Coaching is a serious problem.

[1909]

There are plenty of "tough bad communicators" today.

If you think MSL & Tremblay have anything in common other than the fact that their first NHL HC job was in Montreal, I'd suggest that your assessments are way off, and probably lead to poor takes about the state of the Habs coaching staff

As I stated, Tremblay was from old school - Bowman type hockey- and a weak communicator. Their personnalities are totally different. But why would we bash Tremblay and not MSL for not having any real coaching experience before getting behind an NHL bench ?

 

[Miller Time]

As I stated, Tremblay was from old school - Bowman type hockey- and a weak communicator. Their personnalities are totally different. But why would we bash Tremblay and not MSL for not having any real coaching experience before getting behind an NHL bench ?

"Bashing" any coach because of their perceived, or actual lack of coaching experience is pointless... Lots of poor takes on a message board, is what it is.


Tremblay was a bad coach, who didn't help advance the organization either on immediate results not in young player development... that's why he was criticised.

MSL is doing an excellent job at stewarding the development of our young core... Which is what the organization direction and emphasis is. The "bashing" of his coaching impact thus far is ungrounded and incoherent.

 

[OnTheRun]

As I stated, Tremblay was from old school - Bowman type hockey- and a weak communicator. Their personnalities are totally different. But why would we bash Tremblay and not MSL for not having any real coaching experience before getting behind an NHL bench ?

Why would you bash Tremblay for not having any real coaching experience, out of everything that was wrong with him why pick that one thing?

 

[1909]

Why would you bash Tremblay for not having any real coaching experience, out of everything that was wrong with him why pick that one thing?

What I am saying is everyone bashed Tremblay when he was hired and all along his stay behind the bench. Outside the Roy’s fiasco, he had a good record. On the other end, folks are really patient with MSL. He is a media darling. His coaching shortcomings are rarely questioned.

 

[Tyson]

What I am saying is everyone bashed Tremblay when he was hired and all along his stay behind the bench. Outside the Roy’s fiasco, he had a good record. On the other end, folks are really patient with MSL. He is a media darling. His coaching shortcomings are rarely questioned.

I think his coaching shortcomings are starting to be evident and people are starting to question.

 

[OnTheRun]

What I am saying is everyone bashed Tremblay when he was hired and all along his stay behind the bench. Outside the Roy’s fiasco, he had a good record. On the other end, folks are really patient with MSL. He is a media darling. His coaching shortcomings are rarely questioned.

I see. There is one thing tho, having a good record doesn't make you a good coach, good record correlate closer to good roster than coaching prowess.

 

[nhlfan9191]

"Bashing" any coach because of their perceived, or actual lack of coaching experience is pointless... Lots of poor takes on a message board, is what it is.


Tremblay was a bad coach, who didn't help advance the organization either on immediate results not in young player development... that's why he was criticised.

MSL is doing an excellent job at stewarding the development of our young core... Which is what the organization direction and emphasis is. The "bashing" of his coaching impact thus far is ungrounded and incoherent.

Not trying to be rude, but can you define what he’s done “excellent.” He relates with the players which I would give him all his flowers on. But what has he done that warrants the “excellent” tag you’re giving him as a head coach. What is he doing for the “team” that makes him “excellent” because it certainly isn’t a result based evaluation.