Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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.
|
If Treliving is indeed out I think the team needs a reset with fresh eyes from the GM chair and coaching.
With the incoming players being on the smaller side its just not going to work with Sutter, and we have a GM who has done a terrible job finding the right man behind the bench.
I agree the vision needs to be plain and clear how do we want to play, and how will the players we have excel to play that way.
This is not a 4 line team currently and playing for shot metrics is not working.
It honestly seems like the don't ask the coach how they will utilize each player to their strengths, but how will they get the shot volume up at times.
What is your plan for each player and how will you build your lines and how will that fit in the overall scheme of team success.