HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Spacek/Gill confirm Martin is garbage coach, Gauthier senile old man, Cunney a puppet

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-01-2012, 10:38 AM
  #451
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
They were playing horribly, they were no longer out chancing opponents like they had the first 10 games. I really find your opinions out in left field.
They had slowed down due to repeated injuries, but they were still largely neutral -- they weren't as dominant as earlier when healthy, but they were far from playing "horribly".

"Horribly" happened later, when Cunneyworth hammered out all semblance of structure from their game and Gauthier deleted too much talent from the roster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
You seem a touch paranoid about certain things when there's no reason to be, Dudley's evaluating ability and overly positive about others who don't deserve your optimism, JM's coaching ability. I really don't get you.
You seem to have a great deal of faith about things of which you have limited evidence and which have real questions surrounding them, such as Dudley's evaluating ability, and dismiss things of demonstrated value, such as JM's coaching ability. I really don't get you.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:09 AM
  #452
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
You seem to have a great deal of faith about things of which you have limited evidence and which have real questions surrounding them, such as Dudley's evaluating ability, and dismiss things of demonstrated value, such as JM's coaching ability. I really don't get you.
That's okay, we don't get you either, pretending to know more than the players in the dressing room.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:22 AM
  #453
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
That's okay, we don't get you either, pretending to know more than the players in the dressing room.
Well, it depends on whether you actually are sticking to what the players said. I admit that am a little perplexed at how some people are so wrapped up in their opinions that they'll greatly extrapolate what the players actually said so they can trot it out as validation of their own opinion rather than stick to, you know, what the players said.

Like, for example, how comments about Martin's communication style somehow gets interpreted as a scathing and thorough dismissal of his overall effectiveness as a coach.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:25 AM
  #454
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
That's okay, we don't get you either, pretending to know more than the players in the dressing room.
By saying we weren't playing horribly? Sure, that makes sense..

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:38 AM
  #455
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Well, it depends on whether you actually are sticking to what the players said. I admit that am a little perplexed at how some people are so wrapped up in their opinions that they'll greatly extrapolate what the players actually said so they can trot it out as validation of their own opinion rather than stick to, you know, what the players said.

Like, for example, how comments about Martin's communication style somehow gets interpreted as a scathing and thorough dismissal of his overall effectiveness as a coach.
There's also the fact that Spacek says ''I didn't mind Jacques'' that quickly gets ignored.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 12:11 PM
  #456
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Well, it depends on whether you actually are sticking to what the players said. I admit that am a little perplexed at how some people are so wrapped up in their opinions that they'll greatly extrapolate what the players actually said so they can trot it out as validation of their own opinion rather than stick to, you know, what the players said.

Like, for example, how comments about Martin's communication style somehow gets interpreted as a scathing and thorough dismissal of his overall effectiveness as a coach.
Well, there seems to be consensus among the players that Martin's system and communication barriers were holding the team back from what they thought they were fully capable of. Whether or not his system limits chances in such a way that a mediocre team can seem to hold its own against better competition - translating in more points in the standings than "expected" - is rendered a bit trivial since the players also mention/agree that they started playing for each other (i.e. not necessarily for the coach, or in response to his "motivational tactics"), and that's when performance started meeting expectations better.

Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence that the team fell to the basement once the vets that were probably largely responsible for the rally cries/effort (Hammer, Spacek, Gill, Mara, Wiz, Sopel, Halpern, etc) were all shipped out of town (or simply let go) in favour of youth and "talent". The problem wasn't necessarily letting them go (some were either at or near "expiration"). The problem was that the guys brought in to replace them (Campoli, Bourque, Kaberle, Nokelainen) aren't exactly the kind of guys whose voice/play is likely to galvanize anyone in the locker room (aside from maybe Cole and/or Staubitz, a deadline acquisition).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
There's also the fact that Spacek says ''I didn't mind Jacques'' that quickly gets ignored.
See, to me that just sounds like a veteran who had tuned out the coach. "Didn't mind" = could have done without, for me.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 12:22 PM
  #457
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, there seems to be consensus among the players that Martin's system and communication barriers were holding the team back from what they thought they were fully capable of.
The problem I have with that is that they presented Martin as a proponent of the chip-it-out and dump-and-chase and that doesn't really jive with what the players were actually doing on the ice starting in 2010-2011, which had a great deal more short-pass transition and puck possession (especially compared to what came before and what came after). I'm willing to give the players authority on communication and the proverbial "what was happening in the room", but at some point, if there's a disconnect between how they claim to be playing and how they were actually playing, I have to give the latter some amount of credence.

Either that or they'd tuned out the coach and weren't actually following the dump-the-puck system until Cunneyworth showed up, which strikes me as a little weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence that the team fell to the basement once the vets that were probably largely responsible for the rally cries/effort (Hammer, Spacek, Gill, Mara, Wiz, Sopel, Halpern, etc) were all shipped out of town (or simply let go) in favour of youth and "talent".
Actually, based on the underlying numbers that show the team was playing at least as well as ever (and the not-underlying numbers that showed the best 5-on-5 game the Habs have had in at least 15 years)... I do.

Unless you mean the nosedive post-December, in which case I'd wonder if it was coincidence that this happened at the same time as the coaching change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
The problem wasn't necessarily letting them go (some were either at or near "expiration"). The problem was that the guys brought in to replace them (Campoli, Bourque, Kaberle, Nokelainen) aren't exactly the kind of guys whose voice/play is likely to galvanize anyone in the locker room (aside from maybe Cole and/or Staubitz, a deadline acquisition).
I suspect it has more to do with the departing players being plain better than the guys going in. Nokelainen, Bourque, and Campoli, especially, just aren't very good hockey players at all. It's a matter of hockey ability more than leadership, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
See, to me that just sounds like a veteran who had tuned out the coach. "Didn't mind" = could have done without, for me.
That depends greatly on one's pre-existing opinion of Martin, which is exactly the issue with how these interviews are being interpreted by all and sundry.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 12:34 PM
  #458
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem I have with that is that they presented Martin as a proponent of the chip-it-out and dump-and-chase and that doesn't really jive with what the players were actually doing on the ice starting in 2010-2011, which had a great deal more short-pass transition and puck possession (especially compared to what came before and what came after). I'm willing to give the players authority on communication and the proverbial "what was happening in the room", but at some point, if there's a disconnect between how they claim to be playing and how they were actually playing, I have to give the latter some amount of credence.
You say that, though, like players never played "outside the system". They did. And ended up riding pine/pressboxes almost immediately in every case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Unless you mean the nosedive post-December, in which case I'd wonder if it was coincidence that this happened at the same time as the coaching change.
Naw, I mean coming out of the off-/preseason and posting a 1-7 record against teams that were in the bottom half of the league in the previous season, for starters. And then there was losing 6 of 7 games leading up to the coaching change. I think those are sufficient. Think about that: by game 28 they already had two streaks where they only managed 1 win in 7 games. That accounts for half of the games that had been played to that point in the season, and is thus significant, imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I suspect it has more to do with the departing players being plain better than the guys going in. Nokelainen, Bourque, and Campoli, especially, just aren't very good hockey players at all. It's a matter of hockey ability more than leadership, IMO.
Guess that's why I said their voice/play wasn't adequately replaced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That depends greatly on one's pre-existing opinion of Martin, which is exactly the issue with how these interviews are being interpreted by all and sundry.
I think it only depends "greatly" for those that are the most "biased" on either end of the spectrum. The rest in the middle are more than content to let the results and press snipets from players no longer bound to internal muzzling speak for themselves.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 01:03 PM
  #459
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
You say that, though, like players never played "outside the system". They did. And ended up riding pine/pressboxes almost immediately in every case.
Let me narrow down what I mean here: I have trouble believing that the Habs' very systematic zone exits weren't set plays, and that the players doing it (which was all of them) were doing so "outside the system".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Naw, I mean coming out of the off-/preseason and posting a 1-7 record against teams that were in the bottom half of the league in the previous season, for starters.
Unfortunate, but the Habs deserved to win more than half those games, badly outchancing the opposition in at least four (Winnipeg, Colorado, Buffalo, and Florida). It was an 1-7 record, but it was not the case that the team was playing 1-7 badly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And then there was losing 6 of 7 games leading up to the coaching change.
The coaching change occured when the Habs (who were, at the time, dealing with the worst injury situation in the NHL) were coming off their first regulation loss in December. Which was also their first loss in 3 games. They certainly weren't uncompetitive at the time.

They lost 6 of 7 games immediately after the coaching change, not leading up to it. And all six were regulation losses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
by game 28 they already had two streaks where they only managed 1 win in 7 games.
Can you point to me which streaks you mean? I'm looking over at the schedule and the only way I can make that be true is to make those streaks be game 1 to 7 and game 2 to 8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Guess that's why I said their voice/play wasn't adequately replaced.
Except I'm not sure why you'd mention the voice at all. Pretty much every trade Gauthier made since the beginning of the season made the team noticeably weaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I think it only depends "greatly" for those that are the most "biased" on either end of the spectrum. The rest in the middle are more than content to let the results and press snipets from players no longer bound to internal muzzling speak for themselves.
And what conclusion do you think these people should be coming to?

(Besides Gauthier being a control freak, which isn't exactly a stark revelation. )

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:01 PM
  #460
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Whether or not his system limits chances in such a way that a mediocre team can seem to hold its own against better competition - translating in more points in the standings than "expected" - is rendered a bit trivial since the players also mention/agree that they started playing for each other (i.e. not necessarily for the coach, or in response to his "motivational tactics"), and that's when performance started meeting expectations better.
Wouldn't you say that there was structure while under Martin? Surely, you'd agree.
That's why I take whatever the players are saying with a grain of salt.
How can players play for themselves, and not necessarily for the coach, yet still follow the structure?
It seems they would have liked to be a little more aggressive, so why didn't they?
Because they'd get benched? Martin didn't bench his veterans other than AK.

As MM also pointed out, they claim to have been playing a chip-and-chase style, but that's not what they were doing at all, at least not defensively.
They say Gomez can't be asked to dump it, but all I remember from Gomez is him taking the puck, carrying it though the zone and stopping around the boards at the top of the circle, and then cycling it around.

So again, whatever style they seem to think they were playing doesn't really reflect the style they were actually playing.
Unless, of course, they created their own system as players and followed that instead of whatever Martin was telling them. But that doesn't make sense because they say they wanted to be more aggressive, so surely, they would have done it if they had the power to create their own system.

All in all, it just doesn't add up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
See, to me that just sounds like a veteran who had tuned out the coach. "Didn't mind" = could have done without, for me.
To me, it's simple, he just didn't mind him. He didn't have a problem with him. That's usually what it means when I use that expression. Especially considering that the question came from a critical side.


If a vet like Spacek tuned out the coach, you'd imagine that other vets also had. If that's the case, then I'm sure they would have stopped playing his style, but they never did that.
Weren't the players surprised when Jacques got fired as well? You have to wonder why that was the case if they started tuning him out.


I don't care for Martin, I'm actually glad this all happened so we can start fresh, but the man was not as bad as some are trying to paint him, and some of the things the players are saying just don't add up.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:31 PM
  #461
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Hahaha! Funny to see the Martin fan boys flopping like fish out of the water, trying to read into Spacek and Gill's comments, stuff that isn't there.

They felt Martin was wrong. Period. And they are right thinking that way.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:43 PM
  #462
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Hahaha! Funny to see the Martin fan boys flopping like fish out of the water, trying to read into Spacek and Gill's comments, stuff that isn't there.

They felt Martin was wrong. Period. And they are right thinking that way.
I think Gill's comments were pretty telling. He didn't come right out and bash JM, but he certainly didn't defend him much either. He was being the classy guy that he is.

The players are expressing exactly what many fans suspected all along, I don't know why some feel the need to argue and pretend they were right all along.

I don't feel like arguing about it forever, and some will never admit they were wrong or give credit to someone else for seeing it for what it was, a complete mess.

habsfanatics is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:47 PM
  #463
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I think Gill's comments were pretty telling. He didn't come right out and bash JM, but he certainly didn't defend him much either. He was being the classy guy that he is.

The players are expressing exactly what many fans suspected all along, I don't know why some feel the need to argue and pretend they were right all along.

I don't feel like arguing about it forever, and some will never admit they were wrong or give credit to someone else for seeing it for what it was, a complete mess.
You nailed it right on the head. It's become a matter of pride, plus some have admitted here to never being wrong, pretending knowing more than anyone else. Imagine...

Personally, I've been wrong many times. Ask my wife!

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:52 PM
  #464
THE HOFF
Registered User
 
THE HOFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
One thing to keep in mind, that although its relevant to point out that there has been more bad said than good , its also right to point out that Martin's career as a coach, like hartley and many others, have been successful, despite all the criticism and the trolling that happens everywhere. I hate to hear people rip into a coach, when the blame is, for most part ... comming from upstairs. I don't mind not having martin as a coach, and I look forward to see a new product on the ice, but at the same time, It DID NOT make sense, at all, to fire him and replace him for Randy. If saying that I wanted martin to stay the whole year means that I'm on some sort of martin bandwagon, then fine, but honestly I thought that this -keeping martin until then end of the season- was the right thing to do and that it was common sense and common knowledge.

hate to quote that newspaper, but seems like flowers can sometimes grow on a pile of mud. http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...-avec-plekanec

plekanec saying, 2 weeks ago : '' with jacques, everything was clear, there were no grey areas. everybody knew their roles. I won't lie, I always had a great relationship with jacques, doesn't mean I hate randy.''


just a line to perhaps help put things in perspective.

THE HOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 03:56 PM
  #465
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
One thing to keep in mind, that although its relevant to point out that there has been more bad said than good , its also right to point out that Martin's career as a coach, like hartley and many others, have been successful, despite all the criticism and the trolling that happens everywhere. I hate to hear people rip into a coach, when the blame is, for most part ... comming from upstairs. I don't mind not having martin as a coach, and I look forward to see a new product on the ice, but at the same time, It DID NOT make sense, at all, to fire him and replace him for Randy. If saying that I wanted martin to stay the whole year means that I'm on some sort of martin bandwagon, then fine, but honestly I thought that this -keeping martin until then end of the season- was the right thing to do and that it was common sense and common knowledge.

hate to quote that newspaper, but seems like flowers can sometimes grow on a pile of mud. http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...-avec-plekanec

plekanec saying, 2 weeks ago : '' with jacques, everything was clear, there were no grey areas. everybody knew their roles. I won't lie, I always had a great relationship with jacques, doesn't mean I hate randy.''


just a line to perhaps help put things in perspective.
What does Plekanec know anyway.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 05:52 PM
  #466
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
It is simple to see how effective or not Jacques Martin was as a coach......and whether he was a great tactician as so many claim him to be.

All one has to do is look at the LA Kings.

Do the Kings play a passive defense? No.

Do the Kings send in multiple players on the forecheck? Yes.

Are the Kings a dump and chase hockey team? No.

Three major flaws of Jacques Martin NOT being utilized by the LA Kings, the hottest team in the NHL and possible Stanley Cup Champions.

Martin was lost. He was stuck in the time warp of the early 2000's trying to be a Jacques Lemaire clone.

Hockey has changed.....

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 07:42 PM
  #467
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE HOFF View Post
its also right to point out that Martin's career as a coach, like hartley and many others, have been successful, despite all the criticism and the trolling that happens everywhere.
The problem with evaluating the effectiveness of a coach lies in determining how much impact he had on the success of the team. Yes, Martin's teams in Ottawa had some great success (in the regular season) but how much of that was Martin and how much was due to the fact that Ottawa was stacked with talent. One thing we do know is that after he left Ottawa, Martin's teams lost more games than they won. Another
thing we know is that Martin's teams generally fared poorly in the playoffs, the year that Halak put up a wall was one of the few exceptions.

What is confounding is the lengths to which some posters will go to defend Martin. The question I ask is, why? Martin is no longer part of the coaching staff and it is unlikely he is part of the team's inner circle. Do we have to constantly be reminded of his tenure with the team.

Think about this. If Martin was seen as the answer then current management would include him as a candidate for the vacant head coaching job. If he isn't one of their candidates, then they must clearly agree that his coaching falls short of what they are looking for.

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:23 PM
  #468
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Hahaha! Funny to see the Martin fan boys flopping like fish out of the water, trying to read into Spacek and Gill's comments, stuff that isn't there.
Funny, I was just thinking how hilarious it is to see Martin haters flopping like fish out of the water, trying to read into Spacek and Gill's comments, stuff that isn't there...

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:27 PM
  #469
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
What does Plekanec know anyway.
Obviously he was not aware that Martin did not communicate with him and therefore he was supposed to be confused about his role.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:28 PM
  #470
WhiskeySeven
Mr. Worldwide
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Funny, I thought it was hilarious to see Martin haters flopping like fish out of the water, trying to read into Spacek and Gill's comments, stuff that isn't there...
I agree with your premise that it seems like Gill and Spacek were suggesting they were playing a system that they clearly were not.

I disagree, however, that Gill and Spacek were wrong. They've played almost 2000 more NHL games than you or I. The simpler solution could be that Dave Stubbs, hack extraordinaire, lost something in the translation or that Gill/Spacek meant to say something but, being jocks that they are, misspoke or used the wrong word in describing their system.

The facts are however, that JM's system was in no way a possession system nor did they have an aggressive forecheck. Do you disagree?

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:31 PM
  #471
WhiskeySeven
Mr. Worldwide
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Obviously he was not aware that Martin did not communicate with him and therefore he was supposed to be confused about his role.
Plek's words don't contradict the idea that Jacques was a stern, system coach though. Your role is defined under his system, I doubt anybody would disagree. That doesn't mean he took player input into consideration heavily or he gave proper feedback to younger players or those who were confused about their play.

Spacek said that no one told him what to change about his game until it was far too late. Whose fault is that?

To be honest the reason I was clamoring for JMs firing was a selfish non-results based reason: I hated watching the Habs play and I had blown way too much money going to passive, reactive games in the Bell Centre. The worst and final one being a 0-1 loss to the ****ing Bruins that had literally no moments of excitement on the ice (but a drunken brawl in the stands). That's not hockey and that's not entertainment. In the playoffs I doubt anyone would object to a tight game but in the dog days of November it is inexcusable to field such a worthless system AND lose 1-0.

There is a balance between results orientation and entertainment and unless you or Jacques thought he had literally the least talented squad in the league there is no excuse for his system being as deep or rigid as it was.

I follow European soccer a lot and I can understand when a team like the Wolves or Fulham or Stoke play deep against Man City or United or Arsenal. Or Chelsea against Barcelona in the UCL. It makes sense. But the NHL doesn't work that way.


Last edited by WhiskeySeven: 06-01-2012 at 08:36 PM.
WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 09:29 PM
  #472
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Wouldn't you say that there was structure while under Martin? Surely, you'd agree.
That's why I take whatever the players are saying with a grain of salt.
How can players play for themselves, and not necessarily for the coach, yet still follow the structure?
Easy. Xs and Os are for the coach, intensity/effort is for each other. I mean, if you don't mind me painting a black/white picture to a situation that isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It seems they would have liked to be a little more aggressive, so why didn't they?
Because they'd get benched? Martin didn't bench his veterans other than AK.

As MM also pointed out, they claim to have been playing a chip-and-chase style, but that's not what they were doing at all, at least not defensively.
They say Gomez can't be asked to dump it, but all I remember from Gomez is him taking the puck, carrying it though the zone and stopping around the boards at the top of the circle, and then cycling it around.

So again, whatever style they seem to think they were playing doesn't really reflect the style they were actually playing.
Unless, of course, they created their own system as players and followed that instead of whatever Martin was telling them. But that doesn't make sense because they say they wanted to be more aggressive, so surely, they would have done it if they had the power to create their own system.

All in all, it just doesn't add up.



To me, it's simple, he just didn't mind him. He didn't have a problem with him. That's usually what it means when I use that expression. Especially considering that the question came from a critical side.


If a vet like Spacek tuned out the coach, you'd imagine that other vets also had. If that's the case, then I'm sure they would have stopped playing his style, but they never did that.
Weren't the players surprised when Jacques got fired as well? You have to wonder why that was the case if they started tuning him out.


I don't care for Martin, I'm actually glad this all happened so we can start fresh, but the man was not as bad as some are trying to paint him, and some of the things the players are saying just don't add up.
You don't have to wonder why. Cammalleri, Spacek and Gill have told you. There's also a WHOLE lot that hasn't been told to us, as well, apparently. And the Xs and Os for the coach vs effort/intensity for each other applies to a lot of this half of your post as well, I think. I'm not as interested in the finer details as some (or the necessity of knowing them), and I'm not as quick to dismiss the entire thing because "not enough" exact details are "known". I'm content in having a pretty good understanding that a group of guys that learned to play together so recently (and feel good about themselves and the results) can't possibly be as much to "blame" for such an unexpected failure (2011/12) as the coach(es) and general manager whose "faults" have been expanded on by those around them - regardless of which specific detail or incident happens to be the precise topic of conversation at the time.

For the record, though, I'm not necessarily happy with the timing of Martin's dismissal; mostly because there really didn't seem to be a legitimate plan for finding and placing the best possible man to fill the vacated position.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 04:11 PM
  #473
Lemons
Registered User
 
Lemons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 893
vCash: 500
Wasn't a big fan of Gill. Hes a classy mother ****er.

Lemons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 04:20 PM
  #474
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The problem with evaluating the effectiveness of a coach lies in determining how much impact he had on the success of the team. Yes, Martin's teams in Ottawa had some great success (in the regular season) but how much of that was Martin and how much was due to the fact that Ottawa was stacked with talent. One thing we do know is that after he left Ottawa, Martin's teams lost more games than they won. Another
thing we know is that Martin's teams generally fared poorly in the playoffs, the year that Halak put up a wall was one of the few exceptions.

What is confounding is the lengths to which some posters will go to defend Martin. The question I ask is, why? Martin is no longer part of the coaching staff and it is unlikely he is part of the team's inner circle. Do we have to constantly be reminded of his tenure with the team.


Think about this. If Martin was seen as the answer then current management would include him as a candidate for the vacant head coaching job. If he isn't one of their candidates, then they must clearly agree that his coaching falls short of what they are looking for.
The Ottawa teams didn't fare poorly in the playoffs. They ran into a team 3 years in a row that they simply could not match up with. Its no coincidence that once they avoided Toronto they very nearly went to the cup finals. Of course Martin did this with an AHL goaltender, but I guess his system just wasn't good enough. To actually look at his Ottawa resume in detail

1997: simply making the playoffs was an accomplishment. It would be akin the Oilers having made it this year
1998) upset one of the cup favorites in New Jersey in the first round
1999) this truly was a poor showing. Getting swept as a number 3 seed, but Hasek was god-like back then
2000) lost a close 6 game series to the Leafs, a team better in the standings and a terrible matchup for the Sens on the ice
2001) also a poor showing, but this was the Leafs rivalry, one that Martin did not have the tools to win
2002) number 7 seed, took down the very heavily favored Flyers, and took the Leafs to 7 games despite being an inferior team
2003) finally avoid the Leafs, lose by one goal to the eventual champs in game 7 of the conference finals
2004) meet up with the leafs again, lose a tightly contested series in 7 games as a lower seed

Only two of those showing could have been described as horrible. The 1999 showing against Buffalo, and the second showing against the Leafs where they were overmatched, but still should not have been swept.


Last edited by Fish on The Sand: 06-02-2012 at 04:37 PM.
Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 04:54 PM
  #475
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,316
vCash: 500
all this debating back and forth about a coach who, for his career, has been mediocre...

.474 regular season win %
.446 playoff win %

you can spin things any number of ways, bottom line is that teams he coached won less than 1/2 of their games, and of the 7 years that he had a team with 90+ pts in the regular season, he made it out of the first round just 2x, and out of the 2nd round just 1x (and of those years, 4 of them were 100+ pt seasons with only 1 of those years making it past the 1st round).


Lenny Wilkens, the NBA's all time win leader (i believe), strikes me as a similar situation... a coach who was ultimately pretty mediocre results-wise, but leveraged one really strong quality into a very long career (granted in Wilkens case, he was strong in the communication/relating to players department but weak in the tactical department).

Miller Time 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 12:17 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.