Goaltending saved them from a bottom 3 finish, chilling with the Oilers where they proved for a while that they belong.
Is Patrick Roy a good coach or was last year a fluke?
- Thread starter KPower
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Paul Maclean 2.0. Except he has a legacy with his team (as a player) so ownership/management won't throw him under the bus like we did.
RedWingsForPresident
Registered User
Last year IMO was a fluke. I said Roy would be out in 3 years, if he misses this year and next, he'd definitely be on a short leash to start the 2016 season
He has a Jack Adams and Mike Babcock doesn't...
He has a Jack Adams and Mike Babcock doesn't...
Jack Adams means nothing. It usually goes to coaches who over achieve or lead an injury ravaged team to the playoffs. While in reality, it's usually the goaltender who carries the team.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
He's just fine as a coach. This year he's dealing with a starting goalie playing below replacement (in no small part due to the train wreck of a defensive squad in front of him), and injuries and shuffling of positions/responsibilities - as well as the underestimated impact of losing Stastny from the mix - have also kept Colorado down this year. I wouldn't be surprised if we looked back some time in the future and considered THIS season as the fluke - in the negative sense, obviously - because of all the things that are going wrong (most of which a coach can only do so much to mitigate).
But our advanced stats are better this year. why are we doing so bad?
They actually aren't any better, 2nd worst in the West:
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC
The worst possible way to tank is getting the 30th pick. Every team in the NHL is tanking every year every game. Some other teams are just better at it than others.
Teams always seem to do well in the first year or two of having a new coach. The Senators, Avs, Rangers, Pens. I'm sure there's plenty of examples throughout history of teams doing well the first season they hire a new coach, then they fall back down to earth the next year. Lots of Jack Adams winners in the first year or 2 coaching, then they're fired a couple years later.
Tortorella, MacLean, Bylsma, all unemployed Jack Adams winners. Meanwhile, Mike Babcock has 0 Jack Adams awards.
So I say Roy was a fluke.
Tortorella, MacLean, Bylsma, all unemployed Jack Adams winners. Meanwhile, Mike Babcock has 0 Jack Adams awards.
So I say Roy was a fluke.
Do they? How often do you think this happens? Guys that are fighting tooth and nail for ice time, bigger contracts or even just a job next season... To make the NHL, you straight up have to be a competitive person.
Last night I played a game in which our team was more or less wrecked -- the score was 7-3 with 10 minutes left. I didn't coast or mail it in... and this is beer league hockey. In the NHL? When your team is having a rough season and everyone is under the microscope?
Sorry, I don't think that NHL players "mail it in", at least not more than once in a blue moon for whatever extenuating circumstances. I think that sometimes, people misinterpret what they see and attribute it to laziness.
Good old regression to the mean.
"regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement"
How well a team performs in any given seasons depends on:
* Quality of players (not only the absolute quality of each individual player, but also roster balance etc.)
* Quality of coach
* Luck
Because you have things like roster balance and luck influencing how a team performs it is very very difficult to evaluate purely from the results over a short period of time if the coach is good or not. Even worse when you start to include things like confidence. Get going early and all of a sudden you are just riding a wave for the rest of the season. Get lost like the Canucks did after a couple of injuries last season and you might never get back again.
Too early to tell for me with Roy. Even more so as he is clearly in a development phase himself as a coach.
NeelyWasAWarrior
Don't Poke The Bear
Maybe i'm wrong here but good coaches change things up a bit. Bad coaches sing the same tune and don't change things up so eventually players tune em out. Roy brought in a new approach that got the team going and now the "boys" are tuning him out. the message is lost and Roy has lost the team.
TheGooooch
Registered User
Wow, a lot of hate in this thread. Roy is a player's coach and often emphasizes that he is partnering with the players to help them develop. You can see this after game interviews when he never calls out players for playing poorly, unlike other coaches in the league. He also gives credit to players who work hard and allow them to play if they deserve it.
On the technical/plays side I think he has quite a bit of experience, but is still learning. He ran some great powerplays in his 10 years coaching time in the QMJHL and you can still see that today. In terms of learning, he stopped the man-to-man coverage because the defense was getting caught in the zone, but the defence still have trouble clearing. This may be a personnel problem. He also emphasizes creativity in the offensive zone, so a player feels comfortable knowing that if he ****s up then he won't get reemed out/benched. I think this is great for development.
On the technical/plays side I think he has quite a bit of experience, but is still learning. He ran some great powerplays in his 10 years coaching time in the QMJHL and you can still see that today. In terms of learning, he stopped the man-to-man coverage because the defense was getting caught in the zone, but the defence still have trouble clearing. This may be a personnel problem. He also emphasizes creativity in the offensive zone, so a player feels comfortable knowing that if he ****s up then he won't get reemed out/benched. I think this is great for development.
Yarice
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2011
- 887
- 198
I always tought he was pretty overrated with the Remparts. He almost never won a playoffs series against a better team than him, but he lost so many against worse team than him. And he lost too many playoffs series that he was leading (Even one he was leading 3-0).
feds91
Registered User
- May 17, 2004
- 1,252
- 25
HockeyFan100
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2012
- 4,528
- 3,530
Kunta Kinte
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2011
- 2,922
- 955
To be fair, MacKinnon and Landeskog have been less dynamic than last year, by a huge margin.
They had five 60pts+ players, one of them is traded away and it was a mistake.
I can add O'reilly to that group of people who aren't on par with last year.
Duchene 70
Landeskog 65
O'Reilly 64
MacKinnon 63
Stastny 60
They had a ton of 35pts + player...
They had five 60pts+ players, one of them is traded away and it was a mistake.
I can add O'reilly to that group of people who aren't on par with last year.
Duchene 70
Landeskog 65
O'Reilly 64
MacKinnon 63
Stastny 60
They had a ton of 35pts + player...
