Management Claude Julien - Mod Warning post 643

[Lobster57]

Nice job. I'm sure it didn't take that much work. Now if only Lonnie had given it as much thought and not been so obstinate.

I really don't understand why Lonnie naming names is of such importance to you.

My money is on Cassidy being the replacement, as the in-house candidate strikes me as the Sweeney/Neely way. Dark horse is Dave Lowry.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

The idea that the average fan has the overarching knowledge to identify a coach who fits the qualifications and needs of this Bruins team (which we watch as relative outsiders) is a silly notion.

The idea that there are no plausible replacements amongst thousands of hockey coaches is a silly notion.

Some of the same people who claimed "no one is available" are all the sudden saying Gallant is a great option. Why? Because they apparently have no knowledge outside of immediate recent NHL coaches. Implying that if Claude were let go, "there isn't anyone I see available" is an obviously idiotic and small minded thought process, and it is preventing you from seeing something incredibly obvious.

Claude staying vs. Claude going is a debate. If "there is anyone available" is not. There are thousands of hockey coaches, at all different levels, with all different ideas. Asking the average fan to "drop a couple names" as some sort of means to prove your ridiculously premised point is entirely ignorant of the idiocy of your implication.

So if the average fan doesn't have the knowledge to identify who has the qualifications or fit for this Bruins team, then we clearly don'
t have the ability to determine if Claude is the right coach or not, and all debate on the matter should cease and this thread should be closed right?

It's not idiotic to ask someone who continually says that the coach should be replaced to be able to identify at least one coach who is currently available to replace him who is qualified? Or does that fall under your silly notion #1, under which this thread should be closed?

And speaking of silly notions, the idea that of the thousands of hockey coaches, any more than a couple of handsful are a) available and b) qualified to take an NHL head coaching job is perhaps the silliest notion of all.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Hyperbole aside, who's available? That you would want. Who would get as much (not even more) out of this group? Should be a simple exercise.

I don't know who would be a better fit.

I also know that it is not 1 coach that makes a team, but a collection of coaches from head coach to assistants to video guys and pro scouts ect...

Remember how terrible Torts was last year and for Team USA..Now he coaches the hottest team is the NHL.

Not sure what my point is ...LOL.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

So if i say a Gerard Gallant and Kirk Muller combo would do better, would this make me wrong?

How can it be proved one way or the other?

Fact of the matter is this team has had several terrible starts and have gone down 2-0, even 3-0 of late and IMO... that's on the coach.

I can't tell you somebody could do better. But you can't tell me that a Gallant,Muller combo can't either.

And fwiw, i am not saying to fire Claude, but i wouldn't be pissed if he is. Sometimes a team just needs a new voice.

No it wouldn't make you wrong, but it would at least provide food for a debate on the matter. Lonnie's refusal to even offer possibilities turns the whole thing into a matter where he says "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's no debate."

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

So if the average fan doesn't have the knowledge to identify who has the qualifications or fit for this Bruins team, then we clearly don'
t have the ability to determine if Claude is the right coach or not, and all debate on the matter should cease and this thread should be closed right?

It's not idiotic to ask someone who continually says that the coach should be replaced to be able to identify at least one coach who is currently available to replace him who is qualified? Or does that fall under your silly notion #1, under which this thread should be closed?

And speaking of silly notions, the idea that of the thousands of hockey coaches, any more than a couple of handsful are a) available and b) qualified to take an NHL head coaching job is perhaps the silliest notion of all.

I did not say "thousands of hockey coaches are qualified". Just stop it. There are thousands of options. Most of which are bad. If Claude was fired, I am guessing you would see an interim coach and then a permanent replacement (unless the interim earned a chance at a permanent job). You're looking at everything through this tiny scope instead of the realistic and broad spectrum that it actually is. And then asking people to answer to your tiny scoped viewpoint. Multiple people are pointing out the exact same flaw in your argument but yet you press on.

You knew you wanted Dave Lewis fired. You admitted that you just wanted him gone and had no idea who you wanted back. Now, Claude has enjoyed far more success with this team, but some people are at the same level you were at with Dave Lewis. They simply want to give someone else a chance and maybe give the team a kick in the pants. It's been a long while since this team tasted any level of success. So, is it really fair you are holding the average hockey fan to this standard that they start dropping names (out of the THOUSANDS of options) as to who should replace Claude. Picking a coach isn't just "hmmm...who has coached in the league lately that is now "available"?" It's weighing all the options and all of the possibilities.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I really don't understand why Lonnie naming names is of such importance to you.

My money is on Cassidy being the replacement, as the in-house candidate strikes me as the Sweeney/Neely way. Dark horse is Dave Lowry.

I'll be honest, part of it is that I like busting Lonnie's stones.

But part of it is that he uncompromisingly adheres to the belief that Claude Julien needs to be replaced, but won't offer anyone to replace him with. You can't debate if a guy will do any better if the other guy won't name that other guy to debate about.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I did not say "thousands of hockey coaches are qualified". Just stop it. There are thousands of options. Most of which are bad. If Claude was fired, I am guessing you would see an interim coach and then a permanent replacement (unless the interim earned a chance at a permanent job). You're looking at everything through this tiny scope instead of the realistic and broad spectrum that it actually is. And then asking people to answer to your tiny scoped viewpoint. Multiple people are pointing out the exact same flaw in your argument but yet you press on.

You knew you wanted Dave Lewis fired. You admitted that you just wanted him gone and had no idea who you wanted back. Now, Claude has enjoyed far more success with this team, but some people are at the same level you were at with Dave Lewis. They simply want to give someone else a chance and maybe give the team a kick in the pants. It's been a long while since this team tasted any level of success. So, is it really fair you are holding the average hockey fan to this standard that they start dropping names (out of the THOUSANDS of options) as to who should replace Claude. Picking a coach isn't just "hmmm...who has coached in the league lately that is now "available"?" It's weighing all the options and all of the possibilities.

You implied that very thing, so you just stop it. (You implied it again with the bolded.)

As for the tiny viewpoint, that's actually on those who want Julien fired, come hell or highwater, without paying attention to who might replace him. I think it's pretty ewasy to argue that wanting a reasonable replacement is a much broader viewpoint.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

No it wouldn't make you wrong, but it would at least provide food for a debate on the matter. Lonnie's refusal to even offer possibilities turns the whole thing into a matter where he says "I'm right, you're wrong, and there's no debate."

???

I disagree with Lonnie a lot, but I don't think that's what he is doing at all here.

You are saying that IF he doesn't name a coach, HE is wrong from what I can tell. I don't understand how offering up the incredibly obvious notion that there are at least a few coaches out there who are qualified for a chance at running the team is a concept that is difficult for you to grasp. It's simply logical. There aren't 30 coaches + maybe an extra at a certain time ready to run a team.

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

Really? That's exactly what I'd put out there. Pasta back where he was thriving, Vatrano and Czarnik together which could be interesting. I like these.

Pasta thrives anywhere. And Spooner, Krejci, Backes do nothing together and now there's nobody left for the 3rd line. Why is Nash still in the lineup?

 

[whatsbruin]

Nice job. I'm sure it didn't take that much work. Now if only Lonnie had given it as much thought and not been so obstinate.

For the record, I don't know where I sit with Claude's future with Boston.

I just provided the list because I don't agree with the idea that Claude is so
hard to replace.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

You implied that very thing, so you just stop it.

...

I said that there are thousands of coaches out there. Professionals need to do the scouting on the permanent replacement. Only a select few are at the highest qualification level.

Did I clear it up? Are you going to respond to my post? Anything?

 

[Glove Malfunction]

???

I disagree with Lonnie a lot, but I don't think that's what he is doing at all here.

You are saying that IF he doesn't name a coach, HE is wrong from what I can tell. I don't understand how offering up the incredibly obvious notion that there are at least a few coaches out there who are qualified for a chance at running the team is a concept that is difficult for you to grasp. It's simply logical. There aren't 30 coaches + maybe an extra at a certain time ready to run a team.

I thought there were literally THOUSANDS of options?

 

[Glove Malfunction]

...

I said that there are thousands of coaches out there. Professionals need to do the scouting on the permanent replacement. Only a select few are at the highest qualification level.

Did I clear it up? Are you going to respond to my post? Anything?

See my edited post.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

You implied that very thing, so you just stop it.

As for the tiny viewpoint, that's actually on those who want Julien fired, come hell or highwater, without paying attention to who might replace him. I think it's pretty ewasy to argue that wanting a reasonable replacement is a much broader viewpoint.

Who doesn't want a reasonable replacement?

Is it that hard to understand that we, as NHL fans outside the inner workings of the league, do not have a solid grasp on replacements. The fact that you think replacing an NHL coach is such an off the cuff, find 'em and pick 'em thing is strange and small minded.

You keep twisting the argument. No one is saying they don't want a reasonable replacement. No one is saying that anyone else could do this job. People are saying that Claude's time may be up. Disagree or agree. But saying "name some names" and people not having direct knowledge as to who the best replacement would be is just reality as a fan. I know A LOT about Claude because I've watched him coach my favorite team for the last ten years. I know NEXT TO NOTHING about almost all other hockey coaches.

...are you getting me yet? Out of all the points I have made/try to make, I think this is a pretty easy one to digest if you just take the time to do it.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I thought there were literally THOUSANDS of options?

There are THOUSANDS of options.

There are A FEW, relatively speaking, that are actually qualified and should be considered.

It feels like you're purposely trying to exploit your misinterpretation for the purpose of trying to make me look like an idiot.

THOUSANDS OF OPTIONS
A FEW THAT ARE QUALIFIED

How many more ****ing times do I have to say it before you give it a rest...

 

[Spanky185]

I'll be honest, part of it is that I like busting Lonnie's stones.

But part of it is that he uncompromisingly adheres to the belief that Claude Julien needs to be replaced, but won't offer anyone to replace him with. You can't debate if a guy will do any better if the other guy won't name that other guy to debate about.

Because it's not about having a specific coach replace Claude. It's about a change in how the bruins play hockey on a day in day out basis, which will be the case whoever replaces him.

Anyone think Claude's feeling it if they lose tonight?

 

[bp13]

Pasta thrives anywhere. And Spooner, Krejci, Backes do nothing together and now there's nobody left for the 3rd line. Why is Nash still in the lineup?

1. Because the GM signed him and he probably wants him to play
2. Because there are no better options in Providence

We can rip these guys in the bottom 6 all day but it's not like we have kids coming up from Providence and killing it. Cripes we called up their best dman last week and halfway through his first game we had people all over the GM and coach saying he was way over his head!

Criticize all you want, but please try to think about other options first. Riley Nash may not be great, but that doesn't mean he isn't a much better option than the next guy at Providence.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Who doesn't want a reasonable replacement?

Is it that hard to understand that we, as NHL fans outside the inner workings of the league, do not have a solid grasp on replacements. The fact that you think replacing an NHL coach is such an off the cuff, find 'em and pick 'em thing is strange and small minded.

You keep twisting the argument. No one is saying they don't want a reasonable replacement. No one is saying that anyone else could do this job. People are saying that Claude's time may be up. Disagree or agree. But saying "name some names" and people not having direct knowledge as to who the best replacement would be is just reality as a fan. I know A LOT about Claude because I've watched him coach my favorite team for the last ten years. I know NEXT TO NOTHING about almost all other hockey coaches.

...are you getting me yet? Out of all the points I have made/try to make, I think this is a pretty easy one to digest if you just take the time to do it.

I don't think that at all. I beg you to find one of my posts where I state, or even imply that. If anything, I think the exact opposite - that' it's HARD to find the right coach. That may even be what's kept Julien in place this long.

Hell, I'm not even sure myself that Claude's time may not be up. I've said in this very thread that coaches have a shelf life. I just don't think it adds anything to the debate when you say you want Claude to go but won't bother to do any research into who might replace him.

I'm sure you could do that, even though you say you don't know much about other coaches. And if you did, we'd have something to debate about.

 

[missingchicklet]

I'm hoping CJ will at least be given a chance with a healthy team. I'm not sure some folks realize just how crappy much of this lineup is. Perhaps watching and following the team closely makes people overrate the players more. Watch some of the better teams in the league and you will not see the large grouping of ineffective players as the Bs have. You want a competitive team? You better have effective players, especially with the parity of the NHL. Throw in the fact that the Bs so-called stars are playing like ass, and the one star skater who is playing well has been out a lot of games, and I don't know of any coach on the planet who could be fielding a top-level team in terms of points.

Put in Pasta, Beleskey, Vatrano, a healthy Bergeron and Krejci and this team looks miles different, no question about it. An entire line's worth of top-9 players is out and two top-six players are obviously playing hurt. Then there is the defense which, by any objective evaluation, is not filled this top-line talent. Somehow the system is allowing them to keep the team in games along with Rask. But the D is far from producing much offense because they are what they are. But, sure replace CJ because he cannot wave a magic wand and shower the ice with pixie dust.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

There are THOUSANDS of options.

There are A FEW, relatively speaking, that are actually qualified and should be considered.

It feels like you're purposely trying to exploit your misinterpretation for the purpose of trying to make me look like an idiot.

THOUSANDS OF OPTIONS
A FEW THAT ARE QUALIFIED

How many more ****ing times do I have to say it before you give it a rest...

First off, you didn't qualify it in your first couple of posts. But now that you have, it seems that we're in agreement. There are few qualified guys who are options as replacement head coaches. Fewer still who are actually available. I'm sure there are some - some I know about, and some I don't (to your point).

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Because it's not about having a specific coach replace Claude. It's about a change in how the bruins play hockey on a day in day out basis, which will be the case whoever replaces him.

Anyone think Claude's feeling it if they lose tonight?

So basically you're arguing for change for the sake of change?

It might work - see last year's Penguins. It might not.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I don't think that at all. I beg you to find one of my posts where I state, or even imply that. If anything, I think the exact opposite - that' it's HARD to find the right coach. That may even be what's kept Julien in place this long.

Hell, I'm not even sure myself that Claude's time may not be up. I've said in this very thread that coaches have a shelf life. I just don't think it adds anything to the debate when you say you want Claude to go but won't bother to do any research into who might replace him.

I'm sure you could do that, even though you say you don't know much about other coaches. And if you did, we'd have something to debate about.

If you could direct me to a source where the average fan, with an average amount of time, could properly research and scout possible head coaches I'd appreciate it. Because I don't know where it exists. It's something where I imagine an in-house interview is essential. You want to hear a coach's ideas and thoughts straight out of his mouth and we, as fans, just aren't going to get that.

This is one thing that I'm just going to leave to the people who are paid to do it. After a decision is made, I'll have a somewhat vague opinion but I'm always going to give the replacement a chance. Unless it's a Tortorella type situation, I find it unrealistic as fans to criticize something that is so complex and is done so much within the realm of people working professionally within the club.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

First off, you didn't qualify it in your first couple of posts. But now that you have, it seems that we're in agreement. There are few qualified guys who are options as replacement head coaches. Fewer still who are actually available. I'm sure there are some - some I know about, and some I don't (to your point).

FINALLY!

I knew we'd get there. Glad you see where I'm coming from now.

Honestly, these conversations/arguments that eventually come around are one of the great parts of this board.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

If you could direct me to a source where the average fan, with an average amount of time, could properly research and scout possible head coaches I'd appreciate it. Because I don't know where it exists. It's a far more complex and difficult process than you're implying. It's also something where I imagine an in-house interview is essential. You want to hear a coach's ideas and thoughts straight out of his mouth and we, as fans, just aren't going to get that.

This is one thing that I'm just going to leave to the people who are paid to do it. After a decision is made, I'll have a somewhat vague opinion but I'm always going to give the replacement a chance. Unless it's a Tortorella type situation, I find it unrealistic as fans to criticize something that is so complex and is done so much within the realm of people working professionally within the club.

Fair enough. I don't have a source, but I could do some research on the internet. Might not be perfect, but I could come up with something. You are absolutely right though that we average fans are not going to get an inside look into the process. However, we can still look at possible options and form opinions about them. they might be flawed opinions, but they'd be opinions.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

FINALLY!

I knew we'd get there. Glad you see where I'm coming from now.

Honestly, these conversations/arguments that eventually come around are one of the great parts of this board.

Funny thing is, that was my original point to Lonnie - that there really are only a few (relatively) options, so firing Claude without having identified at least a couple of those options would be silly.