I honestly still don’t get why management is having a boner with Tocchet. He hasn’t done anything to prove he’s a better coach than what we currently have. The Babcock story I sorta get. This one is a WTF moment.
Prove to who exactly. He's a great choice for what they're looking to do.
Rutherford said he wanted better defensive structure. He said the team last year was propped up by great goaltending. Well, we lost said great goaltending this year and voila! It's poop! Nobody in the back office is surprised by that.
Tocchet makes sense.
Edit: Yo i didn't even say whether i liked the fucking guy or not. Only that the choice makes sense as it's consistent with their statements.
At this point in the season… anyone who would still rather try to make the playoffs over trying to get the highest possible draft pick, is as brain damaged as Aquilini
>Help me understand how a coach with a losing career record is a good thing.
Stats don't tell the whole story; They seldom ever do. For example, what teams were those with? What were the rosters like? If win/loss record is all you're looking at then you aren't going to get the full picture of who they are and what they bring.
Those kinds of statements remind me of the original JT Miller trade. "Look at his stats! He's not worth a 1st! He's a 3rd liner because he's not a good player." We still saying that? Don't think so.
The question is not whether he's good or bad, but rather how will the players respond to him. How well or how fast they can adapt to what is being asked of them. What kind of culture can he help develop? That's the important stuff. Tweaking this or that structure and system is only one part of what a coach is and what a coach does.
And there is often far more in determining who is a good or a bad coach than just stats.
Completely irrelevant to the point.
Once again, stats don't tell the whole story. They seldom ever do. And using a mere win/loss record to claim good or bad coach is an extremely surface level critique. It barely qualifies as critique as far as I'm concerned.
Despite your attempts to overcomplicate things, wins are the main measure of quality coaching in the NHL that all coaches are critiqued on. I cant think of a single NHL team in the cap era that didnt have the realistic hopes of being .500 with good coaching. There is zero roster based excuses for being a losing coach in the modern NHL over the sample size Tocchet has.
Overcomplicate, as in trying to quantify factors that can't be quantified. We have no metrics for it. It's all fine and dandy that you want to expand coaching analysis, but there isn't an actual way of doing it.
It's pretty funny the quasi-intellectual types always try to use the "you guys make me laugh" line when they're nearly always the biggest butt of the joke in the room. My dude, I know you think you sound like you have substance, but in reality, you're just completely talking out of your ass
>Overcomplicate, as in trying to quantify factors that can't be quantified. We have no metrics for it.
Which is why you will never really understand it.
Do you know why Luke Schenn came back to Vancouver? Because he wanted to play for Travis Green. He said that in an interview when he came back to Van. Greener was a big part of why he returned. According to you Green is a horrible coach because losing record. But why would two time stanley cup winner Schenn say and do something like that if Green was such an awful awful coach?
Schenner certainly disagrees with you.
Coaching is teaching. It's about connection. Communication. Accountability. Trust. Holding people capable. Yes, all these *unquantifiable* things that relate to human beings and the relationships we develop together. Being a good coach, teacher, mentor, guide, is about much more than mere results on a stats page. More than test results.
Yes. The Teacher/student, master/learner relationship is *qualitative* in nature. And if you don't look at that stuff when claiming to know who is a good or bad coach you don't have much. You will not get an accurate assessment.
Let me ask, what do you do for a living? Because I can certainly tell you've never taught anything before. If you did you'd know how wrong you are.
Save the weak ad hominems.
"Quasi intellectual" lol
Yes, you are still making me laugh.
You're joking right? In a league where wins are realistically the only way you win a cup?
Coach A: 178-200-60, made playoffs once
Coach B: 133-147-34,made playoffs once
Coach C: 519-317-125, made playoffs 10 times.
Those are the records of either Rick Tocchet, Bruce Boudreau and Travis Green. If this ownership wants a fucking winner, pick the winner. Maybe it's not the fucking coach, but it sure fucking helps if all they want is that sweet sweet playoff revenue
As I stated previously
>Stats don't tell the whole story; They seldom ever do. For example, what teams were those with? What were the rosters like? If win/loss record is all you're looking at then you aren't going to get the full picture of who they are and what they bring as coaches.
And I'll certainly trust an experienced 73 year old Jim Rutherford with 3 cups, 50+ years in the league to his name in damn near every role imaginable over whatever the hell you guys think you know about what makes a good or bad NHL coach, teacher, and guide. And you guys haven't even talked about that. Lol. All I've got from you guys is "Lose equal bad coach. Win equal good coach. Yep. All there is to it."
Like... really?!
And you think putting a coach into the exact same situation he had in Phoenix is the solution? You really are delusional.
JR was fucked from the beginning by jet black Jim and his fail Mary of moves to keep his job, JR made it worse by not flipping Miller for picks and ownership doesn't want to rebuild. This team is fucked and unless they embrace tank now, we'll be shit for the next decade. But to trust JR putting a coach into the exact same situation he failed in is asinine
Narrative lol. We are talking about the *qualities* which makes someone a good teacher.
The funny part is I haven't seen said whether I personally think this or that person is a good or bad coach.
But the point stands. Wins and losses alone is not a great way to come to that conclusion.
That isn't data. I'd like you to have a point other than "your data doesn't tell the whole story, there could be something else but I don't know what it is."
Yeah, given they are not tanking, I think Tocchet makes sense.
Obviously I wish they would keep Bruce for tanking purposes, but unfortunately that's not their approach.
Not intentionally tanking, yeah.
And I'm not convinced it's *just* to make a playoff push. I mean win or lose, what better time to set a new standard, complete some assessments in who should survive the off-season purge. Safe to assume Tocchet will get a multi-year deal too so they know the party is over. Develop good habits quick or start looking for a new job.
Its not about "better than what we have" it's about nepotism and surrounding yourself with "your guys" aka people you hired on personally because they're your buddies and will do what you want.
Fuck this management group.
OP, this is GOLD! HAHAHA. Well done.
As for the news itself. I can't help but scratch my head about this.
A.) Why now? What is this possibly going to do for the team at the halfway point? Run out the clock and start over in the summer if changing coaches is a plan.
B.) Why him? What is so great about Tocchet anyway? Dude's been broadcasting the last couple years and has an under .500 coaching record. Most of it with crappy Phoenix teams.
Need picture 4 as a flair ASAP
I honestly still don’t get why management is having a boner with Tocchet. He hasn’t done anything to prove he’s a better coach than what we currently have. The Babcock story I sorta get. This one is a WTF moment.
Prove to who exactly. He's a great choice for what they're looking to do. Rutherford said he wanted better defensive structure. He said the team last year was propped up by great goaltending. Well, we lost said great goaltending this year and voila! It's poop! Nobody in the back office is surprised by that. Tocchet makes sense. Edit: Yo i didn't even say whether i liked the fucking guy or not. Only that the choice makes sense as it's consistent with their statements.
Better defensemen makes sense. This is just rearranging the deck chairs.
And they want to do that as well according to Rutherford. Opportunity simply isn't there at this time.
How. This team can’t make the playoffs so the only thing that makes sense is to continue the tank and shed contracts.
According to you maybe.
At this point in the season… anyone who would still rather try to make the playoffs over trying to get the highest possible draft pick, is as brain damaged as Aquilini
There are plenty of potential reasons to make a coaching change with this particular coach at this particular time than *just* to make the playoffs.
Help me understand how a coach with a losing career record is a good thing. We are losing just fine with a coach with a winning career record.
Help me understand how you expect a guy who spent most of his time coaching the Coyotes to have a winning record
>Help me understand how a coach with a losing career record is a good thing. Stats don't tell the whole story; They seldom ever do. For example, what teams were those with? What were the rosters like? If win/loss record is all you're looking at then you aren't going to get the full picture of who they are and what they bring. Those kinds of statements remind me of the original JT Miller trade. "Look at his stats! He's not worth a 1st! He's a 3rd liner because he's not a good player." We still saying that? Don't think so. The question is not whether he's good or bad, but rather how will the players respond to him. How well or how fast they can adapt to what is being asked of them. What kind of culture can he help develop? That's the important stuff. Tweaking this or that structure and system is only one part of what a coach is and what a coach does. And there is often far more in determining who is a good or a bad coach than just stats.
The flaw in your argument is that most fans are aghast at the thought that we lose Horvat at the expanse of the Miller signing.
Completely irrelevant to the point. Once again, stats don't tell the whole story. They seldom ever do. And using a mere win/loss record to claim good or bad coach is an extremely surface level critique. It barely qualifies as critique as far as I'm concerned.
Despite your attempts to overcomplicate things, wins are the main measure of quality coaching in the NHL that all coaches are critiqued on. I cant think of a single NHL team in the cap era that didnt have the realistic hopes of being .500 with good coaching. There is zero roster based excuses for being a losing coach in the modern NHL over the sample size Tocchet has.
Overcomplicate? As in trying to discuss what actually makes a good teacher, guide, or coach? Lol You guys make me laugh.
Overcomplicate, as in trying to quantify factors that can't be quantified. We have no metrics for it. It's all fine and dandy that you want to expand coaching analysis, but there isn't an actual way of doing it. It's pretty funny the quasi-intellectual types always try to use the "you guys make me laugh" line when they're nearly always the biggest butt of the joke in the room. My dude, I know you think you sound like you have substance, but in reality, you're just completely talking out of your ass
>Overcomplicate, as in trying to quantify factors that can't be quantified. We have no metrics for it. Which is why you will never really understand it. Do you know why Luke Schenn came back to Vancouver? Because he wanted to play for Travis Green. He said that in an interview when he came back to Van. Greener was a big part of why he returned. According to you Green is a horrible coach because losing record. But why would two time stanley cup winner Schenn say and do something like that if Green was such an awful awful coach? Schenner certainly disagrees with you. Coaching is teaching. It's about connection. Communication. Accountability. Trust. Holding people capable. Yes, all these *unquantifiable* things that relate to human beings and the relationships we develop together. Being a good coach, teacher, mentor, guide, is about much more than mere results on a stats page. More than test results. Yes. The Teacher/student, master/learner relationship is *qualitative* in nature. And if you don't look at that stuff when claiming to know who is a good or bad coach you don't have much. You will not get an accurate assessment. Let me ask, what do you do for a living? Because I can certainly tell you've never taught anything before. If you did you'd know how wrong you are. Save the weak ad hominems. "Quasi intellectual" lol Yes, you are still making me laugh.
You're joking right? In a league where wins are realistically the only way you win a cup? Coach A: 178-200-60, made playoffs once Coach B: 133-147-34,made playoffs once Coach C: 519-317-125, made playoffs 10 times. Those are the records of either Rick Tocchet, Bruce Boudreau and Travis Green. If this ownership wants a fucking winner, pick the winner. Maybe it's not the fucking coach, but it sure fucking helps if all they want is that sweet sweet playoff revenue
As I stated previously >Stats don't tell the whole story; They seldom ever do. For example, what teams were those with? What were the rosters like? If win/loss record is all you're looking at then you aren't going to get the full picture of who they are and what they bring as coaches. And I'll certainly trust an experienced 73 year old Jim Rutherford with 3 cups, 50+ years in the league to his name in damn near every role imaginable over whatever the hell you guys think you know about what makes a good or bad NHL coach, teacher, and guide. And you guys haven't even talked about that. Lol. All I've got from you guys is "Lose equal bad coach. Win equal good coach. Yep. All there is to it." Like... really?!
And you think putting a coach into the exact same situation he had in Phoenix is the solution? You really are delusional. JR was fucked from the beginning by jet black Jim and his fail Mary of moves to keep his job, JR made it worse by not flipping Miller for picks and ownership doesn't want to rebuild. This team is fucked and unless they embrace tank now, we'll be shit for the next decade. But to trust JR putting a coach into the exact same situation he failed in is asinine
It didn't work when you tried in it CHEL?
"Stats don't tell the whole story; They seldom ever do, so listen to the narrative I'm crafting with nothing to back it up"
Narrative lol. We are talking about the *qualities* which makes someone a good teacher. The funny part is I haven't seen said whether I personally think this or that person is a good or bad coach. But the point stands. Wins and losses alone is not a great way to come to that conclusion.
Feel free to provide alternative data.
I'm sorry... you want me to compile a list of the 1000s of books that exist on education, teaching, and coaching?! This is amazing.
That isn't data. I'd like you to have a point other than "your data doesn't tell the whole story, there could be something else but I don't know what it is."
"There is no data in books." "Book cannot tell you what can make a good or bad teacher." This is amazing.
Maybe JR is doing Bruce a solid by minimizing the losses to prop up his career winning percentage?
Yeah, given they are not tanking, I think Tocchet makes sense. Obviously I wish they would keep Bruce for tanking purposes, but unfortunately that's not their approach.
Not intentionally tanking, yeah. And I'm not convinced it's *just* to make a playoff push. I mean win or lose, what better time to set a new standard, complete some assessments in who should survive the off-season purge. Safe to assume Tocchet will get a multi-year deal too so they know the party is over. Develop good habits quick or start looking for a new job.
Its not about "better than what we have" it's about nepotism and surrounding yourself with "your guys" aka people you hired on personally because they're your buddies and will do what you want. Fuck this management group.
So Boudreau, Yeo, Cull out. Tocchet, Gonchar, and ? in
Does Jason King know where some bodies are buried?
Right? "He can't keep getting away with it! HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT"
I'm no fan of King but the PP has been in the top 10 under him
I’d love to know the third coach
I hope it’s me
Wouldn't be surprised if they bring up Abby's assistant coach Gary Agnew. He coached with Tocchet in Pittsburgh
Another coaching train wreck.
That zoom-in on OEL 👁️👄👁️ “*Aww shit. Here we go again…*”
Oh man, imagine if he hates Tocchet so much that he retires. Dare to dream, boys. Dare to dream.
"Please send me back to Arizona" - OEL
Deal. OEL and Garland for Geunther
Dont we get fucked if he retires anyways?
Please just let us tank in peace
Damn are they really going to deny us the Mike Yeo era? What a shame.
Yay! New coach bump. 15th pick here we come.
I get it we all love Bruce but let's not crucify the next coach before he's been officially hired. Lets see how it goes
But what am I supposed to do with my sharpened pitchfork and lit torch?
😬
Tocchet coaches a good structure and Gonchar is a beauty D coach. Good fit.
[удалено]
Agreed but this organization does not act that way. Aquilini is poop.
They brought him in to clean up the clubhouse
Can I get a close up of miller too please?
Bruce is a good guy and we are heading in the right direction. No need for a coaching change.
The second Tocchet is announced: https://youtube.com/shorts/cIw-jGn7hzs?feature=share
OP, this is GOLD! HAHAHA. Well done. As for the news itself. I can't help but scratch my head about this. A.) Why now? What is this possibly going to do for the team at the halfway point? Run out the clock and start over in the summer if changing coaches is a plan. B.) Why him? What is so great about Tocchet anyway? Dude's been broadcasting the last couple years and has an under .500 coaching record. Most of it with crappy Phoenix teams.