Rutherford: Craig Berube Unofficially Named Head Coach

[Stelmacki]

Now does he have the power to fire our special teams coach and bring in someone better (literally anyone else)?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'll try to answer this as a sincere question.

I view a poster as having an 'axe' when they are one-sided in their assessments over a long period of time. There are multiple posters on here that meet that test. However, most of those type of posters aren't worth paying attention to because they're just emotionally venting or don't have insights that I find worth much. Its low quality stuff that can be ignored or just passed by quickly. I'm not dismissing their right to participate in the board that way, its just serving a different purpose for them than what I'm looking for.

If you have posts where you congratulate Armstrong for making good moves at times, I am not remembering them very well. I would argue that his decision to 'double down' on this roster and not pull the trigger on any mid-season trades was a pretty huge one, and one that could have invited a great deal of deserved criticism. Most people would have not been that patient. Certainly the sentiment on this board wasn't that of being patient.

Your posts present a condundrum because they are generally logical and well grounded in detailed facts. But they ARE pretty one-sided to an extreme with regard to Armstrong.

I'm not telling you to change. I'm just telling you that when I read your stuff I have to put it through a translator to adjust for the bias I expect to find. But I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't agree that you're biased against Armstrong. But there is also no doubt you are a bleed-blue Blues fan either.

So maybe it will help if I explain how I got to my current position re: Doug Armstrong.

Before about 2017, I was with many of you in the camp of "Trust in Army." Yeah, the Blues had crapped all over themselves a few times in the first round, and yeah there was Los Angeles and Chicago, and yeah I didn't get all of the moves he made, but we're the freaking Blues, we've got a ton of talent, why the hell can't we do the same? and I'm thinking like everyone else, "Armstrong's got a plan, he's just had bad luck, he can make this happen." And it was probably after the '17 playoffs after we blew the series to Nashville despite having home-ice hot off a dominating performance over Minnesota that I sat down and took a critical look at the roster and how we got to where we are, and I started digging back into Armstrong's record in Dallas. And in that process, I started realizing some things - among them being:

-- Armstrong inherited a Dallas team that was primed and ready to go after a Cup, and it failed miserably. He inherited a Blues team that maybe wasn't as immediately ready, but certainly had a huge window of opportunity to go after a Cup, and comparatively speaking it failed miserably.
-- Armstrong's teams in Dallas failed despite having home-ice advantage in many of those playoff series. And, the Blues teams were failing despite the same advantage.
-- Armstrong was now fully responsible for this Blues roster, with a goalie he fully backed who clearly had issues between the ears, and no backup plan other than "trust in Allen"
-- Armstrong had taken what should have been a decent haul of prospects and picks from his earlier moves, and piddled many of them away into short-term fixes hoping for a glorious run. [And no, I'm not talking about the 2016 WCF.]
-- IMO, our prospect pool was getting more and more thin as a result. Yeah, we potentially had some really top-end guys ... but more than a few of them were high-risk [Dmitrij Jaskin, anyone?] and after those few top-end guys I thought we had 4th liners / 6-7 defensemen at best, and worst-case guys who were perhaps AHL-caliber. That didn't bode well for a team in transition.
-- Armstrong was throwing good money at mediocre players, and it was killing us with respect to the cap. Berglund? Lehtera? Allen? Guys, we've talked about a number of these contracts; yeah, he was eventually able to find takers for all that crap, but it hurt us short-term because it handcuffed any flexibility we might have wanted to make improvements.

The final straw was going into '17-18 with the roster we had, knowing it was really thin up top and relied on guys in the top-6 carrying much of the weight and unproven kids stepping up immediately and in a big way, and with the team slammed up against the cap. Yeah, that team started really hot - but when it cooled, it went south in a hurry and only those thinking we could ride about 1/3rd of a roster to the top of the standings were surprised. It was at that point that it was pretty clear to me Armstrong had no master plan; he was throwing shit against the wall hoping that something would stick, because he was running out of options that didn't involve dismantling the team in some fashion and admitting he might have screwed up. That put some of the prior moves under even more scrutiny: Perron to Edmonton, Oshie to Washington, dealing for Miller, the yo-yo with Elliott while Allen got unwavering trust, etc. In there, I thought it became really apparent that Armstrong was more knee-jerk reacting and less "this is all part of my plan" because it became less apparent there was any kind of plan, other than "do something!" absent the Dark Helmet attire.

And I'm OK if one has to improv; sometimes events change and you have to think quickly and make the best decision you can with the information you have. But I couldn't get convinced to even a reasonable doubt that such a thought process existed in Doug Armstrong's mind. I couldn't see that kind of logic present; I saw "____ happened, and damn it I'm going to do something." And, to this day, I still can't.

Am i pretty critical of him? Yeah, and that probably won't change absent some change in his process behind how he goes about things. [For the results-first crowd: if we win a Cup, you'll see me admitting I was wrong, that he apparently really is some freaking evil genius - and apparently so genius, I can't understand it. And, I suspect I won't be alone in that thought.] Am I willing to give him credit where it's due? Sure. Do I think he gets credit for this season, though? No, and I've outlined why in other posts. Do I think this team's future is as bright as some make it out to be? No, I think we're still really thin on prospect depth even after considering Thomas, Bokk, Kyrou [who I have nagging but growing questions about], and Kostin [who I have even bigger questions about], we're woefully thin on defense [no, Jordan Schmaltz isn't even a short-term solution] and I have zero confidence in Armstrong's ability to manage the salary cap smartly given his history to-date. I think we've got a window of 2, perhaps 3 years before we need a major retooling - and that might become apparent sooner depending on how a few guys age.

If that makes me someone with an axe to grind, ... well, maybe someone else knows what the real reason is - because I sure as hell don't.

 

[BlueDream]

The Blues were literally a few inches on a Benn wrap-around attempt from going out in the second round, which was the same thing that happened under Hitchcock and Yeo IIRC. I'm willing to concede that point if the Blues play well this round, and obviously if they advance, but Armstrong didn't wait to see if that happened (when he easily could have), so...

Oh come on. Seriously? That's a joke of a point and you know it. The Blues way outplayed the Stars in that game 7 and it wasn't close. Bishop held them in it. You're going to blame Berube for that? He did his job very well to get the team to the 3rd round. Can't really point to flukes for making that happen...

 

[EastonBlues22]

Oh come on. Seriously? That's a joke of a point and you know it. The Blues way outplayed the Stars in that game 7 and it wasn't close. Bishop held them in it. You're going to blame Berube for that? He did his job very well to get the team to the 3rd round. Can't really point to flukes for making that happen...

I'm not "blaming" Berube for anything.

My point was simply that it was a very close series that easily could have gone either way, right on up to the end. Regardless of how well they played that last game (and they certainly didn't play that well every game), they still needed a bit of luck there at the end to move on.

We look at playoff series as binary accomplishments. A team moves on (success) or they don't (failure). One is really good, and one is really bad, etc. The two results are perceived in extremely different ways, and as a result we tend to dramatically overstate the differences between them. In reality, there's a ton of confounding factors in play that affect results across years (such as quality of competition, quality of own team, etc.), and the margin between advancing and not is often incredibly small, anyway.

Berube making it to the third round isn't as special (relative to his peers) as it feels to us fans, and it certainly doesn't mean he's a special coach.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'm not "blaming" Berube for anything.

My point was simply that it was a very close series that easily could have gone either way, right on up to the end. Regardless of how well they played that last game (and they certainly didn't play that well every game), they still needed a bit of luck there at the end to move on.

We look at playoff series as binary accomplishments. A team moves on (success) or they don't (failure). One is really good, and one is really bad, etc. The two results are perceived in extremely different ways, and as a result we tend to dramatically overstate the differences between them. In reality, there's a ton of confounding factors in play that affect results across years (such as quality of competition, quality of own team, etc.), and the margin between advancing and not is often incredibly small, anyway.

Berube making it to the third round isn't as special (relative to his peers) as it feels to us fans, and it certainly doesn't mean he's a special coach.

Fair enough. But how would you judge a coach? Regular season record? Improvement over previous coach? Growth of players? Addressing weaknesses? How his players view him? Because seems like on any of these standards (and obviously others) Berube has done fantastic job since he was elevated.

Has he been lacking in something glaring? Not in my eyes. Would I hire Q over him if he was available? Perhaps but he took Florida job after we presumably reached out to him months ago. And given the field of coaches who are still out there, I can’t see anyone who would be clear improvement. And taking into account how dumping him would be perceived by team, would be lunacy to not hire Berube at this point.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Fair enough. But how would you judge a coach? Regular season record? Improvement over previous coach? Growth of players? Addressing weaknesses? How his players view him? Because seems like on any of these standards (and obviously others) Berube has done fantastic job since he was elevated.

Has he been lacking in something glaring? Not in my eyes. Would I hire Q over him if he was available? Perhaps but he took Florida job after we presumably reached out to him months ago. And given the field of coaches who are still out there, I can’t see anyone who would be clear improvement. And taking into account how dumping him would be perceived by team, would be lunacy to not hire Berube at this point.

You judge him by sitting down and doing an honest assessment of his body of work (current, and previous). The time do that is after the season when things have calmed down a bit and you've had a chance to think back on and discuss the season with some objectivity and perspective, which is why all exit reviews for the season are always done at that time and not in the middle of the ****ing playoffs. Then you do complete and honest assessment of where you think the organization is at and what it needs moving forward, another thing that is classically done once the season is over and all the information for the year is in. Then you try to evaluate how the two match up. Repeat for other candidates.

It's really hard to do that objectively when you're caught up in the moment, and if anyone thinks Armstrong is emotionally detached from what's happening right now, all you have to do is think about him banging on the officials door last night and yelling the words "****ing garbage."

Armstrong is heavily emotionally invested, just like we are, and that's generally a really bad time to make big decisions. There's a reason why you're supposed to lean on processes for things like this. They help keep you from making rash decisions. (Rash implying a bad process, not necessarily a bad result.)

Not to be obtuse, but I seriously doubt that Berube's the only coach qualified for this position, and if you honestly think he's not lacking anything significant as a coach, then I think those words alone should be enough to give you some pause regarding the objectivity of how he's being viewed at the moment. If you haven't actually talked to anyone else and thoroughly explored their strengths and weaknesses, not to mention heard what they have to say, then I don't think you've put yourself in a position to say with any amount of credibility that you're confident you hired the best guy.

I don't give a good **** about catering to perceptions for something like this. I care about the best candidate for the job being hired. Maybe that's Berube, and maybe that isn't. How can you know if you never complete the search? This is too important a decision to be treated like a PR move, and too important of a decision to not follow through on the processes you have in place.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

That’s nice in theory Easton, but Berube stood a realistic chance of being on the list for other head coaching openings. I don’t think Armstrong could reasonably put off assessing Berube as the permanent replacement when other teams are making hires. If he has no guarantee of a job beyond this year, you open up a lot of distraction and the threat of losing him to another team. I’m not sure what the courtesy is for granting permission to contact your INTERIM coach mid-season, but it doesn’t seem fair to deny a guy a chance at a permanent job if you haven’t even assessed him for your own posting yet.

 

[EastonBlues22]

That’s nice in theory Easton, but Berube stood a realistic chance of being on the list for other head coaching openings. I don’t think Armstrong could reasonably put off assessing Berube as the permanent replacement when other teams are making hires. If he has no guarantee of a job beyond this year, you open up a lot of distraction and the threat of losing him to another team. I’m not sure what the courtesy is for granting permission to contact your INTERIM coach mid-season, but it doesn’t seem fair to deny a guy a chance at a permanent job if you haven’t even assessed him for your own posting yet.

It hardly takes months to do such a thing. Exit performance reviews are usually done within the week. Berube can't wait a week?

The team is supposed to shrug off distractions like the refs blowing Game 3, but we're worried that Berube not being formally extended yet will be some sort of distraction for the team? C'mon. Nobody involved in the game is thinking about that right now. Not Berube, and certainly not the players. The players aren't even worrying over their own contracts, much less their coach's. Everyone is focused on getting ready for the next game.

Honestly, I'm tired of this entire discussion. I think the rationalizations I've heard supporting the way this has been handled are flimsy, at best, and clearly my arguments aren't swaying any opinions anytime soon, not that I was expecting anything of the sort.

We planted our flags. We're on the record. We can revisit this after the season, or better yet, after a few years when Berube has had a chance to sink or swim.

And I hope to hell he swims, because if he doesn't, it will be an absolute **** show.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

It hardly takes months to do such a thing. Exit performance reviews are usually done within the week. Berube can't wait a week?

The team is supposed to shrug off distractions like the refs blowing Game 3, but we're worried that Berube not being formally extended yet will be some sort of distraction for the team? C'mon. Nobody involved in the game is thinking about that right now. Not Berube, and certainly not the players. The players aren't even worrying over their own contracts, much less their coach's. Everyone is focused on getting ready for the next game.

Honestly, I'm tired of this entire discussion. I think the rationalizations I've heard supporting the way this has been handled are flimsy, at best, and clearly my arguments aren't swaying any opinions anytime soon, not that I was expecting anything of the sort.

We planted our flags. We're on the record. We can revisit this after the season, or better yet, after a few years when Berube has had a chance to sink or swim.

And I hope to hell he swims, because if he doesn't, it will be an absolute **** show.

You don’t think having Berube interviewing for jobs now would be distracting? Teams have been hiring coaches the past few weeks. It’s not reasonable for Armstrong to prevent Berube from interviewing when he has no job next year. It’s not reasonable to force Berube to sit out every other possibility in hopes that Armstrong will pick him later. I don’t see how Armstrong could reasonably have left that issue vague with Berube at this point. I’m frankly s little surprised you are shrugging this off.

 

[Brian39]

You don’t think having Berube interviewing for jobs now would be distracting? Teams have been hiring coaches the past few weeks. It’s not reasonable for Armstrong to prevent Berube from interviewing when he has no job next year. It’s not reasonable to force Berube to sit out every other possibility in hopes that Armstrong will pick him later. I don’t see how Armstrong could reasonably have left that issue vague with Berube at this point. I’m frankly s little surprised you are shrugging this off.

There is absolutely zero chance that the Blues would give any team permission to talk to him right now, mid playoffs. And there is absolutely a reasonable reason why: your first sentence. I can't think of a single time when a team has been granted permission to speak with an interim head coach (or head coach on an expiring contract) mid-season/playoffs. You can't say that granting permission for him to interview with other teams mid-playoffs would be a distraction and also say that it would be unreasonable for Army to prevent such a distraction.

We're in a Conference Final. The expectation is that Berube is putting in 16+ hour days preparing for the next game. Taking time to prepare for a job interview and then doing that job interview would be a direct dereliction of his current duties. I can't imagine any NHL team making that request and our organization is absolutely not giving Berube a vacation day to do it.

 

[EastonBlues22]

You don’t think having Berube interviewing for jobs now would be distracting? Teams have been hiring coaches the past few weeks. It’s not reasonable for Armstrong to prevent Berube from interviewing when he has no job next year. It’s not reasonable to force Berube to sit out every other possibility in hopes that Armstrong will pick him later. I don’t see how Armstrong could reasonably have left that issue vague with Berube at this point. I’m frankly s little surprised you are shrugging this off.

It's perfectly reasonable for the Blues to deny permission because he's under contract and it would clearly be disruptive to his job and the team's performance for him to be interviewing for other jobs right now. I don't understand how you can believe otherwise, frankly, and I don't think any reasonable team would expect him to be available for interviews right now anyway, given the circumstances. I can't recall a single instance of a coach who is still actively coaching in the playoffs being granted permission to speak to other teams, much less actively interviewing for positions with other teams, in spite of the fact that UFA coaches currently having very successful seasons are bound to be popular targets for teams in need of a coach. Can you cite any such examples? Even if you can think of one, it's certainly not common.

If other teams are interested in Berube, they'll wait until his season is over. Do you honestly believe the Blues coaching position will be the only one still open at the time the playoffs conclude?

I don't think it's unreasonable for Armstrong to tell Berube he's the leading candidate, but Armstrong doesn't owe Berube a damn thing in terms of guarantees until the season is over...just like he doesn't owe Maroon any such assurances, or any other person who will need a new contract at the end of the year. I don't understand why this is such a controversial notion. It is literally the industry standard.

 

[TheDizee]

I agree with easton. blues have waited this long, no need to rush to a hire now just because we are on the verge of the SCF

interview as many people as you can and if berube is the best candidate then he get the job.

 

[Brian39]

If you haven't actually talked to anyone else and thoroughly explored their strengths and weaknesses, not to mention heard what they have to say, then I don't think you've put yourself in a position to say with any amount of credibility that you're confident you hired the best guy.

I don't give a good **** about catering to perceptions for something like this. I care about the best candidate for the job being hired. Maybe that's Berube, and maybe that isn't. How can you know if you never complete the search? This is too important a decision to be treated like a PR move, and too important of a decision to not follow through on the processes you have in place.

I think the bolded highlights our main difference in opinion on this. We probably have very, very different definitions of "best" in this context.

My definition of "best candidate" is much closer to "the right guy for this group of players" while (I believe) yours is much closer to "the objectively most talented/brightest/etc."

I am under the absolute, firm belief that any first time NHL coach is going to be less successful next year than bringing back Berube with this group of players. Unless the plan is to make drastic personnel changes this summer, I think the entire team would be livid about Berube being replaced by a guy they have never heard of and they aren't going to buy into that new coach. If we are sticking with this core of players, replacing Berube with a guy who doesn't have a damn strong NHL resume is a recipe for disaster next season. We can debate over what that says about the players and I'm sure there would be a spectrum of opinions on this board about it. But the players on this team have publicly gone to bat for Berube in the media and it is obvious that they have bought in to his message. While I think the 'divided locker room' narrative was way overblown and speculative, I also think that replacing Berube with a non-elite coach creates a divided room at best and a full blown mutiny at worst.

IMO, you can only bring in a 1st year or limited experienced coach if you are either satisfied missing the playoffs next year as part of a long term plan or have decided that there needs to be a large scale overhaul of the roster this summer. If neither of those options is part of your plan, then you simply can't hire an unknown quantity to replace Berube at this point. I don't base this on PR and I agree that it is an important decision. But I'm not willing to accept 19/20 as a 'retool' season and I don't think this roster needs a major shakeup. I get the sense that Army probably agrees with me on both those points. Based on that, none of the AHL, European, College or middling first time NHL coaches make my list of guys who I would want to interview and I'd bet good money that is the conclusion Army came to.

So IMO 'the list' that has been mentioned would have been full of experienced coaches. The 3 best looking resumes have been taken off the board (Q, Vigneault, McLellan). That leaves us with Bylsma, Crawford, Housley, Hitch, Yeo, Eakins, Tippett, Hartley, and Ruff. I can't think of any other guys with the type of resume/NHL success that I believe is necessary to overcome the locker room's displeasure about bailing on Berube after what he has done this season. Hitch and Yeo should obviously not be candidates and there is nothing about the other guys that impresses me. I don't think there is anything these guys could say in an interview that would overcome the concerns I have about their coaching styles based on what I've seen them actually do at their last coaching stop.

I agree with you that interviews were almost certainly not conducted. However, I'd be stunned if the organization hasn't done 100% of their due diligence crafting the list of guys they wanted to meet with. That's absolutely something that the front office can and would focus on during a playoff run because the list needs to be ready to go the instant your playoffs end. If every name on that list has been hired besides Berube, then the process has been completed. You don't start expanding your list to candidates who clearly didn't meet the cutoff before just because your list has shrunk from multiple guys to 1 guy.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I highly doubt that anything past making the semi-finals could have much of a negative effect on Berube, and because of PR and more, it would likely take a Quenneville to unseat him, if we had gone forward with interviews in the off-season.

However, there is no harm in having the interviews, and if there's even the slightest chance that the Blues could find a better coach (and there always is), you should be doing the interviews. Things will calm down more in the summer and PR will be less of an issue. We should have done the interviews, even though I believe that Berube would still get the job.

Although I do hope we try to pull TBL's AHL coach for an offensive coordinator type role as an assistant. Pipedream, I'm sure.

 

[Brian39]

I highly doubt that anything past making the semi-finals could have much of a negative effect on Berube, and because of PR and more, it would likely take a Quenneville to unseat him, if we had gone forward with interviews in the off-season.

However, there is no harm in having the interviews, and if there's even the slightest chance that the Blues could find a better coach (and there always is), you should be doing the interviews. Things will calm down more in the summer and PR will be less of an issue. We should have done the interviews, even though I believe that Berube would still get the job.

Although I do hope we try to pull TBL's AHL coach for an offensive coordinator type role as an assistant. Pipedream, I'm sure.

Berube interviewing with other teams is the potential harm. If we are interviewing other candidates over the summer, then every team with a vacancy is requesting permission to interview Berube. Denying those requests while interviewing other candidates would be a colossal break from the professional norm, would ensure that most teams are going to deny our request to interview their guys still under contract and would probably piss off Berube enough that it impacts negotiations if/when we eventually end the process and make a contract offer. If Berube's contract ends this summer (which is pretty likely), he could also inform us that he is not going to make a decision on our offer until he can explore other teams as a 'free agent' since we wouldn't let him do it 3 weeks before his contract expired and we hadn't offered an extension.

Best case scenario, it forces us to potentially need to pay him more money to sign while also damaging our reputation around the league.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I think the bolded highlights our main difference in opinion on this. We probably have very, very different definitions of "best" in this context.

My definition of "best candidate" is much closer to "the right guy for this group of players" while (I believe) yours is much closer to "the objectively most talented/brightest/etc."

I am under the absolute, firm belief that any first time NHL coach is going to be less successful next year than bringing back Berube with this group of players. Unless the plan is to make drastic personnel changes this summer, I think the entire team would be livid about Berube being replaced by a guy they have never heard of and they aren't going to buy into that new coach. If we are sticking with this core of players, replacing Berube with a guy who doesn't have a damn strong NHL resume is a recipe for disaster next season. We can debate over what that says about the players and I'm sure there would be a spectrum of opinions on this board about it. But the players on this team have publicly gone to bat for Berube in the media and it is obvious that they have bought in to his message. While I think the 'divided locker room' narrative was way overblown and speculative, I also think that replacing Berube with a non-elite coach creates a divided room at best and a full blown mutiny at worst.

The problem with that approach, IMO, is that the right guy for a group of players is such a fluid and unpredictable thing. There will be turnover in the team, and even if there wasn't, the needs of any group of people are constantly evolving. Hitchcock was a great fit for the group we had and the players bought in, until he wasn't and they weren't. The players bought into Yeo after Hitchcock and publicly supported him, and that ultimately meant nothing. Yeo was fired, and the players felt bad, but things ultimately improved a massive amount.

You think you have this thing pegged, and then everything suddenly changes and you don't. Player support is transient, at best, and is hardly a guarantee of results even if it doesn't waver. What happens when this team inevitably hits that first big slump (or string of failures) and it's Berube that led them there? Hitchcock ultimately didn't get the results that people thought he should get over time, and he lost a lot of support among the players. Yeo eventually hit a long skid during the regular season, and things were just never the same afterward. How will things be for Berube? We don't know, because he didn't really have to deal with that this year...just like Hitchcock and Yeo didn't in their first years on the job.

I would never want a coach in charge that the players couldn't support, but that list isn't one guy long, temporary disappointments notwithstanding.

The objective strengths and weaknesses of a coach are much less fluid. Player's coaches tend to remain player's coaches, and X-and-O guys tend to stay X-and-O guys. The best chance you have to have prolonged success under constantly changing conditions is to find the most well-rounded and innovative person you can find that fits in with what you're trying to accomplish. Maybe Berube is that guy and maybe he's not. I personally don't think Berube is quite as well rounded as a coach as many here seem to think, and I don't think the challenges the Blues face next season with him will be the same ones they faced together this season. I don't want to dive into that too much because this forum just isn't ready for that discussion right now. It's going to be perceived as an attack on what he's accomplished and as raining on everyone's parade, and I don't want either one of those things.

IMO, you can only bring in a 1st year or limited experienced coach if you are either satisfied missing the playoffs next year as part of a long term plan or have decided that there needs to be a large scale overhaul of the roster this summer. If neither of those options is part of your plan, then you simply can't hire an unknown quantity to replace Berube at this point. I don't base this on PR and I agree that it is an important decision. But I'm not willing to accept 19/20 as a 'retool' season and I don't think this roster needs a major shakeup. I get the sense that Army probably agrees with me on both those points. Based on that, none of the AHL, European, College or middling first time NHL coaches make my list of guys who I would want to interview and I'd bet good money that is the conclusion Army came to.

So IMO 'the list' that has been mentioned would have been full of experienced coaches. The 3 best looking resumes have been taken off the board (Q, Vigneault, McLellan). That leaves us with Bylsma, Crawford, Housley, Hitch, Yeo, Eakins, Tippett, Hartley, and Ruff. I can't think of any other guys with the type of resume/NHL success that I believe is necessary to overcome the locker room's displeasure about bailing on Berube after what he has done this season. Hitch and Yeo should obviously not be candidates and there is nothing about the other guys that impresses me. I don't think there is anything these guys could say in an interview that would overcome the concerns I have about their coaching styles based on what I've seen them actually do at their last coaching stop.

What about Berube's last coaching stop? Berube's only other NHL coaching gig, he took over for another coach early in the season and had the team playing very well (.595 point percentage, 98 point pace). The next year he was fired after he missed the playoffs with a 33-31-18 record and a 6th place finish in his division. Let's not pretend that Berube's coaching resume is some unassailable thing and that he's a lock to repeat anywhere near this level of success with the team next year. He has a grand total of zero years where he started an NHL season as the head coach and wasn't fired. Any concerns from that?

As much as people aren't going to want to hear it, retaining Berube is not a risk-free proposition. He has his own question marks, and before anyone brings up his (well-earned) Jack Adams nomination, Hartley, Tippett, Bylsma, Hitchcock, Ruff, and Crawford have all actually won that award themselves. What did that mean for them in the grand scheme of things? Even if that's the entirety of your list, I think you still owe it to yourself to hear what at least a few of them have to say.

I agree with you that interviews were almost certainly not conducted. However, I'd be stunned if the organization hasn't done 100% of their due diligence crafting the list of guys they wanted to meet with. That's absolutely something that the front office can and would focus on during a playoff run because the list needs to be ready to go the instant your playoffs end. If every name on that list has been hired besides Berube, then the process has been completed. You don't start expanding your list to candidates who clearly didn't meet the cutoff before just because your list has shrunk from multiple guys to 1 guy.

I would be stunned if they hadn't as well. I just don't interpret Armstrong's quote about the list being one name long the way you're interpreting it (that all the other people on the list were hired). I just heard it as him saying that they weren't currently considering anyone else for the job given how happy they've been with what Berube's done, which is a far different thing than there being no one else worth even considering.

 

[Brian39]

The problem with that approach, IMO, is that the right guy for a group of players is such a fluid and unpredictable thing. There will be turnover in the team, and even if there wasn't, the needs of any group of people are constantly evolving. Hitchcock was a great fit for the group we had and the players bought in, until he wasn't and they weren't. The players bought into Yeo after Hitchcock and publicly supported him, and that ultimately meant nothing. Yeo was fired, and the players felt bad, but things ultimately improved a massive amount.

You think you have this thing pegged, and then everything suddenly changes and you don't. Player support is transient, at best, and is hardly a guarantee of results even if it doesn't waver. What happens when this team inevitably hits that first big slump (or string of failures) and it's Berube that led them there? Hitchcock ultimately didn't get the results that people thought he should get over time, and he lost a lot of support among the players. Yeo eventually hit a long skid during the regular season, and things were just never the same afterward. How will things be for Berube? We don't know, because he didn't really have to deal with that this year...just like Hitchcock and Yeo didn't in their first years on the job.

I would never want a coach in charge that the players couldn't support, but that list isn't one guy long, temporary disappointments notwithstanding.

The objective strengths and weaknesses of a coach are much less fluid. Player's coaches tend to remain player's coaches, and X-and-O guys tend to stay X-and-O guys. The best chance you have to have prolonged success under constantly changing conditions is to find the most well-rounded and innovative person you can find that fits in with what you're trying to accomplish. Maybe Berube is that guy and maybe he's not. I personally don't think Berube is quite as well rounded as a coach as many here seem to think, and I don't think the challenges the Blues face next season with him will be the same ones they faced together this season. I don't want to dive into that too much because this forum just isn't ready for that discussion right now. It's going to be perceived as an attack on what he's accomplished and as raining on everyone's parade, and I don't want either one of those things.


What about Berube's last coaching stop? Berube's only other NHL coaching gig, he took over for another coach early in the season and had the team playing very well (.595 point percentage, 98 point pace). The next year he was fired after he missed the playoffs with a 33-31-18 record and a 6th place finish in his division. Let's not pretend that Berube's coaching resume is some unassailable thing and that he's a lock to repeat anywhere near this level of success with the team next year. He has a grand total of zero years where he started an NHL season as the head coach and wasn't fired. Any concerns from that?

As much as people aren't going to want to hear it, retaining Berube is not a risk-free proposition. He has his own question marks, and before anyone brings up his (well-earned) Jack Adams nomination, Hartley, Tippett, Bylsma, Hitchcock, Ruff, and Crawford have all actually won that award themselves. What did that mean for them in the grand scheme of things? Even if that's the entirety of your list, I think you still owe it to yourself to hear what at least a few of them have to say.



I would be stunned if they hadn't as well. I just don't interpret Armstrong's quote about the list being one name long the way you're interpreting it (that all the other people on the list were hired). I just heard it as him saying that they weren't currently considering anyone else for the job given how happy they've been with what Berube's done, which is a far different thing than there being no one else worth even considering.

I agree with most of what you're saying and the stuff I disagree with is mostly going back to assumptions/guesses each of us are making (like the underlying meaning of 'our list is down to 1').

I agree that there is risk in hiring Berube and I don't believe it is a slam dunk of success. However, I feel that way about any coach and I do believe that we have a greater chance of success by bringing back Berube than we do by bringing in one of the new coaches left on the board.

I'm generally pretty risk averse and I don't like the risk of interviewing other coaches. There is a real possibility of losing Berube by interviewing other coaches. Just as we would be 100% within our rights to tell Berube "you're the leading candidate but we are going to interview several candidates" he is well within his rights to say "this is the team I wanted to coach, but since I haven't been given the position, I'm going to explore my other options while they are still available to me." Our reputation as an organization would take a huge hit if we declined to give him permission to talk to other teams while simultaneously interviewing other candidates for head coach. It is unlikely that he has another year on his contract (although that is not disclosed by the team), so he wouldn't have to wait long to interview with other teams if we declined to give him permission.

I also don't like how a new coach would muddy what needs to be done if the team is out of playoff position next January. If this team botches it with Berube behind the bench, it is an easy decision to overhaul the roster. If they are in that spot with a new coach, that's a little less clear to me. I believe that the new coach would be backed, but I'd be a hell of a lot less comfortable that the players were the problem. Finally, I don't like the risk of what a new coach does to contract talks with Petro. I'm very firmly in camp 're-sign Petro' and want it done well before next season starts. I don't see any of the guys above helping our case to accomplish that goal and if I'm Petro's agent, I'm advising him not to sign a long term extension before playing a game under a new coach who will almost certainly have a longer leash than many roster players if things go sideways.

At the end of the day, I think this decision carries risk, but not as much risk of any potential outcome where we push the decision into summer. Part of that calculation is that I don't really like any of the names we're talking about and I'm not sure that the most impressive interview imaginable is going to overcome the weaknesses I've seen from them more than Berube's actual work here has overcome the weaknesses I've seen from him. For the record, I'm not just talking about the fact that we're in the Conference Final.

I think he deserves some credit for Blais and Dunn's development for putting them in positions to succeed as young AHL rookies in 2016/17 and I think he deserves some credit for rounding out Barby's defensive game. I have absolutely loved the way he handled the goaltending rotation and got the most out of Allen by keeping him the hell away from the Enterprise Center. I think his message of accountability has more credibility than a lot of coaches because he is (IMO) more consistent about rewarding good play at the expense of guys who aren't playing well. He has a very good sense of what guys need more ice time in a given night and I've been impressed at our team's ability to adjust to other teams' structure throughout a playoff series. I had a lot of complaints about our overall breakout after game 1 vs San Jose and all of them have been addressed. Long story short, my support of Berube comes from more than just "he motivated the guys" after Yeo was canned.

 

[Robb_K]

Wrong thread.

 

[TKB]

Lifelong Red Wing fan living in Chicago who is not sure that I have exorcised all bitterness from the Norris days, (and/or the Oates for Federko trade) but I have to ask:

Where can I get a poster of Craig Berube?

Not sure how this Sharks series closes out, but the way he (and his team) handled the Game 3 OT controversy and kept your team focused is amazing.

It would be one thing if say Kyle Dubas was speaking this way...but Craig F. Berube?

Mighty impressed...good luck the rest of the way

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

It hardly takes months to do such a thing. Exit performance reviews are usually done within the week. Berube can't wait a week?

The team is supposed to shrug off distractions like the refs blowing Game 3, but we're worried that Berube not being formally extended yet will be some sort of distraction for the team? C'mon. Nobody involved in the game is thinking about that right now. Not Berube, and certainly not the players. The players aren't even worrying over their own contracts, much less their coach's. Everyone is focused on getting ready for the next game.

Honestly, I'm tired of this entire discussion. I think the rationalizations I've heard supporting the way this has been handled are flimsy, at best, and clearly my arguments aren't swaying any opinions anytime soon, not that I was expecting anything of the sort.

We planted our flags. We're on the record. We can revisit this after the season, or better yet, after a few years when Berube has had a chance to sink or swim.

And I hope to hell he swims, because if he doesn't, it will be an absolute **** show.

You don’t think Army has been evaluating him for months? You don’t think Army did his diligence on other candidates? It’s naive to think otherwise.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

There is risk in hiringany coach. But there is significantly less risk in hiring coach who has had 6 month job interview and aced it. And it’s not like there is this objective best coach that you are seeking. You want best coach fir your franchise today and going forward. Context matters. You bring in someone else to replace Berube after what he has done, unless it is slam dunk star like Q, you are setting him up to fail.

 

[EastonBlues22]

You don’t think Army has been evaluating him for months? You don’t think Army did his diligence on other candidates? It’s naive to think otherwise.

I'm sure Armstrong has had every opportunity to evaluate Berube's performance thus far since they work together, but Berube's job isn't done yet this season, so how can Armstrong's evaluation be complete? When you get a job evaluation that impacts your future, you get it on the whole period that's covered, not just part of it.

When it comes to other coaches, though, I'm not sure we share the same opinion of what putting in due diligence actually means. I think they put in the effort to formulate a list of candidates, but I don't think they've had the time or ability to fully evaluate all of them, no. That's a big job, and the Blues have had too much other stuff on their plate to assume that's been done. And again, did you really put in your due diligence as a potential employer if you didn't even talk to anyone else about the job opening? I don't see how you can say that you have if you haven't.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'm sure Armstrong has had every opportunity to evaluate Berube's performance thus far since they work together, but Berube's job isn't done yet this season, so how can Armstrong's evaluation be complete? When you get a job evaluation that impacts your future, you get it on the whole period that's covered, not just part of it.

When it comes to other coaches, though, I'm not sure we share the same opinion of what putting in due diligence actually means. I think they put in the effort to formulate a list of candidates, but I don't think they've had the time or ability to fully evaluate all of them, no. That's a big job, and the Blues have had too much other stuff on their plate to assume that's been done. And again, did you really put in your due diligence as a potential employer if you didn't even talk to anyone else about the job opening? I don't see how you can say that you have if you haven't.

Have you ever hired anyone? The idea that an “interview” is more valuable than a wholistic approach to reviewing someone’s previous job performance runs counter to all evidence.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I'm with Chief.

He's demonstrated what he can do with this team. Everybody else is just talk.

DA's only gripe is the PP.

 

[Dbrownss]

How do we know that the Blues havnt talked to other coaches previously? It would be a **** move to announce that you're interviewing so and so when Berube is the interm coach and had a rediculous 2nd half and has the team in the WCF. Everyone seems to be steering clear of the rookie HCs, so I wouldnt bank on Army going that route