascal Vincent, Benoit Groulx?
But seriously, in terms of type of coach, I'd rather go find the next Dan Blysma instead of a "fiery ex-player" type like Roy. The former will do way, WAY more to help your hockey team win than the latter, IMO.
I think you don't understand thats its possible to be fiery and a good coach at the same time
Well i can tell you are talking out of your ... .No personal offense but Roy is a former goalie, like JM.
Roy is a Hall of Fame player. JM has never played pro hockey, he's a career coach, and one of the top-10 in coaching experience. There's rather a large difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domdo345
Roy has now some good experience behind the bench. I saw the Remparts 3 times this year and he matches his lines quite well. Sends his first line against the fourth one to create momentum etc.
I'm gonna need more than general impressions out of three games and the knowledge that he talks a lot to get a good idea of his tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domdo345
Plus, like i said earlier, he is great at developing young guys.
Actually he seems to be really good at using his economic clout to acquire talent. Which, honestly, would be a good thing for a GM to have, but junior and the NHL work very differently.
Which is part of the problem, really; seeing how tough Cunneyworth has it adapting from the AHL to the NHL, do we really want to see a coach straight out of junior?
I think you don't understand thats its possible to be fiery and a good coach at the same time
Being fiery is all right, though I think it will be a serious issue in the Montreal media environment.
As for being good. Well, I know he can build and win with some pretty stacked teams. But everything I read about Roy is about how he's passionate and fiery and active and all that. Nothing about how he actually coaches. This is worrisome; it suggests that his coaching skills aren't worth mentioning. Maybe they are, but we're not getting that information, which is why I'm not seeing the attraction.
Roy is a Hall of Fame player. JM has never played pro hockey, he's a career coach, and one of the top-10 in coaching experience. There's rather a large difference.
I'm gonna need more than general impressions out of three games and the knowledge that he talks a lot to get a good idea of his tactics.
Actually he seems to be really good at using his economic clout to acquire talent. Which, honestly, would be a good thing for a GM to have, but junior and the NHL work very differently.
Which is part of the problem, really; seeing how tough Cunneyworth has it adapting from the AHL to the NHL, do we really want to see a coach straight out of junior?
Okay so seeing 3 times isnt relevant, i can agree with that. Saying he cant be a good coach in the NHL because he is a HOF is laughable. And don't bring me the Gretzky argument. The truth is neither of us can be right before we see him in the NHL. The difference is i think he can be a good coach where you imply without credible facts that he can't be a good coach. I was skeptical of him coaching but i have to say he impressed me. You really should see him coach before telling evryone he can't be good.
Being fiery is all right, though I think it will be a serious issue in the Montreal media environment.
As for being good. Well, I know he can build and win with some pretty stacked teams. But everything I read about Roy is about how he's passionate and fiery and active and all that. Nothing about how he actually coaches. This is worrisome; it suggests that his coaching skills aren't worth mentioning. Maybe they are, but we're not getting that information, which is why I'm not seeing the attraction.
Well, he's the one responsible of putting together those teams
And if you look at last year, he was in "rebuilding mode" and still won 2 rounds of playoffs
Being fiery is all right, though I think it will be a serious issue in the Montreal media environment.
As for being good. Well, I know he can build and win with some pretty stacked teams. But everything I read about Roy is about how he's passionate and fiery and active and all that. Nothing about how he actually coaches. This is worrisome; it suggests that his coaching skills aren't worth mentioning. Maybe they are, but we're not getting that information, which is why I'm not seeing the attraction.
was hard to see before we hired Carbo too.
I mean wasn't much of a track record, but we all knew Carbo had the heart .
Maybe little weak in the communication dept, but again atleast Roy got some track record before he hits the big show .
I don't think Roy could do any worse a job than the last 19 years worth .
Anyone superstitious, 20 years next yet with no cup , Roy would be coach 12 in 20 years equals 32...the next year equals 33,
Cup in Montreal 2013-2014....lol
I wouldn't mind seeing coach Roy with asst Carbo and Larry Robinson on D
Wait, so remind me what makes Roy the best candidate for Head Coach available?
And no, don't bring up the French language argument.
he's a great coach, and he knows how to surround himself, plus, he knows the league, got his contacts, he's got the prestance and the background to discipline the young guns and he knows how to look after a young goalie like Price
he's a great coach, and he knows how to surround himself, plus, he knows the league, got his contacts, he's got the prestance and the background to discipline the young guns and he knows how to look after a young goalie like Price
Great coach: What makes him a great coach exactly? Any awards, championships? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't know Roy's coaching history at all (and I'm going to guess many others don't either)...
In terms of "knowing the league" and having "contacts", I'm sure there are experienced NHL coaches who have that in their CV's too.
Saying he cant be a good coach in the NHL because he is a HOF is laughable.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it tells us exactly nothing about his potential coaching ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domdo345
The difference is i think he can be a good coach where you imply without credible facts that he can't be a good coach.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying I see no reason to believe he will be.
Like I said, it's not scientific or anything, but I am a little worried that all the talk about Roy is around being a winner, fiery, passionate, and so on, and we hear next to nothing about his actual coaching style or skills. It's as if they weren't worth mentioning. Yet these are far more important considerations than his personality.
I also do believe that some Roy backers, especially in the media, believe that being a fiery, passionate winner -- or heck, just a good quote -- are all the qualifications he needs, but I think the Habs need to be pickier. And I am seriously worried that Roy might just be getting all this hype out of sheer name recognition because, as I said, we are told so little about his coaching ability.
Great coach: What makes him a great coach exactly? Any awards, championships? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't know Roy's coaching history at all (and I'm going to guess many others don't either)...
In terms of "knowing the league" and having "contacts", I'm sure there are experienced NHL coaches who have that in their CV's too.
Won the memorial cup as an underdog. Off course he had Radulov but then again, a team with crosby lost at this tournament.
Great coach: What makes him a great coach exactly? Any awards, championships? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't know Roy's coaching history at all (and I'm going to guess many others don't either)...
Well, to be fair, dude does have a Memorial Cup as head coach, though amusingly, no corresponding Q championship.
But the Memorial Cup is a single-elimination four-team tournament, so it's a bit of a Tournament of Small Sample sizes.
The Remparts are a consistently good Q team, and Roy does seem adept in leveraging his city's economic advantages to build his clubs. So there's that: he's certainly a success in junior.
he's a great coach, and he knows how to surround himself, plus, he knows the league, got his contacts, he's got the prestance and the background to discipline the young guns and he knows how to look after a young goalie like Price
I think you don't understand thats its possible to be fiery and a good coach at the same time
Roy is just that
Man... I don't know about this. From what I've heard he's presided over stacked teams. And coaching kids who idolize you is a whole different ballgame from handling seasoned vets.
I remember when we hired Tremblay. It was all about bringing back the "passion" to the game. Remember how that turned out? And remember who it was who freaked out because of it?
I really think Roy is going to create more problems than he solves. I'm not even sure if the guy's head is going to fit through the door. He's very brash, very cocky... not great ingredients when you're coaching an NHL team with players who have egoes themselves. I think there is a good potential for him to be a disaster here and I don't think he's worth the risk.
