HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Watching the Wild

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-30-2006, 04:01 PM
  #26
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,948
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
Interesting use of grammar.

I don't understand why people on their team boards are so defensive when it comes to other teams fans posting. What did this guy say that offended you? He was just stating his opinion.

The reality behind it is this. Jacques is in his 5th season as Wild coach. If he makes it to a 6th next season, it will be his longest tenure as a coach in this league yet. He lasted 5 with the Devils and just over 1 with the Canadiens. While it is a small sample size, it appears Jacques approach to coaching seems to wear thin eventually. And the reality is this. Ok you guys nearly made it to the Stanley Cup finals in 2002-03. Thats one year. The other 4 years (assuming this year continues as is) will see you miss the playoffs with a combined record of 114-136-42-25. That would leave Lemaire 1/5, with a 20% playoff achievement rate with the Wild. That seems relatively uneffective to me. Why are the fans (generalizing here) in this thread so adverse to axing Lemaire? It's legit question, I'm just curious.

I know if it was my team and my coach had a 1/5 record of getting us to the playoffs, he'd be gone. And I believe that is the case with the Wild too. It's not about whether it's exciting hockey, so we can leave that argument out of it for now. It's about winning and making the playoffs and Lemaire just isn't doing that right now. If you are playing that style of hockey, trapping and defensive, and you are winning. Who cares? You shouldn't have to worry about amusing other teams fans. HOWEVER...it's not working and thats the harsh reality. With the future of this franchise coming into the fold soon, I think it's time for you guys to make a change. Such a bright future, with a lot of offensive talent on the way. Why not try something new?
Well, when you consider those were the first 5 years the club existed, I'd say to have made the playoffs at all is a pretty good achievement (compare to Columbus).Your argument would hold water if you were talking about an established franchise, but not in this case.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:05 PM
  #27
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Harriet
That's uncalled for. The Canucks fan has raised some good points in a diplomatic fashion. Let's not pretend everything is honkey-dorey in Wildville and the fans are thrilled. I have had a far harder time getting rid of tickets than in previous years and I frankly don't believe the claims that every game sells out (when shortly before the game there are always tickets available). Many other teams recognized how the new NHL was going to be different and planned accordingly. The Wild acted as if nothing had changed, ignoring that the game would be more open and refusing to sign big name UFAs even though they had cap room and were about to start losing their own valuable UFAs. Riseborough has got to learn that you can't build a Montreal type dynasty from scratch anymore. I get the sense that Lemaire already knows it. The Wild are boring and I'm starting to smell my own s**t.
Thanks. At least you read the whole post and knew where I was coming from.

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:05 PM
  #28
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,948
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
Another thing to think about. Under Lemaire, only one player has ever hit 80 points in a season. Doug Gilmour in 96-97 with 81 (in which 20 games were played with another team). Also in the past 8 years of Lemaire's coaching, only 1 player has hit the 30 goal mark, being Gaborik. But also in those last 8 years, Gilmour's 82 points are in fact the only player to even hit 70 points even. And sure, stats can be trivial. But I think it also proves my point that under Lemaire, your offensive stars really aren't going to be given the opportunity to shine their brightest.
Rolston also has 30+ goals this season, and will likely top 80 points as well.

FWIW, most of the Wild's players to this point would not score 30goals/80 points with Ottawa, let alone Minny.

He's done a great job, considering the "talent" he's had to work with.

Consider also the number of past or current Wild who've had career years under Lemaire: Brunette, Zholtok, Henderson, Walz, Rolston, Laaksonen, Dowd.

Sounds like good coaching to me.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:11 PM
  #29
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
Where did he do that?
I cannot understand how smart hockey fans in Minny continue to support this style of hockey in the "new NHL"

It's not that big a leap. Hockey fans here continue to support this style of hockey quite heavily. Because of this, he cannot understand them to be smart hockey fans. They must be some other form of hockey fan. It's the standard subtle slam that always gets thrown into posts like that. "I guess it's fine for muttonheads like you, but us Real Hockey Fans could never support it." If he didn't mean it, it must have rubbed off from all the other posts.

ceber is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:13 PM
  #30
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
Well, when you consider those were the first 5 years the club existed, I'd say to have made the playoffs at all is a pretty good achievement (compare to Columbus).Your argument would hold water if you were talking about an established franchise, but not in this case.
Well lets look at Columbus. At least they play an entertaining style, and have more upside than the Wild have with thier young players. Throw in the odd trade like Fedorov, and signing like Foote to compliment the Nashs, Brules and Zherdevs et al. The CBJ will compete next year, but what is on the horizon in Minniville?

Only once have they scored more than 200 goals in the last 5 years and that is this year. Take a look at the Preds or Thrashers. They are also expansion teams, that came in as well. Those 2 are doing really well this year as well as they are in the playoffs as of this moment

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:21 PM
  #31
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanucks
Well lets look at Columbus. At least they play an entertaining style, and have more upside than the Wild have with thier young players. Throw in the odd trade like Fedorov, and signing like Foote to compliment the Nashs, Brules and Zherdevs et al. The CBJ will compete next year, but what is on the horizon in Minniville?

Only once have they scored more than 200 goals in the last 5 years and that is this year. Take a look at the Preds or Thrashers. They are also expansion teams, that came in as well. Those 2 are doing really well this year as well as they are in the playoffs as of this moment
Let's look at CBJ. Based on the games I've watched they aren't more entertaining. They certainly don't keep me from changing the channel to another game. Next season, next season. It's been "next season" with CBJ for the last two. Why aren't they doing better THIS season? How do you know they'll compete next year and the Wild won't? Preds and Thrashers have had more seasons. Why is it OK for these teams to take longer to put it together but the Wild are in trouble?

ceber is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:22 PM
  #32
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
I cannot understand how smart hockey fans in Minny continue to support this style of hockey in the "new NHL"

It's not that big a leap. Hockey fans here continue to support this style of hockey quite heavily. Because of this, he cannot understand them to be smart hockey fans. They must be some other form of hockey fan. It's the standard subtle slam that always gets thrown into posts like that. "I guess it's fine for muttonheads like you, but us Real Hockey Fans could never support it." If he didn't mean it, it must have rubbed off from all the other posts.
I didn't insult smart hockey fans in Minny. Your reading waaaaaay too much into that. Also, did you not read further below where I said that Minny fans deserve better?

Take a poll of the major HOCKEY markets in the NHL, would they want thier team to playlike the Wild are

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:48 PM
  #33
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Well, I'm just a relocated Ranger fan living in Wild country, so I can't speak for their fans, but my sense is this is a more sophisticated hockey fan base than most, and thus they are able to appreciate all aspects of the game, and don't need an ESPY-quality breakaway to keep them interested.

I watch this team frequently, and while they do think defense first, and try to generate offense from defense, they are hardly the only ones that do this: teams from Calgary to Detroit to Dallas to New Jersey to Anaheim to Philadelphia play the same way. I've never quite understood why the Wild are singled out for criticism over their allegedly boring style.

The Wild didn't look great last night, but I think a lot of that had to do with lack of legs having played the night before.

If the Wild fans have anything to be frustrated about, it's not the style of play, it's the commitment to winning. Like the Bruins for a long time, they seem content to make profit off a mediocre team instead of putting some of that money back into winning a championship. I mean the team is going to miss the playoffs today largely because management tried to save a few bucks by letting guys like Brunette and Laaksonen walk in favor of cheaper, less productive alternatives.

Laches is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:50 PM
  #34
PuckFan01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver_2010
is that because not so many FA would want to join the wild because the wild would play such a trap style , and later the player's value would be way lower because they couldnt produce up to their potential under the wild trap system
I don't think it has hurt Rolston. He seems to be doing pretty well. Lemaire isn't against offense. He just wants to make sure players are defensively responsible as well. I see nothing wrong with that.

Gaborik seems to getting better offensively with time.

The fact is that the players will come if the money is offered. Minnesota is well known for its hockey following and the rink is second to none. NHL players aren't concerned as much with three or four years from now. They are concerned about the contract they have to sign now. It is just a matter of the Wild opening up their wallet and pursuing some guys who can fill the net more.

PuckFan01 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 04:57 PM
  #35
PuckFan01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
Another thing to think about. Under Lemaire, only one player has ever hit 80 points in a season. Doug Gilmour in 96-97 with 81 (in which 20 games were played with another team). Also in the past 8 years of Lemaire's coaching, only 1 player has hit the 30 goal mark, being Gaborik. But also in those last 8 years, Gilmour's 82 points are in fact the only player to even hit 70 points even. And sure, stats can be trivial. But I think it also proves my point that under Lemaire, your offensive stars really aren't going to be given the opportunity to shine their brightest.
Let's be honest, Lemaire has coached during a time in which the offensive aspect of the game has lagged behind compared to the days of the 70s or 80s. In the average season over the past 10+ years, how many guys finish above the 80 pt. mark in the NHL. Not all that many. To point out the fact above is not all that surprising when you look at the big picture of the entire league.

PuckFan01 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 05:08 PM
  #36
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
I cannot understand how smart hockey fans in Minny continue to support this style of hockey in the "new NHL"

It's not that big a leap. Hockey fans here continue to support this style of hockey quite heavily. Because of this, he cannot understand them to be smart hockey fans. They must be some other form of hockey fan. It's the standard subtle slam that always gets thrown into posts like that. "I guess it's fine for muttonheads like you, but us Real Hockey Fans could never support it." If he didn't mean it, it must have rubbed off from all the other posts.
This is from the Wild.com game recap
http://www.wild.com/games/?game_id=80

Quote:
The finish soured what was a fast-paced, up-tempo game that lacked everything but the usual scrappiness between the two teams until the end.
I was at the game last night, and I don't know what this guy was smoking. If that was fast paced, I would hate to see what a slow paced game looks like!
It was slow for pretty much the whole game. I said to the guy next to me, I hope it goes to the shootout, at least then there will some excitement.

I saw alot of ice cream being sold than beer. Ice cream will wake you up, beer makes you more sleepy if your bored.

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 05:50 PM
  #37
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanucks
I saw alot of ice cream being sold than beer. Ice cream will wake you up, beer makes you more sleepy if your bored.
Well that settles it, I guess. Still not sure what "it" is other than "I don't like the team you follow." But at least it's settled. More ice cream than beer. Got it.

ceber is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 05:57 PM
  #38
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,948
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanucks
Only once have they scored more than 200 goals in the last 5 years and that is this year. Take a look at the Preds or Thrashers. They are also expansion teams, that came in as well. Those 2 are doing really well this year as well as they are in the playoffs as of this moment
They are also 2 and 1 years older than the Wild - check in this time and next season or two years from now to see how the Wild stack up. Their development track has been very similar to Nashville's, which is a good thing IMO.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 06:02 PM
  #39
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Well that settles it, I guess. Still not sure what "it" is other than "I don't like the team you follow." But at least it's settled. More ice cream than beer. Got it.
It's not that I don't like your team, in fact the only teams that I detest are the Oilers, Flames, Avs and Leafs. (which I am sure is almost every nucks fans teams to hate)
What I mean with the Ice cream and beer comment, is that if it is an exciting game, like the Oilers last week, people are more happier to shell out the bucks on consessions etc, and with the Wild, it's "why waste the money" Even in the 7-3 loss with the Wings it was more exciting than last night.

I am not a basher, I am just trying to understand what it means to be a Wild fan. You sure are a dedicated bunch if your willing to cheer for a team that managment doesn't want to improve, while taking your money and not re-investing into the team

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 06:05 PM
  #40
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
 
CrazyCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: India
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
They are also 2 and 1 years older than the Wild - check in this time and next season or two years from now to see how the Wild stack up. Their development track has been very similar to Nashville's, which is a good thing IMO.
Sure hope so, because they way it looks like with the Cap for the next few years, the other 4 teams will always be close in the standings every year, since they have to play within the division 32 times a year.

CrazyCanucks is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 09:43 PM
  #41
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanucks
It's not that I don't like your team, in fact the only teams that I detest are the Oilers, Flames, Avs and Leafs. (which I am sure is almost every nucks fans teams to hate)
What I mean with the Ice cream and beer comment, is that if it is an exciting game, like the Oilers last week, people are more happier to shell out the bucks on consessions etc, and with the Wild, it's "why waste the money" Even in the 7-3 loss with the Wings it was more exciting than last night.

I am not a basher, I am just trying to understand what it means to be a Wild fan. You sure are a dedicated bunch if your willing to cheer for a team that managment doesn't want to improve, while taking your money and not re-investing into the team

Your opinion is fine. To be honest, I don't like to watch Vancouver play all that much. The Sedin and Carter line is fun to watch, but most of the time they only have one line that is noticeable per night. I always find the pace to be quicker against Edmonton or Colorado, and much more exciting against Calgary. Was it fun entertaining to see Cooke sucker punch Marshall, and Johnson take runs at finesse players, or Mitchell and Bertuzzi go at it? Yes. But that was all that was really entertaining. Otherwise, it was a trap vs. a one line team with a mediocre goalie.

Jbcraig1883 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 09:53 PM
  #42
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanucks
Well lets look at Columbus. At least they play an entertaining style, and have more upside than the Wild have with thier young players. Throw in the odd trade like Fedorov, and signing like Foote to compliment the Nashs, Brules and Zherdevs et al. The CBJ will compete next year, but what is on the horizon in Minniville?

Only once have they scored more than 200 goals in the last 5 years and that is this year. Take a look at the Preds or Thrashers. They are also expansion teams, that came in as well. Those 2 are doing really well this year as well as they are in the playoffs as of this moment
Although all judgements of prospects are subjective, I really don't buy your argument for BJ having more upside in the young player department. And if we are comparing MN to CBJ, then answer the next few questions. How many coaches have they already had? How many playoffs have they been in? And as far as adding UFAs, I would argue that Rolston and White together have produced more than almost all the UFA's (and CBJ have signed many more expensive UFA's) that CBJ has signed the past two offseasons (more bang for their buck). Also, when you talk about goal scoring, you have to talk about goals let it. Looking at one side doesn't tell the whole story.

Gaborik vs. Nash
O'Sullivan vs. Zherdev
Schultz vs. Klesla
Bouchard vs. Brule
Harding vs. (can't remember the goofy looking goalie they took a few years ago)
Pouliot vs. Insert CBJ (probably is one, just can't recall any off the top of my head)


And this isn't a style vs. style, but rather a comparison for potential or current production. I don't see how CBJ has us in the future, and this was a 30 second jot down of the more noteable prospects.

Jbcraig1883 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 10:49 PM
  #43
Wild Thing
Registered User
 
Wild Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Dark Side
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Brock, how good to see you posting here at the Wild board. I don't know what drew you here today, but I wish it would happen more often.

For those of you here who aren't familiar with Brock, he's easily one of the most knowledgeable hockey posters on HF. And I think he's absolutely dead on the money with every single one of his points here today. I don't think I'd disagree with anything he said in this thread, and in fact I was thinking all day today about how I was going to make pretty much the same points when i got home tonight. I thank him for saving me the trouble, and for putting it much better than I could have.

Guys, just a few months ago, I'd have never thought that I'd catch myself saying this - but I really think we may be at the point where we're going to have to move past LeMaire and go on to the next chapter. I just don't know anymore if he's the right guy to take these kids to the next stage in their development. I don't think the team is responding to him the way it used to, and I'm troubled by the number of young players who say that they just don't understand what the coach wants from them or where they stand with him. With this many talented young kids in the lineup, and more on the way next year, that doesn't bode well. These kids need a coach who can relate to them, and communicate with them consistently and clearly. I don't know if old-school LeMaire is that guy.

Is anybody really happy with the way the kids (as a group) played this season? Guys like Wanvig, Koivu, Veilleux, and Burns sometimes seemed to be getting worse as the year went on, rather than better. I'm not coming right out and blaming LeMaire for that, but I will say that I find it a matter of concern that the head coach was not able to find a way to get these young players to elevate their games as the season went on, and I will say quite unequivocally that there were times when these kids were not being used properly. For example, yanking Burns back and forth from forward to defense all season long was a terrible way to manage a 20-year old kid's development, and I don't know another coach in the league who could have gotten away with it without the fan base rioting in the streets over it. But since it was LeMaire, he got a free pass all season from almost everybody. What's up with that?

I wouldn't pull the trigger on him yet, but I really think that if the team doesn't do better next year, management should start to consider it. I think this team should be better than this by now. As (I think) Bookman said, the first couple of years, we got used to seeing the team overachieve. Now we're starting to get used to seeing them underachieve. That's not the direction I want see guys like Koivu, Burns, Harding, O'Sullivan, Voloshenko, et al moving in.


Last edited by Wild Thing: 03-30-2006 at 10:54 PM.
Wild Thing is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:07 PM
  #44
Brock
Moderator
 
Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big E

I think that if we simply find a fourth top level scorer (O'Sullivan or Voloshenko?) and establish some second level scoring (six guys contributing 30-50 pts), we've got the defensive mentality necessary to go deep into the play-offs.

I'm willing to give JL another season. His buddy DR is certainly willing to ...

The Big E
The thing is, what is the liklihood of O Sullivan or Voloshenko being able to step right into Lemaire's system? I think that most of the other youngsters Lemaire has coached, they will need an adjustment period. He works his players hard and he asks a lot from his younger players. And while that can't be anything but beneficial to their development later down the line (look at Gaborik now, or Bouchard this season, etc), I think that it would prevent O Sullivan or Voloshenko from stepping right into the line up and being counted on as top level scorers. I think both would require some serious adjustment periods under Lemaire and his system. So the reality is that management would have to go out and spend some money on a few big name free agents to supply that, which DR has seemingly not done. Rolston doesn't really count IMO, because he's done way better for you guys then you could have imagined, or I'm sure DR imagined.

Waiting for O Sullivan, or Voloshenko or Pouliot or maybe even Koivu to blossom into excellent NHL threats could take more then just a few years. Saving Lemaire for just one more season seems like you are almost delaying the inevitable.

But you also raise a good point. At this point it seems likely that DR and JL are a package, and to get rid of one, you have to get rid of the other. Which in hindsight, might not be to bad for the organization.

Brock is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:14 PM
  #45
Brock
Moderator
 
Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
Well, when you consider those were the first 5 years the club existed, I'd say to have made the playoffs at all is a pretty good achievement (compare to Columbus).Your argument would hold water if you were talking about an established franchise, but not in this case.
When do you draw the line though and say, ok we've been an expansion franchise for this long now, we should be competing year in and year out?

Do you really see things changing drastically in the next few years under the current plan? I think something needs to be changed. If you wait for guys like O Sullivan to develop, you are looking at least another few years IMO.

As I've said before, it's almost like this franchise is ok with mediocrity. Someone else in this thread likened the situation to the Bruins, which I agree with.

In the end, I think something has to be changed, regardless of whether you guys are an expansion franchise or not. That excuse can only hold up for so long. Either DR has to open his wallet and increase the talent level Lemaire is working with, or they have to go a different direction and allow for the younger talent to fully develop under a new coach who will allow them more freedom to work.

Brock is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:17 PM
  #46
Brock
Moderator
 
Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Thing
Brock, how good to see you posting here at the Wild board. I don't know what drew you here today, but I wish it would happen more often.

For those of you here who aren't familiar with Brock, he's easily one of the most knowledgeable hockey posters on HF. And I think he's absolutely dead on the money with every single one of his points here today. I don't think I'd disagree with anything he said in this thread, and in fact I was thinking all day today about how I was going to make pretty much the same points when i got home tonight. I thank him for saving me the trouble, and for putting it much better than I could have.

Guys, just a few months ago, I'd have never thought that I'd catch myself saying this - but I really think we may be at the point where we're going to have to move past LeMaire and go on to the next chapter. I just don't know anymore if he's the right guy to take these kids to the next stage in their development. I don't think the team is responding to him the way it used to, and I'm troubled by the number of young players who say that they just don't understand what the coach wants from them or where they stand with him. With this many talented young kids in the lineup, and more on the way next year, that doesn't bode well. These kids need a coach who can relate to them, and communicate with them consistently and clearly. I don't know if old-school LeMaire is that guy.

Is anybody really happy with the way the kids (as a group) played this season? Guys like Wanvig, Koivu, Veilleux, and Burns sometimes seemed to be getting worse as the year went on, rather than better. I'm not coming right out and blaming LeMaire for that, but I will say that I find it a matter of concern that the head coach was not able to find a way to get these young players to elevate their games as the season went on, and I will say quite unequivocally that there were times when these kids were not being used properly. For example, yanking Burns back and forth from forward to defense all season long was a terrible way to manage a 20-year old kid's development, and I don't know another coach in the league who could have gotten away with it without the fan base rioting in the streets over it. But since it was LeMaire, he got a free pass all season from almost everybody. What's up with that?

I wouldn't pull the trigger on him yet, but I really think that if the team doesn't do better next year, management should start to consider it. I think this team should be better than this by now. As (I think) Bookman said, the first couple of years, we got used to seeing the team overachieve. Now we're starting to get used to seeing them underachieve. That's not the direction I want see guys like Koivu, Burns, Harding, O'Sullivan, Voloshenko, et al moving in.
Wow thank you for the compliments. Appreciate it greatly. Glad to see at least someone agrees with me here!

I like to check out all the boards here and just read anything that catches me attention from time to time. plus I do check out the Wild board for updates on Brent Burns, Patty O, Matt Foy, etc. The Wild have a lot of young and exciting talent and it's always interesting to hear how they are doing. Plus I've got Burns in a Sim league, so...gotta keep a tab on him.

Brock is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:40 PM
  #47
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
The thing is, what is the liklihood of O Sullivan or Voloshenko being able to step right into Lemaire's system? I think that most of the other youngsters Lemaire has coached, they will need an adjustment period. He works his players hard and he asks a lot from his younger players. And while that can't be anything but beneficial to their development later down the line (look at Gaborik now, or Bouchard this season, etc), I think that it would prevent O Sullivan or Voloshenko from stepping right into the line up and being counted on as top level scorers. I think both would require some serious adjustment periods under Lemaire and his system. So the reality is that management would have to go out and spend some money on a few big name free agents to supply that, which DR has seemingly not done. Rolston doesn't really count IMO, because he's done way better for you guys then you could have imagined, or I'm sure DR imagined.

Waiting for O Sullivan, or Voloshenko or Pouliot or maybe even Koivu to blossom into excellent NHL threats could take more then just a few years. Saving Lemaire for just one more season seems like you are almost delaying the inevitable.

But you also raise a good point. At this point it seems likely that DR and JL are a package, and to get rid of one, you have to get rid of the other. Which in hindsight, might not be to bad for the organization.

I agree with Brock here. I think Lemaire is a good teacher, but it definately is a process, and he seems to only be effective if he has only one or two youngsters to develop at a time. I also worry about his ability to develop defenseman. Is he great at taking a D core and making them effective? I would say so. I know I will get flamed for my next point, but I feel Schultz was better his rookie and playoff season than he is now. I think that defense and positioning/stick lanes are drilled into their heads so much that the youngsters start to think too much and not react. I think Foster has seen his production go down because teams know him better now, but also because he is more worried about defense. I feel the same way with Burns. I feel, after his season in Houston, he was better the first few games before Lemaire and Co. got a hold of him (I know he played forward, but still...) than he is now. In my opinion, Lemaires coaching D ultimately benefits the players, but it seems that it helps them after he is gone. Lemaire is great with older players to take what they have and make them effective, but I think his emphasis on D will stunt growth like Brock has stated. I really like JL, and think he should coach somewhere, but maybe he isn't the guy we need for a younger team.

I apologize because this post does not flow well at all and is somewhat confusing. Forgive me, a few too many beers and many hours of studying will do that. Maybe I will rewrite it tomorrow, so that it appears somewhat logical.

Jbcraig1883 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:48 PM
  #48
WILDTATE10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
The thing is, what is the liklihood of O Sullivan or Voloshenko being able to step right into Lemaire's system? I think that most of the other youngsters Lemaire has coached, they will need an adjustment period. He works his players hard and he asks a lot from his younger players. And while that can't be anything but beneficial to their development later down the line (look at Gaborik now, or Bouchard this season, etc), I think that it would prevent O Sullivan or Voloshenko from stepping right into the line up and being counted on as top level scorers. I think both would require some serious adjustment periods under Lemaire and his system. So the reality is that management would have to go out and spend some money on a few big name free agents to supply that, which DR has seemingly not done. Rolston doesn't really count IMO, because he's done way better for you guys then you could have imagined, or I'm sure DR imagined.

Waiting for O Sullivan, or Voloshenko or Pouliot or maybe even Koivu to blossom into excellent NHL threats could take more then just a few years. Saving Lemaire for just one more season seems like you are almost delaying the inevitable.

But you also raise a good point. At this point it seems likely that DR and JL are a package, and to get rid of one, you have to get rid of the other. Which in hindsight, might not be to bad for the organization.
Ya know its not like the Wild are a team that never scores. look at

Rolston- having a career year and has set his career high in goals and points.
Gaborik- would be a 50 goal scorer if not for his injuries
Bouchard- Also having a career year and hes only 21 so hes only going to get better
White- was having a great year before his injury
O'Sullivan- i dont think hes got much else to prove. I look for tomas Vanek like numbers from him next year and continue to improve

WILDTATE10 is offline  
Old
03-30-2006, 11:57 PM
  #49
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Make the playoffs....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
When do you draw the line though and say, ok we've been an expansion franchise for this long now, we should be competing year in and year out?

Do you really see things changing drastically in the next few years under the current plan? I think something needs to be changed. If you wait for guys like O Sullivan to develop, you are looking at least another few years IMO.

As I've said before, it's almost like this franchise is ok with mediocrity. Someone else in this thread likened the situation to the Bruins, which I agree with.

In the end, I think something has to be changed, regardless of whether you guys are an expansion franchise or not. That excuse can only hold up for so long. Either DR has to open his wallet and increase the talent level Lemaire is working with, or they have to go a different direction and allow for the younger talent to fully develop under a new coach who will allow them more freedom to work.

As a Canucks fan here, I think Minnesota Willd Fans should demand that the Wild make the playoffs next season and if they don't, either DR or JL should be canned.

Minny sells out every game, so they do have the funds to add talent and upgrade the team. What does Minny need? Well, they definately need more offense. I doubt, based on their defense first philosophy, that an A list star like Elias would sign with them. More likely to try to target a B list guy, ala a Mark Parrish type to add 25 plus goals to the team.

Minny does need to start consistently making the playoffs to be able to secure Gaborik to a long term contract. He'll have 6 seasons played after this year, and will complete #7 next season. Not sure what the UFA details of the CBA were, but at some point, if a player has 7 years of NHL experience, he can become a UFA. Don't know if Gabby qualifies for that in 2007. If he does, then Minny has to be able to show him that they are committed to winning. They have plenty of cap room to improve the team. They need to basically do what the Panthers did in their quest to keep Luongo in town. Keep your other good players around and don't dump them away for prospects.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
03-31-2006, 12:58 AM
  #50
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Well, the story is becoming that this off-season is the one when more significant moves will be made. Media's talking about it, team is hinting at it. If it turns out that's not the case, I'm pretty sure you'll see many, many more fans starting to get more vocal about how the team is run. There's already a lot of frustrated people in the stands, but many of them are patiently frustrated. Next season is going to be the big test.

ceber 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 09:52 AM.

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.