Confirmed with Link: Bannister Out, Monty In

BlueMed

Registered User
Jul 18, 2019
2,950
3,541
Disagree.

I didn't get why he coached the he way coached, at all.

Like someone else posted, Bannister could have hung his hat on player development. Instead, he failed to build his resume by not focusing on player development, failed again by playing old guys too much in a bad scheme and then failed yet again by not adjusting to the younger players with fresh legs.

Bannister did not build his resume. He created potential roadblocks by having to explain his poor logic during future interviews.

How does one quantify player development? How would Bannister have added that to his coaching resume? The reality is, there was no guarantee the Blues would have resigned him after his 2 year contract was over, and that was self-evident. Other teams around the league will be looking at his record, rather than player development to determine whether he is worthy of a second hire. That's the reality, whether it was favorable for guys like Bolduc or not. It was partially Army's fault for only signing him to a 2 year contract and misaligning their incentives. On the flip side, only 2 years made it much easier to relieve him once Monty became available.
 

BlueMed

Registered User
Jul 18, 2019
2,950
3,541
I really don't get the big deal about Bolduc's usage this year. It's fairly normal for a young guy who's not producing to have limited ice time and to sit out a few games here and there. The fact that so many people are so fixated on it is a bit weird to me. I don't think many NHL teams just gift ice time to young guys right away unless they are in a total rebuild like Chicago and San Jose right now.
Here's the issue: sitting a young player because of occasional mistakes and general inexperience is not conducive towards optimal development. Having Bolduc sit in the pressbox can be beneficial from time to time but not on a consistent basis. Young players need to be allowed to make mistakes and given the freedom to learn from them. Of course the Blues want to make the playoffs this year, but there is a balance between short-term and long-term goals with respect to player development. For instance, look at how Edmonton managed Broberg and Holloway. Those were 2 talented players that were never given a fair chance to develop because that front office is in win-now mode at the cost of their future. That's not what Army wants. The Blues are looking for balance here, and Army believes that he accrued enough talent and depth throughout the roster to accomplish that.
 

ChicagoBlues

Terraformers
Oct 24, 2006
15,990
6,782
How does one quantify player development? How would Bannister have added that to his coaching resume? The reality is, there was no guarantee the Blues would have resigned him after his 2 year contract was over, and that was self-evident. Other teams around the league will be looking at his record, rather than player development to determine whether he is worthy of a second hire. That's the reality, whether it was favorable for guys like Bolduc or not. It was partially Army's fault for only signing him to a 2 year contract and misaligning their incentives. On the flip side, only 2 years made it much easier to relieve him once Monty became available.
My post is based on what I think happens during interviews for a NHL head coach position. A sales pitch. As you wrote, potential suitors will look at win-loss record. Bannister had a decent finish to last season, but a rough start to this one, so there will be questions regarding what Bannister thinks went sideways. What he could have done differently? To what does Bannister attributes the poor start?

I can also imagine that discussions and questions will center around the young players on the roster. But I digress.

Bannister must've known that this was terminal. He could have focused on something, anything other than nothing. He made few real decisions. He could've focused on special teams and gotten those to respectable levels. That's a resume entry. He could've focused on player development and yielded more offensive production from the younger players. Young players scoring more and playing better as evidenced by fancy stats. Another resume entry.

What is NOT a resume entry is playing our old serfs to numbdom. Not a winning strategy.

So, Drew, that Sharks game. Run us through your thought process on your line deployment.

Well....uuuuhhhhh.......I didn't know what to do, so...uuuhhhhhh......veterans......

Not something upon which to hang his hat.
 
Last edited:

Reality Czech

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
5,906
9,577
Here's the issue: sitting a young player because of occasional mistakes and general inexperience is not conducive towards optimal development. Having Bolduc sit in the pressbox can be beneficial from time to time but not on a consistent basis. Young players need to be allowed to make mistakes and given the freedom to learn from them. Of course the Blues want to make the playoffs this year, but there is a balance between short-term and long-term goals with respect to player development. For instance, look at how Edmonton managed Broberg and Holloway. Those were 2 talented players that were never given a fair chance to develop because that front office is in win-now mode at the cost of their future. That's not what Army wants. The Blues are looking for balance here, and Army believes that he accrued enough talent and depth throughout the roster to accomplish that.

I get that but he has still played 17/23 games. I don't think that's way out of line for a guy whose stat line was 0g 5a until the last game. If someone wants to argue he should have got an extra minute or two of ice time during those games ok, but I don't see Bannister holding him back as much as some people are saying. They gave him a few looks in the top 6 and he didn't really impress so it's not like he's been buried all season.

He's not really a 4th line player so he's basically been competing with Joseph, Texier, Sunny and the recently departed Kapanen for ice time. His ATOI is similar to those guys more or less and is roughly what you'd expect for 3rd line minutes. We've also got a 4th line that's been fairly effective and getting a bit more ice time than might have been expected.

Seems like he's starting to pull away from that pack in terms of effectiveness, but I think a player needs to earn his ice time. If he keeps playing like he did the last game then there won't be any excuse not to play him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stlwahoo

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad