HFBoards

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2012, 04:28 PM
  #476
MooseheadCanadiens
Registered User
 
MooseheadCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Halifax NS
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
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).
Also the all time leader for losses, but I get your point and agree with it.

MooseheadCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 05:03 PM
  #477
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 Miller Time View Post
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).
winning % only matters in sports where there are only two results.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 05:20 PM
  #478
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
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).
I see what you're saying, I just disagree that it is a good evaluation method.

Jacques Lemaire has a career record of .488 in the regular season. That's a .014 difference. Certainly not one big enough to separate a mediocre coach from a good/great one.
Lemaire's record does improve in the POs at a .521 percentage, but then look at his record in the POs when he didn't have one of the best goalies to ever play the game (only 3 appearances in 8years, .379).

Lindy Ruff never won a cup. He went to the finals once in 14 years. He's got a similar record as Lemaire in the regular season.

What about Barry Trotz? His career record is .471, and in the POs, .380, I'm sure you'll be quick to point out he had to deal with an expansion team. But if that's the case, then you recognize that the roster will influence the record of a coach.
So if it's true for Trotz, then one can argue about the weak goalies Martin had in Ottawa, and the average teams he had outside his good years.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 06:19 PM
  #479
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I see what you're saying, I just disagree that it is a good evaluation method.

Jacques Lemaire has a career record of .488 in the regular season. That's a .014 difference. Certainly not one big enough to separate a mediocre coach from a good/great one.
Lemaire's record does improve in the POs at a .521 percentage, but then look at his record in the POs when he didn't have one of the best goalies to ever play the game (only 3 appearances in 8years, .379).

Lindy Ruff never won a cup. He went to the finals once in 14 years. He's got a similar record as Lemaire in the regular season.

What about Barry Trotz? His career record is .471, and in the POs, .380, I'm sure you'll be quick to point out he had to deal with an expansion team. But if that's the case, then you recognize that the roster will influence the record of a coach.
So if it's true for Trotz, then one can argue about the weak goalies Martin had in Ottawa, and the average teams he had outside his good years.
Lemaire's record includes his stint with the Canadiens at a time when he had to install an all-ice defensive system because the team was weak. In fact, I believe he invented (or reinvented) the trap.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 06:41 PM
  #480
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,555
vCash: 500
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 11:29 PM
  #481
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!
Is "Mathman" Jacques Martin's username at HFBoards?

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 11:44 PM
  #482
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,800
vCash: 500
We're looking at the future, so why rehash the Gainey-Gauthier-Martin-Cunneyworth years? Hanging all of them from a lamp post wouldn't provide the Habs with even one additional point in next season's standings. After all, we're fans, not historians. I doubt whether McGill would award a doctorate for a dissertation on the subject. Let's move on.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 11:50 PM
  #483
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!
Probably the most frustrating poster to deal with.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 12:02 AM
  #484
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!
Honestly, you seem quite obsessed with MathMan.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 12:06 AM
  #485
Stradale
Registered User
 
Stradale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!
Add Gomez to that list. Apparently, Gomez is not that as bad as he looked, he plays the same way but he was just extremely unlucky.

Stradale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 03:17 AM
  #486
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Lemaire's record includes his stint with the Canadiens at a time when he had to install an all-ice defensive system because the team was weak. In fact, I believe he invented (or reinvented) the trap.
You mean the one full season he coached here? The one that included Carbo, Gainey, Lafleur, McPhee, Hunter, Naslund, Ludwig, Lemieux, Richer, Nilan, Svoboda, Smith, Shutt, Roy, Tremblay??? Ya, really weak crap roster...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....

Guess what.... NEITHER one of them are coaching the Canadiens. It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.

Square that circle!
MathMan isn't praising anybody. If you didn't have such bias you'd easily notice that.
The guy is one of the very few unbiased posters on this board. If he actually likes someone, he'll admit it.

What he brings up is pretty evident. Like or dislike Martin, he brought structure to this team (outside his first year). The team actually played like a team, apparently that was just the players playing for themselves, except they were following the system JM proned. The problem is that if we believe Spacek and Gill, they can't even recognize that they were playing the way JM wanted them to, which is pretty troubling to be honest.

As for RC, the guy was worse than a pee-wee coach. Absolutely the worst coaching job I've ever seen in the pros. Now, that might be due to Gauthier's tight ship, but we won't know until he's re-hired in the NHL as HC.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 08:08 AM
  #487
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
MathMan isn't praising anybody. If you didn't have such bias you'd easily notice that.
The guy is one of the very few unbiased posters on this board. If he actually likes someone, he'll admit it.
I don't get why people get all riled up with MathMan's posts. All he ever does is try to rationalize the debate by bringing in advanced stats to show why a player or a coach is not as bad as the emotional posters of this board would like to think. Oftentimes, he makes good points. Sadly, most people just can't refute anything he says and back it up with strong evidences, so it almost always ends up with "WELL YOU'RE JUST BIASED SO THERE!"

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 08:14 AM
  #488
The Gal Pals
Breaking Hab
 
The Gal Pals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 1744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
I don't get why people get all riled up with MathMan's posts. All he ever does is try to rationalize the debate by bringing in advanced stats to show why a player or a coach is not as bad as the emotional posters of this board would like to think. Oftentimes, he makes good points. Sadly, most people just can't refute anything he says and back it up with strong evidences, so it almost always ends up with "WELL YOU'RE JUST BIASED SO THERE!"
He doesn't always bring stats into the equation. Much of the time it's his own opinions just like everyone else here. I guess it irks some people that most of the Habs players are saying X and he continues to assert that they're either wrong or saying Y. Mathman is as fallible as everyone else. Stats or not.

The Gal Pals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 08:56 AM
  #489
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
Sadly, most people just can't refute anything he says and back it up with strong evidences,
Spacek and Gill

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 09:51 AM
  #490
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
winning % only matters in sports where there are only two results.
Playoffs - Win or Lose... his playoff win% is mediocre.

and while yes, in the regular season the presence of ties alters things, winning is still the primary objective, and certainly matters.

win % is one indicator, but certainly not the be-all/end-all, i didn't intend to imply that and should have probably specified it more clearly.

though the point remains, it seems odd that some posters are going to such lengths to celebrate a coach that ultimately was pretty average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooseheadCanadiens View Post
Also the all time leader for losses, but I get your point and agree with it.
yup... and in Martin's case, he's 10th in wins, and 10th in losses.

when you look around in sports, you see a lot of this. excellence is what it is precisely b/c so few people achieve it. It's hard to find, and even harder to maintain.

just as there are "generational" players, same applies to the world of coaching. unlike players though, it is much more difficult to "measure" that excellence.

since winning is the ultimate objective of any team, it certainly should be one of the measuring sticks, but there obviously more to it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Lemaire's record includes his stint with the Canadiens at a time when he had to install an all-ice defensive system because the team was weak. In fact, I believe he invented (or reinvented) the trap.
and that's the thing with Martin... we certainly can't ignore that he had a few years coaching a recent expansion team with lots of young players and a limited budget...

but on the other hand, for about half of his time in Ottawa he was running a team that was among the league best in terms of talent (and i don't know exactly where the Sens ranked in the early 2000's salary-wise, but I strongly suspect they were in the upper tier of teams in terms of spending prior to the cap. Afterwards, they were a cap spending team until he was fired.

In florida he had another "re-building" squad, but he was brought in at a time where the team was starting to spend a bit more.

in montreal, he inhereted a cap spending team, and iirc, some of his staunchest supporters were also of the opinion that Gainey did a great job in the summer of 2009 assembling talent and "improving" the roster.

in all, looking even at just the years where he had a talented roster, I think the results still leave something to be desired, especially when it mattered the most (playoff time).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
I don't get why people get all riled up with MathMan's posts. All he ever does is try to rationalize the debate by bringing in advanced stats to show why a player or a coach is not as bad as the emotional posters of this board would like to think. Oftentimes, he makes good points. Sadly, most people just can't refute anything he says and back it up with strong evidences, so it almost always ends up with "WELL YOU'RE JUST BIASED SO THERE!"
problem is that he takes to the statistical extreme just as some take to the "emotional" extreme.

advanced stats are great at describing "what" happens, but don't directly explain "why"... people mistakenly apply their own subjective interpretation to the "why", but instead of acknowledging the interpretation factor, try to hide behind the "objectivity" of the stats.

also, there are no statistical models that account for all of the intangible factors that most definitely impact performance and results. Dismissing what can't (at least not yet) be measured as unimportant reveals a naivety about sports that is just as problematic as the pure emotional "i don't like player X therefore he sucks".

advanced stats are very useful and have their place, but applying them to sports in answering the "why" question ultimately involves subjectivity.... which makes it all the more dangerous b/c those who rely on them heavily tend to do so with an inflated sense of confidence which biases them even further.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 02:04 PM
  #491
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Mathman sounds completely obsessed with Martin AND Cunneyworth... continually praising one and slamming the other, never giving an inch or admitting that Martin might have had a few shortcomings....
Oh, Martin wasn't perfect. There were a number of his decisions I did not agree with, but then I could usually see that they had a rational basis.

And clearly you weren't around to see me ranting and raving against him in 2009-2010.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
It's a whole new regime in the front office and I would guess the new regime agrees with those who think that Martin didn't do the job.
We don't have any idea what the new regime thinks, except that it appears to be exceedingly conservative and likely to make the "safe" pick for the coaching job. Mind you, that's on very limited information so they could very easily surprise me (pleasantly so, I might add).

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 02:09 PM
  #492
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000 View Post
He doesn't always bring stats into the equation. Much of the time it's his own opinions just like everyone else here.
Most of my opinions are based on statistical and/or systematic analysis, but I don't bring this every post because 1-it would get tiresome for everyone, 2-some posters would reject it out of hand anyway and 3-it might spark a debate over the validity of the entire approach, which has been done ad nauseam elsewhere and has never got us much of anywhere.

I've consciously cut down on the amount of stats I post on this forum for exactly these reasons. Some of my opinions are certainly more personal-taste, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000 View Post
I guess it irks some people that most of the Habs players are saying X and he continues to assert that they're either wrong or saying Y.
The problem is that the people who say the interviews are saying X don't realize that the players are really not saying that, or at least not to that extent. Just look at the title of this thread and compare to the relatively mellow wording in the actual interviews for an example.


Last edited by MathMan: 06-03-2012 at 02:23 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 04:48 PM
  #493
WhiskeySeven
Give her the Defence
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem is that the people who say the interviews are saying X don't realize that the players are really not saying that, or at least not to that extent. Just look at the title of this thread and compare to the relatively mellow wording in the actual interviews for an example.
I'm pretty sure the thread title is satirical. Or at least I hope it is.

I like your posts and your rational approach, I agree with it. I just can't, in good conscience, think that Martin was the right coach for this small, speedy squad.

Gomez and Cammalleri all but dried up in his system.
Pleks was heavily overused.
A lot of the kids were underused or misused entirely.
He juggled lines as much, or more, than his predecessor.

And he never altered his approach, which seems reasonable as he was instilling a system which DID get better from season to season (as you assert, and can prove with 5on5 stats) but when the results don't come in and he doesn't change his system... what else is there to do?

Like those Keenan-type screaming coaches, Martin worked until he got tuned out and THAT is supported by Spacek and Gill's comments.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 07:14 PM
  #494
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Gomez and Cammalleri all but dried up in his system.
Pleks was heavily overused.
A lot of the kids were underused or misused entirely.
He juggled lines as much, or more, than his predecessor.
Thing is, ask any fan about their coach, and you'll get the same complaints: stifles offense, juggles lines to much, makes weird lines, underuses kids, relies too much on vets. It's almost a pattern. I think we'll see the same complaints about the next coach about this time next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
And he never altered his approach, which seems reasonable as he was instilling a system which DID get better from season to season (as you assert, and can prove with 5on5 stats) but when the results don't come in and he doesn't change his system... what else is there to do?
Here's the thing: if the system is good but the results aren't forthcoming, the last thing you want to do is to change a good system for a less good one in the hopes that change for the sake of change improves matters. When the process is good, you may -- nay, you WILL -- have periods where you don't get results regardless. That doesn't make your process bad, and you should simply stick with it. Adjust, certainly, but stick with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Like those Keenan-type screaming coaches, Martin worked until he got tuned out and THAT is supported by Spacek and Gill's comments.
I don't think the players tuned out anyone. If they did, they had an odd way of showing it on the ice.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 07:55 PM
  #495
WhiskeySeven
Give her the Defence
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Thing is, ask any fan about their coach, and you'll get the same complaints: stifles offense, juggles lines to much, makes weird lines, underuses kids, relies too much on vets. It's almost a pattern. I think we'll see the same complaints about the next coach about this time next year.
2010 - 30th in the league in 5on5 GF, 26th in overall g/game
2011 - 26th in the league in 5on5 GF, 23th in overall g/game

In 2012 the numbers come to 18th and 20th respectively but Cunneyworth coached more games than Martin.

So yes, for a playoff team being dead last in GF indicates that Martin did stifle offense.

And you'll never catch me complain about his micro-management or line changes because obviously he knows something I don't.

The fact is a lot of younger players WERE frozen out under him. Lapierre, Latendresse, Pouliot, Kostitsyn, Kostitsyn and O'Byrne were all players who could have improved or contributed in their own right but instead regressed or were let go unceremoniously.

Other facts: Spacek and Gill indicated that he didn't listen to his players and/or there was little game performance feedback.

Darche starting on the PP over Cole at the beginning of the year. That's indefensible, if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Here's the thing: if the system is good but the results aren't forthcoming, the last thing you want to do is to change a good system for a less good one in the hopes that change for the sake of change improves matters. When the process is good, you may -- nay, you WILL -- have periods where you don't get results regardless. That doesn't make your process bad, and you should simply stick with it. Adjust, certainly, but stick with it.
I'd argue it wasn't a good system but an adequate one. It squeezed out results but didn't apply anything more. We looked like we could beat any team in the league, but never looked dominant.

I really can't see the Habs under JM playing much better than they did at their best - which is to say 6th in the East.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I don't think the players tuned out anyone. If they did, they had an odd way of showing it on the ice.
Two former players said as much, I'm going by what they said.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 09:22 PM
  #496
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Darche starting on the PP over Cole at the beginning of the year. That's indefensible, if you ask me.
Indefensible perhaps, but at least there was a rationale behind it.
Agree or disagree, fact remains Cole was a very poor producer on the PP and Darche had some share of success there.
In any event, very little changed. Our PP remained poor all season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
I'd argue it wasn't a good system but an adequate one. It squeezed out results but didn't apply anything more. We looked like we could beat any team in the league, but never looked dominant.

I really can't see the Habs under JM playing much better than they did at their best - which is to say 6th in the East.
Maybe the reason we never looked dominant was because a) we suffered plenty of injuries to very key players, and b) we simply weren't talented enough to be dominant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Two former players said as much, I'm going by what they said.
Where did they say that they tuned out?
And again, even if they did say so, they certainly didn't show it on the ice as they kept playing the way Martin wanted them to.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 09:31 PM
  #497
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
We're looking at the future, so why rehash the Gainey-Gauthier-Martin-Cunneyworth years? Hanging all of them from a lamp post wouldn't provide the Habs with even one additional point in next season's standings. After all, we're fans, not historians. I doubt whether McGill would award a doctorate for a dissertation on the subject. Let's move on.
This.

(You forgot about Carbo)

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 09:59 PM
  #498
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,605
vCash: 500
After Gill's confirmation, I definitely believe Martin was garbage the whole time and stuck to his single defensive system no matter what.

Can we move on now?

CN_paladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2012, 11:11 PM
  #499
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Spacek and Gill
Zing!

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 08:34 AM
  #500
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
You mean the one full season he coached here? The one that included Carbo, Gainey, Lafleur, McPhee, Hunter, Naslund, Ludwig, Lemieux, Richer, Nilan, Svoboda, Smith, Shutt, Roy, Tremblay??? Ya, really weak crap roster...



MathMan isn't praising anybody. If you didn't have such bias you'd easily notice that.
The guy is one of the very few unbiased posters on this board. If he actually likes someone, he'll admit it.

What he brings up is pretty evident. Like or dislike Martin, he brought structure to this team (outside his first year). The team actually played like a team, apparently that was just the players playing for themselves, except they were following the system JM proned. The problem is that if we believe Spacek and Gill, they can't even recognize that they were playing the way JM wanted them to, which is pretty troubling to be honest.

As for RC, the guy was worse than a pee-wee coach. Absolutely the worst coaching job I've ever seen in the pros. Now, that might be due to Gauthier's tight ship, but we won't know until he's re-hired in the NHL as HC.
Dale Hunter says hello.

habsfanatics 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 08:47 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.