Former L.A. Kings coaches

[Burnt Biscuits]

Hello Oiler fan coming in peace. So as I'm sure you are aware our team is struggling yet again, while it is probably premature at this stage to do a coaching change we have been discussing it on the Oiler board. Three of your former coaches came up as possible head coach options and I just wanted your guys thoughts on Andy Murray, Terry Murray, and Marc Crawford and which one you think would be the best choice to replace Eakins as our Head coach.

Click to read more...

 

[HiEverybody]

Hello Oiler fan coming in peace. So as I'm sure you are aware our team is struggling yet again, while it is probably premature at this stage to do a coaching change we have been discussing it on the Oiler board. Three of your former coaches came up as possible head coach options and I just wanted your guys thoughts on Andy Murray, Terry Murray, and Marc Crawford and which one you think would be the best choice to replace Eakins as our Head coach.

Since it's pretty well accepted that you guys need D, I'd say Terry Murray. Don't plan on scoring any time soon though, even if you have 50+ shots a game :-D!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Although Andy Murray was a high school coach at Shattucks St. Mary's, I'm not sure he's really cut out for sustaining long term success and was a "lunch pail" coach who got his teams to overachieve in spurts.

Terry Murray is a very good "systems" coach where he will implement a system that a team can stick with. However, I think what was missing from Terry Murray's coaching was that the Kings never formed an identity until Darryl Sutter took over.

Marc Crawford is an idiot. You want nothing to do with him.

 

[Luc Gretzky]

Definitely not Crawford.

I think either Murray will give you something the other doesn't. I think Andy would get you more immediate and spirited results, and Terry might be better for teaching defense long term.

I voted Andy--I think his experience coaching at Shattuck probably gives him a better insight into the headspace of all that young talent on the team.

I know the answer is both, but if you had to pick one or the other, what the bigger problem for the Oilers now, defensive structure or heart/grit?

 

[BigBrown]

People forget that the Kings were an offense first team under Marc Crawford and it was Terry Murray who transformed the team into a defensive power house. Get him as a bridge coach for three years, have him teach the team how to be hard to play against and give them a defensive identity then move on to a more complete coach. His record speaks for itself, he turns crappy teams into playoff teams. Yes it can be a painful experience and watching young creative forwards be reigned in to play more of a system type game is frustrating but I'm actually surprised no one has picked him up yet, he's a good coach. Unlike Marc Crawford.

 

[kingsfan]

Terry Murray. he won't win you a cup but he'll get those kids to play all areas of the ice. I credit him a ton with Kopitar's development into arguably the best two-way centre in the game.

He'll get things cleaned up in Edmonton. After that, you'll need someone else to get you to the next step, but at the stage Edmonton is in right now, he's a great idea for the job.

Of course, I thought the same thing about Pat Quinn.

The real solution in Edmonton is kicking out Kevin Lowe, telling Katz to be more hands off, and giving MacTavish a VERY short leash. After that, THEN look at a new coach because it's all worthless until then IMO.

 

[Telos]

Crawford will bring you more of the same. He will push high offense at the expense of defense.

Andy Murray was a decent coach who will also develop your offensive side of the puck a little more.

The Oilers have offensive talent, what they need is to keep the puck out of their own net. Terry Murray is your answer, he will put strong defensive systems into place and instill a defense-first approach to every player on the roster. If you don't play defense, you don't play. He will likely either force Yakupov to do a complete 180 or jettison him off the team. Every player will be involved in the system.

Forwards are the most important key to LA's defensive system. The forwards are forced to backcheck all the way back behind LA's goal. Our defensive system didn't spawn out of thin air when Sutter took over, it is still Murray's system, Sutter just instilled more urgency, tweaked it a little, and made our players skate harder and pressure the puck more.

Terry Murray had us playing a little more of a passive system, but he will stop the bleeding and train each and every player to play defense or else they're gone. He would turn Edmonton into a potential championship team.

 

[damacles1156]

Terry Murray hands down.

The man can teach Defense/Structure. It's not pretty, but do you want to win in today's NHL ? If so then you have to keep the damn puck out of your net. The system the Kings play now, is still Terry Murray's.

Marc Crawford is not a good coach.

 

[LombardiTool]

Terry Murray without a doubt. Will teach the kids the right way to play hockey.

No LA cups without Murray's experience.

 

[kingsfan]

Crawford is 1990's coach that people still talk about. After winning the cup in 1996, he coached 13 more seasons in the NHL with Colorado, Vancouver, LA and Dallas. He missed the playoffs seven times in that stretch, including his final five seasons as a head coach (one in Vancouver, two in LA and two in Dallas) and he made it past the first round just twice total, including the year after winning the cup.

Winning one cup can keep a coach around for a long time in the NHL.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Terry Murray. he won't win you a cup but he'll get those kids to play all areas of the ice. I credit him a ton with Kopitar's development into arguably the best two-way centre in the game.

He'll get things cleaned up in Edmonton. After that, you'll need someone else to get you to the next step, but at the stage Edmonton is in right now, he's a great idea for the job.

Of course, I thought the same thing about Pat Quinn.

The real solution in Edmonton is kicking out Kevin Lowe, telling Katz to be more hands off, and giving MacTavish a VERY short leash. After that, THEN look at a new coach because it's all worthless until then IMO.

This


Terry would do awesome for a few years. He would teach Hall and Teh Nuge how to be leaders and true two way players. Your team would play a much better fundamental game.
Then you would have to fire him during year 4. He is like a loaf of bread that one day looks fine and then has mold all over it the next morning

 

[rajuabju]

That there is no Barry Melrose option makes this thread invalid.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Terry Murray would get them to at least try and play defense. He is good with players especially younger ones. I almost suggested that to an Edmonton poster in our GDT the other day when we were talking about development.

I still think they need more than a new coach but that would certainly be a good start. That would help them figure out who to ship out. Which is the next important piece. A plan. They seem to be lacking any sort of a strategy other than to draft high and let these guys figure it out on the ice. It's like a ship without a rudder.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

Thanks for the great responses guys!

 

[CowMix]

One of the Murrays, Terry had better talent to work with so its hard to judge.

 

[Martyros]

i think you're gonna need 1 season of Torts, then 2 with Terry Murray, then Daryl Sutter

 

[Ron*]

Thanks for the great responses guys!

I know you picked the last three coaches, but when I saw Marc Crawford's name as a poll selection I thought this was a joke thread.

I agree with the above poster that Barry Melrose should have been included in the selections. Besides taking the Kings to the SCF in 1993, he didn't do much but he still accomplished more than Crawford did.

 

[Choralone]

Both the Murrays worked well with younger players. Terry seemed to be patient teacher type, and Andy may have been a bit more rah-rah, but always came across as a really decent man on and off the ice. Crawford, on the other hand, was a screamer with less patience with younger players - one of the main reasons Lombardi was quick to jettison him only a year after hiring him.

The knock on Andy Murray with the Kings and the Blues was that he'd overwork his players to the point they were more susceptible to injuries. On the Kings, he also wore out his veterans' patience over time with some of his more rah-rah gimmicks. But he seems enough of a self-aware guy that he's probably learned some lessons from those experiences and dialed it back.

Same thing with Terry Murray - seeing the way Sutter has had so much success with the modifications to his system, I'm sure he's taken some notes.

Crawford is a wiener, however.

 

[kingsfan]

That there is no Barry Melrose option makes this thread invalid.

There's a by-law against mullets in Edmonton.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

I don't think Marc Crawford was a good coach by any stretch. But he had the misfortune of coaching some of the worst rosters ever assembled in Kings history. And that is saying something.

 

[Mitchnesses]

I voted for Terry Murray since there was not an option to vote for Barry Melrose. Beware the mullet.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Terry Murray will establish defensive responsibility and discipline in a system style of play. He's a solid coach to for giving young players a foundation for success, though I wouldn't count on him to lead the team to victory when they reach that stage.

Out of those three, he's the best for a young Edmonton squad, I think, especially on the defensive front.

This may hurt some of the shinier offensive numbers, but it would be worth it.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

I voted for Terry Murray since there was not an option to vote for Barry Melrose. Beware the mullet.

 

[Mitchnesses]

 

[Ollie Weeks]