Geoff Ward, Flames 18 th coach

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I think one thing overlooked was the situations that burned us the most , the scrambles and close in pressure .. is precisely where we missed Hamonic . Not enough players  dropping to block shots . Even the no stick goal ,  Dube should have been dropping in front of that but he made a half effort to get in the way .

 

In terms of coaching , not sure who that's on  but right now I'm watching Dallas doing exactly to Colorado what they did to us. Not to let them off the hook but I'm giving more credit to Dallas now than I was before 

 

I personally think Ward did enough . Just like the players , he gets to learn and grow as well .Were mistakes made ?  Yes ..  but I bet id we got to play some moments again there would be differences .

And it comes back to who is really out there?

I'll stand by saying only Laviolette makes me willing to change.

Babcock .. no 

 

Boudreau?..sure let's bring in a coach that doesn't win in the playoffs to fix a team that doesn't win in the playoffs 

 

Rierden?  He was supposed to be the next golden child ..he just got fired..he's not an upgrade 

 

Gallant ?  I get the attraction, but he historically has a low shelf life .. didn't do much in Florida or Columbus, and anytime a coach gets fired and many can't figure out why.(twice).something is happening backstage 

 

Carlyle?   Haha.. just kidding 

Another up and coming next one ?  Let's not do that again 

 

Our last 2 coaches were fired because they lost the team.. (and the other was starting the year looking like the same thing). That's why BT fires coaches .. I'd be highly surprised if he doesn't announce Ward here very soon 

 

the thing with ward though is, it’s the perfect storm. He comes in at the lowest of the low and they slowly get better. They win a bunch but doing it looking like the shell of their former selves. They still looked very bad after the coaching change bump. Lindholm and Tkachuk carried them until they got silenced, then Ward reverted back to Lindholm on Johnny’s line. 
 

He gained their respect, yes, but then i wonder if he can maintain it over a few seasons? GG, playoffs, and next year lost the room. BP playoffs and lost the room by the all star break. I wonder if ward has had enough time to lose the room?

 

i guess this makes it more of a personnel thing, or a coach they can’t get behind?

[phoenix66]

29 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

the thing with ward though is, it’s the perfect storm. He comes in at the lowest of the low and they slowly get better. They win a bunch but doing it looking like the shell of their former selves. They still looked very bad after the coaching change bump. Lindholm and Tkachuk carried them until they got silenced, then Ward reverted back to Lindholm on Johnny’s line. 
 

He gained their respect, yes, but then i wonder if he can maintain it over a few seasons? GG, playoffs, and next year lost the room. BP playoffs and lost the room by the all star break. I wonder if ward has had enough time to lose the room?

 

i guess this makes it more of a personnel thing, or a coach they can’t get behind?

i think its more than just being likeable , if that were it then GG would still be here 

 

people forget we were in the hunt again for 1st after an abysmal start 

The radical line changes , were  important because now , you can shuffle lines and players know the other when you have to do it 

all the comments weren't " we like the coach " . it was " we were playing for each other".. that's a major improvement to me . never used to hear that .. it was always canned speeches 

 

other thing is for the most part he knows where to put players to be most effective .. he got Johnny off the half wall on the powerplay for example ..  but he forced them to be good in other areas just in case they were needed there ..  bottom line is he's a teacher and they respect him . When they respect the coach , and he teaches them things they only keep going up  

I'm not giving him the Jack Adams or anything right now , but to me i dont see a radical improvement available ..

 

I also wonder what you are saying to the players if you replace him..

we preach all the time that players need to earn and be rewarded ..  I think Ward has earned it , what is it saying when you  just give it to someone cuz they have a bigger name 

[robrob74]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

i think its more than just being likeable , if that were it then GG would still be here 

 

people forget we were in the hunt again for 1st after an abysmal start 

The radical line changes , were  important because now , you can shuffle lines and players know the other when you have to do it 

all the comments weren't " we like the coach " . it was " we were playing for each other".. that's a major improvement to me . never used to hear that .. it was always canned speeches 

 

other thing is for the most part he knows where to put players to be most effective .. he got Johnny off the half wall on the powerplay for example ..  but he forced them to be good in other areas just in case they were needed there ..  bottom line is he's a teacher and they respect him . When they respect the coach , and he teaches them things they only keep going up  

I'm not giving him the Jack Adams or anything right now , but to me i dont see a radical improvement available ..

 

I also wonder what you are saying to the players if you replace him..

we preach all the time that players need to earn and be rewarded ..  I think Ward has earned it , what is it saying when you  just give it to someone cuz they have a bigger name 

 

I just haven’t seen a huge improvement though. They played tentative hockey the whole year and almost never looked natural, even in the playoffs. The Lucic, Bennett, Dube lime was the only one that seemed to roll. Maybe they look better after 50-60 games? 

[phoenix66]

34 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I just haven’t seen a huge improvement though. They played tentative hockey the whole year and almost never looked natural, even in the playoffs. The Lucic, Bennett, Dube lime was the only one that seemed to roll. Maybe they look better after 50-60 games? 

i think that in itself is a telling sign in itself 

last year at this time people were putting Dube in every deal ..whos trading him now ?

i think Bennett finally has a coach that will let him be center ..

He got Lucic playing and contributing ..yes he's still overpaid , but he was a useful contributor and became a leader in the playoffs 

Mangiapane took a major step..he's about to get paid..

All these players progressed because of the situations they were put in 

 

and love him or Hate him like I do, and happy he's gone..  I'd bet Ward would have worked to get Neal on track .. BP decided early he was being barred from the top line and stuck with it 

 

I'm not seeing a coach that has "his guys".. everybody has been put in a position to succeed or fail

we're not seeing Ryan playing every position , not seeing a Brouwer out there shift after shift 

And he rewards them ..  Backlund was being tried on the wing , asked to be put back to center .. so he did , and Backlund played better than he did before the experiment 

 I think the fact we were even IN that Dallas series, aside from Talbot was a testament to the lines 2 to 4 ..

The fact he didn't coddle and cater to the top line was also quite telling .. theyre struggling , put someone else out 

 

seriously the only thing i would have liked to see different was more shot blocking in late moments and in close

also some better communication to let Talbot know he was going right back in..

(in case anybody didn't put 2 and 2 together .. " equipment issues " meant Talbot had already removed it and thrown it around the room )..

he was supposed to go right back in .. either Talbot missed the message or the coach sent the wrong one 

 

 

 

[Horsman1]

11 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

i think its more than just being likeable , if that were it then GG would still be here 

 

people forget we were in the hunt again for 1st after an abysmal start 

The radical line changes , were  important because now , you can shuffle lines and players know the other when you have to do it 

all the comments weren't " we like the coach " . it was " we were playing for each other".. that's a major improvement to me . never used to hear that .. it was always canned speeches 

 

other thing is for the most part he knows where to put players to be most effective .. he got Johnny off the half wall on the powerplay for example ..  but he forced them to be good in other areas just in case they were needed there ..  bottom line is he's a teacher and they respect him . When they respect the coach , and he teaches them things they only keep going up  

I'm not giving him the Jack Adams or anything right now , but to me i dont see a radical improvement available ..

 

I also wonder what you are saying to the players if you replace him..

we preach all the time that players need to earn and be rewarded ..  I think Ward has earned it , what is it saying when you  just give it to someone cuz they have a bigger name 

does the coach get to determine the waY THE TEAM PLAYS OR IS THAT TRELIVING.. IF IT'S THE COACH.. DOES HE GET TO PICK HIS OWN ASSISTANTS THAT CAN IMPLEMENT HIS System.. IF NOT.. WHAT'S THE POINT.. and does treliving go out and get the players to play that system or is the coach stuck with these guys we have now.. which is basically a collection of hockey players.. not a team

 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

does the coach get to determine the waY THE TEAM PLAYS OR IS THAT TRELIVING.. IF IT'S THE COACH.. DOES HE GET TO PICK HIS OWN ASSISTANTS THAT CAN IMPLEMENT HIS System.. IF NOT.. WHAT'S THE POINT.. and does treliving go out and get the players to play that system or is the coach stuck with these guys we have now.. which is basically a collection of hockey players.. not a team

 

 

I imagine it's a whole lot of, "you can marry any girl you like, as long as I approve."

 

GM will let the coach do whatever he wants, as long as the GM approves.  I mean, GM/coach have to be on the same page so there's a cohesive philosophy.  I imagine this cohesion runs throughout the organization.  If a GM goes out and gets/drafts/signs offensive minded players, then he would be smart to hire a coach who wants to implement an offensive system of play.  

 

I'm sure a GM will meet with his coach frequently to discuss the roster.  Frequently asked questions should be "what kind of player are you missing?". "our plan A is use player X and plan B should be player Y.". Etc.  If GM/coach is too far apart in agreement then I'm sure the coach will be a goner.

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I imagine it's a whole lot of, "you can marry any girl you like, as long as I approve."

 

GM will let the coach do whatever he wants, as long as the GM approves.  I mean, GM/coach have to be on the same page so there's a cohesive philosophy.  I imagine this cohesion runs throughout the organization.  If a GM goes out and gets/drafts/signs offensive minded players, then he would be smart to hire a coach who wants to implement an offensive system of play.  

 

I'm sure a GM will meet with his coach frequently to discuss the roster.  Frequently asked questions should be "what kind of player are you missing?". "our plan A is use player X and plan B should be player Y.". Etc.  If GM/coach is too far apart in agreement then I'm sure the coach will be a goner.

 

The question always comes up when player X comes up from the farm and doesn't play.

I sometimes wonder what the coach sees, when a guy like Yelesin comes in and plays solid hockey.

Why would he ever think Stone is a better choice.

I get the whole "great attitude when he practices" but you are trying to win.

Stone does not provide that.

Same for RInaldo.

 

Anyway, Ward annoys me with his decision making, but he takes input from other coaches.

Huska determines the D structures, but I found them lacking.

Maybe it's skill or usage, but I thought we could have done a lot better in the playoffs.

D scoring was down.

Goal differential negative.

We need a good coach that can win with this or any group. 

[cross16]

22 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

i think its more than just being likeable , if that were it then GG would still be here 

 

people forget we were in the hunt again for 1st after an abysmal start 

The radical line changes , were  important because now , you can shuffle lines and players know the other when you have to do it 

all the comments weren't " we like the coach " . it was " we were playing for each other".. that's a major improvement to me . never used to hear that .. it was always canned speeches 

 

other thing is for the most part he knows where to put players to be most effective .. he got Johnny off the half wall on the powerplay for example ..  but he forced them to be good in other areas just in case they were needed there ..  bottom line is he's a teacher and they respect him . When they respect the coach , and he teaches them things they only keep going up  

I'm not giving him the Jack Adams or anything right now , but to me i dont see a radical improvement available ..

 

I also wonder what you are saying to the players if you replace him..

we preach all the time that players need to earn and be rewarded ..  I think Ward has earned it , what is it saying when you  just give it to someone cuz they have a bigger name 

 

This is my number 1 fear when team promote assistants, see success and the tout them as the head coach. Was it because he was the right guy or was he just the next guy. It's one of the biggest traps in pro sports, believing that the immediate success you have is tied to the coach and not taking a bigger picture look at what happened. 80% of the time the players and and the situation are what changed but the coach gets undue credit and then falls on their face the next season. 

 

the more i've sat on it, the more i'm now firmly in the camp that making Ward the head coach will be a mistake. I just did not see enough in the way of adjustments, bench management and player buy in during that Dallas series to make me believe it was Ward who moved the needle. As i've said all along I do give him credit for changing the culture, making it positive and allowing the team to get back to their game but I also question that he can keep that going. I think he helped a bad situation and there were some impressive things in there that he did and deserve credit for but I also thikn you can find a coach who can keep that type of culture going but who is stronger in bench management and accountability. I attribute the turnaround the Flames did more to the players and the situation than to Ward as is true of most assistants who get promoted to the head coach. 

 

I fully expect they will give him the job but I don't think it's the right call. Unless rumors are true that the owners won't pay up for it or none of those other coaches want to be here. 

[robrob74]

For me, this team played just good enough or just bad enough to draft outside of the top 15 but for most of the season was bad enough to draft closer to the top 10. Not saying that the talent isn't good enough to draft where we are drafting, but saying the team played like they should be drafting in the top 10 this year. For most of the year they struggled but won in spite of how they played, and early on it was due to goaltending. 

 

Again, like in season's past, they had a spike in play for around 7-10 wins when Ward took over, that catapulted us into playoff contention, and that part of the record made a poor playing team look better than it was actually doing. I feel like the team's success this year was winning just enough to get them into another crappy draft position despite their level of play for the year as a whole.

[sak22]

31 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

For me, this team played just good enough or just bad enough to draft outside of the top 15 but for most of the season was bad enough to draft closer to the top 10. Not saying that the talent isn't good enough to draft where we are drafting, but saying the team played like they should be drafting in the top 10 this year. For most of the year they struggled but won in spite of how they played, and early on it was due to goaltending. 

 

Again, like in season's past, they had a spike in play for around 7-10 wins when Ward took over, that catapulted us into playoff contention, and that part of the record made a poor playing team look better than it was actually doing. I feel like the team's success this year was winning just enough to get them into another crappy draft position despite their level of play for the year as a whole.

I don't know I think you are being too harsh with the top 10 stuff.  I think we are clearly better team than Anaheim, Ottawa, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Montreal.  And I think if you watched Phoenix, Nashville, Edmonton, Florida, Toronto, Carolina, Columbus, Rangers, Winnipeg, Minnesota, with the same microscope you wouldn't be blown away with them either.  I think they are where they belong when it comes to the draft, but whether it trends up or down we will see, but staying where we are at would be the worst.  Not as bad as you think, but the problem is we aren't good enough either.

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

This is my number 1 fear when team promote assistants, see success and the tout them as the head coach. Was it because he was the right guy or was he just the next guy. It's one of the biggest traps in pro sports, believing that the immediate success you have is tied to the coach and not taking a bigger picture look at what happened. 80% of the time the players and and the situation are what changed but the coach gets undue credit and then falls on their face the next season. 

 

the more i've sat on it, the more i'm now firmly in the camp that making Ward the head coach will be a mistake. I just did not see enough in the way of adjustments, bench management and player buy in during that Dallas series to make me believe it was Ward who moved the needle. As i've said all along I do give him credit for changing the culture, making it positive and allowing the team to get back to their game but I also question that he can keep that going. I think he helped a bad situation and there were some impressive things in there that he did and deserve credit for but I also thikn you can find a coach who can keep that type of culture going but who is stronger in bench management and accountability. I attribute the turnaround the Flames did more to the players and the situation than to Ward as is true of most assistants who get promoted to the head coach. 

 

I fully expect they will give him the job but I don't think it's the right call. Unless rumors are true that the owners won't pay up for it or none of those other coaches want to be here. 

I get what you're saying but my thing is  I Look at that series and ask " what would a big name coach have done differently"

and aside from the Talbot  confusion , I got nothing .

Matchups..check

Buy in .. check

Effort..check

 

To me it came down to personnel

Johnny or anybody on the top line buries some the chances they blew.. different story 

Hamonic on the ice instead of Forbort in a pressure situation .. different story 

 

again I'm not saying he's coach of the year , but he didn't lose the job in my opinion 

If anything he did BT a favor.. this is likely the first time in years BT can analyze his core and team without " what if's"..  we saw what everybody has in that series.. except Rittich 

And they are now doing the same to Colorado they did to us .. some credit has to be given to a Veteran Core that is benefitting from the rest .. its like they hit the fountain of youth 

 

But I do think you are right ..BT yesterday implied they are "very close " to an announcement ..and I have heard no reports of us asking permission or interviewing anybody .. so unless the announcement is the search begins i suspect he'll be announced on the next playoff day off 

[cross16]

18 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I get what you're saying but my thing is  I Look at that series and ask " what would a big name coach have done differently"

and aside from the Talbot  confusion , I got nothing .

Matchups..check

Buy in .. check

Effort..check

 

 

 

I see it very differently.

 

Match ups - He spent half the playoffs burying his top line with d zone starts and tried to use them as a shutdown line. Even in situations where he had last change, he routinely got caught with his 4th line against the Stars best line and it cost him at least 1 goal (that I can remember off the top of my head). I thought Bowness schooled him when it came to line management. 

Situations: In Game 4 he left Backlund-Lindholm out for a 3 min shift to finish the game on the heels of them killing a bunch of penalties in the 3rd period. 

For me, pulling Talbot was one of the biggest coaching blunders I've ever seen. it made zero sense to me when he did it and his rationale on it continues to make zero sense because he had a timeout. 

Playing Rinaldo is also a pretty big blunder for me. I get the other side to that equation but leaving yourself so thin in terms of special teams for a player that gives you no ability 5 on 5 or doesn't do anything for you made no sense to me. It's fair to say that it's not realistic to predict the Flames would get into such penalty trouble but my view is that a coach needs to be prepared for as many scenarios as he can. This is a big fail for me. 

I also don't really agree that buy in was there. The Flames had multiple slow starts and when things got tighter against Dallas they abandoned what was successful against Winnipeg and went into a passive shell. Not fair to put that all on Ward, but I can't put that in the win column for him either. 

 

 

Those are some pretty critical issues in management and all of them reflect poorly on Ward and the staff (Ward should not be singled out here either). I am not advocating, nor do i believe, that it would change the outcome of the series but they are all large enough issues to convince me they should not name him the permanent coach unless they can't get anyone else. 

[phoenix66]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I see it very differently.

 

Match ups - He spent half the playoffs burying his top line with d zone starts and tried to use them as a shutdown line. Even in situations where he had last change, he routinely got caught with his 4th line against the Stars best line and it cost him at least 1 goal (that I can remember off the top of my head). I thought Bowness schooled him when it came to line management. 

Situations: In Game 4 he left Backlund-Lindholm out for a 3 min shift to finish the game on the heels of them killing a bunch of penalties in the 3rd period. 

For me, pulling Talbot was one of the biggest coaching blunders I've ever seen. it made zero sense to me when he did it and his rationale on it continues to make zero sense because he had a timeout. 

Playing Rinaldo is also a pretty big blunder for me. I get the other side to that equation but leaving yourself so thin in terms of special teams for a player that gives you no ability 5 on 5 or doesn't do anything for you made no sense to me. It's fair to say that it's not realistic to predict the Flames would get into such penalty trouble but my view is that a coach needs to be prepared for as many scenarios as he can. This is a big fail for me. 

I also don't really agree that buy in was there. The Flames had multiple slow starts and when things got tighter against Dallas they abandoned what was successful against Winnipeg and went into a passive shell. Not fair to put that all on Ward, but I can't put that in the win column for him either. 

 

 

Those are some pretty critical issues in management and all of them reflect poorly on Ward and the staff (Ward should not be singled out here either). I am not advocating, nor do i believe, that it would change the outcome of the series but they are all large enough issues to convince me they should not name him the permanent coach unless they can't get anyone else. 

I have numerous  comebacks to all of those,  but It comes down to who are you gonna hire ?  

I can't see Laviolette turning down Washington 

Boudreau and Babcock are hard No 's 

and I know Gallant's cousin.. there was more to that Vegas firing ..trust me you don't want him here 

LV canned him before the investigation could start 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

I don't know I think you are being too harsh with the top 10 stuff.  I think we are clearly better team than Anaheim, Ottawa, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Montreal.  And I think if you watched Phoenix, Nashville, Edmonton, Florida, Toronto, Carolina, Columbus, Rangers, Winnipeg, Minnesota, with the same microscope you wouldn't be blown away with them either.  I think they are where they belong when it comes to the draft, but whether it trends up or down we will see, but staying where we are at would be the worst.  Not as bad as you think, but the problem is we aren't good enough either.

 

Oh yes and that’s what I said kind of. We played as bad For most of the regular season but have the talent that should be where we ended at.

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I have numerous  comebacks to all of those,  but It comes down to who are you gonna hire ?  

I can't see Laviolette turning down Washington 

Boudreau and Babcock are hard No 's 

and I know Gallant's cousin.. there was more to that Vegas firing ..trust me you don't want him here 

LV canned him before the investigation could start 

 

I'm not even a big fan of his but after what i saw in the playoffs i would 100% hire Boudreau over Ward if he would come here. They are built really well for his style. i would also check in on Jim Montgomery. 

 

But as i've said before, and even despite my criticism, there is value with going with the known commodity instead of the devil you don't. But it's going to mean the Flames continue to spin their wheels with an avg at best coach and likely be held back becuase of it. So while there is some logic in the decision i don't think its a good or exciting one either. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not even a big fan of his but after what i saw in the playoffs i would 100% hire Boudreau over Ward if he would come here. They are built really well for his style. i would also check in on Jim Montgomery. 

 

But as i've said before, and even despite my criticism, there is value with going with the known commodity instead of the devil you don't. But it's going to mean the Flames continue to spin their wheels with an avg at best coach and likely be held back becuase of it. So while there is some logic in the decision i don't think its a good or exciting one either. 

So hire the coach that cant win in the playoffs .. to Help the team that cant win in the playoffs ?

 

Montgomery would be interesting.. assuming he's over his drinking problems .

The Johnny connection could be intriguing actually 

[cross16]

38 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

So hire the coach that cant win in the playoffs .. to Help the team that cant win in the playoffs ?

 

Montgomery would be interesting.. assuming he's over his drinking problems .

The Johnny connection could be intriguing actually 

 

I don't think that criticism of Boudreau is fair nor fair to put all on him. 50% of the time he's gone to the playoffs he's gotten out of the first round which is a significantly better stat than the Flames over that same time period. Also if you look at the individual series, his teams tend to put themselves in really good shape and be undone by bad goaltending at the worst time. 

 

It's not like the teams crack the code once he's gone either. Took 7 years for the Caps to win the cup, Trotz was there for 4 and wasn't out of the 2nd round for the first 3 years. 

 

I also think the criticism is dumb because you have to get there and he gets there with the best of them. I'm less convinced Ward is going to get them there over a full season. The results after the 7 game win streak under Ward were very mediocre.

 

[JTech780]

I am for keeping Ward, but I also want to see a rebuild. He is a positive guy, who communicates well and players like playing for him, so if you are going through a rebuild and have a lot of young players around, I think he is the ideal coach.

 

If the plan is to keep the band together and try again Ward is the wrong coach. His gameplanning wasn't good, his game management wasn't good, he made very few in game adjustments. He isn't a coach that is going to take you far in the playoffs.

[travel_dude]

I'm of the same opinion as Cross.

I didn't like what I saw in the playoffs.

I think that started in the regular season, after Backlund was moved back to C.

And why did it take so long to use Bennett at C.

He sat Janko.

 

This club has more to give than what we saw in the playoffs.

But first, they need a coach that doesn't force buy in on things that don't make sense.

I think Ward is an excellent A/Coach.

He just doesn't fit the head coach bill.

[sak22]

Well you know like uh, there is always this guy

https://streamable.com/3iaqeo

 

Perhaps hitting rock bottom would teach a guy how not to behave, and that is rock bottom IMO for a Stanley Cup & Jack Adams winner.

[Lost and Profound]

  IMO ward deserves a shot, he came in at a tough time and did well. Did he make some mistakes, sure. But then again he doesnt exactly have Scotty Bowman experience.

Lets see if he learns from the mistakes or not. I believe he has earned that.

  Otherwise can always trade Gaudreau for Brind'Amour

[Thebrewcrew]

1 hour ago, Lost and Profound said:

  IMO ward deserves a shot, he came in at a tough time and did well. Did he make some mistakes, sure. But then again he doesnt exactly have Scotty Bowman experience.

Lets see if he learns from the mistakes or not. I believe he has earned that.

  Otherwise can always trade Gaudreau for Brind'Amour

In a perfect world, there's a case to be made for Ward.

 

In reality though, this is Trelving's last hire, he really needs to get it right. I'm not sure if he's been given the go ahead to spend big money on a coach, but in theory I think Gallant/Bourdeau/Laviolette will be high on his list. If he can't get one of those guys, I think Ward is the coach, we won't be seeing another young up anc comer hired. I really think it's a big name coach, or Ward. Given the Flames history, it's likely Ward's job

[tmac70]

If Ward is given the position, than Tre needs to go. We have had two 1st round exits the core needs a make over and a far better coach. 

[phoenix66]

9 hours ago, tmac70 said:

If Ward is given the position, than Tre needs to go. We have had two 1st round exits the core needs a make over and a far better coach. 

That's a bit extreme .  The last 2 coaches missed the playoffs  to get fired. 

 

I realize on paper this is a first round exit , but realistically we won the first round .

 

Fan 960 made a great point this morning. If the BP fiasco hadn't happened , and it was still him in charge with the same results .Would we be calling for his firing?

I think we'd be talking about the core being the issue for once 

[cross16]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

That's a bit extreme .  The last 2 coaches missed the playoffs  to get fired. 

 

I realize on paper this is a first round exit , but realistically we won the first round .

 

Fan 960 made a great point this morning. If the BP fiasco hadn't happened , and it was still him in charge with the same results .Would we be calling for his firing?

I think we'd be talking about the core being the issue for once 

 

Are we not already?

 

The very strong general consensus I am seeing out there, and it's almost unanimous among people I talk with, is that this team needs changes. However, it is possible, and IMO the right answer, to say that you need to make changes to your core and you need an upgrade at head coach. 

 

Both conclusions are independent of each other.