Lou's been making the wrong decision regarding our HC for the past couple of years...
1) Dave Tippett was availble but Lou decided to go with his old buddy, Jaques Lemaire
2) Lou "fires" Lemaire and instead of going with Boucher or at least show interest in the guy wich he didn't according to one of his interviews with Bob Hartley on CKAC last summer, he decides to go with his heart and hires MacLean to ruin this franchise for the entire year in a matter of weeks...
3) Lou brought in Lemaire to salvage the disaster that was MacLean, avoids resigning Lemaire and now he's thinking about Ken Hitchcock.
With the way he's restructured our blueline over the past 5 years and the constant shuffling of our head coaches, Lou just isn't getting the job done like in years past and that's not a blow to him by any means... it's a fact.
1. Lemaire had more wins that Tippett in 2009-10...
2. Lemaire retired... not fired. And the MacLean choice was justified, it just didn't work out. Lou's not perfect.
3. Lemaire DID salvage the disaster, as he was hired to do. Then Lemaire retired within minutes of the season ending. Not sure what Lou could have done differently. Also, the Hitchcock thing is a rumor. Nothing is certain yet, especially if it's coming from Brooks.
1. Lemaire had more wins that Tippett in 2009-10...
2. Lemaire retired... not fired. And the MacLean choice was justified, it just didn't work out. Lou's not perfect.
3. Lemaire DID salvage the disaster, as he was hired to do. Then Lemaire retired within minutes of the season ending. Not sure what Lou could have done differently. Also, the Hitchcock thing is a rumor. Nothing is certain yet, especially if it's coming from Brooks.
Not really sure what you're talking about.
Not sure how that's relevant. Tippett did the better coaching job, by far. Phoenix was expected to be one of the worst teams in the NHL, and they had home ice in the 1st round.
Lemaire had a similar roster to Sutter and got worse results.
Not sure how that's relevant. Tippett did the better coaching job, by far. Phoenix was expected to be one of the worst teams in the NHL, and they had home ice in the 1st round.
Lemaire had a similar roster to Sutter and got worse results.
There's too many variables to compare the two situations. Could Lemaire have done similar results implementing his defense in Phoenix? Would Tippett have been able to keep Kovy happy and prevent the Langenbrunner situations?
It's too difficult to say that because Tippett had success in Phoenix he would have had success in NJ.
Lemaire did a fine job.
Also, our coaching situation has been a merry-go-round but Lou can't be faulted for all of it. Is it Lou's fault Pat Burns got Cancer? Is it Lou's fault that Sutter jumped ship? Is it Lou's fault that Lemaire and Robinson each stepped down? MacLean wasn't a bad choice unless you look at it in retrospect, and the Julien firing was because he was losing control of the team. Lou hasn't been correct every single time, but a lot of our mishaps haven't been his fault. I still support him.
Peter DeBoer is also a coach for Canada in this tournament, he's younger, has a better grasp on today's hockey, is known to work well with kids wich we have a boat load coming up in the next couple of years and won't retire anytime soon since he's not turning 60 this year like KH.
I'm sick of that mentality and go with the most defensive minded coach when all of our key players are all forwards. Bringing in DeBoer would jump start this team like Sutter did when he was here instead of playing a more passive style and not utilise our best players to their full talent.
I don't know much about DeBoer. As for Hitch, he isn't my first choice or second choice, but the guy does have a ring and it seems that the Devils seem to do better with coaches who have been hard on them and I don't count Larry, because he came into the picture late in the season. Here's the reality, Hitch is a winner who wears out his welcome and the Devils are a team with a rep as coach killers. Maybe it's a perfect marriage. But I won't lose ant sleep over whoever they hire.
1. Lemaire had more wins that Tippett in 2009-10...
2. Lemaire retired... not fired. And the MacLean choice was justified, it just didn't work out. Lou's not perfect.
3. Lemaire DID salvage the disaster, as he was hired to do. Then Lemaire retired within minutes of the season ending. Not sure what Lou could have done differently. Also, the Hitchcock thing is a rumor. Nothing is certain yet, especially if it's coming from Brooks.
Not really sure what you're talking about.
Umm...No he didn't. Phoenix won 50 games in 09-10. That too in the Western Conference...with like half the quality players we had.
There's too many variables to compare the two situations. Could Lemaire have done similar results implementing his defense in Phoenix? Would Tippett have been able to keep Kovy happy and prevent the Langenbrunner situations?
It's too difficult to say that because Tippett had success in Phoenix he would have had success in NJ.
Lemaire did a fine job.
Also, our coaching situation has been a merry-go-round but Lou can't be faulted for all of it. Is it Lou's fault Pat Burns got Cancer? Is it Lou's fault that Sutter jumped ship? Is it Lou's fault that Lemaire and Robinson each stepped down? MacLean wasn't a bad choice unless you look at it in retrospect, and the Julien firing was because he was losing control of the team. Lou hasn't been correct every single time, but a lot of our mishaps haven't been his fault. I still support him.
You raise a fair point on the variables on each coaching job. It is debateable and hard to tell. But he did win the Jack Adams, so I find it hard to argue with the fact that he did the best coaching job in the NHL last year.
That aside, Tippett would have been a much better long term option. He would not have been a one year guy like Lemaire was (at the time). This would have meant that Lou wouldn't have had to hire MacLean either.
So in that case, yes, Tippett would have been a much better hire.
Lets face it, Lou's past two coaching hires have been conservative ones. Lou was familiar with Lemaire and knew what he was getting. Lou was also familiar with MacLean and instead of reaching out to more qualified candidates, he stayed in house.
Hitch**** would be another conservative hire, and based on the past two conservative hires, this won't work either. Lou's last "out of the box" hire turned out decently until the redneck bolted back to the farm.
There's too many variables to compare the two situations. Could Lemaire have done similar results implementing his defense in Phoenix? Would Tippett have been able to keep Kovy happy and prevent the Langenbrunner situations?
It's too difficult to say that because Tippett had success in Phoenix he would have had success in NJ.
Lemaire did a fine job.
Also, our coaching situation has been a merry-go-round but Lou can't be faulted for all of it. Is it Lou's fault Pat Burns got Cancer? Is it Lou's fault that Sutter jumped ship? Is it Lou's fault that Lemaire and Robinson each stepped down? MacLean wasn't a bad choice unless you look at it in retrospect, and the Julien firing was because he was losing control of the team. Lou hasn't been correct every single time, but a lot of our mishaps haven't been his fault. I still support him.
Meh, given our roster and expectations, I'd have to disagree. They couldn't put together more than two wins in a row during the entire second half of the season. I believe they went into the Christmas break first in the entire league, but dropped down to sixth (18 points out of first) by the end of the season. Then they folded like a cheap tent against the Flyers.
holy crap.. when i saw the thread title, i thought it said "lou will make safe choice to leave devils" and was about to flip out. I trust lou's decision on the coach. Nobody could've predicted the perfect storm of **** that Maclean's coaching tenure was.
Meh, given our roster and expectations, I'd have to disagree. They couldn't put together more than two wins in a row during the entire second half of the season. I believe they went into the Christmas break first in the entire league, but dropped down to sixth (18 points out of first) by the end of the season. Then they folded like a cheap tent against the Flyers.
problem with lemaire is teams easily catch on to his system after about 30 games. this can be seen this year as well when they started to achieve mediocre results down the final stretch of 7-8 games or whatever. everything is up the boards on the breakout which teams take away and teams also easily pick off the stretch pass system. like everyone has said, the "hybrid" puck possession system sutter implemented (until he went back to line matching in the playoffs) was the best hockey the devils have played since the lockout without a doubt. i too would like to see someone brought in without ties to the organization who is relatively young and will put in such a system.
You raise a fair point on the variables on each coaching job. It is debateable and hard to tell. But he did win the Jack Adams, so I find it hard to argue with the fact that he did the best coaching job in the NHL last year.
That aside, Tippett would have been a much better long term option. He would not have been a one year guy like Lemaire was (at the time). This would have meant that Lou wouldn't have had to hire MacLean either.
So in that case, yes, Tippett would have been a much better hire.
Lets face it, Lou's past two coaching hires have been conservative ones. Lou was familiar with Lemaire and knew what he was getting. Lou was also familiar with MacLean and instead of reaching out to more qualified candidates, he stayed in house.
Hitch**** would be another conservative hire, and based on the past two conservative hires, this won't work either. Lou's last "out of the box" hire turned out decently until the redneck bolted back to the farm.
Fair enough. I disagree on the 'shy away from the conservativeness' approach. Of the last 15-20 years, the least conservative approach was MacLean. We gave the reigns of a 2-seed team to a rookie head coach and it blew up. I'm all for changing the philosophy, but I don't really want a 'Wow. Lou has balls to make this high risk/reward hire.'
Not sure how that's relevant. Tippett did the better coaching job, by far. Phoenix was expected to be one of the worst teams in the NHL, and they had home ice in the 1st round.
Lemaire had a similar roster to Sutter and got worse results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Das Uber
Umm...No he didn't. Phoenix won 50 games in 09-10. That too in the Western Conference...with like half the quality players we had.
It's ok... whatever I write, Apice3 will say the opposite. It's been like that for the past 6 months, I just stopped paying attention when I see a reply of his on my posts.
It's ok... whatever I write, Apice3 will say the opposite. It's been like that for the past 6 months, I just stopped paying attention when I see a reply of his on my posts.
Fair enough. I disagree on the 'shy away from the conservativeness' approach. Of the last 15-20 years, the least conservative approach was MacLean. We gave the reigns of a 2-seed team to a rookie head coach and it blew up. I'm all for changing the philosophy, but I don't really want a 'Wow. Lou has balls to make this high risk/reward hire.'
MacLean was the de-facto head coach for 2 playoff runs, and I was left unimpressed by his work during that time. It wasn't Mac's first time running the show behind an NHL bench. Lou was there basically to make sure that everyone was in line.
And he was an assistant coach for several years before then. So yes, the Mac hire was a pretty conservative hire.
I don't want a splashy hire. I just want Lou to hire the best coach for this hockey team. I want a coach who can be around here for a few years and who can adapt to the game as it is today. Either one does not describe Hitch. It did not describe Lemaire either.
Well to be fair Lemaire drew the best team in the East in the first round. We got ambushed. However, our second half play was pathetic, so the writing was on the wall.
I'd have liked Lemaire back for this year. He's the only stopgap option I wanted ala Hitchcock or say Therrien.
Well to be fair Lemaire drew the best team in the East in the first round. We got ambushed. However, our second half play was pathetic, so the writing was on the wall.
I'd have liked Lemaire back for this year. He's the only stopgap option I wanted ala Hitchcock or say Therrien.
Yeah, I remember the rage during the buffalo game
I wasn't as pissed as others because you're going to have to beat a good team at some point. If you have to avoid certain matchups, you don't deserve to go deep to begin with. It's that simple. We were dead in the water against anyone who forechecked the **** out of our d-men.
It's ok... whatever I write, Apice3 will say the opposite. It's been like that for the past 6 months, I just stopped paying attention when I see a reply of his on my posts.
Meh, we disagree on a lot of topics. It's part of being a passionate fan, as both of us are. It's nothing personal.
Lou didn't "fire" Lemaire, Mike Babcock said that Lemaire told him at the Olympics last year that he was planning on retiring after that season. And you know damn well there wasn't a single thing Lou could have said that could have made him come back for next year, which I'm not sure why you would want that anyway since you were bashing Lemaire in your first point.
Lou has been recycling coaches and players since the lockout and it's been bitting him in the ass each time. It's time for him to look outside the ****ing box and have faith in other coachs/players that didn't play for this organisation in the past.
What I was saying is that Lou went with someone he knew (Lemaire) instead of going with a outsider that was the best possible candidate at the time (Tippett). Lemaire wasn't a bad idea but I would've liked to see someone we knew was going to stay for more then a year or two and Tippett was the perfect guy at the time... instead, Lou went with the "safe" bet.
Lou couldn't of convinced him to come back for the remainder of his contract... are you serious with that comment? The guy is under contract, he either comes back to finish his deal or he bails on the team. The way I see it, Lou throwing a fit after the Philly series has me thinking that Lemaire and Lou agreed to part ways and go with another coach and it made Lemaire's day cause I think he had enough anyways. He came back this year cause Lou was still paying him so he was a no-brainer instead of hireing another coach in mid-season and paying 3 guys for one job.
I wasn't as pissed as others because you're going to have to beat a good team at some point. If you have to avoid certain matchups, you don't deserve to go deep to begin with. It's that simple. We were dead in the water against anyone who forechecked the **** out of our d-men.
Agreed. No matter the coaching its always going to come back to the defense.
I would like some continuity since Lemaire isn't coming back, but I just don't see Lou delivering. Not many other options but DeBoer. Everyone else would be a one year marriage.
