Could Patrick Roy coach the Canadiens?

[REV-G]

Interesting that the media is saying that Patrick Roy has been offered the head coaching job with the Colorado Avalanche, but he's denying that he's received a formal offer. Some in the media are suggesting that Patrick is holding out, waiting to receive an offer from the Canadiens. So an interesting question would be, could Patrick Roy coach the Canadiens and do well.

He has been co-owner, GM and coach of the Remparts and at that level in the QMJHL has done very well. Terry Frei, in the Denver Post, said that when Roy and the Remparts won the Memorial Cup in 2006 it was generally felt that Roy outcoached Ted Nolan, the NHL's coach of the year in 1997. So at that level Roy was very successful. He played in the NHL and was a superstar, so he obviously has a very good understanding of how the game is played.

However at the end of this past season, out of the 30 NHL head coaches, 11 had been major-junior head coaches before getting their first NHL head coaching position. The list includes Claude Julien, Mike Keenan, Paul Maurice, Ken Hitchcock, Mike Babcock, Peter DeBoer, Jacques Lemaire, Brent Sutter, Cory Clouston, Todd McLellan and Alain Vigneault. But the interesting part is that out of those 11 only 3 made the jump directly from coaching at the Junior level directly to the NHL.

Vigneault was a head coach in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for eight seasons before he became the Canadiens' head coach in 1997.

Sutter also had been with the Western Hockey League's Red Deer Rebels, for eight seasons before jumping directly to the NKL with NJ. And DeBoers coached in the Ontario Hockey League for 13 seasons before going directly to the NHL and coaching the Florida Panthers a year ago. In addition, both Paul Maurice and Jacques Lemaire jumped to head coach in the NHL less than a year after coaching in junior. So maybe we could say 5 NHL coaches went directly or almost directly from head coaches in major junior to NHL head coaching jobs.

So just looking at history, making the jump from coaching a major junior team to being head coach in the NHL has been done, but not too often. I think owning and being the GM of a memorial cup winning team does say something regarding Roys ability to draft, select and put in place a team that has all the elements to win it all. That certainly shows that Roy has a very good understanding of what a team neeeds to be sucessful. But can he handle NHL players? If he can control his emotions, and not implode, I think he could. The question is, where we currently are as a team, can we risk installing a head coach with no proven NHL track record.

[MAK]

I would like for montreal to hire a coach with credentials à la Bruce Boudreau....Don Lever anyone ??

I dont deny Roy's great junior coaching but if montreal offers Hamilton head coaching job to Guy Boucher( or so the rumour goes), a better coach then Roy IMO, why would a guy Like Roy go right to the top that fast ?? Just because he's patrick roy ??

Let Roy get his experience else where and then come back to montreal if he feels like it.

Habs should go for a coach, not a name.

[Chris]

Sure he could, but then when they started losing people would complain they only hired him because he was french. Then others would complain about him because he is a rookie coach.

So it probably wouldn't be the best move unless BG intends on turning over a new roster.

I think the best bet is Hartley, with Robinson and Lever the 2 new Assistants.

[redondo]

I have no doubt that he would be a good coach skill-wise, but I worry about his temper. It was minimized in a setting where he's coaching a bunch of boys from the Q whom he selected and who idolize him, but if he were coaching a team of millionaires he may find them a little more cynical and a little less receptive in some cases. And this is a situation where many, many elements are outside of his direct control, that wasn't the case with the Remparts. IMO Both Roy and the Canadiens would be better served by him getting some NHL coaching experience elsewhere first - the cycle of coaching in Montreal is shorter then the expected learning curve for rookie NHL coaches, and we do need a known quantity for a variety of reasons at this point in time.

My preferred choices are still Hartley, Lemaire, Robinson, in that order.

[Chris]

Lemaire won't take it, as much as people complained about GC style, can you imagine all the heat trying to win games 1-0.

Roy firey temper is the one good thing i like about him, can you imagine a habs team that actually cares and stands up for eachother? That would be nice to see for a change.

We'll see, alot of questions this offseason and so far no answers.

[Peter Puck]

Interesting that the media is saying that Patrick Roy has been offered the head coaching job with the Colorado Avalanche, but he's denying that he's received a formal offer. Some in the media are suggesting that Patrick is holding out, waiting to receive an offer from the Canadiens. So an interesting question would be, could Patrick Roy coach the Canadiens and do well.

He has been co-owner, GM and coach of the Remparts and at that level in the QMJHL has done very well. Terry Frei, in the Denver Post, said that when Roy and the Remparts won the Memorial Cup in 2006 it was generally felt that Roy outcoached Ted Nolan, the NHL's coach of the year in 1997. So at that level Roy was very successful. He played in the NHL and was a superstar, so he obviously has a very good understanding of how the game is played.

However at the end of this past season, out of the 30 NHL head coaches, 11 had been major-junior head coaches before getting their first NHL head coaching position. The list includes Claude Julien, Mike Keenan, Paul Maurice, Ken Hitchcock, Mike Babcock, Peter DeBoer, Jacques Lemaire, Brent Sutter, Cory Clouston, Todd McLellan and Alain Vigneault. But the interesting part is that out of those 11 only 3 made the jump directly from coaching at the Junior level directly to the NHL.

Vigneault was a head coach in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for eight seasons before he became the Canadiens' head coach in 1997.

Sutter also had been with the Western Hockey League's Red Deer Rebels, for eight seasons before jumping directly to the NKL with NJ. And DeBoers coached in the Ontario Hockey League for 13 seasons before going directly to the NHL and coaching the Florida Panthers a year ago. In addition, both Paul Maurice and Jacques Lemaire jumped to head coach in the NHL less than a year after coaching in junior. So maybe we could say 5 NHL coaches went directly or almost directly from head coaches in major junior to NHL head coaching jobs.

So just looking at history, making the jump from coaching a major junior team to being head coach in the NHL has been done, but not too often. I think owning and being the GM of a memorial cup winning team does say something regarding Roys ability to draft, select and put in place a team that has all the elements to win it all. That certainly shows that Roy has a very good understanding of what a team neeeds to be sucessful. But can he handle NHL players? If he can control his emotions, and not implode, I think he could. The question is, where we currently are as a team, can we risk installing a head coach with no proven NHL track record.

This is a common misconception. In my opinion many journeyman players have a better understanding of both how the game is played and how to coach players. Most superstars rely on their great skill and natural talents to succeed. This does not build deep understanding of how the game is played. Being an average or below average player means dealing with your coaches a lot and it leads to understanding fundamentals. Not very many superstars have made good coaches. There are a few exceptions (Toe Blake). Lafleur, a superstar, would make a terrible coach precisely because he doesn't understand how the game is played by non-stars.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Peter Puck

[saskhab]

This is a common misconception. In my opinion many journeyman players have a better understanding of both how the game is played and how to coach players. Most superstars rely on their great skill and natural talents to succeed. This does not build deep understanding of how the game is played. Being an average or below average player means dealing with your coaches a lot and it leads to understanding fundamentals. Not very many superstars have made good coaches. There are a few exceptions (Toe Blake). Lafleur, a superstar, would make a terrible coach precisely because he doesn't understand how the game is played by non-stars.

I also think a journeyman player has more incentive to go into coaching... they don't have the $$$ piled up like the superstars do. It takes an incredible passion for the game for a superstar to go into coaching, which obviously Gretzky and Roy have.

Randy Carlyle was one of the NHL's best d-men, even won a Norris. I think he's a hell of a coach. I think Chelios would be a good coach, but he'd probably get frustrated at some point and decide he should play instead. Jacques Lemaire sure wasn't a journeyman, either. Neither was Larry Robinson. Good players can easily be good coaches, they just maybe aren't as inclined to coach as others would be.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think Roy will implode sooner or later as a coach in the NHL. People point to his passion, but this is also the characteristic that led him to beat up his wife and get into brawls as a coach in junior. A relatively obscure locale like Colorado is almost certainly better for a guy of that profile than the insane pressure-cooker of Montreal.

I'm also leery of coaches with big egos, a la Mike Keenan. They tend to drive away certain players.

WE NEED A PROVEN, EXPERIENCED NHL COACH IN HERE. PERIOD!!!

Lemaire, Hartley, Robinson, Crawford - these are my choices in order of preference, with the first two being some distance ahead of the latter pair. I know Lemaire is unlikely to sign on. So Hartley is my first *realistic* choice. He's won a Cup; Roy called him the best hockey mind he ever met; Marc Savard credited him with making him a true star player; he even got decent results out of a garbage roster his first couple of seasons in Atlanta. He is a very credible candidate by any measure.

Edited May 19, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[REV-G]

I think Patrick could coach the Canadiens. My problem is that, where we are as a team right now, having a lot of UFA's, not certain what our roster is going to look like next season, having just fired a coach, likely new owners etc., there are just too many unknowns for a rookie NHL coach. My choice would be Hartley then Mark Crawford but not Lemaire.

[saskhab]

There's always a part of me that is a huge Patrick Roy fan that wants him here. But hey, I was a huge Carbo fanboy as well, so let's be realistic about this job going forward: let Roy make his early mistakes elsewhere, and let's see if he has the ability to learn from them. Unlike juniors, NHL players CAN tune a coach out completely and get him fired. Those Remparts players had no choice... they want to make the NHL, the coach was also the GM and owner... it's his team, through and through. I did like what Roy was able to do with Alexander Radulov... he had a natural talent and he put him in a situation to flourish. That's an encouraging sign. But he'll have to balance a lot more ego in the NHL than he ever had to in the Q.

So let's look at the guys we have available and how much we know about them. Robinson and Hartley have a LOT going for them... Robinson's only potential drawback is health and anxiety issues. Hartley's main drawback is his penchant for encouraging vigilante style justice when things aren't going his team's way... this really came up a number of times in Atlanta. These aren't horrid faults... if Robinson feels he can do the job (and his doctors feel comfortable as well) then the issue certainly shouldn't hold him back. Hartley's issue isn't an overwhelmingly horrid fault, and probably one that can be corrected simply by the roster of players he has at his disposal (we know that Laraque ain't much for vigilante style retribution).

[Chris]

Vigalante style coaching? I'd love to see that. How many Habs players get crushed, pushed around and taken advantage of nightly with no answer. That is a plus in my book.

An example: The goalies getting run every night, the mighty Brisby was the ONLY PLAYER this year to stand up and do something about it. That sums up the habs team toughness right there. PATHETIC.

If your not going to win the war, at least win a battle.

I agree on Robinson, a better assistant coach.

[saskhab]

Vigalante style coaching? I'd love to see that. How many Habs players get crushed, pushed around and taken advantage of nightly with no answer. That is a plus in my book.

An example: The goalies getting run every night, the mighty Brisby was the ONLY PLAYER this year to stand up and do something about it. That sums up the habs team toughness right there. PATHETIC.

If your not going to win the war, at least win a battle.

I agree on Robinson, a better assistant coach.

I was more referring to the "settling scores" approach when the game is out of reach. The kind of drive you're looking for requires an immediate reaction, which unfortunately the coach can't control. Guys on the ice need to protect the goalie.

[Chris]

I think the coach can take away ice time if you don't stand up for a team mate. I'm fine with settling scores also.

I obviously don't mean breaking a guys neck.

[Chris]

Hartley's team in Colorado was tough, teams NEVER took advantage of them physically, they never ran the goalies without an immediate response.

When El Diablo (Parker) played, opposing players knew there would be an immediate response.

I sure hope they hire Hartley.

[zumpano21]

Forget Roy. Let's get the Great One.

Gretzky Out?

[hab29RETIRED]

Forget Roy. Let's get the Great One.

Gretzky Out?

Why the he'll would you want a guy that has done a lousy job in phoenix. The great one has not only has a lousy coaching record, but is also reportedly been behnd most of the coyotes lousy personel decisions.

[ForumGhost]

Because they are much worse than when he got them. Yep.

[Colin]

Does he speak French?

[Wamsley01]

Lemaire won't take it, as much as people complained about GC style, can you imagine all the heat trying to win games 1-0.

Roy firey temper is the one good thing i like about him, can you imagine a habs team that actually cares and stands up for eachother? That would be nice to see for a change.

We'll see, alot of questions this offseason and so far no answers.

I would rather watch them win 1-0 games then lose 5-4. There were plenty of habs teams in the 80s who really struggled

to score goals, but those stretches usually only lasted a season or two. Even the 86 team that won the CUp was not a powerful

offensive club.

Look at this snippet from the SI archives.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...64832/index.htm

Translation: Mind your own end first. Montreal may have a new coach—Perron was Jacques Lemaire's assistant last season—but they are playing under the same old philosophy. Defense. The Canadiens smother a team with it. They suffocate a crowd. They strangle the TV ratings. If you don't get your jollies from watching a man being tied up in front, bring a good book to the game, because, you're in for a long, drowsy night. The Flying Frenchmen? Save that for another era. The only flying this team does is to its road games. The back-checking Frenchmen, the fore-checking Swedes, the disciplined Yanks is more like it. And, is it dull. Nos glorieux, reduced to the rouge, bleu et blecchh.

But, hey, it works. So what if Montreal doctors these days are prescribing two aspirin and a Canadien playoff game for minor cases of la grippe! They are winning. Somehow. How weak is the Canadiens' offense? In their 15 postseason games they have mustered only 41 goals—four of them while playing short-handed—a scoring average of only 2.73 per game. By any standards—playoffs, peewees, squirts—that is pathetic. Teams playing Montreal need not bother dressing a checking line—the Canadiens don't have a goal-scoring unit worth checking. Not one of the top 15 scorers in the playoffs is a Canadien.

I want them to do this and have been waiting for Gainey to implement this for 5 years!! How the hell they could not acccomplish this

with Carbo, Muller and Jarvis on board, I will never know.

Defense wins championships and will keep you in the playoffs more often than not.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Wamsley01

[yorickbrown]

But the interesting part is that out of those 11 only 3 made the jump directly from coaching at the Junior level directly to the NHL.

Vigneault was a head coach in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for eight seasons before he became the Canadiens' head coach in 1997.

I don't mean to be a jerk but In "1992–93, Vigneault got his first break in the NHL as an assistant coach with the expansion Ottawa Senators." (took it from wikipedia).

I can't think of a succeesful NHL who started as a goalie, so why would Montreal want him as a coach?

[Wamsley01]

I don't mean to be a jerk but In "1992–93, Vigneault got his first break in the NHL as an assistant coach with the expansion Ottawa Senators." (took it from wikipedia).

I can't think of a succeesful NHL who started as a goalie, so why would Montreal want him as a coach?

All I can think of is Hanlon, but he wasn't exactly successful. That being said, how many ex goaltenders had been

successful GMs in the NHL before Ken Holland?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I would rather watch them win 1-0 games then lose 5-4. There were plenty of habs teams in the 80s who really struggled

to score goals, but those stretches usually only lasted a season or two. Even the 86 team that won the CUp was not a powerful

offensive club.

Look at this snippet from the SI archives.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...64832/index.htm

Translation: Mind your own end first. Montreal may have a new coach—Perron was Jacques Lemaire's assistant last season—but they are playing under the same old philosophy. Defense. The Canadiens smother a team with it. They suffocate a crowd. They strangle the TV ratings. If you don't get your jollies from watching a man being tied up in front, bring a good book to the game, because, you're in for a long, drowsy night. The Flying Frenchmen? Save that for another era. The only flying this team does is to its road games. The back-checking Frenchmen, the fore-checking Swedes, the disciplined Yanks is more like it. And, is it dull. Nos glorieux, reduced to the rouge, bleu et blecchh.

But, hey, it works. So what if Montreal doctors these days are prescribing two aspirin and a Canadien playoff game for minor cases of la grippe! They are winning. Somehow. How weak is the Canadiens' offense? In their 15 postseason games they have mustered only 41 goals—four of them while playing short-handed—a scoring average of only 2.73 per game. By any standards—playoffs, peewees, squirts—that is pathetic. Teams playing Montreal need not bother dressing a checking line—the Canadiens don't have a goal-scoring unit worth checking. Not one of the top 15 scorers in the playoffs is a Canadien.

I want them to do this and have been waiting for Gainey to implement this for 5 years!! How the hell they could not acccomplish this

with Carbo, Muller and Jarvis on board, I will never know.

Defense wins championships and will keep you in the playoffs more often than not.

I completely agree. Give me a 1-0 Cup boring winner than a 7-6 exciting loser any day of the week. I'm a Habs fan of the old school: WIN, G*DAMMIT. I could not give a flying piece of Kovalev-turd HOW they win. Just win.

It really is one of the great mysteries in hockey history, how a coaching staff/management made up of the very best defensive players of two NHL generations somehow managed to produce a team that has been consistently mediocre in its own end!! I can think of only three explanations:

1. They fit the system - if there is one - to the players. You end up drafting a lot of speedy talented Euros, you end up playing a speedy talented game rather than a defensive one.

2. The players just aren't tough or good enough to play that game.

3. The players just don't listen - or at least didn't listen to Carbonneau.

I forget whether Julien's team was any good in its own end. If it was, it tends to reinforce theory (3), although the personnel has maybe changed too much for the point to be very persuasive.

[Chris]

Only 2 problems with Lemaire

1. He never won anything in Minnesota playing the 1 nothing style.

2. Have you seen the habs D? They can't even make a pass or win a battle, how will that work trying to win 1-0.

My opinion, Lemaire isn't the answer.

[Wamsley01]

Only 2 problems with Lemaire

1. He never won anything in Minnesota playing the 1 nothing style.

2. Have you seen the habs D? They can't even make a pass or win a battle, how will that work trying to win 1-0.

My opinion, Lemaire isn't the answer.

Lemaire in Minnesota missed the playoffs 4 of 8 seasons, but the first two of those seasons were

with an expansion team, he then took a 3rd year expansion team to the Conference Finals.

Somewhere the Habs have not been in 16 years.

He won ONE division championship and kept a mediocre team competitive EVERY year.

Has the revolving door of Therrien, Julien and Carbo been better?

Lemaire might not be the answer, but his accomplishments with his personnel are not a negative IMO.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Wamsley01

[Chris]

Under those coaches you mentioned the habs make the 8th seed 50% of the time as well.

The talent honestly isn't much better in Montreal then in Minnesota. So i'm not sure what would change.

You think getting good players is tough now, wait unitl a known defensive coach arrives. Alot of his skilled guys walked as soon as they get the chance.