The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't have an issue with having a coach with a temper- as long as the knows how to coach and push the right buttons with players (neither of which that idiot Trembley knew how to do). Hell I'd take torterella over anyone we have had over the last 20 years. Good point - but would you want Torts as a raw rookie coach coming out of junior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The issue in the INEXPERIENCE at BOTH GM and COACH......... This isn't the Q, it's the show, and I would rather have someone who's been groomed OR has previous pro experience (even in the AHL) Once again why the fasination with Roy? Because he's home grown and speaks french? I could care less (my opinion) I want someone with either experience OR a proven winner (moving up through the ranks) and at this point Roy isn't the answer IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blonde Demon Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 He has built a pretty good Junior team in Quebec...I understand it may not mean much when thrown into the Montreal cooker, but he has excelled as a player with the weight of the city on his shoulders... We need the fire to win at all costs instilled into this team's system..I say go for it and get "The King" in here, ASAP.. Something has to be done..We have been treading water for too many years with a serious cup drought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The issue in the INEXPERIENCE at BOTH GM and COACH......... This isn't the Q, it's the show, and I would rather have someone who's been groomed OR has previous pro experience (even in the AHL) Once again why the fasination with Roy? Because he's home grown and speaks french? I could care less (my opinion) I want someone with either experience OR a proven winner (moving up through the ranks) and at this point Roy isn't the answer IMO. The Q is a highly competitive league and Roy has spent nearly a decade there building a winner year in and year out. To me this is more valuable than AHL coaching because he is getting both coach and GM experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't remember what his experience level was before TB, but he won a cup there. Good point - but would you want Torts as a raw rookie coach coming out of junior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't remember what his experience level was before TB, but he won a cup there. Apparently Torts had a ton of seasoning in the AHL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tortorella I'd add that Tampa Bay isn't Montreal. Would Torts have survived the controversies that dogged him in TB, had they happened here? Could he have gone to war with Lecavalier and won, for instance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 This is the one thing I really ponder with regards to Roy or any junior coach. Who was the last NHL coach to thrive coming straight out of junior? There are some good AHL to NHL success stories but junior to NHL is a rarer case I do believe. The Habs have gone that route a fair bit over the last couple of decades with very limited success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 This is the one thing I really ponder with regards to Roy or any junior coach. Who was the last NHL coach to thrive coming straight out of junior? There are some good AHL to NHL success stories but junior to NHL is a rarer case I do believe. The Habs have gone that route a fair bit over the last couple of decades with very limited success. Pat Burns, Dave Tippett, Alain Vigneault, Brent Sutter, Pete DeBoer, all went this route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Pat Burns, Dave Tippett, Alain Vigneault, Brent Sutter, Pete DeBoer, all went this route. Of those, how many were immediate success stories? Burns I'd say had a good run, Tippett went from the IHL to NHL assistant to head coach so he doesn't qualify, Vigneault had 4 years of NHL assistant experience with Ottawa before joining the Habs so he too doesn't qualify, Sutter got axed after 2 years in NJ (despite a decent record so I'll give him some credit), and DeBoer was a washout in Florida (3 straight playoff misses) before getting canned. Not a ton of success stories in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sutter didn't get axed in Jersey, he left when his contract was up. Lamorello didn't want to lose him, but he left to work with his brother. DeBoer may not have done great with Florida but I look at his team and ask what was he supposed to do with them? Also I look at a Bylsma, yes he was in the AHL, but it was 1/2 a season, not exactly a long time. I also see guys like Boucher who make the jump in one year. I don't think its that big a difference between QMJHL OHL, WHL and AHL as far as coaching goes. I do agree NHL experienced coaches are usually preferable to those without (if all else is equal) but I don't see a difference between AHL or CHL coaches if they are rookies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sutter didn't get axed in Jersey, he left when his contract was up. Lamorello didn't want to lose him, but he left to work with his brother. DeBoer may not have done great with Florida but I look at his team and ask what was he supposed to do with them? Also I look at a Bylsma, yes he was in the AHL, but it was 1/2 a season, not exactly a long time. I also see guys like Boucher who make the jump in one year. I don't think its that big a difference between QMJHL OHL, WHL and AHL as far as coaching goes. That's right, Sutter bolted, my bad. He'll be axed in Calgary soon enough. Bylsma didn't have any junior experience coaching, but he's a good case of AHL to NHL success. Boucher did it but had that little bit of pro seasoning, so too has Kevin Dineen who is have a strong year after some time in the AHL. There are a lot more of those success stories than junior to NHL. With Roy, he hasn't been in a spot where he hasn't had full control yet; as coach and GM, he could trade anyone he had issues with (not saying he did, but the option was there). In the NHL (or AHL), he won't have that. There will undoubtedly be an adjustment period for him, I personally am tired of the Habs allowing coaches to get that period with them then learn from their mistakes as they move on elsewhere. If he's to be the coach of the Habs down the road, he can start by working in Hamilton. If he insists on NHL or bust, he can stay right where he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Well we have hired a lot of rookies, our last permanent coach hire wasn't a rookie. I think its important we get him an experienced assistant like Dave King was for Vigneault, I think Robinson would be a good hire with Roy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 About the difference between Junior and AHL coaching, I think there is a difference when it comes to motivating older players and the way you would be dealing with them would be different. I think jumping from coaching 15-18 to 18-40 year olds is tough, which is why the AHL 20-whenever they leave for europe is a nice transition. However, we have to include the fact that Roy had such an illustrious career. That alone will help him because he will be respected for all he accomplished and won't have problems some rookie coaches might around telling older players what to do... Its just a thought anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Apparently Torts had a ton of seasoning in the AHL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tortorella I'd add that Tampa Bay isn't Montreal. Would Torts have survived the controversies that dogged him in TB, had they happened here? Could he have gone to war with Lecavalier and won, for instance? I don't know, I'd credit him for Vinny's strong play while he was there. Richards also obviously enjoyed playing with him. Main point though was that Torts probably has the shortest fuse of most coaches and after Babcock and the penguins coach (brain cramp - can;t remember his name), he would be my #3 choice if available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Sutter didn't get axed in Jersey, he left when his contract was up. Lamorello didn't want to lose him, but he left to work with his brother. DeBoer may not have done great with Florida but I look at his team and ask what was he supposed to do with them? Also I look at a Bylsma, yes he was in the AHL, but it was 1/2 a season, not exactly a long time. I also see guys like Boucher who make the jump in one year. I don't think its that big a difference between QMJHL OHL, WHL and AHL as far as coaching goes. I do agree NHL experienced coaches are usually preferable to those without (if all else is equal) but I don't see a difference between AHL or CHL coaches if they are rookies. You do have to take into consideration the team a coach goes to Deboar went to a crappy oppertunity and i agree that the AHL experience isn't adding a lot. Big difference between juniors/AHL and the jump to the NHL is learning to handle guys with big contacts and egos and getting the most out of them AND still being able to develop young players. That's why I really like Bylsma (just remmbered the pens, coach's name I couldn't remember earlier), Babcock and Torts and why I'm so down on Martin. You look at the job some coaches doe with young players like McLean has done with Karlson and you have to think, how much faster Subban may have progressed. Well we have hired a lot of rookies, our last permanent coach hire wasn't a rookie. I think its important we get him an experienced assistant like Dave King was for Vigneault, I think Robinson would be a good hire with Roy. I'm still pissed Gainey didn't hire Robinson when he called and really hope they correct that mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Vinny may have progressed under Torts but in 2003 or 2002 he had a big war with with the coach. In MontreaL instead of Tampa it may have ended a lot differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The thing with Roy coaching is that he is so loved by everyone that his leash will be alot longer than any other possible candidates. He could go through a losing streak without everyone jumping down his neck like most. We all want him to succeed here. We all want him to right his wrongs. He is arguably the greatest goaltender of all time, a homegrown talent and a winner. Even though he would be a rookie NHL coach, I think that the fans would be patient enough for him to turn things around if they started off sour. How much worse could it be than this year? You don't think the "professionals" would respect a guy with FOUR Stanley Cup rings? That is bullshit. If they don't respect that then they need to go play on a different team because here in Montreal, we are winners. Roy made everyone accountable when he was a goaltender on the ice and you better believe he would do the same behind the bench. There is no definition on what makes a successful NHL coach. There has been both "hot heads" and "emotionless statues" leading their team to the Stanley Cup. It is all about what is the best way to motivate the players that you have and get the best from them. And from what I've seen with the 2012 Montreal Canadiens, they have lacked passion. They didn't have the killer instinct. They could never come from behind and tie the game and conversely, never close one out. They would get shoved around with no retaliation. IMO they need a coach with some fire. I am of the belief that hockey is entertainment first and foremost. What else is it? Entertainment means different things to different people. To some it is watching an exciting game or following drama and to others it's the thrill of winning. Personally, I would like to see an exciting brand of hockey day in and day out, then make the playoffs and then hope for the best. There are 30 teams in the league and also 30 teams that want to win it every year. Fans put too much onus on winning the whole thing. Anything but and the year is an utter failure. What a crock. You mean to tell me that the President's Cup winning Vancouver Canucks from last year, who made it to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals but lost, was a failure? You can build a winning team but it doesn't mean you will win it all. Let's retool, fire the coach, get a lottery pick, lock up our core, hope prospects step up, sign a big free agent and THEN life will be good. There are so many variables that go into winning the Cup that it is impossible to control. If you are not happy with anything but a Cup every year, then I'm sorry, because your life will be full of disappointment. There's more to hockey than hoisting an oversized trophy over your head. Put an entertaining product on the ice, make it competitive, have some beers and enjoy! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 ^ great post illWill. I completely agree, I think he should have a crack at the job regardless of his rookie status. His level of success in the NHL has to count for something! I mean he has seen the way many coaches coached and has to have the respect of the players for everything he has accomplished! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Look, Roy as coach will certainly get the benefit of the doubt early on. But that will only last for so long. You don't think that Carbonneau commanded respect, with all his Cup rings? Look what that got him. As for the fans, the idea that we will still be ooh-ing and aaah-ing over Coach Roy three years from now if the team struggles is simply comical. If and when that happens, he will get his throat slit and be thrown on the slag-pile with the rest of them. Consider. NOBODY could command more universal respect than Bob Gainey. Yet now he is routinely derided as a brain-dead moron around here and some fans are still blaming him for moves made by Gauthier. Even when Gainey took over the reins as coach - which he did twice during his tenure here, long before the ultimate failure of his managerial tenure had become clear - he was subjected to the standard barrage of criticisms: his lineup choices were wrong, he played Price too much, Gainey is an idiot, etc., etc.. If you really want Patrick Roy to be a definitive part of this franchise for the long haul, then you should want him to be GM. Coming in as a coach, Roy will be praised as a genius in Year One because the team is bound to have a major upswing next season; but after that, it will get interesting. Considering that none of Demers, Vigneault, Therrien, Julien, Carbo, or Martin - all of which had hugely better coaching credentials than Roy, and four of whom were absolutely world-class coaches - survived the hard times, I don't see why Roy would either. He will make enemies in the media and it will spiral from there. As it always does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Look, Roy as coach will certainly get the benefit of the doubt early on. But that will only last for so long. You don't think that Carbonneau commanded respect, with all his Cup rings? Look what that got him. As for the fans, the idea that we will still be ooh-ing and aaah-ing over Coach Roy three years from now if the team struggles is simply comical. If and when that happens, he will get his throat slit and be thrown on the slag-pile with the rest of them. Consider. NOBODY could command more universal respect than Bob Gainey. Yet now he is routinely derided as a brain-dead moron around here and some fans are still blaming him for moves made by Gauthier. Even when Gainey took over the reins as coach - which he did twice during his tenure here, long before the ultimate failure of his managerial tenure had become clear - he was subjected to the standard barrage of criticisms: his lineup choices were wrong, he played Price too much, Gainey is an idiot, etc., etc.. If you really want Patrick Roy to be a definitive part of this franchise for the long haul, then you should want him to be GM. Coming in as a coach, Roy will be praised as a genius in Year One because the team is bound to have a major upswing next season; but after that, it will get interesting. Considering that none of Demers, Vigneault, Therrien, Julien, Carbo, or Martin - all of which had hugely better coaching credentials than Roy, and four of whom were absolutely world-class coaches - survived the hard times, I don't see why Roy would either. He will make enemies in the media and it will spiral from there. As it always does. Look, Roy as coach will certainly get the benefit of the doubt early on. But that will only last for so long. You don't think that Carbonneau commanded respect, with all his Cup rings? Look what that got him. As for the fans, the idea that we will still be ooh-ing and aaah-ing over Coach Roy three years from now if the team struggles is simply comical. If and when that happens, he will get his throat slit and be thrown on the slag-pile with the rest of them. Consider. NOBODY could command more universal respect than Bob Gainey. Yet now he is routinely derided as a brain-dead moron around here and some fans are still blaming him for moves made by Gauthier. Even when Gainey took over the reins as coach - which he did twice during his tenure here, long before the ultimate failure of his managerial tenure had become clear - he was subjected to the standard barrage of criticisms: his lineup choices were wrong, he played Price too much, Gainey is an idiot, etc., etc.. If you really want Patrick Roy to be a definitive part of this franchise for the long haul, then you should want him to be GM. Coming in as a coach, Roy will be praised as a genius in Year One because the team is bound to have a major upswing next season; but after that, it will get interesting. Considering that none of Demers, Vigneault, Therrien, Julien, Carbo, or Martin - all of which had hugely better coaching credentials than Roy, and four of whom were absolutely world-class coaches - survived the hard times, I don't see why Roy would either. He will make enemies in the media and it will spiral from there. As it always does. I think initially he would have the respect, we are talking about him as a rookie coach not him in three years. Yes, after three years he would not have leniency, but at the start he would be given room to grow as a coach. Even if after two good years he has one bad year I can see people pointing that he is still a "new" coach and he has done well in his first two seasons. We will have to see how his system works and if people will find it boring to watch. We will have to see how he does in the media, we know he has a fiery personality, will that be endearing to fans who have been tired of the Martin/Gauthier style silent respect thing. We could see fans, if they develop a connection or appreciation for his antics, to be saying things like "the coach isn't the one on the ice" or "the players are really letting their coach down". It's just an idea... but I don't think we can throw away the possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think initially he would have the respect, we are talking about him as a rookie coach not him in three years. Yes, after three years he would not have leniency, but at the start he would be given room to grow as a coach. Even if after two good years he has one bad year I can see people pointing that he is still a "new" coach and he has done well in his first two seasons. We will have to see how his system works and if people will find it boring to watch. We will have to see how he does in the media, we know he has a fiery personality, will that be endearing to fans who have been tired of the Martin/Gauthier style silent respect thing. We could see fans, if they develop a connection or appreciation for his antics, to be saying things like "the coach isn't the one on the ice" or "the players are really letting their coach down". It's just an idea... but I don't think we can throw away the possibility. Anything is possible - he may prove to be brilliant - and I absolutely agree that he will have a nice honeymoon. The problem as I see it is actually indicated in your post. Roy will be an under-qualified rookie with no pro coaching experience, in the most brutal market in all of hockey. If his name wasn't Patrick Roy there would be howls of outrage that we are even considering such a guy as coach. This means that almost by definition he is not the best coach for the job. You talk about 'growing pains.' Well, we suffered through Carbo's growing pains, Tremblay's growing pains, Therrien's growing pains. All that happens is that your team endures rookie coach growing pains and then the coach ends up getting canned. Since whoever is hired is unlikely to last more than three years anyway, I'd prefer that we hire a coach who will NOT have to go through rookie mistakes and 'growing pains' but will rather offer a sure hand and world-class coaching over that span. But if the argument is just about the thrill of seeing Patrick Roy on a daily basis and the entertainment value he is likely to provide, rather than about what is best for us as a hockey team, then Roy would absolutely be the best choice. It comes back to what your priorities are. I'll say it again. Roy as GM? There are better choices but that's cool with me. Roy as coach? Yet another decision made for sentimental/PR reasons rather than compelling hockey reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 There are plenty of coaches who win Cups in their first NHL stop (not always first year, but with the first team to give them a job). I dont think being a rookie is enough to write off Roy if you think he can do the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsnaslundsuperfn Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) ' Well, we suffered through Carbo's growing pains," as per Cucumber I wouldn't call his stint as coach painful at all. .589 all time is pretty good. I say he deserves a shot somewhere... if its truly what the Habs want to do is hire a new coach I would hope they don't rule out him out of the equation.. Keeping Randy Cunneyworth would be my first choice. My second choice would be to rehire Carbo and let him finish a five year stint and then see where we are at after that. As an aside, should coaches start a union? m Edited March 25, 2012 by matsnaslundsuperfn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'll say it again. Roy as GM? There are better choices but that's cool with me. Roy as coach? Yet another decision made for sentimental/PR reasons rather than compelling hockey reasons. I think your opinion is more than fair in this case but I think there are several compelling "hockey reasons" to choose Roy as head coach. One of the problems with pointing out the growing pains of Therrien and Vigneault is that they were coaches during easily the worst Canadiens teams in the history of the franchise. Of course they had growing pains. They were rookie coaches with terrible hockey clubs. Julien I honestly think is an overrated coach and isn't as good as his record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think your opinion is more than fair in this case but I think there are several compelling "hockey reasons" to choose Roy as head coach. One of the problems with pointing out the growing pains of Therrien and Vigneault is that they were coaches during easily the worst Canadiens teams in the history of the franchise. Of course they had growing pains. They were rookie coaches with terrible hockey clubs. Julien I honestly think is an overrated coach and isn't as good as his record. Has any junior coach ever done well, going straight to head coach of a NHL team (let alone within an organization like the Habs)? Never has happened that i can recall? so why would it work now, especially given Roy's temperment? For sure it would be entertaining, in a Tortarella sort of way, but not a smart move most likely. Be as crazy as having Don Cherry coach the leafs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.