DarkandStormy
Registered User
Over the last 5 years his average points total per 82 games is 104.8.
And as many appearances in the 2nd round as the Blue Jackets.
Over the last 5 years his average points total per 82 games is 104.8.
This is not directed at Evanson, majority of everyone of these guys including Larsen are great guys, but not for the given situation. You are right I am more about go after the right person and not making a decision with a cap for the right coach. The only reason we got Hitch or Torts was because we got them at a discount, while another team paid for them Phily for 1 year of Hitch and 4 years from Vanc for Torts.We don't actually know that MacLellan would have been the #1 option. If they interviewed all three, Evason might have beaten MacLellan anyways.
My point being, your negativity should be directed at ownership for having $ limits in the process. Not at hiring Evason
This may be out of his hands. DW has good history with McCarthy and ownership has proven to put a cap on coaches. McCarthy has 1 more year on his contract.I’m for the hire, but if he keeps McCarthy he’ll deserve his fate.
Average coaching tenure in the NHL is 2-3...Skeptical because he lost the room in Minnesota being a players coach. Only 250 game as head coach with Minnesota, when DW touted experience as an NHL HC. I thought even worse of Jay Woodcroft, this team needs defensive structure and is Evanson known as that ???
paul maurice was seen for years as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. all it takes is one run with a loaded roster and hot goalie to change that.You’re right. McLellan would have been first.
But unlike Torts and Hitch, 0 cup wins as the head coach.
I didn’t mind McLellan but I was hardly blown away on him either.
Key word - hot goalie.paul maurice was seen for years as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. all it takes is one run with a loaded roster and hot goalie to change that.
That’s all it takes. Piece of cake.paul maurice was seen for years as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. all it takes is one run with a loaded roster and hot goalie to change that.
That's true, I wouldn't have minded McLellan, even though Evason was my clear preference.paul maurice was seen for years as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. all it takes is one run with a loaded roster and hot goalie to change that.
paul maurice was seen for years as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. all it takes is one run with a loaded roster and hot goalie to change that.
Just curious what made him your top choice?They got my #1 guy.
i could definitely see the case he was by far the best option .. not a retread in multiple teams … has a great track record in Minnesota . Multiple young players blossomed under him .. and he’s fiery like Rod . Good pick by WaddellThey got my #1 guy.
That’s all it takes. Piece of cake.
i get why this brain-poisoned fan base would have this reflexive disgust/angst over seeing first-round exits but that ignores the actual context behind those exits.Funnily enough, looking at the rosters that they have coached, I think it would be more suitable to make this particular argument for Evason than for McLellan.
I might have made a post very similar to this (Evason was my preferred of the three) but when I read “all it takes is a loaded roster and a hot goalie” it struck me.i get why this brain-poisoned fan base would have this reflexive disgust/angst over seeing first-round exits but that ignores the actual context behind those exits.
evason, as a first-time head coach, took over a mediocre team dealing with insane cap constraints and had them winning at a 110-point pace for three years running. they overachieved because of the system he implemented.
then they lost in the first round three straight times. they had the weaker roster/goalie in each of those series.
elite coaches like cooper and maurice needed way more than three bites at the apple – and with rosters far better than minnesota's – to actually win the damn thing.