Speculation: Potential Coaching Replacements for Jim Montgomery

[GordonHowe]

I’ll preface this by saying it’s still not Thanksgiving and that is usually my benchmark. Marchand is aging. Younger guys who were be counted on to be the backbone of the middle 6 aren’t performing (Frederic Geekie Poitras Brazeau etc). The top guys aren’t yet playing like top guys.

This team lacks a 2nd line scorer. This drum has been beaten to death but taking Korpisalo back in that trade is hurting the teams ability to add. Again, some mediocre players on bloated contracts. This falls on Sweeney imo.

With that said it’s still early. At least for another month.

If they are out of it by American Thanksgiving, it's too late.

Personally, I would fire Montgomery. Whether that happens tomorrow or next week or the week thereafter, and I suspect it will for various reasons, his dismissal is inevitable.

There are few head coaches in the NHL I would point to as headed down the crapper sooner, or with greater justification, if you want to put it that way, than Jim Montgomery.

He cannot coach at the NHL level at this time.

 

[GordonHowe]

I'm not on the fire Monty train just yet but his time to correct course is definitely limited.

If they do change I'd try Gallant or Leach. Gallant always seems to have a pretty short shelf life but his results are solid and I think he'd have a fair chance of getting something out of this group. Knows how to get a team playing solid, hard, fairly straightforward no-nonsense hockey. Worth considering.

Leach obviously we don't know in terms of how he'd go at the top level, but he's earned a solid rep and had some time and experience elsewhere. Bit concerning perhaps that he's already been a part of the Bruins' early woes this season, but it's only been a short time and a partial-season trial may be an ideal opportunity to see what he's really made of.

Depends which way the organization wants to go. Gallant or similar is the safer option that is perhaps more likely to spring a quick turnaround, a Leach may require a bit more patience. What happened last year with the Oilers was exceptional and I don't think should be taken as any sort of example to follow - no knock on Knoblauch, but there's a very good chance their turnaround had very little to do with him and more with a very good roster and its stars finally waking up.

I would actually say the opposite is true.

Leech is the safest bet, if you're talking about those two. Gallant will burn out sooner or later, likely sooner. And that's not a knock on Galant it's just what is.

Bleach strikes me much more as a long-term, steady presence behind the bench who knows the game, can think tactically and strategically, and will implement a solid defensive system.

As we've all heard many times, the defensive system the Bruins have used to great success, at least in the regular season, and as part of their brand, was established by Claude Julian and tweet by Bruce Cassidy. I see none of that, none of that at all, under Montgomery.

What I see with Montgomery is chaos and calamity on the back end, and a wing on a prayer to get it up ice.

That is not, nor will it ever be, a recipe for any kind of success in the nhl.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

That's probably true if you're talking about Sweeney and Neely being in charge. Which, of course, you are for the foreseeable future.

I don't believe the Boston media would eat him alive. They're not that hungry. Or adept.

JQ sports one of the best win-loss records of any NHL coach, all time, I believe.

Don't forget, he coached in St Louis, and quite well, for many years prior to joining the Blackhawks.

Yes he had a loaded roster, but he also won three Cups in Chicago, and was doing quite well in Florida prior to stepping down.

It won't happen, but I would snatch up JQ immediately.

He is light stars better as an NHL head coach then Jim Montgomery is at present.

Stop the insanity!

Stop the half-assed chaos.


Which is why I am not sanguine about his longevity in the position.

Ogie Oglethorpe a bit more talent and none of the charm.

Quenneville is a very very good hockey coach. I don't think that can be disputed. But I just feel he has too much baggage to be accepted and survive in a big sports town like Boston. Obviously you know it far better than me, but that's my read on it.

On a personal level, I think there was enough evidence to indicate his complicity in downplaying and covering up the Beach incident that I would find it distasteful, at best, if he were to coach the Bruins. He's not an axe murderer, but his moral errors were still great enough that I don't believe he should be given another opportunity in charge of a hockey team. Harsh maybe, but sometimes there's a price that must be paid.

 

[GordonHowe]

Quenville, but I doubt they would do it.

With that it will be somebody they can control over have better say over, IMO. Internal so most likely Leach or Sacco as others have said.

With that also, nothing should happen before December 1st. Give Monty more time as he deserves it

I agree with much of this. But I don't agree that Montgomery deserves a December 1st leash.

They may get it together, in the interim, but the problems will persist. And by December 1st, it is at least possible that the Boston Bruins will have played themselves out of postseason contention, never mind Stanley Cup contention.

Whether they fire Montgomery tomorrow or two weeks hence, it makes little difference to me. He must go. I keep saying it, and I believe it. He is not an NHL head coach at this point in his career.

The Bruins need experience, a steady hand, and no nonsense,.

They also need a defensive structure. That would be nice.

I hear you on that and get it and you are right that it's different mid-season as opposed to the summer. Leach would be the non- retread guy they could go with I guess. I know he's taking some crap for the defense right now, but to me it's worth keeping in mind that the assistants only work in the context the HC gives them.

Whoever they pick, they need to clean the bench out and let the new guy select his staff. If they want to keep a guy like Chris Kelly because he's still pretty young in the job, find a role for him that doesn't interfere with the new HC's setup, at least at first.

I can't find Sarge's original post, but I agree and thank him for the input.

Agree with your post as well.

I hear you on that and get it and you are right that it's different mid-season as opposed to the summer. Leach would be the non- retread guy they could go with I guess. I know he's taking some crap for the defense right now, but to me it's worth keeping in mind that the assistants only work in the context the HC gives them.

Whoever they pick, they need to clean the bench out and let the new guy select his staff. If they want to keep a guy like Chris Kelly because he's still pretty young in the job, find a role for him that doesn't interfere with the new HC's setup, at least at first.

I can't find Sarge's original post, but I agree and thank him for the input.

Agree with your post as well.

 

[GordonHowe]

clode has this team back winning 2-1 and getting eliminated in the 2nd round in no time

Or perhaps bringing them their first Cup in 39 years.

It's amazing how little credit Peter Chiarelli and Claude Julian received from this board, or this fan base.

I suppose Zdeno Chara was just a dumb giraffe too.

Is Lavoilette coaching in the NHL? I have always wanted him since we let him get away after coaching Providence.

Marc Savard I think would be an excellent fit. Whats Ference up to always expected him to coach an NHL team at some point?

I know he just retired in May so its probably too soon and it would be a very short term interim option but Bowness has to be worth a call if you aren't trying to make too risky a pick.

I like all those guys for various reasons, but they aren't the answer in Boston. Just my opinion.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I would actually say the opposite is true.

Leech is the safest bet, if you're talking about those two. Gallant will burn out sooner or later, likely sooner. And that's not a knock on Galant it's just what is.

Bleach strikes me much more as a long-term, steady presence behind the bench who knows the game, can think tactically and strategically, and will implement a solid defensive system.

As we've all heard many times, the defensive system the Bruins have used to great success, at least in the regular season, and as part of their brand, was established by Claude Julian and tweet by Bruce Cassidy. I see none of that, none of that at all, under Montgomery.

What I see with Montgomery is chaos and calamity on the back end, and a wing on a prayer to get it up ice.

That is not, nor will it ever be, a recipe for any kind of success in the nhl.

I meant more that Gallant was the safer bet to get a short-term immediate boost out of this team. Leach might also but he is more unknown and less experienced, and you also then risk burning through a potentially good coach if you expose and damage him through throwing him to the wolves in a hard situation before he's truly ready. I mean every aspiring coach has to take the bull by the horns and make a go of it eventually, but it does help if the timing is right.

I'm also skeptical of the teams that have fired Gallant quite abruptly. I know there's a pattern there, but American GMs tend to be too trigger happy in firing coaches, IMO, so I'm not convinced that he doesn't have what it takes to be successful long-term, if only a little more patience is shown. Of course you could argue the same of Monty's situation right now, which is why these decisions are rarely easy.

 

[GordonHowe]

because he leaves them alone and let them actually gel as a line. no set of lines is going to work if you're panic shuffling them every other shift. he needs to set a line up and leave it the f*** alone and let them figure out how to play together

How confident are you that he will ever do this?

Or is capable of doing so?

 

[GordonHowe]

I don't agree. I don't know where the notion came from that chemistry takes time and that you should let struggling lines stay together until they magically turn things around, but lots of people seem to feel that way and IMO, it's false.

That's just not how the NHL works. What team can allow a line to get caved in for 20 games with the hope that in game 21 they'll suddenly be dominant?

Chemistry is instant. The 4th line was good from Day 1. When you put guys on a line who click, it's immediate. You can see it on their first shift. I can think of a hundred examples of lines or pairs that worked immediately but I can't think of any examples of lines that were terrible for a long stretch and without anything changing, suddenly figured it out.

I agree with half of this.

Chemistry can be instant, as with the so-called fourth line.

(Which, unsurprisingly, Montgomery quickly split up to no avail in hopes of sparking his MIA second and third line troops.)

Chemistry can also take time.

I can't give you an example off the top of my head, but there are plenty of lines throughout NHL history that have gelled over time. Perhaps a month, perhaps less, perhaps more.

Not a science. Something of an art.

 

[GordonHowe]

I meant more that Gallant was the safer bet to get a short-term immediate boost out of this team. Leach might also but he is more unknown and less experienced, and you also then risk burning through a potentially good coach if you expose and damage him through throwing him to the wolves in a hard situation before he's truly ready. I mean every aspiring coach has to take the bull by the horns and make a go of it eventually, but it does help if the timing is right.

I'm also skeptical of the teams that have fired Gallant quite abruptly. I know there's a pattern there, but American GMs tend to be too trigger happy in firing coaches, IMO, so I'm not convinced that he doesn't have what it takes to be successful long-term, if only a little more patience is shown. Of course you could argue the same of Monty's situation right now, which is why these decisions are rarely easy.

You might go with Gerard Gallant for the quick fix, sugar high.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's a long-term solution.

By nature, Don Sweeney is the cautious type. He's also quite bright.

When deciding to jettison Montgomery in favor of another coach, Sweeney will likely go for the safe selection, and one with the potential to be a steady hand over several seasons.

In other words, not Gerard Gallant at this point.

As noted several times previously in this thread, I would hire Joel Quennville if at all possible.

Clearly, he has his baggage from Chicago and he will have to live with that, as well as explain and learn from it.

To me, he is by far the most qualified candidate. The baggage might scare off Sweeney and Neely. Not to mention the Jacobs family.

Absent that, off the top of my head, I believe Jay Leach would be the choice.

He has experience in the Bruins system coaching PRO and thus understands the expected style of play, treatment of players, etc., familiarity with management, seasoning as an assistant in Seattle, and the semblance of a defensive approach to the game.

He's a safe bet.

I don't think it would be a bad hire from what little I know.

And probably a better choice than, say, Gallant, in terms of stability and maturity behind the bench, as well as X's and O's plan for success.

I have no idea what they'll do, or when they'll do it. But a change must be made.

Clearly, at least to me.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I don't agree. I don't know where the notion came from that chemistry takes time and that you should let struggling lines stay together until they magically turn things around, but lots of people seem to feel that way and IMO, it's false.

That's just not how the NHL works. What team can allow a line to get caved in for 20 games with the hope that in game 21 they'll suddenly be dominant?

Chemistry is instant. The 4th line was good from Day 1. When you put guys on a line who click, it's immediate. You can see it on their first shift. I can think of a hundred examples of lines or pairs that worked immediately but I can't think of any examples of lines that were terrible for a long stretch and without anything changing, suddenly figured it out.

I gotta ask, is this is a hockey thing? Because no-one in any Australian sport would even try and argue this was the case. It takes the spine of a rugby league team weeks and weeks of work to get itself to a point where it can function as a truly effective, well-oiled machine. Ditto for an Aussie Rules football midfield. You can usually quickly see a spark when a combination with high potential is first tried, but to turn that spark into a genuinely capable and effective unit takes time.

I can see why in hockey a good line should be able to sort itself out quite quickly, but it seems to me that there are limits to that and it won't always be the case. For some chemistry may well be more or less instant, for others it will require more of a process. More generally I would have thought that like most things it's a balancing act - change up a line too soon or too often and you risk missing out on something that may otherwise have turned out to be good, change too late or too reluctantly and you may simply get stuck with a dud and delay finding other more viable options.

 

[GordonHowe]

it does though. when you know your linemates, what they do and where they'll be you can tailor your game to it. especially moving the puck around, you can anticipate. unfamiliarity is what leads to most mistakes on a new line because you need to anticipate and react, there's no time to think

Another among many, many problems with the way Jim Montgomery coaches. Maybe you can get away with that in Junior or college, but doing so incessantly, compulsively, dare I say foolishly on a nightly basis is to invite chaos, which is what you have.

Personally, I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Montgomery must go.

 

[GordonHowe]

Mike Babcock

Now *that" is a bridge too far.

1. Based on his first two seasons Jim Montgomery deserved a contract extension. Fact not opinion.

2. It's time to pull the plug. The Bruins idiotically decided to go with this lame duck head coach approach and it has backfired miserably. Or perhaps this is what they envisioned all along.

3. Just don't tell me Jay Leach is the answer. A coach who was forced upon Montgomery and has had zero impact. If anything he's had a negative impact.

4. It's beyond time to start dealing guys away. Might be painful to accept but that's reality.

If memory serves, this was the situation Julian found himself in with Bruce Cassidy on the bench and waiting in the wings.

 

[GordonHowe]

Agreed, two straight years of playoff disaster would have finished him then and there. Obviously he's not Jacobs cup of tea, probably not Neely's either.

My impression, and that's all it is, listening to Steve Conroy I believe, is that Neely was the one agitating for a change behind the bench per Cassidy.

If you recall, Cassidy had been assured by Sweeney after the season in question ended that all systems were go and he would continue behind the Bruins bench.

You might also recall how surprised and upset Cassidy was by the decision to let him go.

Cassidy, of course, had his "warts," as hockey people say.

He also won a Cup with Las Vegas in his first year. As Patrice predicted when learning of the hire.

 

[GordonHowe]

Well maybe that is another one of the problems, having a guy breathing down Montys neck, to go along with some other distractions this year.

Not ideal, but hardly unique in this league.

If Montgomery had proven a better head coach, perhaps Jay Leach would not have been brought back as a potential replacement.

 

[GordonHowe]

Do you think Julien would have been fired if the Bruins had lost in Game 7 against the Habs in 2011?

Probably. But it wouldn’t have been the right move.

Two consecutive years Montgomery has the Bruins overachieve. He blew it HARD in the playoffs a year ago. These last playoffs - not on him.

I think he’s eating a lot of shit for making some decisions one may disagree with… and 11 games of suboptimal results. But his resume is much stronger than a dozen games.

It’s frustrating to watch right now. I think we’re trying to solve the wrong problem.

The completely inexplicable, astonishingly stupid and inexcusable decisions Montgomery made as head coach in the infamous 2023 round #1 debacle against FLA were and remain disqualifiying on their face.

Players are not going to be fired en masse. Sweeney and Neely are going nowhere.

You can call Montgomery a scapegoat if you wish, but he has more than earned the title.

Given this, and aside from it, I am not certain what the "correct" problem is, or whether it is solvable at present.

 

[GordonHowe]

Monty's philosophy of " hold on to the puck for a better shot " isn't working for this team, especially when taking into consideration just how much difficulty they have right now bringing the puck over the center line with possession.

Yet another issue.

The "Quality over quantity" approach to shot selection did not work, at all, in last season's playoff run.

The Bruins were routinely outshot in embarrassing fashion.

My understanding is that you cannot win if you do not score.

And you cannot score if you do not shoot the puck.

Jesus on a motorbike.

View attachment 924599

Why do you torture me so?

A different kettle of fish entirely.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

I don't like the door hit you on the way out.

 

[GordonHowe]

i'd hire boudreau for the rest of the year - he always does well with in season replacement.
even if he's a leafs fan sort the rest out in the summer when options are aplenty

No. Thank you.

No.

The Bruins may be in win now mode, but they are also building for the future.

Bruce Boudreau is the epitome of am illusory short-term fix. There is a reason why he has been through several teams without any playoff success.

Plus, as HBO's "24/7" revealed in unflattering fashion, Boudreau looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy sporting his red long johns (sic) whilst delivering a profanity laced locker room pep talk. A ridiculous figure fooling no one.

Ovechkin openly called him a "fat f***" on the bench, with no apparent consequences.

That is all one need know.