PlayMakers
Registered User
Coaches are hired to be fired. The average coach in the NHL lasts 2.3 years.Why not? That's what Sweeney did to all his coaches in this bolded situation.
Coaches are hired to be fired. The average coach in the NHL lasts 2.3 years.Why not? That's what Sweeney did to all his coaches in this bolded situation.
Agreed. At some time though you run out of bullets and have to toss the gun and pull out a new weapon.Coaches are hired to be fired. The average coach in the NHL lasts 2.3 years.
sorry I take the speed over the . I totally missed the fact Wahlstrom was a scratch.Lettieri should not be playing over Wahlstrom
Thinking this should be the ultimate goal. Something has to give with the bottom 6. I believe that will be at the expense of Fred.I still like the idea of Lysell getting a shot. When healthy this could actually be a pretty solid line up.
Geekie-Zacha-Pastrnak
Marchand-Lindholm-Lysell
Frederic-Poitras-Coyle
Koepke-Kastelic-Brazeau
Beecher
Lindholm-McAvoy
Lohrei-Carlo
Zadorov-Peeke
Wortherspoon
That’s true. And the average GM tenure is about 5 years.Coaches are hired to be fired. The average coach in the NHL lasts 2.3 years.
So they should have fired him right after he built a team that went to G7 of the Cup Finals? Should they have fired him 3 years later when he iced the most successful team in NHL history?That’s true. And the average GM tenure is about 5 years.
had I known HOF center Brayden Point would be suspended for missing a team meeting I would have taken Bruins 6-2 with 2 EN goalsYou were close
We all miss some, but this just was not a solid signing, I would almost say it was " I need to do something " signing by SweeneyUnfortunately yes most likely. They could always do the old "give someone else a 1st rounder to take on our bad contract" thing.
Even the biggest pessimist for this signing like myself didn't see this going as badly as it has gone thus far. I figured the early returns would be 55-65 pts and gradually decrease from there.
Then block me,You tell me. Your posts rarely ever make sense.
I disagree. Sweeney has made some poor decisions over the years that I will agree with . I still consider him one of the best GM's in the game . Him and Evan Gold as a team are close to the top in the NHL. If they want to move on from Neely yes . The Neely Influence is where I see the problem.Sell Sweeney first and foremost
Im not saying you fire a GM based on average tenure, obviously. But you brought up that coaches are hired to be fired based on an average tenure of 2.5 years. I’d argue 4.5 is hardly a long tenure in any walk of life, so like coaches, GMs are hired to be fired too.So they should have fired him right after he built a team that went to G7 of the Cup Finals? Should they have fired him 3 years later when he iced the most successful team in NHL history?
I mentioned the coaches tenure because folks say he's on his 3rd coach like that's some outrageous stat. It's not. Just like it's not outrageous for the winningest GM in the last 10 years to still have a job or to survive one bad season.
How much of that is due to playing with the lead for most of the game though? I didn't catch the first two periods so more of a question than a statement, but Bolts will be more aggressive and the Bruins less aggressive given the score for most of the game.I know we won, but we also let up 45 shots so how many shot attempts? With only 22 ourselves. It was certainly a step in the right direction, they played with more speed and energy that I have seen all season. But the volume of shots and lack of puck possession is not a recipe for success.
Either way it was a good game, loved seeing some youth and hunger back in the lineup. lets keep it up and would still like to see a significant move.
I thought the Bruins went with the Sacco 'Dump and Change' approach as soon as they got up 2-0.How much of that is due to playing with the lead for most of the game though? I didn't catch the first two periods so more of a question than a statement, but Bolts will be more aggressive and the Bruins less aggressive given the score for most of the game.
It certainly didn't help. But from my memory even though we were leading on the scoreboard we were shooting like 40-50% at one point. So we had like 5 shots and 2 or 3 goals and they had double digit shots. But yes as the game progressed playing more prevent wouldn't help.How much of that is due to playing with the lead for most of the game though? I didn't catch the first two periods so more of a question than a statement, but Bolts will be more aggressive and the Bruins less aggressive given the score for most of the game.
They Never should have hired him or Neely.So they should have fired him right after he built a team that went to G7 of the Cup Finals? Should they have fired him 3 years later when he iced the most successful team in NHL history?
I mentioned the coaches tenure because folks say he's on his 3rd coach like that's some outrageous stat. It's not. Just like it's not outrageous for the winningest GM in the last 10 years to still have a job or to survive one bad season.
Past 10 seasons Bruins playoffs under Sweeney 2016-2025:So they should have fired him right after he built a team that went to G7 of the Cup Finals? Should they have fired him 3 years later when he iced the most successful team in NHL history?
I mentioned the coaches tenure because folks say he's on his 3rd coach like that's some outrageous stat. It's not. Just like it's not outrageous for the winningest GM in the last 10 years to still have a job or to survive one bad season.