Watching him vs Hawks as Jackets coach it was clear he did not adjust to post lockout hockey.
And he does not do well with young players. If they make a defensive mistake he comes down on them to hard ,, but if a vet makes same mistake he does nothing
I can't stand how people refer to our last Cup victory being in 2003 as if it's a terrible thing. Um, how many team have won the Cup since then? Lightning, Ducks, Canes, Pens, Wings, and Hawks. What about the other 23 teams?
The expectations are higher here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilzdontrule27
DF has me convinced that Deboer is the right man for the job but honestly as long as we don't hire a rookie head coach I'm good with whoever we hire.
I agree. I want DeBoer, but I'll settle for almost anybody who has experience. I'd prefer it to not be Hitchcock though.
I don`t think he wouldn`t fit, but I do think he won`t lead us anywhere = stop gap = do not want. Besides that, I`m still not convinced he can deal with youngsters the way I would.
Hitch got a lot of flak for the way he handled Filatov on the Jackets, are there other instances of him treating young players like this? If not I think it's an unfair assumption from one player's handling that' he'll destroy the youth.
Anyway, I am surprised there is not more Larry bashing. Whenever he writes a Rangers article half the thread is dedicated to making fun of him.
__________________
"I used to pray for good things . I used to ask the Hockey Gods for puck luck for the NYR .
Now all I want is Torts the smug stupid goatee clown to be fired , . I hate Torts . Please hockey gods make him get fired. Please Sean punch him in face" -- Dorado
Watching him vs Hawks as Jackets coach it was clear he did not adjust to post lockout hockey.
And he does not do well with young players. If they make a defensive mistake he comes down on them to hard ,, but if a vet makes same mistake he does nothing
This sounds vaguely familiar. As if this happened with us over the last two years...hmm.
Thing about Ken is he commands respect and seems like a guy who's not afraid to call players out. At the same time we might not get past the 1st round with him behind the bench.
Watching him vs Hawks as Jackets coach it was clear he did not adjust to post lockout hockey.
And he does not do well with young players. If they make a defensive mistake he comes down on them to hard ,, but if a vet makes same mistake he does nothing
quiet - you're not allowed to use first-hand knowledge of seeing him fail with another team as evidence to support why you don't like him for the Devils.
Ignore the fact he couldn't even get above 4th in the division for the 4 years as CBJ coach...
Hitch got a lot of flak for the way he handled Filatov on the Jackets, are there other instances of him treating young players like this? If not I think it's an unfair assumption from one player's handling that' he'll destroy the youth.
Anyway, I am surprised there is not more Larry bashing. Whenever he writes a Rangers article half the thread is dedicated to making fun of him.
Richards and Carter apparently credit their proper development to Hitchcock. Filatov was more because of Filatov than Hitchcock, I think. Tedenby is the only "at-risk" prospect on the Devils, in my opinion. Maybe Urbom too. But if Tedenby can earn time under Lemaire, he can do it under Hitchcock too.
And Larry is usually pretty complimentary of the Devils, so we don't mind him. Wait until somebody posts a Neverson article for the bashing to come out.
What exactly did he do to Brassard. From what I remember he entrusted him with second line duties in his rookie season until he got injured. His regression the next year had nothing to do with Hitch. It was the simple fact that he was playing with lesser players because Vermette was there and he was going through a typical sophomore slump. He didn't have his playing time reduced. He wasn't benched for long periods of time. He wasn't sent down to the minors.
As for Voracek, Hitch brought him along like any team brings along a rookie. Start him off slow and increase his playing time as he matures. He had a solid rookie campaign and by his second year Hitch had him as a regular in the top 6. Once again he didn't go around benching him for several games, didn't cut his playing time simply because he made one mistake, didn't send him off to Syracuse, or anything like that.
The whole Hitch is bad for young players is complete BS. He clashed with Filatov because he's a lazy player. Same reason Lemaire clashed with Bergfors. Wanting a player to play a complete hockey game isn't bad for development, quite the contrary. Filatov was a typical ego driven rookie who thought he was hot **** before he did anything on the ice. And with the way his career is headed he's gonna end up being nothing more then a Zherdev type player. All the skill in the world, zero work ethic, no defence, and will find himself bouncing from team to team when he should be a mainstay first liner making millions.
Richards and Carter apparently credit their proper development to Hitchcock. Filatov was more because of Filatov than Hitchcock, I think. Tedenby is the only "at-risk" prospect on the Devils, in my opinion. Maybe Urbom too. But if Tedenby can earn time under Lemaire, he can do it under Hitchcock too.
And Larry is usually pretty complimentary of the Devils, so we don't mind him. Wait until somebody posts a Neverson article for the bashing to come out.
I'm really not sure how I feel about Hitch. I need to let it sink in...
Definitely would prefer him over another rook coach at this point. And I do think this notion that he's terrible with youngsters is blown out of proportion..
I'm not against hiring Hitchcock because of the "he ruins prospects" nonsense. I'm against hiring him because his system and coaching style are not a fit for this organisation right now.
He hasn't adjusted well enough to post-lockout hockey, and the last several teams he coached did nothing when it mattered. His system is too defensive. We need a good transition offence, a puck possession system, and a hard forecheck, and his system contains none of that. He also works best with a team of veterans, which we are not. This is very much a team in transition, not one ready to contend.
I'm not against hiring Hitchcock because of the "he ruins prospects" nonsense. I'm against hiring him because his system and coaching style are not a fit for this organisation right now.
He hasn't adjusted well enough to post-lockout hockey, and the last several teams he coached did nothing when it mattered. His system is too defensive. We need a good transition offence, a puck possession system, and a hard forecheck, and his system contains none of that. He also works best with a team of veterans, which we are not. This is very much a team in transition, not one ready to contend.
Yeah, we need sutter's system. I don't really care who implements it.
We have a lot of skill up front and an aggressive forechecking/puck possession system brings out the best in said skill.
I don't know how i feel about Hitchcock. but then again i dont know much about him. DF has kinda turned me on to Deboer. I just want a coach that will allow us to score more than 3 goals in a game
