What is your assessment of our coaches ?

[IBatch]

47 minutes ago, khay said:

2014: Demko.

2015: Boeser, Gaudette. 

2017: EP was rated outside of 10.

2018: QH was not a sure thing. Remember Burke's "That's a small body" comment?

2019: Hoglander.

 

For me, outside of Podz, there were several other guys available for every single pick JB could have taken in the first round.   Past that and even into the mid-20's it's pretty all over the place.   JB could have for example, taken a variety of guys instead of both EP and QHs...same with JV and OJ - but what fans need to understand - it's pretty rare that a person had a high pick at takes a "too many vowels Kotendmaijemessme whatever his name is in MTL (at third? lol), or what Yzerman did with Seider (low 20's and actually worked out great for them so far)...so you can't say "hey why didn't JB take McAvoy instead of OJ or whatever"...but you can say why not Chycrun or Sergachev  the CDC would blow up if we picked a guy 15 or so places away from the consensus right?   To me we could easily have picked Glass or Valardi instead of EP - and with QHs - Bouchard or Dobson or Whalstrom.     Feel PLD was our first choice in the OJ draft (given JB basically said that's exactly what they were looking for pre-draft), but was a pretty mad we didn't take MT.    Now not nearly so much because that would have affected the standings enough to lose on EP, and for sure QHs.   Podz was the only gift...but still he did take him.   The same way EDM at 10 ended up with 5-7 expected pick Bouchard - they were so surprised they didn't even have a jersey made for him did they?     You take what you can when you can - and go into a draft with a list - of at least your first two rounds.    Lind was a score too.  As was Gadjovich at the time - both those guys were thought to go in the first round but didn't. 

 

At this point OJ coming into his own would be amazing.    The fact JB may end up picking the best guy at 5th and again at 7th is just awesome.   Back to back too.    

 

Past the first round JB is also hitting above par.   I've explained the odds too many times already ... he can only be judged for his first five drafts anyways - and can't properly be judged on his drafting for another 15 years or so.   So far he's already shown that he's very capable - and anyone who doubts that, sorry if this is harsh - needs to get a better understanding of the draft.   There is a study from a US university on drafts from 1990-2010... a 20 years sample size where sizes of employees have tripled or more in scoring departments ... might be worth a look.   Surprising results (way "better scouting" almost identical results is one part of it - not much of any edge despite the extra staff in hits - modest improvement in quality of those hits though - but it's really really small)... i'd also suggest what a scout considers a bust for those on JV and OJ all the time.   Raffe Torres and a bunch of other guys say hello - who weren't "busts"...JV still has time - as does OJ... although the clock is ticking for sure on both these guys.   Not saying this to you khay - but to whomever your replying to or for some strange reason hanging on to the idea that JB is "also" bad at drafting.   He's drafted great talent - at above his ADP.   Imagine drafting like we only had 3rd overalls - because that's exactly what he did for 6 years and counting...

[wallstreetamigo]

On 3/6/2021 at 7:25 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

Could be worse, should be better. 

 

I voted "see where the season goes' because I don't know what the alternative is available to us. All I know right now is Babcock, Gallant and Julien are out there... I'd really like to see an assessment of Gallant and why he'd be a good fit, not thrilled about the other two. 

 

To me, its definitely a no to Babcock and Julien. 

 

Gallant brings a few things that Green doesn't have. He is not a perfect coach and tends to only last a few seasons so he may be a transitional coach if he came here or he could be a long term solution. Hard to say.

 

By all accounts he is a players coach, much like I would say Green is. Where he differs though is he balances that off with a demand for accountability at both ends and a flexible approach to building a system that works.

 

His real strength as a coach imo is that he has a very strong ability to build a system that is structured defensively without unnecessarily stifling offense or creativity. He builds that system based on a top notch ability to analyze the players he has to work with and putting them in a role and in the position to succeed. He demands accountability as well, whether vet or young player.

 

His in game adjustments are typically pretty good. He tends to ride the hot hand in games a bit more than many coaches. If a guy is having a good game, he will go to him abit more. If not, he might scale him back a bit. A small but important adjustment. I would say his ability to adjust in game is very developed and would be a big help in Vancouver.

 

Like many coaches who demand accountability, his shelf life of effective messaging could be relatively short, particularly from management. 

 

I would see him as the right type of coach for the Canucks based on taking the team to the next level from where they are. You would probably be hard pressed to find any former players who did not respect and like him as their coach. But he isnt there to be friends with the players. He takes the role of teaching and correcting them seriously from what I have consistently heard. He is a passionate and competitive guy who always has his players backs and who sees their failures or mistakes as an opportunity and his responsibility to help correct.

 

I have actually met and talked to him a few times. He never seems to get tired of talking hockey and what really struck me was his genuine interest in hearing my opinions and thoughts evenas a non nhl player, coach, etc. He was genuinely interested and engaged and never had that aura of superiority. We just talked like two fans of the game.

 

As a coach he is not to everyones taste but he has that I am in charge commanding presence.

 

If the Canucks hired him I think he would really help our young core reach their ceiling as individuals and as a group.

 

Justmy 2 pennies.

 

 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

To me, its definitely a no to Babcock and Julien. 

 

Gallant brings a few things that Green doesn't have. He is not a perfect coach and tends to only last a few seasons so he may be a transitional coach if he came here or he could be a long term solution. Hard to say.

 

By all accounts he is a players coach, much like I would say Green is. Where he differs though is he balances that off with a demand for accountability at both ends and a flexible approach to building a system that works.

 

His real strength as a coach imo is that he has a very strong ability to build a system that is structured defensively without unnecessarily stifling offense or creativity. He builds that system based on a top notch ability to analyze the players he has to work with and putting them in a role and in the position to succeed. He demands accountability as well, whether vet or young player.

 

His in game adjustments are typically pretty good. He tends to ride the hot hand in games a bit more than many coaches. If a guy is having a good game, he will go to him abit more. If not, he might scale him back a bit. A small but important adjustment. I would say his ability to adjust in game is very developed and would be a big help in Vancouver.

 

Like many coaches who demand accountability, his shelf life of effective messaging could be relatively short, particularly from management. 

 

I would see him as the right type of coach for the Canucks based on taking the team to the next level from where they are. You would probably be hard pressed to find any former players who did not respect and like him as their coach. But he isnt there to be friends with the players. He takes the role of teaching and correcting them seriously from what I have consistently heard. He is a passionate and competitive guy who always has his players backs and who sees their failures or mistakes as an opportunity and his responsibility to help correct.

 

I have actually met and talked to him a few times. He never seems to get tired of talking hockey and what really struck me was his genuine interest in hearing my opinions and thoughts evenas a non nhl player, coach, etc. He was genuinely interested and engaged and never had that aura of superiority. We just talked like two fans of the game.

 

As a coach he is not to everyones taste but he has that I am in charge commanding presence.

 

If the Canucks hired him I think he would really help our young core reach their ceiling as individuals and as a group.

 

Justmy 2 pennies.

 

 

thats a good description, thanks. Usually all I see is "FIRE GREEN" and thats kind of the end of the analysis 

[5Fivehole0]

People would hate it, but Babcock would help the young guys "get it" 

 

He got canceled, but he's still one the greats.

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, 5Fivehole0 said:

People would hate it, but Babcock would help the young guys "get it" 

 

He got canceled, but he's still one the greats.

I am not sold on Babcock being the right fit for where Vancouver is at. He is a good coach for sure but seems to do better with a veteran group of players. 

[5Fivehole0]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I am not sold on Babcock being the right fit for where Vancouver is at. He is a good coach for sure but seems to do better with a veteran group of players. 

I think he makes veterans out of players. His way of teaching might not have been up to par, humanely, but what he teaches is responsible hockey, and accountability.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I think he makes veterans out of players. His way of teaching might not have been up to par, humanely, but what he teaches is responsible hockey, and accountability.

 

 

But in many ways he failed at that in Toronto despite it all. 

[5Fivehole0]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

But in many ways he failed at that in Toronto despite it all. 

I think he played a big part in Marner and Matthews being the two way studs they are

[wallstreetamigo]

12 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I think he played a big part in Marner and Matthews being the two way studs they are

Maybe. But overall his teams did not live up to expectations or play particularly well structure wise.

 

Guys like Petey, Hughes, etc do need a coach that can help them become well rounded but I just dont feel like Babcock is the right guy for the team at this point. I could be wrong of course. But he just seems quite overrated in many respects.