IF Julien and/or Hitchcock are fired, does Treliving make a move?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

Really though, who these players are is the bigger question. Are they borderline 4th line players? Young developing players that Hartley has shown tough love to? I think we can all agree that if its Gaudreau and Monahan then it's a much different story than if its Raymond and Engelland. Without more context I don't know how to interpret what it is you're saying.

Two NHL regulars on the younger side.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Two NHL regulars on the younger side.

Regardless of who they are, it's a pretty legless rumour to throw out when you can't name who it is.

As well, if they wanted a message board to know it, they'd post it themselves. Keep that junk away (it's disrespectful of the two players for you to even mention it IMO).

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jore

Why can't we have a coach who can teach and who can implement a winning system? When Julien came on as the coach of the bruins, bergeron was 22, marchand was 19, krejci was 21, and lucic was 19.

How does one evaluate and qualify a system as "winning" in isolation from the personnel within that system?

Is the Canadiens system a "winning system"?
Is the Rangers system a "winning system"?
Is the Hurricanes' system a "winning system"?
Is the Leafs system a "winning system"?

If winning is the only way to evaluate a winning system, does that mean only the Blackhawks and Kings play winning systems? ...But the Blackhawks spam a ton of stretch passes.

And if we're going to talk about how Babcock's system won way back in 2007, why don't we talk about how Hartley's system won in 2001?

look at the leafs - they had a roster full of nobodies yet always had solid breakouts, zone entries, and neutral zone play.

They didn't have a roster full of nobodies. Not with respect to advanced stats if that's what you're talking about. Guys like Hunwick, Parenteau, Winnik, Kadri, Gardiner, Marincin, Boyes, Arcobello and Rielly were always advanced stats darlings. You would think Kyle Dubas (and Brendan Shanahan and Lou Lamiorello) put that team together by looking at guys with pretty HERO charts. In fact I am convinced that's exactly what they did because I think I just named their entire veteran roster. They actually underwent a pretty massive roster overhaul from a season ago. And further they moved Phaneuf from first pair to second pair by design, which is unrelated to systems play.

their offense did not rely on rushes and stretch passes 99% of the time.

Their offense... also scored 120 5v5 goals (29th), while ours scored 152 (8th) so let's not praise their offense. And they gave a whopping eight less 5v5 goals than us, which you could pretty much attribute to the difference between Jonas Hiller and a decent AHL goaltender.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

How does one evaluate and qualify a system as "winning" in isolation from the personnel within that system?

Is the Canadiens system a "winning system"?
Is the Rangers system a "winning system"?
Is the Hurricanes' system a "winning system"?
Is the Leafs system a "winning system"?

If winning is the only way to evaluate a winning system, does that mean only the Blackhawks and Kings play winning systems? ...But the Blackhawks spam a ton of stretch passes.

And if we're going to talk about how Babcock's system won way back in 2007, why don't we talk about how Hartley's system won in 2001?

You're right, it's hard to separate the system from the players. I guess when I said 'winning system,' I was thinking specifically about Julien's system, which has been proven to win in the post-lockout, modern possession game. I don't think winning is the only way to evaluate a system, and I'm actually much more interested in process at this point than results.

When I watch teams like Carolina or Toronto, I see more or less talentless rosters being able to execute clean breakouts, controlled carries though the neutral zone with puck support, and clean zone entries more often than I've seen the flames do. I see players positioning themselves in the system so they can defuse pressure with passing, something the flames make secondary to the stretch pass tip-in. I see players maintaining offensive zone possession and getting good scoring chances and being unable to finish because they lack the shot, or speed, or strength, or the right touch/vision. I see a distinction between what a system can do in terms of setting players up, and the limited abilities of the players. When I watch the hawks, I see stretch passes, yes, but I also see puck support, regroups, tight defensive coverage, and the ability to move as a unit, all of which I haven't really seen from the flames that often.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

They didn't have a roster full of nobodies. Not with respect to advanced stats if that's what you're talking about. Guys like Hunwick, Parenteau, Winnik, Kadri, Gardiner, Marincin, Boyes, Arcobello and Rielly were always advanced stats darlings. You would think Kyle Dubas (and Brendan Shanahan and Lou Lamiorello) put that team together by looking at guys with pretty HERO charts. In fact I am convinced that's exactly what they did because I think I just named their entire veteran roster. They actually underwent a pretty massive roster overhaul from a season ago. And further they moved Phaneuf from first pair to second pair by design, which is unrelated to systems play.

I called them nobodies because they're mainly ahl-NHL tweeners (arcobello) or reclamation projects (boyes, marincin). And what about the hymans, corrados, and froeses of the roster? My point was that they don't have a good roster, advanced stats darlings or not. We got advanced stats darlings, too, in frolik and Hamilton last summer. And while I think they both had excellent individual seasons, they were hampered by certain systemic issues we have.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Their offense... also scored 120 5v5 goals (29th), while ours scored 152 (8th) so let's not praise their offense. And they gave a whopping eight less 5v5 goals than us, which you could pretty much attribute to the difference between Jonas Hiller and a decent AHL goaltender.

Again, I think this is a function of the extreme lack of talent on their roster. Kadri led their scoring with 45 points. My point was that, under Hartley, as Hamilton mentioned in his interview today, we generate offensive predominantly through the rush, while better-coached teams, I think, demonstrate the ability to generate offense in other ways. There is nothing inherently wrong with the rush, but Hartley has shown an inability to adjust when teams like LA or Anaheim take it away. I argue that better coaches can adjust.

It's not like the leafs got great goaltending either: they were in 25th place to our 30th for 5-on-5 on ice save%.

I should also point out that all this is on top of issues with player usage and special teams, which other posters have brought up.

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think the Jack Adams has been a horribly voted award. Why aren't Quenville, Sutter and Babcock winning them? Why did so many one and done coaches win it? Maybe there's something wrong with how they vote

The Jack Adams should be reclassified as the "your team did surprisingly well" award. Every year there are surprise stories, yet the guys who consistently win and do well in the play offs every year get overlooked. Reckon this years award will go to either Gallant or Hakstol, or they'll at least get plenty of votes with Trotz winning it.

[Weitz]

I would say clearly hartley won it because no one expected anything from the flames last year as JJ1532 alluded to.

[Wronskian]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Two NHL regulars on the younger side.

A stockton regular you mean? Could you?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think the Jack Adams has been a horribly voted award. Why aren't Quenville, Sutter and Babcock winning them? Why did so many one and done coaches win it? Maybe there's something wrong with how they vote

perhaps; the NHL, as least from what i can recall, seems to fire its coach of the year much sooner than other leagues. apparently its the broadcasters that vote for it? seems like the coaches would be better judges of coaching...

Anyways, i don't know if i agree with change for the sake of change... if a guy like Trotz was floating around out there, then sure...but there isn't anyone currently unemployed that strikes me as being a better coaching fit at this moment...