Management Claude Julien - Mod Warning post 643

[Pia8988]

Who?

As for "not smart," let's see - hockey experts around North America say Julien is one of the best coaches in the NHL. His critics include Dan Shaughnessy, Gary Tanguay and Michael Felger. Hmmm, wonder whose judgement I should trust?

Mike Milbury!

 

[DKH]

Who?

As for "not smart," let's see - hockey experts around North America say Julien is one of the best coaches in the NHL. His critics include Dan Shaughnessy, Gary Tanguay and Michael Felger. Hmmm, wonder whose judgement I should trust?

Fantastic answer

Btw Felger opening with DJ Bean last night was hilarious

DJ Bean most underrated hockey writer in city- great sense of humor

Underutilized by WEEI

 

[Artemis]

Mike Milbury!

We REALLY need a puking emoticon.

 

[DKH]

Mike Milbury!

He's Cam's buddy

I agree with Neely an uptempo game is what you want

Cam knows both Sweeney and the Jacobs like Julien as a coach and person and that was that

 

[chizzler]

Fantastic answer

Btw Felger opening with DJ Bean last night was hilarious

DJ Bean most underrated hockey writer in city- great sense of humor

Underutilized by WEEI

Felger and Haggerty were embarrassing.

 

[ODAAT]

Felger and Haggerty were embarrassing.

shocking

 

[jgatie]

He's Cam's buddy

I agree with Neely an uptempo game is what you want

Cam knows both Sweeney and the Jacobs like Julien as a coach and person and that was that

An up-tempo game is a great thing. But when your stable is full of plow horses and colts, you can't run them in the Derby. Develop your futures, draft to your vision, and clean up the cap mess. Two and three are well in progress, the first will take time. As I said in another thread where someone felt C. Miller and Morrow could be hybrid defensemen in a Boychuk vein - Johnny Boychuk made the big team a month shy of his 26th birthday, after honing his defensive game in the AHL for years.

Colin Miller is 23.
Joe Morrow? Also 23.

 

[jgatie]

Felger and Haggerty were embarrassing.

And that's before they open their mouths.

 

[rocketdan9]

I agree Jacobs is too cheap to let him go

No way he would of resigned him if clode was a FA

But one more failed attempt to make post season he is def a goner. He should be smart and resign before getting told you are axed

Chara , seidenberg, Rask need to go.

So frustrated with all three but mainly Rask. Couldn't stop a beach ball this past season. Cherry is right

 

[Artemis]

Felger and Haggerty were embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is so many people parroting Felger. You'd like to think the average fan is smarter than that, but alas.

Has he forgotten about Guy Boucher, or was he banging the drum for the Bruins to fire Julien and track down Boucher? Where IS Boucher these days?

 

[BMC]

Felger and Haggerty were embarrassing.

When are they not?

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Fantastic answer

Btw Felger opening with DJ Bean last night was hilarious

DJ Bean most underrated hockey writer in city- great sense of humor

Underutilized by WEEI

LOVED that Deej opened the questions yesterday with "Is Claude still the coach?"

 

[BostonPC]

What's embarrassing is so many people parroting Felger. You'd like to think the average fan is smarter than that, but alas.

Has he forgotten about Guy Boucher, or was he banging the drum for the Bruins to fire Julien and track down Boucher? Where IS Boucher these days?

Felger's only real argument is that the team faded for the last two years. He sticks to that rather than evaluating everything. I think he believes that if you state that 50 times a day in a frantic voice that everyone will believe you. Then again I am seeing the same argument in some of these forums so maybe he is right After listening to him I figured he was the little kid who pouted when he didn't get his way. "I am taking my ball and going home" attitude. I don't think I am far off on that one.

 

[Spanky185]

Felger's only real argument is that the team faded for the last two years. He sticks to that rather than evaluating everything. I think he believes that if you state that 50 times a day in a frantic voice that everyone will believe you. Then again I am seeing the same argument in some of these forums so maybe he is right After listening to him I figured he was the little kid who pouted when he didn't get his way. "I am taking my ball and going home" attitude. I don't think I am far off on that one.

I can think of only a few coaches in all of professional sports that wouldn't have been fired for 2 consecutive collapses like that.

 

[ksp1957]

We REALLY need a puking emoticon.

We needed THAT after the fiasco that was the game against the Sens.

I saw the reprieve for Claude while I was working out on the treadmill watching NESN. My heart rate went up 30 points even when the speed and incline stayed the same. I don't want to watch Julien coach this team another season. If I have to, I will but I'd rather pull my fingernails off my hand one by one.

This team WILL get it right once the attendance hits 8000-9000 and the concessions sales go down the toilet which is where I think the concessions are from sometimes.

THAT represents my rant of the day. I'll try to watch teams that actually MADE the playoffs before the Cup is awarded. If it's the Black Hawks, I will refuse to watch the presentation of course.

 

[Latrappe]

What's embarrassing is so many people parroting Felger. You'd like to think the average fan is smarter than that, but alas.

Has he forgotten about Guy Boucher, or was he banging the drum for the Bruins to fire Julien and track down Boucher? Where IS Boucher these days?

Felger.... Among his finest moments: trading Bergeron and Rask would be benefecial for Bruins... I'm sure he was cryjng when Donnie said that Bergeron was not going anywhere.

 

[since76]

The Anti-Claude crowd continues to place so much emphasis on how just having barely made the playoffs and somehow squeezing blood out of these stones would have been the only way for Claude to have shown his mettle, that he is indeed a good coach.

I find that a bit pathetic. Would that have really done it for you? Meant anything?

The refusal to see our current crop of players for what they are (in some ways, more AHL than NHL) and certainly not among the top of the NHL skill chain, to blame the team's failures on Claude's inability to wrest every ounce of performance out of such a group, and to not admit that the odds were extremely against anything but a one and done even if they had squeaked in, is both perplexing and mildly irritating.

Claude is not infallible, but he is a very good coach. In 2011, the same guy running largely the same system, but with better players, won us a Cup. Does that tell you anything?

It is also very funny and pathetic that clode lovers say it was good to fire assistants !!
Assistants coachs had bad def gangs too no ????
It is very interesting to see everybody is reponsible for fails except clode ))))))
Bad def group is an excuse ONLY FOR SUPER CLODE
For all others in bruins organisation it is different story ))))

 

[BruinDust]

An up-tempo game is a great thing. But when your stable is full of plow horses and colts, you can't run them in the Derby. Develop your futures, draft to your vision, and clean up the cap mess. Two and three are well in progress, the first will take time. As I said in another thread where someone felt C. Miller and Morrow could be hybrid defensemen in a Boychuk vein - Johnny Boychuk made the big team a month shy of his 26th birthday, after honing his defensive game in the AHL for years.

Colin Miller is 23.
Joe Morrow? Also 23.

I never said Morrow and Miller could be hybrid's like Boychuk, just that they could be both decent defenders as well as decent puck-movers. I don't expect either to ever be Boychuk-like. And Boychuk isn't really a hybrid, he's more a strong defensive player with a big time shot. He was never a consistent quality passer or puck-mover.

Don't put words in other people's mouths.

And good luck getting Morrow and Miller down through waivers so the can "hone" their game in the AHL until they are 25 or 26.

 

[Pia8988]

I never said Morrow and Miller could be hybrid's like Boychuk, just that they could be both decent defenders as well as decent puck-movers. I don't expect either to ever be Boychuk-like. And Boychuk isn't really a hybrid, he's more a strong defensive player with a big time shot. He was never a consistent quality passer or puck-mover.

Don't put words in other people's mouths.

And good luck getting Morrow and Miller down through waivers so the can "hone" their game in the AHL until they are 25 or 26.

This is what I hate most about Miller and McQuaid both on the team. There was no real safe space to protect Morrow or Miller as well without exposing one of the above 2

 

[BruinDust]

This is what I hate most about Miller and McQuaid both on the team. There was no real safe space to protect Morrow or Miller as well without exposing one of the above 2

Exactly.

You bring back both, and hopefully get some more help on the right-side (which is a requirement IMO) and there is nowhere for Colin to play regularly.

And it sure seems like the chances of Colin being back next year are better than Morrow.

This team absolutely has to have one spot on it's bottom-pair to develop a young cost-controlled D-man of their own. They haven't done it in 2 seasons now. 3 years in a row would be a disaster.

It's way to hard to get quality D-men through trade, as Sweeney found out this year. You have to develop some of your own to be successful in a cap system.

 

[disfigured]

I believe that Claude's philosophy in today's NHL is fundamentally flawed. It works well, but at its best all it did was defeat the worst team to make it to the NHL finals in years. We exposed Vancouver for what they were, a soft paper tiger, and even then it took 7 games to do it. Not to mention a goaltending performance that set mutiple NHL P.O records. We keep looking for the 2.0 version of that moment in time and I think it's impossible to replicate it given today's game.

His philosphy about the game is uninspiring, noncreative, and drains players of the offensive instincts they've honed since childhood. Tory Krug, although asked to take a role he isn't suited for went a 50 game stretch without a goal. A drop off was to be expected in Tory's game, but not to this extent. Meanwhile Riley Smith scores 25 (with 25 helpers) and has 5 pts. already the POs. While every situation isn't black and white, the extreme of those two situations sort of illustrate the effect Claude and his philosophy has on many players. The kid we thought was sharp eyed semi-sniper goes cold as ice, while the player who look as if he was inept around the net goes gang busters on another team. Marchand is an anomaly statistically under Claude. For the most part the Krug/Riley sliding scale is happening to some extent for players.

I understand the concept, it's not that it isn't valid. It reminds me of the "machine" quote by Barnes in Platoon . It's a question of how successful it is in today's POs. I can see the allure of it to GMs too. No need to fuss over young talent, no need to weigh the payroll down with a marquee scorer. But over time the exit of talent (no matter how undisciplined) takes it toll. The league is literally running out of Claude like players. Ones that can comply with his demands and still retain a creative offensive instinct.

Felger sees it, he just can't express it with anything other than hyperbole in order to get ratings. A lot of us have been seeing it for years and have been ringing the warning bell. How many flags have to go up before others see it? I could care less in regular season and what his rope-a-dope, up the boards, dump and chase system does. It's what happens to it when faced with teams playing desperately and on a fine edge of risk vs. reward. It and he rarely have an answer for that type of play. They get stuck in Claude Mode, and when the opportunity arises to make a team pay for taking risk, they don't see it, or worse they see and don't react. When they do react they're so out of sorts they can't connect on oddman rushes. Sure we were 5th in scoring this year, but don't you think a team with that stat could come up with a handful of goals to make the POs? Not once but twice now we've been unable to generate the offense (against bad teams no less) to make the POs. Just as timely saves are nearly as important as save %, so are timely goals.

He's far too mechanical in his approach to the game, and it's been showing in the final games of these last two seasons. Teams come in either wanting to be the spoilers or vying for a P.O spot themselves and the boys can't rise to the occasion. IMO I think it's because there is no extra level with Claude. While there's varying degrees of how vigorously the system is executed, the boys feel like they are playing outside the system if they raise it to another level of desperation. They do it occasionally but it's fleeting, and rarely for an entire game.

In order for his style of hockey to be successful it has to be a ploddingly repetitive series of shifts and games. I believe it wears on players over time and eventually they go through the motions mindlessly (even with vigor), then when the opportunities arise to capitalize on situations (even ones created by the system) they're stuck in that mode. Then there's those who simply can't stay up with the grind. The reward of playing in such a manner isn't personally satisfying enough. Hell, it's not fun to play and it's certainly not fun to watch for the most part either.

It works, it's predictable, it's consistent, and it's overachieving often times regardless of the roster. The problem is in the higher echelons of the game all those things make it defeatable. While Claude's philosophies about the game used to be called "playoff style hockey", that isn't the case anymore. One look at what's going on in the POs now (by successful teams) and there's no doubt in my mind that ship sailed. Cardinal sins on this team are committed practically left and right by P.O teams (good and bad) in an effort to generate offensive, shake things up, or just feel like an individual player trying to make a difference. Good, bad, indifferent, this is the variety of play that's needed to win in today's NHL. Yes it has to be tempered with Claude like attributes, but not nearly as much, and that aspect of the game is fading each season. All coaches try to cut down on bad turnovers, gaffs, and other such play. But other coaches do it with offensive chances as a barometer . The difference is Claude's philosophy is to eliminate them entirely at nearly any cost.

Can he come to understand the other half of the equation in today's game? It's yet to be seen IMO. We had an uptick in goals this year (historically on average under Claude it was high but nothing outrageous), while the "D" suffered mightily and that shows me he's not entirely oblivious to it. I think he "gets it", I just don't know if he has the mind set to act upon it. Old dogs, and the such. Perhaps this year was the front end of the equation, and adding his backend will be the needed adjustment. But I just don't see it, I get the awful feeling that the much needed improvement on the "D" will only make Claude retreat back to his comfort zone. Yeah we'll probably make the POs with this improvement, but with a nonetheless flawed game plan for them (the POs).

I wouldn't go so far as to say Claude's overrated, but he has certainly IMO, overachieved . But an overachieving gameplan is destined to fail when confronted by a winning one that's underachieving.

Have a good summer everyone.

 

[njbruin*]

I believe that Claude's philosophy in today's NHL is fundamentally flawed. It works well, but at its best all it did was defeat the worst team to make it to the NHL finals in years. We exposed Vancouver for what they were, a soft paper tiger, and even then it took 7 games to do it. Not to mention a goaltending performance that set mutiple NHL P.O records. We keep looking for the 2.0 version of that moment in time and I think it's impossible to replicate it given today's game.

His philosphy about the game is uninspiring, noncreative, and drains players of the offensive instincts they've honed since childhood. Tory Krug, although asked to take a role he isn't suited for went a 50 game stretch without a goal. A drop off was to be expected in Tory's game, but not to this extent. Meanwhile Riley Smith scores 25 (with 25 helpers) and has 5 pts. already the POs. While every situation isn't black and white, the extreme of those two situations sort of illustrate the effect Claude and his philosophy has on many players. The kid we thought was sharp eyed semi-sniper goes cold as ice, while the player who look as if he was inept around the net goes gang busters on another team. Marchand is an anomaly statistically under Claude. For the most part the Krug/Riley sliding scale is happening to some extent for players.

I understand the concept, it's not that it isn't valid. It reminds me of the "machine" quote by Barnes in Platoon . It's a question of how successful it is in today's POs. I can see the allure of it to GMs too. No need to fuss over young talent, no need to weigh the payroll down with a marquee scorer. But over time the exit of talent (no matter how undisciplined) takes it toll. The league is literally running out of Claude like players. Ones that can comply with his demands and still retain a creative offensive instinct.

Felger sees it, he just can't express it with anything other than hyperbole in order to get ratings. A lot of us have been seeing it for years and have been ringing the warning bell. How many flags have to go up before others see it? I could care less in regular season and what his rope-a-dope, up the boards, dump and chase system does. It's what happens to it when faced with teams playing desperately and on a fine edge of risk vs. reward. It and he rarely have an answer for that type of play. They get stuck in Claude Mode, and when the opportunity arises to make a team pay for taking risk, they don't see it, or worse they see and don't react. When they do react they're so out of sorts they can't connect on oddman rushes. Sure we were 5th in scoring this year, but don't you think a team with that stat could come up with a handful of goals to make the POs? Not once but twice now we've been unable to generate the offense (against bad teams no less) to make the POs. Just as timely saves are nearly as important as save %, so are timely goals.

He's far too mechanical in his approach to the game, and it's been showing in the final games of these last two seasons. Teams come in either wanting to be the spoilers or vying for a P.O spot themselves and the boys can't rise to the occasion. IMO I think it's because there is no extra level with Claude. While there's varying degrees of how vigorously the system is executed, the boys feel like they are playing outside the system if they raise it to another level of desperation. They do it occasionally but it's fleeting, and rarely for an entire game.

In order for his style of hockey to be successful it has to be a ploddingly repetitive series of shifts and games. I believe it wears on players over time and eventually they go through the motions mindlessly (even with vigor), then when the opportunities arise to capitalize on situations (even ones created by the system) they're stuck in that mode. Then there's those who simply can't stay up with the grind. The reward of playing in such a manner isn't personally satisfying enough. Hell, it's not fun to play and it's certainly not fun to watch for the most part either.

It works, it's predictable, it's consistent, and it's overachieving often times regardless of the roster. The problem is in the higher echelons of the game all those things make it defeatable. While Claude's philosophies about the game used to be called "playoff style hockey", that isn't the case anymore. One look at what's going on in the POs now (by successful teams) and there's no doubt in my mind that ship sailed. Cardinal sins on this team are committed practically left and right by P.O teams (good and bad) in an effort to generate offensive, shake things up, or just feel like an individual player trying to make a difference. Good, bad, indifferent, this is the variety of play that's needed to win in today's NHL. Yes it has to be tempered with Claude like attributes, but not nearly as much, and that aspect of the game is fading each season. All coaches try to cut down on bad turnovers, gaffs, and other such play. But other coaches do it with offensive chances as a barometer . The difference is Claude's philosophy is to eliminate them entirely at nearly any cost.

Can he come to understand the other half of the equation in today's game? It's yet to be seen IMO. We had an uptick in goals this year (historically on average under Claude it was high but nothing outrageous), while the "D" suffered mightily and that shows me he's not entirely oblivious to it. I think he "gets it", I just don't know if he has the mind set to act upon it. Old dogs, and the such. Perhaps this year was the front end of the equation, and adding his backend will be the needed adjustment. But I just don't see it, I get the awful feeling that the much needed improvement on the "D" will only make Claude retreat back to his comfort zone. Yeah we'll probably make the POs with this improvement, but with a nonetheless flawed game plan for them (the POs).

I wouldn't go so far as to say Claude's overrated, but he has certainly IMO, overachieved . But an overachieving gameplan is destined to fail when confronted by a winning one that's underachieving.

Have a good summer everyone.

Excellent post - summarizes 1000% my feelings about the system this HC employs.

Be prepared of being accused a hater who must be 15 years old and never watched a game of hockey in your life. The defense of this coach is so over the top and dumbfoundingly emotional.

 

[VanIsle]

I believe that Claude's philosophy in today's NHL is fundamentally flawed. It works well, but at its best all it did was defeat the worst team to make it to the NHL finals in years. We exposed Vancouver for what they were, a soft paper tiger, and even then it took 7 games to do it. Not to mention a goaltending performance that set mutiple NHL P.O records. We keep looking for the 2.0 version of that moment in time and I think it's impossible to replicate it given today's game.

His philosphy about the game is uninspiring, noncreative, and drains players of the offensive instincts they've honed since childhood. Tory Krug, although asked to take a role he isn't suited for went a 50 game stretch without a goal. A drop off was to be expected in Tory's game, but not to this extent. Meanwhile Riley Smith scores 25 (with 25 helpers) and has 5 pts. already the POs. While every situation isn't black and white, the extreme of those two situations sort of illustrate the effect Claude and his philosophy has on many players. The kid we thought was sharp eyed semi-sniper goes cold as ice, while the player who look as if he was inept around the net goes gang busters on another team. Marchand is an anomaly statistically under Claude. For the most part the Krug/Riley sliding scale is happening to some extent for players.

I understand the concept, it's not that it isn't valid. It reminds me of the "machine" quote by Barnes in Platoon . It's a question of how successful it is in today's POs. I can see the allure of it to GMs too. No need to fuss over young talent, no need to weigh the payroll down with a marquee scorer. But over time the exit of talent (no matter how undisciplined) takes it toll. The league is literally running out of Claude like players. Ones that can comply with his demands and still retain a creative offensive instinct.

Felger sees it, he just can't express it with anything other than hyperbole in order to get ratings. A lot of us have been seeing it for years and have been ringing the warning bell. How many flags have to go up before others see it? I could care less in regular season and what his rope-a-dope, up the boards, dump and chase system does. It's what happens to it when faced with teams playing desperately and on a fine edge of risk vs. reward. It and he rarely have an answer for that type of play. They get stuck in Claude Mode, and when the opportunity arises to make a team pay for taking risk, they don't see it, or worse they see and don't react. When they do react they're so out of sorts they can't connect on oddman rushes. Sure we were 5th in scoring this year, but don't you think a team with that stat could come up with a handful of goals to make the POs? Not once but twice now we've been unable to generate the offense (against bad teams no less) to make the POs. Just as timely saves are nearly as important as save %, so are timely goals.

He's far too mechanical in his approach to the game, and it's been showing in the final games of these last two seasons. Teams come in either wanting to be the spoilers or vying for a P.O spot themselves and the boys can't rise to the occasion. IMO I think it's because there is no extra level with Claude. While there's varying degrees of how vigorously the system is executed, the boys feel like they are playing outside the system if they raise it to another level of desperation. They do it occasionally but it's fleeting, and rarely for an entire game.

In order for his style of hockey to be successful it has to be a ploddingly repetitive series of shifts and games. I believe it wears on players over time and eventually they go through the motions mindlessly (even with vigor), then when the opportunities arise to capitalize on situations (even ones created by the system) they're stuck in that mode. Then there's those who simply can't stay up with the grind. The reward of playing in such a manner isn't personally satisfying enough. Hell, it's not fun to play and it's certainly not fun to watch for the most part either.

It works, it's predictable, it's consistent, and it's overachieving often times regardless of the roster. The problem is in the higher echelons of the game all those things make it defeatable. While Claude's philosophies about the game used to be called "playoff style hockey", that isn't the case anymore. One look at what's going on in the POs now (by successful teams) and there's no doubt in my mind that ship sailed. Cardinal sins on this team are committed practically left and right by P.O teams (good and bad) in an effort to generate offensive, shake things up, or just feel like an individual player trying to make a difference. Good, bad, indifferent, this is the variety of play that's needed to win in today's NHL. Yes it has to be tempered with Claude like attributes, but not nearly as much, and that aspect of the game is fading each season. All coaches try to cut down on bad turnovers, gaffs, and other such play. But other coaches do it with offensive chances as a barometer . The difference is Claude's philosophy is to eliminate them entirely at nearly any cost.

Can he come to understand the other half of the equation in today's game? It's yet to be seen IMO. We had an uptick in goals this year (historically on average under Claude it was high but nothing outrageous), while the "D" suffered mightily and that shows me he's not entirely oblivious to it. I think he "gets it", I just don't know if he has the mind set to act upon it. Old dogs, and the such. Perhaps this year was the front end of the equation, and adding his backend will be the needed adjustment. But I just don't see it, I get the awful feeling that the much needed improvement on the "D" will only make Claude retreat back to his comfort zone. Yeah we'll probably make the POs with this improvement, but with a nonetheless flawed game plan for them (the POs).

I wouldn't go so far as to say Claude's overrated, but he has certainly IMO, overachieved . But an overachieving gameplan is destined to fail when confronted by a winning one that's underachieving.

Have a good summer everyone.

This is the greatest thing I have ever read on this board.

Enjoy another year of "the system", dump and chase hockey, forced passes to the blueline and shots on the outside of the net because nothing was there.

Yay endless of the same type of hockey.

Why does every play that leaves this franchise do son well under other coaches?

It is an endless stream of players that leave and are amazing but while they are here they are offensively neutered.

Why are people still on this a Claude train of boredom, he kills my love of hockey with his style of play.

The playoffs are amazing and the Bruins are stinking pile of hot garbage.

Bottom 10 next year, guaranteed.

 

[disfigured]

Be prepared of being accused a hater who must be 15 years old and never watched a game of hockey in your life. The defense of this coach is so over the top and dumbfoundingly emotional.

I'm 52 (my age is listed in my profile), and can count on one hand the Bruins games I've missed in the last 25 years. A streak of 13 years was had at some point.

I understand their respect and passion for the man. Perhaps it's younger poster who have a sort of affinity for him, because he's so stalwart. Perhaps a father figure type, I dunno. And every statistical point, and previous success they use to bolster their argument also has validity. He's not a bad coach by any stretch of the imagination. And differences in philosophies about the game aren't enough to get a man fired, as long as the coach's one works. However, when it ceases to work or ceases to be a viable path to a successful future, that's when one can examine and be more critical of him.

I understand what he's doing. He takes any player and breaks them down to rebuild them in the image he intends to utilize. Like boot camp, another military analogy. There's nary a player that walks through that door that he doesn't believe there are holes in their games as it applies to his system. The problem is those holes are always defensive ones. It's what he always has them working on. In 9 years I don't think I've ever heard the man mention the offense unless it's how it relates to the defense. He believes in heart of hearts, that as long as you take care of one end, the other will come naturally. It's a more a territorial game of attrition he employs (or certainly used to employ). Control your own territory more often than not, and you'll end up with more goals. The very thing he practices begins to negate the expected outcome. As long as the basics of his game plan are being executed the results are inconsequential. I truly believe he's happier with a 2-1 loss with the game plan being adhered to, than a 5-4 victory that was all over the place. Which is understandable in the grand scheme of things. But I think that mindset filters down to the players. Not directly and not maliciously, but in some form of undertone throughout the locker room. Then it becomes nearly impossible for them to inject that ad hoc and impromptu game style into the equation.

Those who poo-poo Felger and Mazz are missing great entertainment. (good) Sports radio isn't about being right all the time, I don't listen to increase my hockey knowledge I listen to be entertained. One of the funniest lines ever on that show about Claude went something like this: "He'd put Chris Kelly in the shootout to protect the goal against"

At 55 he's my age approximately, and what I see is stubborn old guy, who lives vicariously through his pluggers. He desperately thinks one of them can be the game changer. Like some hokey Hollywood script. Hey, I'd love to see it too. But you just can't live, die, trade, and set lines by it.

The playoffs are amazing and the Bruins are stinking pile of hot garbage.

Exactly, I still have 3 games on the drive to watch, that I've amazingly avoided seeing (or remembering) the scores. I feel like putting a peices of tape over the stock ticker at the bottom of my TV screen(s). So as to not see the updates of other ongoing games.

Point is these games don't look anything like the Bruins of recent years (even at their best). These last Bruins teams do however look like the Bruins of Claude's first few years. And much like he said in his interviews he wants to get back to building a SC winning team. Which he did and fortunately proved me wrong, as I had the same doubts about those teams ever being able to win it all. The problem is I don't think there's a 2nd Act to Claude's coaching philosophy. It's not that he caught lighting in a bottle, and one trick pony is too critcal he's much more than that. It's more a case of the end of an era. We won the SC in a large part (IMO) because of our grit and intimidation (along with a redhot T.T). Against a team with no answer for that type of thing. It's probably (and sadly) the last SC final where that element will play such a large role. (although I saw some blood in a Lightning highlight, shhh don't say anything). The problem is Claude thinks that element can be left out and whatever he deploys will still be as successful (given the correct roster). That's probably a dynamic that's affecting a lot of coaches, not just him.

In some ways retooling for a "faster more uptempo" game might not be the best vision of this franchise. Perhaps just giving him the players he truly wants, and giving it one last "old school" try is the way to go.

I think the best we can hope for is that his legacy of defensive obsession combines with young offensive talent to form some symbiotic system where the two can coincide without canceling each other out.

 

[DKH]

I'm 52 (my age is listed in my profile), and can count on one hand the Bruins games I've missed in the last 25 years. A streak of 13 years was had at some point.

I understand their respect and passion for the man. Perhaps it's younger poster who have a sort of affinity for him, because he's so stalwart. Perhaps a father figure type, I dunno. And every statistical point, and previous success they use to bolster their argument also has validity. He's not a bad coach by any stretch of the imagination. And differences in philosophies about the game aren't enough to get a man fired, as long as the coach's one works. However, when it ceases to work or ceases to be a viable path to a successful future, that's when one can examine and be more critical of him.

I understand what he's doing. He takes any player and breaks them down to rebuild them in the image he intends to utilize. Like boot camp, another military analogy. There's nary a player that walks through that door that he doesn't believe there are holes in their games as it applies to his system. The problem is those holes are always defensive ones. It's what he always has them working on. In 9 years I don't think I've ever heard the man mention the offense unless it's how it relates to the defense. He believes in heart of hearts, that as long as you take care of one end, the other will come naturally. It's a more a territorial game of attrition he employs (or certainly used to employ). Control your own territory more often than not, and you'll end up with more goals. The very thing he practices begins to negate the expected outcome. As long as the basics of his game plan are being executed the results are inconsequential. I truly believe he's happier with a 2-1 loss with the game plan being adhered to, than a 5-4 victory that was all over the place. Which is understandable in the grand scheme of things. But I think that mindset filters down to the players. Not directly and not maliciously, but in some form of undertone throughout the locker room. Then it becomes nearly impossible for them to inject that ad hoc and impromptu game style into the equation.

Those who poo-poo Felger and Mazz are missing great entertainment. (good) Sports radio isn't about being right all the time, I don't listen to increase my hockey knowledge I listen to be entertained. One of the funniest lines ever on that show about Claude went something like this: "He'd put Chris Kelly in the shootout to protect the goal against"

At 55 he's my age approximately, and what I see is stubborn old guy, who lives vicariously through his pluggers. He desperately thinks one of them can be the game changer. Like some hokey Hollywood script. Hey, I'd love to see it too. But you just can't live, die, trade, and set lines by it.



Exactly, I still have 3 games on the drive to watch, that I've amazingly avoided seeing (or remembering) the scores. I feel like putting a peices of tape over the stock ticker at the bottom of my TV screen(s). So as to not see the updates of other ongoing games.

Point is these games don't look anything like the Bruins of recent years (even at their best). These last Bruins teams do however look like the Bruins of Claude's first few years. And much like he said in his interviews he wants to get back to building a SC winning team. Which he did and fortunately proved me wrong, as I had the same doubts about those teams ever being able to win it all. The problem is I don't think there's a 2nd Act to Claude's coaching philosophy. It's not that he caught lighting in a bottle, and one trick pony is too critcal he's much more than that. It's more a case of the end of an era. We won the SC in a large part (IMO) because of our grit and intimidation (along with a redhot T.T). Against a team with no answer for that type of thing. It's probably (and sadly) the last SC final where that element will play such a large role. (although I saw some blood in a Lightning highlight, shhh don't say anything). The problem is Claude thinks that element can be left out and whatever he deploys will still be as successful (given the correct roster). That's probably a dynamic that's affecting a lot of coaches, not just him.

In some ways retooling for a "faster more uptempo" game might not be the best vision of this franchise. Perhaps just giving him the players he truly wants, and giving it one last "old school" try is the way to go.

I think the best we can hope for is that his legacy of defensive obsession combines with young offensive talent to form some symbiotic system where the two can coincide without canceling each other out.

I like Claude and voted I was happy he stayed but I was hoping we would have gotten the PC coach. I can live with Claude but Leamen's team play uptempo and in your grill- I love the way PC plays.

He was my second choice but I still wanted that younger dynamic guy like the Celtics got with Brad Stevens and when I saw Leaman on the ice at DC this summer and knew he was a Harvard guy I figured