Speculation: Coaching Search - Part III: Dan Bylsma deal "imminent"

[Dex]

Murray has long been linked to Richardson. I understand that Richardson's record has not been great at Binghamton. At the AHL level, there is more to coaching effectiveness than wins and losses

So many have dismissed him as Murray's favorite and therefore not a legit candidate for whatever reason. I guess what I need to know some or all of this stuff and more before I can say he is or isn't worth even an interview is some or all of the following:

1. What is Ottawa's commitment to winning vs development at the AHL level

2. What is the quality of veteran leadership signed by the Senators

3. Did the Sens hire to the max regarding veteran leadership

4. How have prospects at the AHL level in the Senators system grown under Richardson's tutelage

5. How have prospects under Richardson contributed to the success of the Sens at the NHL level

6. How does he stack up against other coaches relative to utilization of advanced stats

7. How did call ups effect the result at the AHL level

8. How was his goalkeeping at the AHL level

9. Did he use his own system in Binghamton or was he using the Ottawa system

10 How was ice time distributed between veterans and prospects and who made that call


There are a lot more - but I think it is sufficient to say that there's a lot more to assessing an AHL coach than wins and losses.

 

[Mattilaus]

Murray has long been linked to Richardson. I understand that Richardson's record has not been great at Binghamton. At the AHL level, there is more to coaching effectiveness than wins and losses

So many have dismissed him as Murray's favorite and therefore not a legit candidate for whatever reason. I guess what I need to know some or all of this stuff and more before I can say he is or isn't worth even an interview is some or all of the following:

1. What is Ottawa's commitment to winning vs development at the AHL level

2. What is the quality of veteran leadership signed by the Senators

3. Did the Sens hire to the max regarding veteran leadership

4. How have prospects at the AHL level in the Senators system grown under Richardson's tutelage

5. How have prospects under Richardson contributed to the success of the Sens at the NHL level

6. How does he stack up against other coaches relative to utilization of advanced stats

7. How did call ups effect the result at the AHL level

8. How was his goalkeeping at the AHL level

9. Did he use his own system in Binghamton or was he using the Ottawa system

10 How was ice time distributed between veterans and prospects and who made that call


There are a lot more - but I think it is sufficient to say that there's a lot more to assessing an AHL coach than wins and losses.

For sure. The problem with being an AHL coach is if you develop players well then they inevitably leave for the NHL. An AHL team could, in theory, do poorly because they have done such a good job developing that their young players never stay in the AHL long enough to make a winning team.

 

[radar493]

I think most anti Richardson would center around lacking NHL experience and he's not a "name coach"'. Frankly I am not in a position to make a judgment on his coaching ability. If TM hires him I'll go with it. Murray will be the only one accountable if he fails and get credit if he doesn't.

 

[Man of Principles]

I think at this point for me it's either Boucher or Richardson.

I like Boucher's heavy special teams approach. It's exactly what we suck most at.

Can't help but see Bylsma's past warts as the reason he would fail here. He's too much of an offensive, run and gun coach for my taste. Was a constant playoff casualty.

 

[Bps21*]

I think at this point for me it's either Boucher or Richardson.

I like Boucher's heavy special teams approach. It's exactly what we suck most at.

Over the last two seasons we've redefined what being a bad 5 on 5 team is. They have to keep us off of charts about it because you can't see the other lines anymore. And penalties are called less than anytime in history. Other than that...yeah let's make special teams the top priority.

 

[Man of Principles]

Over the last two seasons we've redefined what being a bad 5 on 5 team is. They have to keep us off of charts about it because you can't see the other lines anymore. And penalties are called less than anytime in history. Other than that...yeah let's make special teams the top priority.

Fine, I hear your point. We were historically bad at everything. But killing off more penalties is something that needs to happen on a regular basis.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

You increase your chances of lucky bounces when you have possession. If you don't have the puck it's hard to consistently win.

Indeed, but I don't think coaching will help significantly with puck possession. That's where the GM helps.

 

[Zman5778]

I like Boucher's heavy special teams approach. It's exactly what we suck most at.

Problem is, most of the game is played 5v5. Not exactly Boucher's strong suit. At all.

He'd be a great special teams assistant coach or MAYBE coach for Rochester.

 

[Zman5778]

Indeed, but I don't think coaching will help significantly with puck possession. That's where the GM helps.

Ummmm what now?

A coach can absolutely influence puck possession with the system that he chooses to install.

A passive defensive system like the one Nolan (or his assistants??) tended to use was to allow shots to come in from the outside. While this insulates goalies that may not be as good......defenders also aren't nearly as aggressive, which lessens the possibility for turnovers which leads to less possession.

That's just one example.

 

[Sabre Dance]

3 coaches available have won a cup in the last 10 years and have consistently won in their careers but none are really wanted. I find that interesting.

Bylsma
Carlyle
Torts

 

[1972]

Why not Randy Carlyle? It's pretty clear he wasn't the problem in Toronto, just like Maurice etc..

 

[Bps21*]

I find it impossible that Pegula would hire a guy Toronto fired last year now that they're stroking their shiny Babcock he was after.

Not saying it's right...but I can't see it at all.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

3 coaches available have won a cup in the last 10 years and have consistently won in their careers but none are really wanted. I find that interesting.

Bylsma
Carlyle
Torts

One outta three ain't bad.

 

[Jame]

Indeed, but I don't think coaching will help significantly with puck possession. That's where the GM helps.

Classic

 

[Doohickie]

I think most anti Richardson would center around lacking NHL experience and he's not a "name coach"'. Frankly I am not in a position to make a judgment on his coaching ability. If TM hires him I'll go with it. Murray will be the only one accountable if he fails and get credit if he doesn't.

Are you especially impressed with Ottawa's young talent? I'm not. So by that measure he doesn't stand out either.

 

[Bps21*]

Are you especially impressed with Ottawa's young talent? I'm not. So by that measure he doesn't stand out either.

...

Yes?

Stone and Hoffman sure showed up ready to ****ing go.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

Are you especially impressed with Ottawa's young talent? I'm not. So by that measure he doesn't stand out either.

Ummm, yes

 

[EichHart]

This is tough Babcock had it all. Not sure who my top 3 are right now.

 

[Zman5778]

Are you especially impressed with Ottawa's young talent? I'm not. So by that measure he doesn't stand out either.

What? Yes, I am impressed with Ottawa's young talent.

Prince looks like he's going to be something. Puempel too. And probably Wideman. Pageau possibly too.

Not to mention Stone, Hammond and Hoffman.


All developed with the aid of Richardson.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

What? Yes, I am impressed with Ottawa's young talent.

Prince looks like he's going to be something. Puempel too. And probably Wideman. Pageau possibly too.

Not to mention Stone, Hammond and Hoffman.


All developed with the aid of Richardson.

Thank god for Richardson or else those bums had no chance. Come on you are talking about prospects that should make the NHL when they were drafted.

 

[Paxon]

Thank god for Richardson or else those bums had no chance. Come on you are talking about prospects that should make the NHL when they were drafted.

What do you mean? Those guys weren't high-end prospects. What exactly qualifies as developing a prospect if not your average type of prospects, 2nd rounders and on? Stone was a 6th rounder.

 

[Bps21*]

Thank god for Richardson or else those bums had no chance. Come on you are talking about prospects that should make the NHL when they were drafted.

Hoffman...130th overall
Stone...178 overall
Hammond...undrafted
Prince...61st overall
Puempel...24th overall
Pageau...96 overall
Wideman...100 overall

Some guy named Silfverberg spent the first half of his first pro season there too. Another 2nd rounder. Traded to Anaheim...never heard from again.

...

We can't allow the guy who developed Mark Stone into a Calder candidate and Mike Hoffman into the leading goal scorer on a playoff team get his hands on Eichel and Reinhart at this stage of their development.

Disaster averted.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

I just heard you guys were looking into Byslma and I'll give you a heads up now, you want to avoid that guy if you want the rookies to be well trained and developed. He tends to pick favourites and even when he realizes he's wrong, he tends to be stubborn and stick with it regardless, prime example to me was Simon Despres who was miserable under him and a lot of fans and friend in penguins would agree with this. If anything I'd say go for someone like Paul Maclean or so. Cheers.

 

[krt88]

As much as the fans want a guy with pedigree, I think when you take a step back and look at what he has accomplished with the talent he was given, Luke Richardson certainly stands out as the guy for the Sabres. He has proven that with young players, he can develop them. Is Luke Richardson the guy that leads us to the Stanley Cup? That seems unlikely but Trent Yanney and Denis Savard all coached many of the Chicago core before Quinnville stepped in and helped take them over the mountain top.

Richardson job would to develop talent and get them into the playoffs. The you evaluate and analyze whether he's the guy to take us over the top.

 

[Husko]

As much as the fans want a guy with pedigree, I think when you take a step back and look at what he has accomplished with the talent he was given, Luke Richardson certainly stands out as the guy for the Sabres. He has proven that with young players, he can develop them. Is Luke Richardson the guy that leads us to the Stanley Cup? That seems unlikely but Trent Yanney and Denis Savard all coached many of the Chicago core before Quinnville stepped in and helped take them over the mountain top.

Richardson job would to develop talent and get them into the playoffs. The you evaluate and analyze whether he's the guy to take us over the top.

What exactly has he accomplished?