HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Muller wanted to be head coach of the Hamilton Bulldogs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-06-2012, 11:00 AM
  #51
JackZap
Registered User
 
JackZap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
trying to save their *****, god forbid they have a strong candidate in the ranks who could eventually take their job

JackZap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:08 AM
  #52
Craig71
Registered User
 
Craig71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maliki2 View Post
Glad PG, BG, and JM are all gone. They couldn't get far enough away from this franchise!

Hopefully some day Muller can be brought back. But we let so many good people walk because of the above morons. I hope they never come back to this organization.

This organization is in shambles. I don't see it being fixed anytime soon. It will take years to get it back in order.
So many good players as well, many for nothing and most times the guys coming back were a negative return. If their goal was to strengthen the Bleu Blanc et Rouge then man, they had a funny way of showing it.

Craig71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:26 AM
  #53
AllCanadienFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maliki2 View Post
Glad PG, BG, and JM are all gone. They couldn't get far enough away from this franchise!
I've been away when PG/BG got the axe but I never read anything where Martin was out the door too. On the Dogs road trip to Illinois he was at all the games and saw him talking with the coaches, riding the bus, etc. If he is also gone good!

AllCanadienFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:34 AM
  #54
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habaneros View Post
Please, please, please no

I remember my heart stopped beating when I saw the contract he gave Olesz.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:49 AM
  #55
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000 View Post
If Martin were as great a strategist as you suggest, he would've been able to produce a winning team despite Muller's absence. And every time i saw the bench in previous yrs JM was writing in his notepad while Muller was the one talking strategy with the players....
You don't know who thought these strategies. Point is, it's quite clear Muller was a MUCH better communicator than JM. He could get the point across, and get players motivated to achieve what he told them.

But in my mind, it's more than likely most of the plans Muller gave the players were designed by JM. Muller might have had some ideas of his own to add to the mix, but the team players under JM's doctrine. Muller was merely the guy who could make players buy into said doctrine*.

*Which is still VERY important, as this season proved us. A piss-poor communicator is disastrous. The best strategist in the world won't win a game if you can't make your players buy into your ideas and give it all they got.

Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000 View Post
The original article says that, in his role as asst coach, Muller took up too much room according to JM and he didn't want him with the team anymore because they didn't have the same philosophies. But then as soon as Muller leaves the team, the team goes south. So I guess we're left to conclude that Muller's strategies were superior to Martin's.
Yhea, he took too much room; it's possible players listened to Muller and not Martin. Martin was starting to feel he was not respected enough, which is actually a common occurrence when a brilliant technocrat starts to be out-staged by a natural leader.

Muller was a natural leadership coach. Martin was a very strong technocrat. Muller probably had a more "loose" approach to coaching than Martin, and probably pushed this point while under JM.

It very likely that each coach blamed the other's style for the failure to beat Boston in the playoffs. JM thought Muller's weakening of his disciplinary doctrine made our team too wild, while Muller probably believed that you have to win the players' heart first to get them performing.

Nothing more than a conflict of core ideology as to what coaching is all about. The problem is very simple, and age old: The titular leader started to think he was threatened by the young rising star who clearly had an better connection with players, and who was ambitious.

I personally believe the optimal structure is to have cutting-edge technocrat strategist in place, but only under a Head Coach who can convey developed strategies and motivate players.

The danger, obviously, is that the technocrat grows too much of an ego, starts believing the Head Coach is surfing on his own genius, and downplay the important of natural leadership in gameplan execution. The technocrat will very often see players like pieces on a chessboard: "If you ask them to do X, they'll do X because you are the one in charge". He usually have a hard time grasping the sheer difficulty of human management, and maybe think the Head Coach is incompetent when the HC doesn't ask for the "right" strategies to be executed (very often a decision motivated by human management).

Leadership Management is a very, very hard thing to run and just pointing your finger at a single person and saying "That's the man" is simplistic at best. Jacque Martin was a brillant strategist with deep flaws. He initially overcame these flaws with a brillant selection of assistants, but then his ego got the better of him.

I don't believe Muller has anything to reproach himself in the whole thing. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious, and he probably acted very loyal to JM up until the end. I blame JM and PG for not finding a suitable replacement for Kirk, someone who could genuinely reach to the players and make them buy into JM's gameplans.

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 12:00 PM
  #56
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,852
vCash: 1100
From the OP, seems more like Muller had a different style he wanted to pursue and it did not match. I understand it's unforunate he's gone, but not sure what you expected? Them to fire everybody to fit a spot in for a rookie coach? Muller pursued his own interests and montreal kept a coach who got the most out of an average team. I don't see the problem, it's life.

Only thing i'd argue is that if he was confident in Martin, then why let him go when he was competing for a playoff spot?

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 12:36 PM
  #57
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
From the OP, seems more like Muller had a different style he wanted to pursue and it did not match. I understand it's unforunate he's gone, but not sure what you expected? Them to fire everybody to fit a spot in for a rookie coach? Muller pursued his own interests and montreal kept a coach who got the most out of an average team. I don't see the problem, it's life.

Only thing i'd argue is that if he was confident in Martin, then why let him go when he was competing for a playoff spot?
If we could speculate, I would say Molson stepped in on that front.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 12:42 PM
  #58
The n00b King
Kingin' since 2003
 
The n00b King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,690
vCash: 500
If you think about it, it's now TWICE that Muller has been pushed aside by the Habs.

The guy got his heart broken twice and still wants to come back.

The guy definitely bleeds the bleu blanc rouge....

The n00b King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 12:47 PM
  #59
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
From the OP, seems more like Muller had a different style he wanted to pursue and it did not match. I understand it's unforunate he's gone, but not sure what you expected? Them to fire everybody to fit a spot in for a rookie coach? Muller pursued his own interests and montreal kept a coach who got the most out of an average team. I don't see the problem, it's life.

Only thing i'd argue is that if he was confident in Martin, then why let him go when he was competing for a playoff spot?
Was Muller's "style" so problematic that it outweighed the other obvious benefits of keeping him in the organization/having him work with/coach our farm team?

I find that hard to believe.

Muller didn't simply "pursue his own interest", he was left dangling in the wind and had no choice but to move on.

the obvious problem is that people are what make organizations great, and great organizations understand how to identify, develop & most importantly retain, great people.

Gauthier's misguided approach cost us several times in his brief tenure, and this is just another example of it.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 01:05 PM
  #60
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The n00b King View Post
If you think about it, it's now TWICE that Muller has been pushed aside by the Habs.

The guy got his heart broken twice and still wants to come back.

The guy definitely bleeds the bleu blanc rouge....
Yeah, but both moves could be seen as somewhat defensible. I mean trading Muller for Turgeon was an outright steal, no doubt about it. It would be ridiculous to fire Martin after a playoff year. But...if all Muller wanted was to be the AHL coach then its utterly foolish to let him walk over that even if he was interviewing for NHL head coaching jobs and the AHL head coach position was a fall-back.

Clearly with Gauthier-Martin being so tight they had no desire to think of a sucessor, which obviously hurt the team. What a lot of people also don't realize is that Cunneyworth, who was hired for the Bulldogs position instead, is very much a Martin protege- JM probably had a big role in his initial hiring, since Cunneyworth was one of his favourites as a Senator and was also his captain for a few years.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 01:06 PM
  #61
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,852
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Was Muller's "style" so problematic that it outweighed the other obvious benefits of keeping him in the organization/having him work with/coach our farm team?

I find that hard to believe.

Muller didn't simply "pursue his own interest", he was left dangling in the wind and had no choice but to move on.

the obvious problem is that people are what make organizations great, and great organizations understand how to identify, develop & most importantly retain, great people.

Gauthier's misguided approach cost us several times in his brief tenure, and this is just another example of it.
I know we all like 'depth' and potential replacements but the reality is, you build around a philosophy. He didn't match that philosophy. It's better to get a less talented coach and let him develop the players so they are easier to come into the NHL systems than train them 2 different ways.

Dangling in the wind? So if Muller wanted to stay assistant, they'd say no? Maybe I missed it, but afaik that wasn't the case.

Gauthier sucks, there is no doubt about it, but this is a little extreme. The guy wanted a chance to be an NHL head coach and wanted a bigger role. A role that did not match the team's needs. Do i agree with our defense first philosophy? no, but it was present and successful at the time. Do you put a defenseman into the center slot just because he's a good d-man? No. They were looking for a particular skill or vision and muller had a different one, not the end of the world. We would've lost Muller either way.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 01:08 PM
  #62
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I know we all like 'depth' and potential replacements but the reality is, you build around a philosophy. He didn't match that philosophy. It's better to get a less talented coach and let him develop the players so they are easier to come into the NHL systems than train them 2 different ways.

Dangling in the wind? So if Muller wanted to stay assistant, they'd say no? Maybe I missed it, but afaik that wasn't the case.

Gauthier sucks, there is no doubt about it, but this is a little extreme. The guy wanted a chance to be an NHL head coach and wanted a bigger role. A role that did not match the team's needs. Do i agree with our defense first philosophy? no, but it was present and successful at the time. Do you put a defenseman into the center slot just because he's a good d-man? No. They were looking for a particular skill or vision and muller had a different one, not the end of the world. We would've lost Muller either way.
Yeah, that's true. But it's also a valid point that the system they had in place probably wasn't the right one to win championships in today's NHL. And Gauthier basically abandoned that system halfway through the year anyway, what with firing Martin, and extolling the virtues of big forwards when acquiring the not-so-power forward Rene Bourque.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 01:12 PM
  #63
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,852
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by smon View Post
Yeah, that's true. But it's also a valid point that the system they had in place probably wasn't the right one to win championships in today's NHL. And Gauthier basically abandoned that system halfway through the year anyway, what with firing Martin, and extolling the virtues of big forwards when acquiring the not-so-power forward Rene Bourque.
I'm not sure we can say a defensive style doesn't win. Reality is, ken hitchcock's old tricks still work. Not to mention, when teams like washington play in a way that epitomizes the 'new NHL' many, including players say "they play the wrong way". Which is it? Defense wins championships, but you need a good balance in skill too. If montreal had a real 1B center instead of Blomez during that run, maybe we'd have gone further.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 01:38 PM
  #64
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I'm not sure we can say a defensive style doesn't win. Reality is, ken hitchcock's old tricks still work. Not to mention, when teams like washington play in a way that epitomizes the 'new NHL' many, including players say "they play the wrong way". Which is it? Defense wins championships, but you need a good balance in skill too. If montreal had a real 1B center instead of Blomez during that run, maybe we'd have gone further.
That still doesn't make management look very good, because they're the ones who acquired this Blomez you speak of, and Martin played him a lot, too.

Obviously teams with a defensive style and strong goaltending can indeed win championships and we did make it to the ECF with it, but certain elements of Martin's style or at least his club's chosen personnel, i.e. an aversion to physical play, don't win championships, either.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 02:04 PM
  #65
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
If we could speculate, I would say Molson stepped in on that front.
I don't think Molson imposed things on his coach or GM.
Gauthier made trades and signings. I really don't think Molson had any say in them.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 02:42 PM
  #66
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
In December. You really think getting loser points stretched out over a 82 game season would have kept this team 2 points out? Delusional.

The Habs had won like 3 games out of 10 when Martin was fired...yet he would have "righted" the ship. Cammy would have started scoring, Campoli would have turned into Lidstrom and Markov would have returned sooner from his injury. Delusional Martin fanboys...just as bad as the Gauthier ones.
"Loser points" are actually a decent sign of playing relatively well. That you tied the other team playing regular hockey. Its getting lots of "wins" from shootout victories that are actually ties in playing hockey that's unsustainable.

Under Martin they had the chance to win most nights. Not so much with Cunneyworth.

Talks to Goalposts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:06 PM
  #67
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
"Loser points" are actually a decent sign of playing relatively well. That you tied the other team playing regular hockey. Its getting lots of "wins" from shootout victories that are actually ties in playing hockey that's unsustainable.

Under Martin they had the chance to win most nights. Not so much with Cunneyworth.
Context is everything. Loser points do not show that you were up by 2 in the 3rd only to lose the lead and hang on for a point.

So getting a loser point is a good sign and a shootout victory is a bad sign.

Really?

What was the Habs record when Martin got fired?

LOL @ "having a chance". Results are results and this team lost with Martin.


Last edited by hockeyfan2k11: 04-06-2012 at 03:18 PM.
hockeyfan2k11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:30 PM
  #68
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Context is everything. Loser points do not show that you were up by 2 in the 3rd only to lose the lead and hang on for a point.

So getting a loser point is a good sign and a shootout victory is a bad sign.

Really?

What was the Habs record when Martin got fired?

LOL @ "having a chance". Results are results and this team lost with Martin.
I already ran the numbers for our 3rd period blown leads in an earlier thread. Under Martin we were right in the middle of the pack when it came to holding on to leads going into the 3rd. It wasn't until after the coaching change that this became a serious problem.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:30 PM
  #69
maci4life
Registered User
 
maci4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Macedonia
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
we were 2 pts out of a playoff spot when martin got fired. The team had a pathetic and unlucky start, but was looking much much better ...
I enjoy watching RC's losing habs much more than JM's boring .500 habs.

maci4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:32 PM
  #70
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackZap View Post
trying to save their *****, god forbid they have a strong candidate in the ranks who could eventually take their job
If Muller was content staying on as an assistant he would have. Its not like we fired him. He left to pursue a head coaching position in the AHL.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:33 PM
  #71
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maci4life View Post
I enjoy watching RC's losing habs much more than JM's boring .500 habs.
which means you aren't a real fan. Its all about the wins. FYI, we scored just as much under Martin as we did under RC.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:50 PM
  #72
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I know we all like 'depth' and potential replacements but the reality is, you build around a philosophy. He didn't match that philosophy. It's better to get a less talented coach and let him develop the players so they are easier to come into the NHL systems than train them 2 different ways.

Dangling in the wind? So if Muller wanted to stay assistant, they'd say no? Maybe I missed it, but afaik that wasn't the case.

Gauthier sucks, there is no doubt about it, but this is a little extreme. The guy wanted a chance to be an NHL head coach and wanted a bigger role. A role that did not match the team's needs. Do i agree with our defense first philosophy? no, but it was present and successful at the time. Do you put a defenseman into the center slot just because he's a good d-man? No. They were looking for a particular skill or vision and muller had a different one, not the end of the world. We would've lost Muller either way.
you mean the way Perry Pearns "fit" our philosophy when Gauthier extended him during the summer?

sorry, but as much as what you're saying would hold true for an organization that was well run, ours lacked any kind of clear vision or plan, and as a result we squandered assets left and right, both players and other personnel.

unless I'm misreading his quote, and what job Muller subsequently took, there's ample evidence that he would have gladly taken the job in Hamilton. Was Jodoin really such a must-have asset that Muller's body of work with our organization up to that point didn't warrant him at least an interview?

Muller may have a slightly more aggressive offensive approach to coaching, but it's not like we're talking about a Mike D'antoni esque fundamental philosophical difference. Nor is/was RC a Martin clone when he was hired in Hamilton, promoted to assistant in montreal or promoted to head coach...

honestly, I think Muller was let go more b/c Gauthier (with martin's input?) felt he was gaining too much popularity among the players/fans... and the pressure to promote him to the HC position, both internally/externally, was something they didn't want to deal with.


while losing Boucher as an "asset" was also problematic, I think that decision far more "fits" your rational... he was a guy that clearly wanted an NHL head coaching gig, and as soon as we made him available had job offers lined up.
Muller, went from NHL job to AHL job, and according to those quotes, seems he would have taken the Habs AHL HC gig, it was a foolish (and possibly petty) mistake to let him go.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:52 PM
  #73
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I already ran the numbers for our 3rd period blown leads in an earlier thread. Under Martin we were right in the middle of the pack when it came to holding on to leads going into the 3rd. It wasn't until after the coaching change that this became a serious problem.
Please post the numbers. The Habs were crap under Martin and crap under Cunney. Breaking down which poop was better is a waste of time. Martin stinks and so does Cunney. The only difference is this is the team that Martin wanted. I wouldn't say the same for Cunney.

hockeyfan2k11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:57 PM
  #74
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I already ran the numbers for our 3rd period blown leads in an earlier thread. Under Martin we were right in the middle of the pack when it came to holding on to leads going into the 3rd. It wasn't until after the coaching change that this became a serious problem.
I don't know (or care) what the "absolute numbers" are, but surely you remember the height of the Price/Halak debate days ('09/10 - i.e. Martin's tenure, not RC's), and the discussion of all the 3rd period lapses and blown leads the Habs had, and how much Price/Halak had to do with any of them (timing of letting in a "bad" goal, etc).

It has been a "serious problem" off-and-on for a few seasons now.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 04:05 PM
  #75
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
They better take the best GM out there regardless of language. Obviously the previous regime was borderline sabotage, it's almost hard to believe that someone can reach such a high level & be that terrible at management.

Player 61 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 04:40 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.