HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hey JT...why don't you start a thread about Cammalleri?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-01-2006, 12:46 PM
  #76
swinginutter*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Hey, what happened to swinginutter's post? I was just getting ready to reply?

All I remember is that he asked if I'd talked to anyone (coaches?) about stuff. I haven't personally, but...yes, alot of my opinion about Cammy comes from people who have first or second hand knowledge about him.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm now expecting a warning any time soon, and for me to be back in the red zone (not old spice).

swinginutter* is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 12:50 PM
  #77
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginutter
I was thinking the same thing. I'm now expecting a warning any time soon, and for me to be back in the red zone (not old spice).
I deleted the post before I had a chance to warn you for it (the software requires the warning before the post is deleted). So consider that one your freebie.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 12:53 PM
  #78
swinginutter*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
I deleted the post before I had a chance to warn you for it (the software requires the warning before the post is deleted). So consider that one your freebie.
Well, I know it was getting hot, but I don't think he would have minded. I'm just trying to see where he gets his sources from, and to see if he actually plays any sports?

swinginutter* is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 12:59 PM
  #79
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
Ultimately it's the players that play the game and as such I see them as being responsible for where they are at this point. Sure, Murray plays a part in it for both the good and sometimes the not so good results. But again, for me, it's really on the players

I'm pretty sure my original comment was regarding Cammalleri's little run he had going, BUT now that you've asked, please see my response above.
Does that apply to when things go bad too? That the coach really shouldn't be fired because you "see the players as being responsible for where they are"?

jt is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 01:04 PM
  #80
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginutter
Well, I know it was getting hot, but I don't think he would have minded. I'm just trying to see where he gets his sources from, and to see if he actually plays any sports?
Oh, and yeah I've played sports since I was 4 yrs old, including hockey for about 10 yrs...and I'm 40 now.

jt is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 01:49 PM
  #81
jfont
Registered User
 
jfont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 15,427
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Hey, it takes one to know one, eh? lol

Maybe you can explain a little more about what you meant when you said "I'm not giving Murray much credit for Cammalleri's recent run". If AM doesn't deserve much credit for THAT, what the heck DOES he deserve credit for? Or are the players (or DT?) the ones who are responsible for them being 11 games over .500?

I just get the feeling that some folks want to blame AM (and DT) for all the failures and give them minimal (or no) credit for their successes. That's why I said they must be irrelevant figureheads...because if the coach of a team with the mediocre talent the Kings have is 11 games over .500 deserves minimal credit, he's just a figurehead.
You know this is what I don't understand with the murray detractors here. we always whine that the kings need this (1st line center not named roenick), kings are lacking that (top 4 defenseman)...yet he has his team up near the top in the west.

and if the players are doing well (cammy), its in spite of murray's coaching...maybe its true in certain ways...but i think murray molds his players to play the team game. and i don't care what mental games he plays there, i just care that the team is successful.

you really can't quivel with the bottom line...the bottom line is, the kings are playing well and he doesn't deserve to be fired like what people here are saying.

sorry for shifting the debate for cammy...

*rant off*

__________________
Due to budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off
jfont is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 03:33 PM
  #82
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfont
you really can't quivel with the bottom line...the bottom line is, the kings are playing well and he doesn't deserve to be fired like what people here are saying.
Let's see where the team is after the season is over. I doubt any of us who are tired of Murray would be calling for his head right now if we seriously believed the Kings would retain 2nd overall in the conference and make it to the Conference Finals.

Osprey is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 04:07 PM
  #83
jfont
Registered User
 
jfont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 15,427
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Let's see where the team is after the season is over.
yet we were all so quick to judge after mid-december...

jfont is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 05:04 PM
  #84
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfont
yet we were all so quick to judge after mid-december...
Five seasons, no home-ice advantage and only one playoff win isn't being "quick to judge," IMO. I do agree with you that he doesn't deserve to be fired for his performance this season, though. What my point was is that he's been lavished with praise at mid-season before and the result has usually fallen short.


Last edited by Osprey: 01-01-2006 at 05:17 PM.
Osprey is offline  
Old
01-01-2006, 05:32 PM
  #85
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Does that apply to when things go bad too? That the coach really shouldn't be fired because you "see the players as being responsible for where they are"?
Pretty much. I'm really not very "critical" of coaches in hockey. Sure, some are better than others, but this is hockey we're talking about. As much as people might want to think about hockey it in terms of a chess match, it's not football, it's much more dynamic. And yes, I'm aware that there are "systems" in hockey and set pieces and such...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 12:14 AM
  #86
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Five seasons, no home-ice advantage and only one playoff win isn't being "quick to judge," IMO. I do agree with you that he doesn't deserve to be fired for his performance this season, though. What my point was is that he's been lavished with praise at mid-season before and the result has usually fallen short.
Yeah, because we all know that the Kings should have won the Cup with Stumpel as their #1 center and it was Andy Murray's fault that they didn't..........

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 12:18 AM
  #87
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
Pretty much. I'm really not very "critical" of coaches in hockey. Sure, some are better than others, but this is hockey we're talking about. As much as people might want to think about hockey it in terms of a chess match, it's not football, it's much more dynamic. And yes, I'm aware that there are "systems" in hockey and set pieces and such...
So what do you think of a situation where, for example, Ftorek was fired and replaced by Robinson? Do you think Ftorek could have won a Cup that season? How about general track records of some coaches who seem to develop more talent or turn around more waste cases, like Lemaire?

And let's be clear, I agree that coaches only have so much influence. But IMO, the BEST coaches prepare their teams the best...and find ways to motivate their players the best. IMO, AM does both of those extremely well. And I think that's just about all you can ask of a coach.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 06:06 AM
  #88
johnjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
The "role and style of play" that Mike is enjoying success with is no different than the role and style that he's always had. He "struggled initially" because Andy tried to change him by demanding that he check and grind. Remember how Mike was throwing the body and living in the corners in October and how AM was so happy with him (despite zero even-strength production)? Notice that Cammalleri has done very little of that recently and, yet, he has 7 goals in the last 7 games. He's playing his game--the game he's always played and is comfortable with--and is being successful at it; what a surprise.
I have to admit that this is the second reply I'm writing to your post. The first was one of those ugly "what game are you watching" type things that just pisses people off.

I managed to not post it and re-read what you said again. I -think- I understand where you're coming from. I -think- what you're saying is that Cammalleri can't play Dustin Brown's hitting game successfully, right?

If that's where you're at, I'm with you. What I would disagree with you is that Cammalleri has clearly made an adjustment, in my mind. He -is- going into corners and battling along the boards. And the hard work he's putting in is paying off with offensive chances which he is just flat out finishing.

It's obvious to me that he's undersized and doesn't quite have the elite speed, footwork, or balance to be a real star in the league, but with deceptiveness and tenacity, he's getting open and finishing his chances.

Hell, Luc's built a hall-of-fame career with bigger holes in his game.

johnjohn is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 09:10 AM
  #89
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
So what do you think of a situation where, for example, Ftorek was fired and replaced by Robinson? Do you think Ftorek could have won a Cup that season? How about general track records of some coaches who seem to develop more talent or turn around more waste cases, like Lemaire?
I have no way of knowing IF the Devils would have won the cup with Ftorek behind the bench. The recent developments in NJ lead me to wonder if Robinson is a "good" coach...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
And let's be clear, I agree that coaches only have so much influence. But IMO, the BEST coaches prepare their teams the best...and find ways to motivate their players the best. IMO, AM does both of those extremely well. And I think that's just about all you can ask of a coach.
The organization does a good job at gathering "intelligence" on their opponents through the use of game films and requiring their scouts to fill out reports for every game they attend. All players (Kings and opponents) are ranked 1-5 and a one line review of every player is required. Murray appears to be able to use the intelligence to prepare his team for games.

As far as motivation goes, it's my understanding that Murray tries to get the players to see themselves as an entity or a company, Mike Cammalleri, Inc. for example. His approach is to get the players to make their company more valuable. Also, from what I've been told, during the season Murray makes it a point to have contact with every player, every day even if it's just a phone call to say hello...

The following comments are not necessarily directed at only jt:

1. Cammalleri isn't playing all that different from what we saw from him last season in Manchester. He spent plenty of time down low, in the corners and battling for pucks along the half-wall...

2. Giuliano, Kanko, Ryan and Parros all spent considerable time playing for Boudreau in Manchester prior to their NHL debuts this season. At this point, they seem to have been prepared/developed adequately...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 12:16 PM
  #90
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
I have no way of knowing IF the Devils would have won the cup with Ftorek behind the bench. The recent developments in NJ lead me to wonder if Robinson is a "good" coach...
That's all good and well, but what I'm really getting at is that it seems like you think that (for the most part) coaches don't make much difference. I thought LL's decision was a HUGE difference. Not because LR was a "better" coach than RF...but that he was a better coach for the team LL built. And that there was a "right" coach and a "wrong" coach for that team...at that time.

Also, it seems clear that some coaches are HUGELY better at some things than others...like developing kids...or coaching veterans...or getting players to overachieve...or in Quenneville's case, to underachieve.

Quote:
The organization does a good job at gathering "intelligence" on their opponents through the use of game films and requiring their scouts to fill out reports for every game they attend. All players (Kings and opponents) are ranked 1-5 and a one line review of every player is required. Murray appears to be able to use the intelligence to prepare his team for games.
And I would go so far as to say that AM does this better than most.

Quote:
As far as motivation goes, it's my understanding that Murray tries to get the players to see themselves as an entity or a company, Mike Cammalleri, Inc. for example. His approach is to get the players to make their company more valuable. Also, from what I've been told, during the season Murray makes it a point to have contact with every player, every day even if it's just a phone call to say hello...
And this is what I think REALLY separates him (and DT) from so many others...not necessarily "better" (although I think it probably is). They have a SYSTEM (motivational as well as hockey) and they work hard to acquire and develop players that fit and respond well to that SYSTEM. They won't bother much with players who don't fit it. So using Cammy as an example, he simply wasn't fitting that system and if he kept playing the way he was he never would have. IMO, the AM/DT system is a good one and (in general) they should NOT conform their system to the players. Adjust a little? Sure. But the players...ALL the players...should conform to the system and if they can't/won't, they should go. They may go on to be wildly successful other places and some may even win Cups. But I'm ok with that because I believe the current AM/DT system will too. It's like when LL traded Morrison...he's been VERY successful but I don't think LL would want him back because he simply doesn't fit their system. Cammy may well fall into that category...we'll see.

Quote:
The following comments are not necessarily directed at only jt:

1. Cammalleri isn't playing all that different from what we saw from him last season in Manchester. He spent plenty of time down low, in the corners and battling for pucks along the half-wall...

2. Giuliano, Kanko, Ryan and Parros all spent considerable time playing for Boudreau in Manchester prior to their NHL debuts this season. At this point, they seem to have been prepared/developed adequately...
1. That's great and that's exactly what I thought he did. But he wasn't doing it for AM the last NHL season and he didn't do it the first two games before he got benched. It was more of the same and part of the problem from what I was told is that he had a sense of entitlement to a roster spot and ice time. It's more complicated than that, but for me that's what it boils down to.

2. I totally agree and that's one of the VERY underappreciated aspects of what DT has brought to the Kings. Many organizations (including the Kings pre-Manchester) had weak minor league franchises and even some of the better ones player their own systems. The Monarchs play essentially the same system as the Kings so when the players come up they already know it and they basically know what to do. The benefit of that is something we Kings fans are finally seeing after decades of having minor leaguers have to come in and learn a whole new system.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 12:30 PM
  #91
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
jt, let me make it easy here. Cammalleri wasn't going to be sent to Manchester this year no matter what. AM had NO choice but to keep him in the NHL on the Kings roster. He played his games with Cammalleri for as long as he could. Once injuries forced him to use Cammalleri in the role and situation that Cammalleri is best suited for, Cammalleri responded. If you want to look at benching Cammalleri and using him in lesser roles on the 4th line as some great motivational tool by Murray then by all means, have at it...

IMO, circumstances beyond Murray's control left him little to no choice BUT to use Cammalleri in a scoring role. When he was finally put into a scoring role, Cammalleri did what he's always done at every level he's ever played at, he scored...Murray gets little credit for that in my book. No need to expand it into the NJ Devils and Ftorek vs. Robinson and all the other things you've brought into it...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 12:54 PM
  #92
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjohn
I have to admit that this is the second reply I'm writing to your post. The first was one of those ugly "what game are you watching" type things that just pisses people off.
I appreciate the tone of this post. I agree that the sarcastic type of post just ticks people off. That's why jt tends to get on my nerves [waves at jt]
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjohn
If that's where you're at, I'm with you. What I would disagree with you is that Cammalleri has clearly made an adjustment, in my mind. He -is- going into corners and battling along the boards. And the hard work he's putting in is paying off with offensive chances which he is just flat out finishing.
I do agree that he's just doing everything better; I just won't go all the way and lavish all of the credit on Murray. I can appreciate the instruction that Cammalleri receives from him, but I think that most of the change in Cammalleri from his previous stints with the Kings is that he's being shown confidence, being given lots of ice-time and opportunity, and, as KB pointed out, the coaches have no choice but to play him (because of injuries, the ineffectiveness of the PP and secondary scoring, and because he can't be sent down). As for the contention that he never did certain things before, I can only yield to KB, who knows textbooks more about Cammalleri's time in Manchester than I...
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
1. Cammalleri isn't playing all that different from what we saw from him last season in Manchester. He spent plenty of time down low, in the corners and battling for pucks along the half-wall...

Osprey is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 01:29 PM
  #93
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
jt, let me make it easy here. Cammalleri wasn't going to be sent to Manchester this year no matter what. AM had NO choice but to keep him in the NHL on the Kings roster. He played his games with Cammalleri for as long as he could. Once injuries forced him to use Cammalleri in the role and situation that Cammalleri is best suited for, Cammalleri responded. If you want to look at benching Cammalleri and using him in lesser roles on the 4th line as some great motivational tool by Murray then by all means, have at it...

IMO, circumstances beyond Murray's control left him little to no choice BUT to use Cammalleri in a scoring role. When he was finally put into a scoring role, Cammalleri did what he's always done at every level he's ever played at, he scored...Murray gets little credit for that in my book. No need to expand it into the NJ Devils and Ftorek vs. Robinson and all the other things you've brought into it...
I totally disagree with your assessment of this. AM had plenty of choice and could have kept Cammy as a healthy scratch alot longer. Just look at a guy like Hilbert for what AM could have done. I watched every game and I have to say that IMO, you've got it dead wrong. Cammy got back in games not because AM was "forced" to do it, but because AM was satisfied that he had earned it. AM still had plenty of options at the time he put Cammy back in the lineup. Furthermore, when AM did put him back in the lineup it was in a lesser role so Cammy would have to prove to AM that he deserved a bigger role. When he earned that bigger role he got it...and it had NOTHING to do with AM being forced into it then anymore than he would be now. Don't you think that AM would put Cammy on the point RIGHT NOW instead of a pretty ineffective Norstrom out of "need"? AM plays the guys he feels have earned it and rarely does anything out of "need".

But if you honestly think that AM's motivation tactics are irrelevant and had no impact on Cammy, have at it. I see the complete opposite and that if Cammy had been allowed to keep playing the way he did the first couple games, AM would have been enabling Cammy and stunted his growth. Cammy is a better player today because of that benching (actually the cumulative effect of how AM has handled him). Cammy deserves a ton of credit for being the guy who learned and adjusted (i.e. grew up), but to imply that AM is mostly irrelevant for Cammy's growth is just wrong IMO.

You really do think that when coaches like AM bench players like Cammy, it means nothing? Wow.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 01:38 PM
  #94
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I totally disagree with your assessment of this. AM had plenty of choice and could have kept Cammy as a healthy scratch alot longer. Just look at a guy like Hilbert for what AM could have done. I watched every game and I have to say that IMO, you've got it dead wrong. Cammy got back in games not because AM was "forced" to do it, but because AM was satisfied that he had earned it. AM still had plenty of options at the time he put Cammy back in the lineup. Furthermore, when AM did put him back in the lineup it was in a lesser role so Cammy would have to prove to AM that he deserved a bigger role. When he earned that bigger role he got it...and it had NOTHING to do with AM being forced into it then anymore than he would be now. Don't you think that AM would put Cammy on the point RIGHT NOW instead of a pretty ineffective Norstrom out of "need"? AM plays the guys he feels have earned it and rarely does anything out of "need".

But if you honestly think that AM's motivation tactics are irrelevant and had no impact on Cammy, have at it. I see the complete opposite and that if Cammy had been allowed to keep playing the way he did the first couple games, AM would have been enabling Cammy and stunted his growth. Cammy is a better player today because of that benching (actually the cumulative effect of how AM has handled him). Cammy deserves a ton of credit for being the guy who learned and adjusted (i.e. grew up), but to imply that AM is mostly irrelevant for Cammy's growth is just wrong IMO.

You really do think that when coaches like AM bench players like Cammy, it means nothing? Wow.
I this where I'm supposed to relpy no jt you're wrong and bring up some other player not even in the Kings system?

You have your opinion, I have mine. Time for me to move on jt...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 02:16 PM
  #95
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
I guess...but I really don't see how you can think that AM had only one choice and that was to play Cammy.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 02:18 PM
  #96
roenick66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
This whole thread and the way it has turned is just funny to me. It proves the old adage that when a team is unsuccessful the coach gets too much credit, while when a team is successful the coach doesn't get enough credit.

AM's job is to win games, primarily, and I would think depending upon the organizational goals, developing players is his second job. I think he has done a fine job with Frolov and now Gleason (although the latter probably got better with his seasoning in Manchester last season). Other players that have developed under AM are Belanger and Vishnovsky (at least ones who are successful and still with the Kings).

I really think that an NHL coach needs to match his coaching philosophy as well as his game plan with the organizational goals. As far as the Kings are concerned I think this has proven to be highly successful (see the comments regarding injuries and the need to call up players from Manchester). If the callups weren't able to hit the ice running (so to speak) because of playing in a similar system, with Manchester, the Kings wouldn't have been as successful through the injuries.

All this being said, an NHL coach has ALOT to do with the development of a player and drawing out his skills as a successful NHL player. Tell me KB did Scotty Bowman have nothing to do with Guy Laflauer's development or that of Larry Robinson or Ken Dryden? Or how about the further development of Steve Yzerman into an NHL Stanley Cup winner? To not give some credit to coaches is just irresponsible and shortsighted IMHO.

But all this being said, AM has been at the helm for 8 seasons now. Is he the guy to lead the Kings to the Cup? I am not so sure. It is my gut feeling that if the Kings aren't successful this playoff (win 2 rounds?) then I would bet he is out as head coach. BTW I also thought if they didn't get off to a good start this season the same result would have happened to AM.

roenick66 is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 02:31 PM
  #97
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Excellent post.

I am also not sure if AM is the coach the Kings need to win the Cup. But I also don't think they're a serious Cup contender this year so if he doesn't win, I don't think he's "failed". I think that with the talent on this team, AM should make the playoffs and compete for the Division...he's doing that. By that measure, he's been a success IMO. Furthermore, the fact that the quality young players he's had are becoming quality NHLers shows that he DOES know what to do with kids. The only people I ever hear complaining about how bad a motivational/developmental coach AM is are the people here and LGK...all the rest of the hockey world seems to respect AM an awful lot.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 02:47 PM
  #98
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I guess...but I really don't see how you can think that AM had only one choice and that was to play Cammy.
Dec. 19th in Vancouver, Roenick plays 19:39 and Cammalleri plays 8:41 on the 4th line after scoring a goal in the previous game. Roenick breaks his finger, Belanger tweaks his groin, Conroy comes down with the flu and so on heading into the next game. In Calgary Cammalleri's ice time is almost doubled and he scores two goals. Other notable additions to the Kings lineup on the 21st include George Parros, Petr Kanko and the return of the mighty Luc...

What was AM going to do, tell DT to screw AEG and their budget? Get Tambellini back here? Maybe skate Parros on the second line?

Injuries to Belanger and Roenick on the 19th and Conroy coming down with the flu created a slot for Cammalleri on the 21st jt. Murray simply had no choice but to use Cammalleri in a scoring role...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 03:15 PM
  #99
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
But this was all AFTER Cammy had EARNED his roster spot and ice time...after AM had benched him. And AFTER Cammy had been used in a scoring role previously in the season.

Besides, it's not like Cammy wasn't playing because AM wanted to sit him...he was trying to get his $5 million excuse-for-a-hockey-player going. Given the choice between playing JR and playing Cammy, it's a pretty easy choice IMO. Coaching isn't ONLY about the short-term...JR is a BIG investment and AM MUST do everything he can to get him going.

I keep track of all the lines for all the games...do you want me to give you examples of when AM put Cammy in a scoring role long before JR broke his finger? It's by choice not by need.

jt is offline  
Old
01-02-2006, 03:19 PM
  #100
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roenick66
All this being said, an NHL coach has ALOT to do with the development of a player and drawing out his skills as a successful NHL player. Tell me KB did Scotty Bowman have nothing to do with Guy Laflauer's development or that of Larry Robinson or Ken Dryden? Or how about the further development of Steve Yzerman into an NHL Stanley Cup winner? To not give some credit to coaches is just irresponsible and shortsighted IMHO.
Please tell me roenick66 exactly where I said an NHL coach doesn't play a role in the development of players? Now that you've brought up Scotty Bowman I need to ask why? What does Scotty Bowman have to do with Mike Cammalleri and Andy Murray? I have given credit to Murray, just not as much as some of the pro Murray folks here would like. In my defense, you won't see me hanging AM out when players fail to develop either. I have the audacity to put it on the players shoulders. Go figure...

King Blazer is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:28 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.