Rob Daum, Perry Pearn, Cory Clouston, Charlie Huddy all with ties to Edmonton. If Renny and his assistants are gone, would you bring some or all of these guys to the Oilers?
Rob Daum, Perry Pearn, Cory Clouston, Charlie Huddy all with ties to Edmonton. If Renny and his assistants are gone, would you bring some or all of these guys to the Oilers?
Huddy is with the Jets I believe, but I'd love to have him back.
It's curious how it seemed to be a condition that Renney keep Bucky on the staff. I can't imagine Bucky gets another stay of execution if they replace Renney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer
Can we make Renney an assistant? Honestly, I think he'd be a solid assistant.
Going from HC to assistant only happens in calgary.
New coach should be making the choices. I don't want to hear in 12 months from now that the Head Coach failed because he couldn't work to maximum potential because he had different theories than his assistants.
I'd keep Krueger. Rough start to filling in as HC the times Renney was out, but eventually he started winning and looked like he had a better idea of how to run the roster. Then Renney came back and started doing what Krueger was.
I also have an easier time "believing" Krueger in interviews than Renney. Just seems like he's got a bit more of a respect factor.
Didn't someone mention in the next HC thread that Kruger might have a deal in place to go back and be the HC of one of the best teams in the Swiss league? I remember reading that somewhere, might just be rumor though.
On a side note Rob Daum just won the Austrian league championship in his first year, kinda of cool.
If our coach is to be replaced, the new one usually likes to pick his own assistants and associate coaches. He may or may not retain some present assistants, but usually a new guy wants to feel conformable with his own guys. Perhaps that's the reason some good assistants had been let go in the past.
We as fans always remember the Edmonton coaches on whatever team they are successful with locally be it the Bears, Oil Kings or farm team. Is it necessarily a good idea to go with these local area coaches?
Krueger is the guy that is on record before a game against Vancouver saying "If we keep the shot count low in the game it will be ideal."
Isn't this just the type of mentality Renney apparently has that people hate?
Uhh, what? Keeping the shots against low against a super high-powered offense (the Canucks) is a problem people have?
If that's the case, we need new fans, not coaches.
The issue people have with Renney, as I see it, is that he plays older players like Smyth and Horcoff to the point of fatigue. He doesn't line match nearly well enough as he should when he has guys like Eager or Hordichuk out there with less than 10 minutes to go in the 3rd in a close game. He continues to play guys together who simply do not work, like Eager-Lander-Petrell, who bled goals against most of the season, or MPS and Belanger who did virtually nothing together despite both of them having the individual capability to produce points. He inexplicably plays Khabibulin WAY more than he should. He pairs guys like Peckham, Barker, and/or Potter together (and somehow allows those guys to face one of the other team's top 2 lines with regularity while at home...totally inexcusable).
Complaints are not about keeping the shots against low. Maybe about not getting enough shots FOR, but that's as much talent as anything else. Or, rather, I think it has more to do with a mix of talent AND experience than anything else. For example, I think that one of the biggest faults of the Oilers' inability to regularly outshoot the other team is based on their style of offense, which is often more predicated on rush-based offense, than possession-based one. I would be surprised if Renney or the other coaches were instructing them not to set up on offense and work the cycle and grind it out with the other team. I think it more has to do with the team's inexperience whereby they may try to make something out of a rush when the logical, experienced player would instead set up in the offensive zone, rather than trying to force a low-percentage play off the rush that young players might be more inclined to do.
So the coaches can instruct them to pick their spots all they want, but young, lesser experienced players are going to be less inclined to always make the right decision to pinch, peel back, shoot, or set up, and I think that's why they aren't out-shooting other teams yet. They simply aren't experienced enough to know what to do in every situation, and it results in a lot of "one-and-out" kinds of shots/chances. The Oilers come in on the rush, take a shot, and then the other team scoops it up, carries it out, and then sets up in the Oilers end to get 2-3 shots, and then it goes back the other way, etc.
The other obvious problems in generating shots is a horrid lack of d-men who can get the puck out of their own end regularly, let alone hit forwards with passes in the neutral zone.
Uhh, what? Keeping the shots against low against a super high-powered offense (the Canucks) is a problem people have?
If that's the case, we need new fans, not coaches.
There were people in that GDT that were upset and figured that this wasn't playing to the Oilers' strengths and it's forcing our players to play a defense first game. Playing not to lose instead of playing to win. FTR I agreed with Krueger's assessment.
Quote:
Complaints are not about keeping the shots against low. Maybe about not getting enough shots FOR, but that's as much talent as anything else. Or, rather, I think it has more to do with a mix of talent AND experience than anything else. For example, I think that one of the biggest faults of the Oilers' inability to regularly outshoot the other team is based on their style of offense, which is often more predicated on rush-based offense, than possession-based one. I would be surprised if Renney or the other coaches were instructing them not to set up on offense and work the cycle and grind it out with the other team. I think it more has to do with the team's inexperience whereby they may try to make something out of a rush when the logical, experienced player would instead set up in the offensive zone, rather than trying to force a low-percentage play off the rush that young players might be more inclined to do.
There are plenty of complaints about Renney being far too defense first. It might not be a position that you feel, but to say otherwise is akin to fans that say Horcoff is mercilessly picked on or Horcoff gets a free pass. It's an extreme that isn't true.
Quote:
So the coaches can instruct them to pick their spots all they want, but young, lesser experienced players are going to be less inclined to always make the right decision to pinch, peel back, shoot, or set up, and I think that's why they aren't out-shooting other teams yet. They simply aren't experienced enough to know what to do in every situation, and it results in a lot of "one-and-out" kinds of shots/chances. The Oilers come in on the rush, take a shot, and then the other team scoops it up, carries it out, and then sets up in the Oilers end to get 2-3 shots, and then it goes back the other way, etc.
The other obvious problems in generating shots is a horrid lack of d-men who can get the puck out of their own end regularly, let alone hit forwards with passes in the neutral zone.
That's fine and I agree. I also feel that Renney's goal this season was to focus more on managing the matchups of his younger players. He even stated this directly in one of his interviews. I'm not convinced that this team would be significantly better had we given a lot more minutes to the kids, but I do feel that the kids have definitely become better players this year.
I'm also the type of person that feels that players get the majority of the credit for the good stuff, while the coaches get the majority of the credit for the bad stuff. A ton of fans say that Renney plays not to lose, which runs contrary to Renney publicly praising his team for maintaining a killer instinct in a game and putting a team away when they had the lead. I think it's another year of "our team isn't very good" so fans are starting to fabricate reasons and the coach is often an easy target.
Huddy would make our D corps way better the guy made Gibs and Grebs look like allstars FFS. To me it's not a coincidence that our D was stronger when Huddy was the guy running it. Grebeshkov looked amazing for the last part of the 07/08 season.We shouldn't have let him go with MacT. I would love to see us pick him up again IMO he could really take some of our guys to next level.
The question I have is why would players suddenly become much worse with a new coach.
I can't fathom it being a development thing, which means people must feel that it's purely based on the system play implemented?
Who was a better Defensemen Charlie Huddy or Steve Smith?
Huddy is on a completely different level and has more to offer a young developing player on a personal level. The player will IMO tend to respect a player of Huddy's ilk more so than Steve "OWN GOAL"Smith. But his reputation as you say doesn't help develop players. His system is what works. It is not overly complicated and fairly easy to follow thats why I believe the oilers were able to stay in the race for so long with a terrible team.
Who was a better Defensemen Charlie Huddy or Steve Smith?
This argument is meaningless. Gretzky should have been a phenomenal coach then.
Quote:
Huddy is on a completely different level and has more to offer a young developing player on a personal level.
Based on what?
Quote:
The player will IMO tend to respect a player of Huddy's ilk more so than Steve "OWN GOAL"Smith.
I think that's reaching. It's not like Steve Smith was some #6 hack that wasn't a key contributor to some good teams. Any player showing Steve Smith less respect because of a mistake (shared with Fuhr) from 1986 is a player that is being stupid and petty.
Quote:
But his reputation as you say doesn't help develop players. His system is what works. It is not overly complicated and fairly easy to follow thats why I believe the oilers were able to stay in the race for so long with a terrible team.
What is Huddy's system and how does it differ from Smith's?
