Quote:
Originally Posted by VilleN
Where to start with this? Thanks for letting me know that hiring Q was impossible. Could that have been why I said a guy "like" Q... had I meant they should have hired him specifically I would have said that... but I guess ignoring that made it easier to stick with your typical condescending posting style...
|
Uh, okay...
Quote:
|
How does hiring a coach with pedigree after you just fired a coach without one mean that management doesn't know what they're doing?
|
If that's the only criteria, that's how.
Quote:
|
Isn't that just simple problem solving?
|
Too simple, I would warrant. Pedigree isn't everything. I imagine that for most NHL teams it is a matter of compiling criteria and identifying the most suitable hire to fit said criteria. Pedigree may factor in, but I fundamentally disagree that it is a necessary response following the failure of an unproven prior coach.
Quote:
|
At the very least it is just a better hiring practice(resumes seem to be important for that process). I'm not even saying Peters should be fired, I think in hindsight it would have been a good idea to go with a proven coach the second time around.
|
I still disagree. Sometimes hiring the most experienced candidate is the way to go; other times it is not. I think making that determination solely on the basis of the poor results of an unproven coach is naive. Again, I think the goal is not merely to isolate and identify issues, it's solving them within the limits provided to do so. Sometimes that means hiring the less experienced candidate.