Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
All of those coaches came in for the previous core of players.
Why should the blame fall on this group of players for the coaching turnover?
Look I agree that we can't keep firing coaches but bringing Sutter was never going to be a long-term answer like a Jon Cooper type.
What this team needs going forward is a coach to grow with the group especially with the young players ready to step in.
|
I’m not blaming the core, it just seems like it’s always the coach. Regardless of the player mix, it’s always the coach. They’re too nice, or too mean, or too hard, or too soft, or too green, or too old school, etc. At a certain point you have to laugh at the fact that whether it’s a coach getting their first NHL games in or one who has a couple cup rings, they’re always the wrong answer to the problem. How does that even happen?
I’m also not saying Sutter is the answer, I just have low confidence that this cobbled-together version of a “core” is going to be easy to find a coach for, especially if it’s Treliving or management picking them. It’s partially a Sutter team and partially not, which is fine if it’s bottom roster guys, but it goes all the way up. Treliving could have played Tkachuk into assets that better served Sutter’s game, or not traded Bennett when he was finally excelling under Sutter. We’ve got a weird mix. Just as Sutter isn’t adapting his game to fit a few players, Treliving isn’t adapting his game to fit the coach.
And nobody in charge has picked a good coach yet, so why now?
It’d be nice to have some idea what the vision for this team is.