cross16 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, The_People1 said: I heard his family had a tough time with him being in Washington during the Cup finals. This was reported during the game. Can't remember who it was. Maybe fake news? Anyways, doesn't matter now I guess. Trotz says after consulting with his family that he would not return to coach the Caps. I think he gets $6-mil-per in the open market. His overall coaching record is impressive. I heard the same report but I understood it differently. His son has Down syndrome and the initial move was hard on them. I heard it reported thst Trotz would actually prefer to stay because moving his family was tough. Trotz had an extension thst would have paid him significantly less then he's worth for the next two years so I don't blame him for leaving. He's worth at least what guys like Julien and Mclellan get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 On 2018-06-19 at 8:07 AM, cross16 said: That assumes Trotz would want to come here and the Flames would pay a coach a top 5 salary (which is Trotz's request). History says they would not. What if Treliving waiting and got neither of them? Personally, I don't think Trotz is the better coach. For me they are equal but also I don't think paying a coach that type of salary is worth it. I don’t know about them being the same. I think the book is still out as Trotz had missed the playoffs once in his nhl career, BP hasn’t had much success. A lot gave a hard time to coaches here that had a better record than BP for their crappy record as a Flames coach yet had less to work with. I am willing to give BP a chance, but I think for now, the records speak for themselves. i get it, different teams, different this and that, but at the end of the day the records are what is counted. We have a coach who has done even less than GG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I don’t know about them being the same. I think the book is still out as Trotz had missed the playoffs once in his nhl career, BP hasn’t had much success. In Nashville, Trotz missed the playoffs as often as he made them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I don’t know about them being the same. I think the book is still out as Trotz had missed the playoffs once in his nhl career, BP hasn’t had much success. A lot gave a hard time to coaches here that had a better record than BP for their crappy record as a Flames coach yet had less to work with. I am willing to give BP a chance, but I think for now, the records speak for themselves. i get it, different teams, different this and that, but at the end of the day the records are what is counted. We have a coach who has done even less than GG. Very seldom in sports does the Coach make the team. It is usually that the Coach inherits a special group of players that make the winning come easier than with most others. Both GG and BP have served under some good coaches but while getting an opportunity at a head coach position neither inherited ideal situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: Very seldom in sports does the Coach make the team. It is usually that the Coach inherits a special group of players that make the winning come easier than with most others. Both GG and BP have served under some good coaches but while getting an opportunity at a head coach position neither inherited ideal situations. Yeah, but so many on here want to argue things against a coach but don’t want to use the same metrics to argue against other coaches. It’s eeally all I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 25 minutes ago, robrob74 said: Yeah, but so many on here want to argue things against a coach but don’t want to use the same metrics to argue against other coaches. It’s eeally all I am saying. At the end of the day, there really is no good metric to measure a coach. too many variables come into play that can't be accounted for and are out of the coaches responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 28 minutes ago, robrob74 said: Yeah, but so many on here want to argue things against a coach but don’t want to use the same metrics to argue against other coaches. It’s eeally all I am saying. There will always be varying degrees of success or failure given their situations which is why the sample sizes must be longer for analysis. Most posters talk out of their hats on most topics, me included. LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 On 6/20/2018 at 11:12 AM, cross16 said: At the end of the day, there really is no good metric to measure a coach. too many variables come into play that can't be accounted for and are out of the coaches responsibility. Wins. No variable is needed. Vegas proved you can take a bunch of middle of the road players and if you make them play as a team they will be successful. That is what a good coach can do. He can assess the team given him and give them a team approach/game plan suitable for the players he has. The metric is wins... GG didn't have it and BP has not shown he has it yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: Wins. No variable is needed. Vegas proved you can take a bunch of middle of the road players and if you make them play as a team they will be successful. That is what a good coach can do. He can assess the team given him and give them a team approach/game plan suitable for the players he has. The metric is wins... GG didn't have it and BP has not shown he has it yet. So Claude Julien is a great coach then? What's happened the last few years? Guy Boucher has been to the Eastern Conference finals twice and plummeted the next year. What does that say there are tons of variables that go into Wins. That being said I understand what your saying and probably shiuod have said there is no good metric to predict success of a coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 35 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: Wins. No variable is needed. Vegas proved you can take a bunch of middle of the road players and if you make them play as a team they will be successful. That is what a good coach can do. He can assess the team given him and give them a team approach/game plan suitable for the players he has. The metric is wins... GG didn't have it and BP has not shown he has it yet. Although I tend to agree with your comment, what really makes a good coach is having each player, and the team as a whole reach their maximum potential. If the players they have are good enough, that translates into wins. If not, they won't. I believe Calgary's current players are good enough, so in our case I agree with you fully. As for Peters, the argument is that Carolina's players were not good enough. We'll see how it works out. Oh, and Vegas has many outstanding players, including a first ballot Hall Of Fame goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, cccsberg said: Although I tend to agree with your comment, what really makes a good coach is having each player, and the team as a whole reach their maximum potential. If the players they have are good enough, that translates into wins. If not, they won't. I believe Calgary's current players are good enough, so in our case I agree with you fully. As for Peters, the argument is that Carolina's players were not good enough. We'll see how it works out. Oh, and Vegas has many outstanding players, including a first ballot Hall Of Fame goalie. I disagree, this team has good players but we are not good enough in multiple areas to make a huge impact. As for Vegas, you had a group of guys that had a point to prove and they all bought in. When a team or group as a whole play with the same passion good things happen, lucky breaks, bounces go your way thing align. The cup final was proof of what occurs when luck runs out and doubt sets in. I do agree Peters is a huge upgrade over GG, however I believe their is a huge culture problem in that dressing room. To many passengers and not enough drive and will to win IMHO. BT has to know who the issue is and with that regardless of who remove them. Were we not Vegas in 2004, and we did have a bit of a splash few years ago. Average players playing above average with lucky breaks can be productive. Luck favors the most prepared!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, tmac70 said: I disagree, this team has good players but we are not good enough in multiple areas to make a huge impact. As for Vegas, you had a group of guys that had a point to prove and they all bought in. When a team or group as a whole play with the same passion good things happen, lucky breaks, bounces go your way thing align. The cup final was proof of what occurs when luck runs out and doubt sets in. I do agree Peters is a huge upgrade over GG, however I believe their is a huge culture problem in that dressing room. To many passengers and not enough drive and will to win IMHO. BT has to know who the issue is and with that regardless of who remove them. Were we not Vegas in 2004, and we did have a bit of a splash few years ago. Average players playing above average with lucky breaks can be productive. Luck favors the most prepared!!! I believe Calgary has many players that can be significantly better, and certainly the team as a whole can be too. The better players you have the less the other factors have to be in play, which is what I believe happened with Washington. One curious thing I will always wonder about is why Vegas switched to a zone defensive scheme versus Washington, especially since their man to man scheme had worked so well up to that point. We will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 50 minutes ago, cross16 said: So Claude Julien is a great coach then? What's happened the last few years? Guy Boucher has been to the Eastern Conference finals twice and plummeted the next year. What does that say there are tons of variables that go into Wins. That being said I understand what your saying and probably shiuod have said there is no good metric to predict success of a coach. In the end all coaches are judged by their wins.. Does not matter the quality of team you think they had to work with. Look up any list of best coaches and it is a list of the coaches with most wins.. There are no "well he had a good team or he had a poor team.. "WINS" is the only parameter for coaches. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 1 minute ago, DirtyDeeds said: In the end all coaches are judged by their wins.. Does not matter the quality of team you think they had to work with. Look up any list of best coaches and it is a list of the coaches with most wins.. There are no "well he had a good team or he had a poor team.. "WINS" is the only parameter for coaches. LOL well most people who do follow hockey seriously will know those coaches had good or better than good teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: In the end all coaches are judged by their wins.. Does not matter the quality of team you think they had to work with. Look up any list of best coaches and it is a list of the coaches with most wins.. There are no "well he had a good team or he had a poor team.. "WINS" is the only parameter for coaches. That may be true, but that’s because people like an easy comparable and are generally too lazy to figure out the true answer, which, true, then becomes debatable. Like, for instance, who is the greatest player/scorer/goalie of all time? If you only use 1 comparable and fail to acknowledge major era differences you are not doing justice to the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, MAC331 said: LOL well most people who do follow hockey seriously will know those coaches had good or better than good teams. this type of comment is why people don't like you/your posts Mac... When you say stuff like "most people who follow hockey seriously" it has nothing to do with the posts rather it is you trying to put down the poster .... How about you think about this before you just ramble out some crap meaningless comment.. Most of the top coaches also had poor teams during their tenure too. They also had a team or two that would be considered mediocre as well and good teams to coach. Scotty Bowman had some less than great teams but still managed to get wins.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: this type of comment is why people don't like you/your posts Mac... When you say stuff like "most people who follow hockey seriously" it has nothing to do with the posts rather it is you trying to put down the poster .... How about you think about this before you just ramble out some crap meaningless comment.. Most of the top coaches also had poor teams during their tenure too. They also had a team or two that would be considered mediocre as well and good teams to coach. Scotty Bowman had some less than great teams but still managed to get wins.. How about you think about such shallow thinking as only wins makes the coach. My comment wasn't about you (get over yourself) it was that there are so many bandwagon fans that only want and measure their team by wins and totally ignore what else has to take place to have a winning team for any period of time. Quit with the people don't like me comments you are breaking my heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 1 minute ago, MAC331 said: How about you think about such shallow thinking as only wins makes the coach. My comment wasn't about you (get over yourself) it was that there are so many bandwagon fans that only want and measure their team by wins and totally ignore what else has to take place to have a winning team for any period of time. Quit with the people don't like me comments you are breaking my heart. Too late to backpedal now.. Trying to disguise it now as a bandwagon fan is just as bad.... If you need to put down the poster to make your point likely your point is too weak to begin with. Truth is Mac all coaches are judged by wins. Go look at the lists all over the web Mac.. Every one of the best coaches ever, even" in hindsight", judges the best coaches by the number of wins.. There is no other parameter on those lists... You could make the mistake Cross is trying to show and take a small sample and pick one coach that fits your point.. but in the end wins is the only parameter "anyone who knows hockey uses"(lol) to judge a coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 56 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: o could make the mistake Cross is trying to show and take a small sample and pick one coach that fits your point.. but in the end wins is the only parameter "anyone who knows hockey uses"(lol) to judge a coach. All you have to do is look at te Jack Adams to see it's not that small a sample size. Plenty of coaches win in the short time and then don't again. What is equally flawed is looking only at wins and not accounting for survivorship bias. Being an NHL coach is by default a small sample size so there is flaw in both reasonings so to present your way as Fact is interesting. It is not fact, it's an opinion. If "everyone who knew hockey" only looked at wins then coaches like Bobby Francis, Paul Maclean and Bill barber would have been given more chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, cross16 said: All you have to do is look at te Jack Adams to see it's not that small a sample size. Plenty of coaches win in the short time and then don't again. How many of those coaches are considered among the best ever coaches? What is equally flawed is looking only at wins and not accounting for survivorship bias. Being an NHL coach is by default a small sample size so there is flaw in both reasonings so to present your way as Fact is interesting. It is not fact, it's an opinion. If "everyone who knew hockey" only looked at wins then coaches like Bobby Francis, Paul Maclean and Bill barber would have been given more chances. Maybe you are confused by what I am saying. In the end coaches are judged by wins alone. The best coaches manage to get a lot of wins regardless of the team quality playing under their supervision. As for your Bobby Francis, Paul Maclean and Bill barber examples there is and has been a lot of prejudice in the NHL that has nothing to do with the performance of players and coaches. Ted Nolan would be another example of that. and you continue to ignore the" test of time example" that all coaches who are considered the best are judged by wins. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of just about everyone on the planet. Find me one "best coaches ever" list which is not rated by wins alone and I can find you 10 more that is judged by wins. You can debate all you want and bring up small sample sizes or obscure examples but the large sample sizes and the time backed lists say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: Maybe you are confused by what I am saying. In the end coaches are judged by wins alone. The best coaches manage to get a lot of wins regardless of the team quality playing under their supervision. As for your Bobby Francis, Paul Maclean and Bill barber examples there is and has been a lot of prejudice in the NHL that has nothing to do with the performance of players and coaches. Ted Nolan would be another example of that. and you continue to ignore the" test of time example" that all coaches who are considered the best are judged by wins. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of just about everyone on the planet. Find me one "best coaches ever" list which is not rated by wins alone and I can find you 10 more that is judged by wins. You can debate all you want and bring up small sample sizes or obscure examples but the large sample sizes and the time backed lists say otherwise. Ok so the answer is to continue looking for coaches until you get one of the best of all time. I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, cross16 said: Ok so the answer is to continue looking for coaches until you get one of the best of all time. I understand. I think all he is saying is coaches are judged by wins. Right now GG (I think never will) and BP is too young in terms of their nhl career to judge. Pay your dues with bad teams and hope you get success. We need to see improvement in BP’s record this year. No more excuses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I think all he is saying is coaches are judged by wins. Right now GG (I think never will) and BP is too young in terms of their nhl career to judge. Pay your dues with bad teams and hope you get success. We need to see improvement in BP’s record this year. No more excuses! I understand I just don't agree. I'm agreeing to disagree and moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, cross16 said: I understand I just don't agree. I'm agreeing to disagree and moving on. In the end it is true. If you’ve won then you keep your job have more staying power. I think it’s the coach that is able to adapt best that can have that staying power. In the end it’s the coaches that win that seem to get recycled in the nhl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 Just now, robrob74 said: In the end it is true. If you’ve won then you keep your job have more staying power. I think it’s the coach that is able to adapt best that can have that staying power. In the end it’s the coaches that win that seem to get recycled in the nhl. Not always. My point is let's look at some variables becaue lots goes into it. When it comes to coaching you have a few guys at the top and the when you look at career wins it's a real mixed bag. Ron Wilson is at 10th, Paul Maurice 12th and Jacques Martin 17th. All "failes" in multiple situations. I think variables need to be considered. People disagree and that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now