Confirmed with Link: Bannister Out, Monty In

[BlueMed]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Reality Czech]

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.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

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.

He did earn his ice time. He was consistently one of our best players by most underlying metrics, even getting paired with boat anchors like Saad and Schenn.

Was he snakebit? Yea. It happens. I've mentioned this in other posts, but Bannister scratching Bolduc after the 8-1 Washington game was inexcusable. I could count on one hand how many players on our team didn't quit during that game, and he was one of them. That was 100% the wrong message to send to a young kid trying to break into this league, who clearly didn't quit when a ton of our high paid veterans did.

f*** Drew Bannister, the dude was ass as a head coach and I couldn't be more happy we threw him out the club.

 

[Reality Czech]

He did earn his ice time. He was consistently one of our best players by most underlying metrics, even getting paired with boat anchors like Saad and Schenn.

Was he snakebit? Yea. It happens. I've mentioned this in other posts, but Bannister scratching Bolduc after the 8-1 Washington game was inexcusable. I could count on one hand how many players on our team didn't quit during that game, and he was one of them. That was 100% the wrong message to send to a young kid trying to break into this league, who clearly didn't quit when a ton of our high paid veterans did.

f*** Drew Bannister, the dude was ass as a head coach and I couldn't be more happy we threw him out the club.

Well who am I to question a respectful hockey expert like yourself. I'm sure you could teach Bannister a thing or two, eh.

Dude has spent his entire life around the sport of hockey at the highest levels but hey I'm sure some random fan online knows better.

 

[TheOrganist]

The idea that a young player should put up points because “he’s a pro” regardless of the coach or systems in place is so inane it’s not to be responded.

 

[stl76]

It was pretty clear to me that Bolduc was playing well enough to warrant more minutes. The consistent scratches and <10 mins TOI games were frustrating. Glad it appears he’s going to get a larger role under Monty. Same for Holloway TBH.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Well who am I to question a respectful hockey expert like yourself. I'm sure you could teach Bannister a thing or two, eh.

Dude has spent his entire life around the sport of hockey at the highest levels but hey I'm sure some random fan online knows better.

Ah yes, the age old "Appeal to authority."

What could a REGULAR person POSSIBLY know compared to this EXPERT blah blah blah - go home you started on the egg nog early.

Bannister got buoyed by elite goaltending and miraculous injury luck last year, as well as an unsustainable record in 1-goal/OT games. The underlying metrics were all garbage. Our roster improved this offseason and our results tanked b/c, guess what, our process still sucked.

He's a bad coach and the way he handled the 8-1 Washington game showed it. A good head coach would have scratched Schenn, or at least Faulk, the next game. A veteran, high priced guy with a letter on his sweater to make it clear to the entire team (and frankly organization) that this is what accountablility looks like, the potential loss of 2 points in the next game be damned. Not acting like a chickenshit and scratching the 21 year old kid making peanuts who played his ass off all game.

Again, louder for the people in the back, f*** Drew Bannister.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Well who am I to question a respectful hockey expert like yourself. I'm sure you could teach Bannister a thing or two, eh.

Dude has spent his entire life around the sport of hockey at the highest levels but hey I'm sure some random fan online knows better.

That’s kinda dumb, dude.

Bolduc played well enough to earn more ice time.

Bannister did what he thought he was supposed to do instead of just coaching. Too much thinking got him fired.

Same thing happens with players. They start overthinking and stop playing.

But perceived authority has genuine appeal for those who can’t think for themselves.