[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this is your first mistake. "common sense" is always a pretty poor exploratory method with the litany of other much more effective analytical tools at ones disposal. We retreat to common sense in instances in which we do not have adequate information upon which to make good decisions. This is one of those instances.

Except it isn't. Results are the most important factor in determining the success of coaches. Stats don't amount to a hill of beans if outcomes do not meet the expectations placed on the coach/manager. If results continue to be poor, then common sense dictates the decision to retain an individual in such a position should change. When the "litany of other much more effective analytical tools" fail to prove the competence of the individual, then you fall back to that darn common sense to make your decision. Some like to refer to common sense as the application of Occam's Razor, or using one's gut, or just good old simple math (one plus one equals two) but whatever you like to call it most people rely on this when all other "exploratory methods" fail to provide valid explanations of provide consistent data to make a decision against common sense.

Let us not forget that you attempted to use these effective analytical tools to justify the continued employment of Glen Gulutzan last season, while to many of us common sense told us he was a ####ty coach and needed to go. Under performance across the board pretty much was it took to recognize that the coach was the problem.

I think management reviewed each of the coaches on the basis of whether or not they were doing their jobs, and whether there were better available options to replace them if not. Sigalet was the only coach to survive this review.

Gelinas also survived. It would not be the first time that Treliving made a mistake in keeping individuals employed.

I disagree completely. I think that Gulutzan was viewed by management as a guy who was tactically in line with what they wanted from the team, but who for various reasons failed miserably to effectively implement a sustainable model for high-pressure possession-based hockey that produced tangible results.

And management was dead wrong in their assessment of Gulutzan, as were you. If you have not yet figured out that Treliving has a couple blind spots, Treliving has a couple of blind spots he needs help with.

Not at all. As I said above, Sigalet was retained because management believes he is doing his job. In that sense I think the conclusion was made that he has done well with what he has had to work with.

Results say otherwise.

I don't know. The reason I don't know is because there are various reasons for why Smith's season could end in disaster. A good number of those reasons are completely out of Sigalet's control. I think that most likely age has simply caught up to him, and there is NOTHING any coach can do about that.

This is true, but there are also many things that can be corrected. Smith's positioning in net is just flat out piss poor. Get him the hell off the goal line and challenge the play more. Get him working on his angles down low. Smith is a guy that is supposedly awesome with his stick, yet he displays some of the worst stick skills of any goaltender in the league when trying to use the paddle. Small adjustments like this are teachable, and the if the coach isn't helping in improve these things, he isn't doing his job. If Smith is proving to be too old to be coached, then its definitely time to move on from him. If Smith is not getting the coaching to identify and address these obvious flaws in his game, then the coach should be gone.