Toggle sidebar

Kings News: And your new head coach is...

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I'm happy with this.

Firstly he is in effect a new voice. The dynamic between an assistant and a player is very different than that of a coach and a player. He goes from being a technical teacher and cheerleader, enforcing Sutters rules and becomes the guy calling the shots and setting the rules, his rules. The past few years Sutter set the tone, now it will be Stevens. The relationship will change.

Also this is a guy that ran our D but as a head Coach played a more offensive game in Philly. If anyone is going to have a strong set of ideas on how to open up the offence without hamstringing the D it's Stevens. Given the lack of a nailed on Outstanding candidate he's the most sensible choice and it's hardly a stretch to think he will be a success.

Thinking more negatively if it goes wrong they can pull the trigger more quickly, than if Blake passed over Stevens for his own guy from the outside. I've seen too many examples of people bringing in their own guy to show who's in charge and stick with them for too long rather than lose face.

I've not posted for ages but for the record I'm quite pleased with Blake as GM, I think he will do a fine job. So far I've no complaints with his early decisions.
 
Statto said:
I'm happy with this.

Firstly he is in effect a new voice. The dynamic between an assistant and a player is very different than that of a coach and a player. He goes from being a technical teacher and cheerleader, enforcing Sutters rules and becomes the guy calling the shots and setting the rules, his rules. The past few years Sutter set the tone, now it will be Stevens. The relationship will change.

Also this is a guy that ran our D but as a head Coach played a more offensive game in Philly. If anyone is going to have a strong set of ideas on how to open up the offence without hamstringing the D it's Stevens. Given the lack of a nailed on Outstanding candidate he's the most sensible choice and it's hardly a stretch to think he will be a success.

Thinking more negatively if it goes wrong they can pull the trigger more quickly, than if Blake passed over Stevens for his own guy from the outside. I've seen too many examples of people bringing in their own guy to show who's in charge and stick with them for too long rather than lose face.

I've not posted for ages but for the record I'm quite pleased with Blake as GM, I think he will do a fine job. So far I've no complaints with his early decisions.
Click to expand...

He's not a new voice. He's been with the org for 7 years.
 
johnjm22 said:
This group has won two Stanley Cups, and has gone through less coaching changes over the last 10 years or so than the majority of the league.

Crosby has been through 5 head coaches. Are you going to criticize him too?
Click to expand...

Are you going to try to compare anyone on this roster to Crosby?

Look, I will admit to being a little old school. I am looking forward to the day when the contracts are shorter or are no longer guaranteed, because I do believe it is often the players who are no longer getting the job done, and not the coach.

I really don't care about the majority of the league. The majority of the league never wins jack. More often than not it's players on retirement contracts who have grown complacent, not the coach.
 
kingsholygrail said:
He's not a new voice. He's been with the org for 7 years.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said 'in effect'.

The dynamic and relationship between Stevens and the players will be very different now he's the head coach. It's just as good as a new voice as it's a whole new context.
 
another reason to like J Stevens....long live the Whale

8080939_orig.jpg
 
Feels to me like this is what the Kings would have done in a year anyway. Promoted Blake and Stevens. Try to retain the parts that are good, lose some of the baggage from the past.

One thing about hiring Stevens is that his leash may be shorter than an external hire.
 
KINGS17 said:
Are you going to try to compare anyone on this roster to Crosby?

Look, I will admit to being a little old school. I am looking forward to the day when the contracts are shorter or are no longer guaranteed, because I do believe it is often the players who are no longer getting the job done, and not the coach.

I really don't care about the majority of the league. The majority of the league never wins jack. More often than not it's players on retirement contracts who have grown complacent, not the coach.
Click to expand...

You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?
 
Last edited:
At first I wasn't for Stevens. I wanted some new blood. But the more I thought about it. The more I liked it and the more it made sense. You start to look at Stevens record and he has NHL HC experience and had success on the offense side as a HC. As assistant in LA, he coached a shut down defense that was always near the top the league. He's got two Stanley Cup rings as a asst. coach and a Calder Cup ring as a HC. I don't know if there was really better resume out there then that. I also think that success with the Phathoms will
be important for a young team the Kings will have next year. That cup winning team had a lot of great or solid future NHLers with Carter, Sharp, Richards, Seidenberg, Pitkanen and Umberger
 
johnjm22 said:
You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?
Click to expand...

They've had 4 coaches in that time frame (Therrien, Bylsma, Johnston, Sullivan) and the Kings are moving on to their 4th coach as well entering next season, after Crawford, Murray and Sutter.

The Kings are coming off a season where they had the most amount of losses, least amount of wins, and thus their lowest winning percentage since 2008-09. They ended up with the 5th overall pick that season.

This team was stuck in the "black hole" in Sutter's last three seasons here.
 
johnjm22 said:
You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?
Click to expand...

The two cups is great. ONLY three coaches, and starting on their 4th in ten years is not really good.

As someone else posted it's all on the players now, and in particular Doughty and Kopitar. No more BS excuses about needing more help, or the system is too hard to play for 82 games. You don't get more help, because as players you sucked up all the cap space. Time to suck it up and make your play worthy of the salaries.

That's some nice cheery picking you're doing with the Pens. They were often handicapped by an injured Crosby's cap hit. They couldn't do anything long term to address that situation, because they were banking on him coming back.

I can cherry pick too, how many coaches has Chicago had over the last 10 years? Does Quenneville suddenly suck, or have Toews, Seabrook, etc. simply not performed up to their contracts?
 
KINGS17 said:
The two cups is great. ONLY three coaches, and starting on their 4th in ten years is not really good.

As someone else posted it's all on the players now, and in particular Doughty and Kopitar. No more BS excuses about needing more help, or the system is too hard to play for 82 games. You don't get more help, because as players you sucked up all the cap space. Time to suck it up and make your play worthy of the salaries.

That's some nice cheery picking you're doing with the Pens. They were often handicapped by an injured Crosby's cap hit. They couldn't do anything long term to address that situation, because they were banking on him coming back.

I can cherry pick too, how many coaches has Chicago had over the last 10 years? Does Quenneville suddenly suck, or have Toews, Seabrook, etc. simply not performed up to their contracts?
Click to expand...

oK, now go back and see my post that shows the average coaching tenure is 2.4 years, and look at other teams you deem comparable, and you'll realize that outside of Q, the Kings have had the least amount of coaches in that timeframe. Hence, the criticism about the posts talking about the players as babies.

Tenure often isn't about whether a coach is 'good' or 'bad' obviously, it's often simply about change. Otherwise, Q wouldn't even have been back with the Hawks in the first place!
 
Raccoon Jesus said:
oK, now go back and see my post that shows the average coaching tenure is 2.4 years, and look at other teams you deem comparable, and you'll realize that outside of Q, the Kings have had the least amount of coaches in that timeframe. Hence, the criticism about the posts talking about the players as babies.

Tenure often isn't about whether a coach is 'good' or 'bad' obviously, it's often simply about change. Otherwise, Q wouldn't even have been back with the Hawks in the first place!
Click to expand...

The average coaching tenure is not what we should be looking for, or willing to accept.

Do teams changing coaches every 2.4 years ever win anything?

The players are every bit as responsible as the coaching if not more so. Sadly, I think this position will be proven correct next season. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, and maybe, just maybe if a change is necessary it should be a different change.
 
Do teams that keep their coaches long term like Ruff in Buffalo or Trotz in Nashville ever win anything? If Quenneville doesn't have three Cups to his name then he is long gone too.
 
Legionnaire said:
Do teams that keep their coaches long term like Ruff in Buffalo or Trotz in Nashville ever win anything? If Quenneville doesn't have three Cups to his name then he is long gone too.
Click to expand...

Ruff for some reason was beloved in Buffalo. Trotz is a special case IMO. Started with an expansion franchise and made them competitive rather quickly. Trotz did a good job in Nashville, and his relative early success bought him quite a bit of good will.

Bottom line if Stevens is fired after one or two seasons, it's on the players, not the coach.
 
KINGS17 said:
The average coaching tenure is not what we should be looking for, or willing to accept.

Do teams changing coaches every 2.4 years ever win anything?

The players are every bit as responsible as the coaching if not more so. Sadly, I think this position will be proven correct next season. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, and maybe, just maybe if a change is necessary it should be a different change.
Click to expand...

That's damn near always the case, though. I don't disagree. I just think it's wrong to suggest the players are a bunch of coach killing babies when they've had the longest coaching tenures going on outside of Tippett and Q.

Their criticisms of Sutter were the same that came out of Calgary after he left, and were damn near the exact same things posters here said.

Marc Crawford was trash for this squad, don't see how his coaching 'murder' can be bemoaned.

Terry Murray's time had come, it was clear things were stagnant, and I know HIS tenure is where this narrative comes from--but I'd say the players responded to that pretty well for the next nearly 5 years.

So yes, I'd say comparing Kings coaching tenures to those successful teams is more than fair. Looking at the other teams that have won Cups that ARENT Chicago, you'll see even shorter lifespans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom