Management - Don Sweeney extended 2 years | Page 22 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Management Don Sweeney extended 2 years

01jnvmh7v2csp1yengfr.jpg

01jnvmh7v2csp1yengfr.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LJReborn and Patdud
Yes, but that is St Louis, s team constructed for a coach like Montgomery.

Whatever else is true, he did not like the roster Sweeney put together and more or less gave up on them.

With a wink and a nod, back to St louis.

What a guy.

Ok well then answer me this.

Why did Sweeney..

A) construct a roster that suited his coach

Or

B) Hire a coach who’s system didn’t fit the type of roster he wanted to construct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: frankiess
In fairness 9 rounds won in 7 years w 3 conference finals would go over very well here

Making the final four is an accomplishment- you are in the conversation for the Cup, something the Bruins have managed one time since 2013 depsite being in the playoffs most of those seasons.
 
In fairness 9 rounds won in 7 years w 3 conference finals would go over very well here

you really think so? Maybe with the same crowd ok with regular season success and excuses for the playoff exits, but i think it would be received very similarly to how they're received now

carolina is an anomaly, they receive way lower criticism than they deserve, seemingly the only team that gets away with it


The only way the bruins would get a pass for only making it to the ecf multiple times and getting their shit pushed in each time is if they were not even expected to make it that far to begin with

I think people would have been similarly upset with that record setting team if they had been swept in the ECF vs losing a really close series to the team that went to the finals from the east.

it also brings into question the difference between a team losing game 7 of semi finals vs getting swept in the ECF...there really isn't much of a difference, so why would we give a pass to a team that got just one more win than another?

I think the measure is how each series goes when you fall short of a SC
 
you really think so? Maybe with the same crowd ok with regular season success and excuses for the playoff exits, but i think it would be received very similarly to how they're received now

carolina is an anomaly, they receive way lower criticism than they deserve, seemingly the only team that gets away with it


The only way the bruins would get a pass for only making it to the ecf multiple times and getting their shit pushed in each time is if they were not even expected to make it that far to begin with

I think people would have been similarly upset with that record setting team if they had been swept in the ECF vs losing a really close series to the team that went to the finals from the east.

it also brings into question the difference between a team losing game 7 of semi finals vs getting swept in the ECF...there really isn't much of a difference, so why would we give a pass to a team that got just one more win than another?

I think the measure is how each series goes when you fall short of a SC
I agree. No bigger frauds than Carolina. It’s like they always have the same team and it’s proven they can’t win it all
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnightofBoston
Bruins fans?, err watchers can’t deal with a 5 week rebuild where they got multiple first and second round picks, NHL players, and teams top 2-3 forward prospects, and a top 7 pick in 2025 draft

Instead it’s they are a bottom 5 team lol they would have been bottom 2 if they could have
 
Making the final four is an accomplishment- you are in the conversation for the Cup, something the Bruins have managed one time since 2013 depsite being in the playoffs most of those seasons.
Yeah you would think there would be some accountability with the front office from the owner but way too much too ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII


For the analytic crowd


It's not really even analytics, assuming their explained method is accurate and doesn't exclude any other specifics. They say they're using point% and available wins in a playoff year, but then they also seemingly decided to just give the worst teams 1 because they assumed the worst team would lose 4-1 in the first round. It sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

If they really wanted to make it analytics, they'd say they built a regression model based on a number of factors. A simple linear regression model with one variable isn't going to offer much explanatory value. You'd want to look at things like betting odds, home ice advantage, team quality stats (goals for/goals against, PP, PK, etc), individual player quality, coaching quality, etc. Then you'd look at historical win data to see how it relates so you could say Team A that's been calculated to have X quality historically corresponds to get Y wins in the playoffs.

Having said that, if we're just looking at this from an anecdotal sense check perspective, nothing looks that crazy in terms of expectations vs reality for these teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LJReborn
I wish I could be marginal at my job and get a vote of confidence. Imagine missing by a large amount and getting rewarded? Sign me up.

The excuse mongers are strong in this thread. In reality, this roster is still bottom heavy and deeply flawed. Adding a stiff like Comtois does not fix that. In fact it makes it worse.
 
And you would have fired Jim Nill years ago.
So when Don Sweeney grows up he will be Jim Nill? One guy took over a team who didn't make the play-offs for what 5-6 years before him vs a guy who took over a team that won a cup 4 years earlier, went to a cup 2 years before that and had 117 pts the year before they missed the playoffs with 96 points? Nill took over a last place team if I recall correctly lol. How many hall of famers did Nill inherit?
 
So when Don Sweeney grows up he will be Jim Nill? One guy took over a team who didn't make the play-offs for what 5-6 years before him vs a guy who took over a team that won a cup 4 years earlier, went to a cup 2 years before that and had 117 pts the year before they missed the playoffs with 96 points? Nill took over a last place team if I recall correctly lol. How many hall of famers did Nill inherit?
It's a results business - I heard that somewhere.
 
It's a results business - I heard that somewhere.
It's about championships. When Nill bottoms out like Sweeney it will be time for him to go as well.

How long should a GM keep his job? I'm ok with a decade, I understand they last longer than coaches., like I said Sweeney did a very good to good job for most of it, but the two year extension speaks volumes, not that highly thought of anymore it would seem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaaaB's
It's about championships. When Nill bottoms out like Sweeney it will be time for him to go as well.

How long should a GM keep his job? I'm ok with a decade, I understand they last longer than coaches., like I said Sweeney did a very good to good job for most of it, but the two year extension speaks volumes, not that highly thought of anymore it would seem.

i still think the question is who replaces him not whether or not he should be replaced.
 
You already want to build a statue of Sweeney, no? Imagine if he did what Carolina did the past 7 seasons? Guy has been past round 2 once in a decade and you act like it's crime against the church to want him replaced.
I can't help but wonder if you're arguing with Sweeney's burner account. The lengths he goes to bend over backwards to defend Sweeney is incredible. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LJReborn

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad