Bruce Boudreau replaces Randy Carlyle as coach of the Ducks

[190Octane]

The results were identical. Unless there's a Stanley cup of win percentage that I somehow missed.

My point is that a chef who can plate well might be able to make chicken **** look like a chicken salad, when you actually get down to eating it, it's still chicken ****. The reason I brought up the win percentage is that he can make a team look better than it really is during the regular season but in the playoffs it's the same result because the team is what it is.

If a team finishes first in the division and loses in the first round, it looks a lot worse than if they sneak in at the 8 seed and lose in the first round. If a worse coach loses as the 8 seed he's not going to get the playoff choker label.

 

[Duck Off]

My point is that a chef who can plate well might be able to make chicken **** look like a chicken salad, when you actually get down to eating it, it's still chicken ****. The reason I brought up the win percentage is that he can make a team look better than it really is during the regular season but in the playoffs it's the same result because the team is what it is.

If a team finishes first in the division and loses in the first round, it looks a lot worse than if they sneak in at the 8 seed and lose in the first round. If a worse coach loses as the 8 seed he's not going to get the playoff choker label.

Agreed, but at what point do you start saying: "This guy just can't get it done in the playoffs".

 

[AngelDuck]

Those Washington teams were not chicken **** though so I don't follow your argument. Those were cup contenders that had the best player in the league, best offensive defenseman, one of the best playmaking centers, and other complimentary pieces. And they all choked under Boudreau. If he couldn't win with that it's tough to see him succeeding in Anaheim unless he changes his ways

 

[Sojourn]

My point is that a chef who can plate well might be able to make chicken **** look like a chicken salad, when you actually get down to eating it, it's still chicken ****. The reason I brought up the win percentage is that he can make a team look better than it really is during the regular season but in the playoffs it's the same result because the team is what it is.

If a team finishes first in the division and loses in the first round, it looks a lot worse than if they sneak in at the 8 seed and lose in the first round. If a worse coach loses as the 8 seed he's not going to get the playoff choker label.

I think you're broad stroking it a bit much. People have pointed to specific issues they have with Boudreau, and you're pointing to things like win percentage and making hyperbolic statements suggesting that people think Boudreau is the devil.

Why can't we think Boudreau is a good coach, but have issue with some of the things he does, and hope that he can make changes? When Anaheim wins hockey games, are we not supposed to see room for improvement, and recognize that there are things they need to do better? If Getzlaf has a great game, does that mean we can't be a little annoyed when he makes some of those ridiculous blind passes?

 

[190Octane]

I think you're overreacting a bit. I saw one or two posts that seemed ridiculous, but overall it hasn't been that bad at all. Some are saying they want Babcock. That's not a shot at BB at all. Babcock is considered the best coach in the NHL by many.

I think several are making a few good points. One of them was by you. You said he was a victim of his own success. I agree about this to an extent. I think we definitely overachieved his first full year here. That's why I didn't blame him much when we lost to Detroit. The second year is a different story though. It's hard to ***** too much because we went 7 games against the cup champs, but I do blame him a bit more. He was clearly doing things that were ticking off some of the veterans, and this is something he needs to learn from, not brush off.

I think BB has done a solid job, but his track record is disturbing. It's odd to have so many great teams and never reach the cup finals.

I think the comment about motivation was pretty spot on as well. BB is the best at this in the regular season. In the playoffs, everyone wants it just as badly.

BB has made many mistakes. I don't like his handling of the goalies. He has an extreme lack of patience as well. I think it's beyond stupid that a line can be great together for 5 games, have one off game, and then get broke up. That's dumb and shouldn't happen. Look at the DSP experiment as another example of a lack of patience. DSP was doing surprisingly well, he struggles for a game, BAM! experiment over. I think he's overworking Freddie as well. We may struggle and lose a game or two, but that's better then having Freddie being too tired come playoff time. His communication with vets needs work. That said, I'm happy with BB overall. I think he's the best at getting the most out of his players on a consistent basis. He just needs to be more patient and less stubborn (PP).

I think some just get too defensive. There's nothing wrong with discussing a coaches or players flaws. That doesn't mean we hate them.

By no means is he perfect and the constant line juggling drives me crazy as well.

That being said, there aren't many coaches I would want more than Boudreau and I think any talk of replacing him at this point is foolish.

The Cup of win percentage means something to me and a lot of coaches struggled in the playoffs before it all came together for them. I think with Boudreau it is only a matter of time.

 

[Quack Shot]

Those Washington teams were not chicken **** though so I don't follow your argument. Those were cup contenders that had the best player in the league, best offensive defenseman, one of the best playmaking centers, and other complimentary pieces. And they all choked under Boudreau. If he couldn't win with that it's tough to see him succeeding in Anaheim unless he changes his ways

Argument could be made they were that good cuz of BB.

 

[190Octane]

I think you're broad stroking it a bit much. People have pointed to specific issues they have with Boudreau, and you're pointing to things like win percentage and making hyperbolic statements suggesting that people think Boudreau is the devil.

Why can't we think Boudreau is a good coach, but have issue with some of the things he does, and hope that he can make changes? When Anaheim wins hockey games, are we not supposed to see room for improvement, and recognize that there are things they need to do better? If Getzlaf has a great game, does that mean we can't be a little annoyed when he makes some of those ridiculous blind passes?

I think the main purpose of the Internet is to allow people to criticize anything and everything.

I have no problem with handing out criticism where it's due, I just think that a lot of times we are guilty of nitpicking. If the team starts losing that's one thing, but I find it hard to criticize when the team has the best record in the league despite having some of the worst injury problems so far. People might not like his methods or disagree with his decisions but they seem to be working pretty well.

 

[Sojourn]

Argument could be made they were that good cuz of BB.

That street goes two ways. You can't say a coach made them that much better, and then refuse to ignore their inability to step up when the games matter the most. In other words, you're back at square one.

You're also mistaken to be giving the coach that much credit. Any coach.

 

[Sojourn]

I think the main purpose of the Internet is to allow people to criticize anything and everything.

I have no problem with handing out criticism where it's due, I just think that a lot of times we are guilty of nitpicking. If the team starts losing that's one thing, but I find it hard to criticize when the team has the best record in the league despite having some of the worst injury problems so far. People might not like his methods or disagree with his decisions but they seem to be working pretty well.

I don't think it's nitpicking when you can argue that it has cost Anaheim in the playoffs, or when you see it has been a common trend. That's a pattern.

 

[190Octane]

I don't think it's nitpicking when you can argue that it has cost Anaheim in the playoffs, or when you see it has been a common trend. That's a pattern.

Fair enough.

 

[goosemooseduck]

Ducks won 3, not 2. Comebacks in a game is not the same as coming back in a series and winning 2 on a road, in a row, against Kings. Except game 7 it was very much even affair.

Typo...

The point is, they weren't good enough to win a series against the Kings, similarly, Dallas wasn't good enough to beat the Ducks, even though, watching the games it looked way more even than final result.

To come back to BB, he is what he is, ie good enough and he gets criticized a bit too much for his PO records, given how Caps were built. I doubt they could win it all even with two Ovechkins.

BB is known quantity, he may do better in POs or he may not. Either way it's up to BM (and ultimately Samueli) to plug the holes, or at least some of them to maximize chances in postseason. Otherwise it could be another early exit.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Pretty much every coach considered "great" has a history of not doing well in the playoffs until they finally did well. For everyone wanting a new coach, who out there do you think is available and actually better? If Babcock leaves Detroit it'll be for money, so take him off the table and offer a realistic choice.

For the record, in not saying Boudreau doesn't have flaws. I'm saying there's a lot of grass is greener behavior going on here. And perhaps a little overrating of our actual team talent level.

 

[Sojourn]

Typo...

The point is, they weren't good enough to win a series against the Kings, similarly, Dallas wasn't good enough to beat the Ducks, even though, watching the games it looked way more even than final result.

To come back to BB, he is what he is, ie good enough and he gets criticized a bit too much for his PO records, given how Caps were built. I doubt they could win it all even with two Ovechkins.

BB is known quantity, he may do better in POs or he may not. Either way it's up to BM (and ultimately Samueli) to plug the holes, or at least some of them to maximize chances in postseason. Otherwise it could be another early exit.

They were good enough to win a series against the Kings, and they showed that. You're concluding that the fact they didn't win means they couldn't, but when a series goes to Game 7, and the team has two opportunities to put the series away, it's pretty obvious that they can win.

You originally said that, for Anaheim to win the series, everything had to go perfectly for them. Where is the evidence of that? Had the series been 4-0 in favor of the Kings, you might be on to something, but nothing about that series points to Anaheim needing to be lucky to win.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Leave it to Carlyle getting fired to reignite such an asinine argument that we can't seem to avoid. I guess it's a sign that things are going well that we have to split hairs and nitpick a coaches' fantastic track record. I will say this, he gets far too much blame for his teams' inability to advance beyond the second round. Mike Babcock and Darryl Sutter did not outcoach Boudreau in those Game 7s. Game 7s are on the players and in both instances his team choked. Will he have to held accountable if this happens again? Of course. The whole team does. But some the arguments against him suggest he isn't an excellent coach which is total bull ****. This team's success isn't a fluke. His game plan leads to a lot of wins for a reason and it's complete nonsense to suggest it doesn't translate to the playoffs. The playoffs are still hockey. The only difference is the intensity. The teams that play with the most intensity and focus win. The Kings are a mediocre team from top to bottom but come spring they play like each game is their last and that's why they've won 11 playoff series in the last three years. You can argue that it's the coaching staff's responsibility to get the players up for these games but I'm sorry, if these guys want to win a championship it's on them. It bugs the crap out of me that Boudreau's entire reputation is boiled down to his teams losing in deciding games to hungrier teams. It annoys me so much how much people complain about him shuffling lines because they think the best way for a line that's not playing well to improve is to stay together. It drives me crazy that he gets blamed for the special teams when they're A) the responsibility of the assistant coaches and B) on the players for not executing.

I want this team to succeed in the playoffs so Boudreau can finally be rewarded and get this monkey off of his back. I love the way he coaches this team. I love that we're consistently at the top of the league. I love that we have a legitimate chance at winning the Stanley Cup. We should be so grateful for having him as a coach but all we can seem to do is criticize him for providing us with six months of winning hockey but losing to better teams in the playoffs.

 

[Ducks DVM]

That street goes two ways. You can't say a coach made them that much better, and then refuse to ignore their inability to step up when the games matter the most. In other words, you're back at square one.

You're also mistaken to be giving the coach that much credit. Any coach.

The easy argument is that he gets his players to overachieve in the regular season, and then has them either burn out or more likely simply get passed by the other teams that they are close to in the regular season but who also start overachieving in the postseason.

 

[190Octane]

Pretty much every coach considered "great" has a history of bit doing well in the playoffs until they finally did well. For everyone wanting a new coach, who out there do you think is available and actually better? If Babcock leaves Detroit it'll be for money, so take him off the table and offer a realistic choice.

For the record, in not saying Boudreau doesn't have flaws. I'm saying there's a lot of grass is greener behavior going on here. And perhaps a little overrating of our actual team talent level.

Thank you, this is my point exactly.

Babcock is a great coach but it's not like he's been saddled with a sad sack of losers and he is solely responsible for the team's success during his tenure there. Also, he hasn't been past round 2 in over 5 years.

Outside of Giguere in the '03 playoffs, Babcock's teams here weren't really exceptional.

 

[Sojourn]

Leave it to Carlyle getting fired to reignite such an asinine argument that we can't seem to avoid. I guess it's a sign that things are going well that we have to split hairs and nitpick a coaches' fantastic track record. I will say this, he gets far too much blame for his teams' inability to advance beyond the second round. Mike Babcock and Darryl Sutter did not outcoach Boudreau in those Game 7s. Game 7s are on the players and in both instances his team choked. Will he have to held accountable if this happens again? Of course. The whole team does. But some the arguments against him suggest he isn't an excellent coach which is total bull ****. This team's success isn't a fluke. His game plan leads to a lot of wins for a reason and it's complete nonsense to suggest it doesn't translate to the playoffs. The playoffs are still hockey. The only difference is the intensity. The teams that play with the most intensity and focus win. The Kings are a mediocre team from top to bottom but come spring they play like each game is their last and that's why they've won 11 playoff series in the last three years. You can argue that it's the coaching staff's responsibility to get the players up for these games but I'm sorry, if these guys want to win a championship it's on them. It bugs the crap out of me that Boudreau's entire reputation is boiled down to his teams losing in deciding games to hungrier teams. It annoys me so much how much people complain about him shuffling lines because they think the best way for a line that's not playing well to improve is to stay together. It drives me crazy that he gets blamed for the special teams when they're A) the responsibility of the assistant coaches and B) on the players for not executing.

I want this team to succeed in the playoffs so Boudreau can finally be rewarded and get this monkey off of his back. I love the way he coaches this team. I love that we're consistently at the top of the league. I love that we have a legitimate chance at winning the Stanley Cup. We should be so grateful for having him as a coach but all we can seem to do is criticize him for providing us with six months of winning hockey but losing to better teams in the playoffs.

So Boudreau gets credit when the team does well, but it's on the players when they fall short?

And a player's reputation is held to the same standards. If Getzlaf didn't have a Cup, or a couple of opportunities where he clearly put the team on his back, he'd be criticized for the team falling short. That's the nature of professional sports. See Joe Thornton. Coaches aren't the only ones judged on whether they can win when it matters.

 

[Sojourn]

The easy argument is that he gets his players to overachieve in the regular season, and then has them either burn out or more likely simply get passed by the other teams that they are close to in the regular season but who also start overachieving in the postseason.

Easy, but I'm not really criticizing Boudreau, specifically, for his playoff performance. I'm looking at tendencies I see in his coaching that, I feel, get exploited a bit more in the playoffs.

Again, I think Boudreau is a good coach. I've never said otherwise. I just think he's had some problems making adjustments, and I do think that can be critical in a playoff series.

Edit: I also don't think Babcock is some magic fix. We'd be trading Boudreau's faults for Babcock's faults. Babcock isn't some coaching savant. He makes mistakes the same as any other coach. I'd like to see how Boudreau does this year in the playoffs, because I think you could argue he has the most complete team he's ever had.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Pretty much every coach considered "great" has a history of not doing well in the playoffs until they finally did well. For everyone wanting a new coach, who out there do you think is available and actually better? If Babcock leaves Detroit it'll be for money, so take him off the table and offer a realistic choice.

For the record, in not saying Boudreau doesn't have flaws. I'm saying there's a lot of grass is greener behavior going on here. And perhaps a little overrating of our actual team talent level.

I'm not saying the grass is greener somewhere else. Because I don't know. I'm saying our grass might not be green enough.

As for your first observation, sure. A coach isn't great until he is. You grow, you learn, you adapt, and you get a little lucky. Those former three are what I want to see from Boudreau.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

My point is that a chef who can plate well might be able to make chicken **** look like a chicken salad, when you actually get down to eating it, it's still chicken ****. The reason I brought up the win percentage is that he can make a team look better than it really is during the regular season but in the playoffs it's the same result because the team is what it is.

If a team finishes first in the division and loses in the first round, it looks a lot worse than if they sneak in at the 8 seed and lose in the first round. If a worse coach loses as the 8 seed he's not going to get the playoff choker label.

So? It looks a lot worse because it is a lot worse. You can play the chicken **** card if you like, but you can't ignore the pattern. You can reasonably disagree over what it means, but to dismiss the concerns is pure JoeMan fantasy.

 

[goosemooseduck]

They were good enough to win a series against the Kings, and they showed that. You're concluding that the fact they didn't win means they couldn't, but when a series goes to Game 7, and the team has two opportunities to put the series away, it's pretty obvious that they can win.

Just watched that series again during the holidays.
They were better team on ice in 2 games in that series, game 2 and 6, and they lost both. About even in game 1. That's about it.

You originally said that, for Anaheim to win the series, everything had to go perfectly for them. Where is the evidence of that? Had the series been 4-0 in favor of the Kings, you might be on to something, but nothing about that series points to Anaheim needing to be lucky to win.

The series wasn't as even as the final outcome may suggest.

And yes, I stand by it, games 3, 4 and 5 are perfect examples, in each of these a lot of things went Ducks way, so 0:4 blowout was quite a possibility.

If either team won games in which they were better, it'd still be 2:4 in Queens favor

 

[Sojourn]

So, what you're saying is that the Ducks didn't stand a chance because that's what you think... Okay then. We'll just ignore the fact it went to Game 7, that the Kings were playing catch up for a fair amount of time, and that Anaheim had two opportunities to put the series away.

 

[goosemooseduck]

So, what you're saying is that the Ducks didn't stand a chance because that's what you think... Okay then. We'll just ignore the fact it went to Game 7, that the Kings were playing catch up for a fair amount of time, and that Anaheim had two opportunities to put the series away.

I'm saying this season Ducks are better team and with few improvements (of which coach swap isn't), they could go to the SC finals.

 

[Sojourn]

I'm saying this season Ducks are better team and with few improvements (of which coach swap isn't), they could go to the SC finals.

What you actually said was they couldn't beat the Kings.

 

[goosemooseduck]

What you actually said was they couldn't beat the Kings.

Not without some fortune on their side which ran out in game 6.

Do you honestly believe if you could play the series 10 times that Ducks would be victorious?