I'm repeating myself but enough is enough. I don't hate Montgomery, don't even think this is his fault. But this can happen when mgmt decides going with the lame duck approach at HC makes sense. In a way Sweeney and Neely deserve this. But for the love of god just put Montgomery out of his misery. Saying that, there's nobody on the current bench who deserves the interim tag. It's probably time for this organization to consider an actual rebuild in some capacity.
Speculation: Potential Coaching Replacements for Jim Montgomery
- Thread starter PlayMakers
- Start date
Tonight has to be Monty's " lost the faceoff " Joe Thornton moment. Bruins management is in complete denial if they let this fester any longer.
I sure hope so. For his sake anyway.
From Jim's body language on the bench to everyone on the ice.... Just bad not good vibes all around. Again, that was an embarrassing way to start the game from an urgency and intensity perspective. On home ice. Just unacceptable coming off the past two games.
KnightofBoston
Registered User
I don’t think this team is going anywhere this year, so personally I keep Monty while doing a real and through search for a replacement
But it begs the question on whether or not the whole house has to be cleaned at that
But it begs the question on whether or not the whole house has to be cleaned at that
Over the volcano
Registered User
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
Yes, total house cleaning. While something is wrong with the team's psyche and Montgomery seems to have no answers or ability to change it, the roster is also just poorly designed. Even a great coach would be tasked with getting a lacking roster to overachieve.
I don't think it's the case at all that this is a good team with genuine playoff potential EXCEPT that Montgomery is screwing things up. The whole thing is a mess and fixing it, for real, for the long term, is going to require bigger changes than just the coach.
The don godfather
Registered User
Who would win the gentlemen's bet between Mike Sullivan and Jim Montgomery about which coach will keep his job longer?
How are some people saying the roster is so flawed? This is the same team as last year minus DeBrusk and adding Lindholm and a few others. Was last years roster so flawed???
They look flawed because their goalie blows and they’re playing a lousy game. I’d blame the goalie on his agent and our GM, and the rest on the coaching staff and the players. But we know you can’t fire all the players, so…..
They look flawed because their goalie blows and they’re playing a lousy game. I’d blame the goalie on his agent and our GM, and the rest on the coaching staff and the players. But we know you can’t fire all the players, so…..
bruinmann77
Registered User
Just put him out of his misery IMO. I don't see any positive to keeping him at the helm. Coaching staff needs to be wiped out... top to bottom. Sacco was promoted to "associate coach" in the off-season. My guess for the temporary lead job. Jay Leach added as assistant. Thought by some to be an important addition. For whatever reason.
quietbruinfan
Salt and light
FRyan4426
Registered User
Point here is very simple. If Cam/Don axe another coach, the burden immediately falls on them going forward. They want no part of that. They’re going to keep kicking the can down the road to blame players and coaching.
Lord Ahriman
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2009
- 6,764
- 2,089
Yes they lost DeBrusk... but also Ullmark, Van Riemsdyk, Shattenkirk, Poitras isn't with the team right now, Forbort, Heinen, Boqvist, Lauko, Maroon. Now, you can say "big deal," as most of those players are not world beaters (Ullmark and DeBrusk are the cream of that crop). But that's a fair amount of attrition and it's entirely possible that the replacements in sum are not as good as what went out. Couple this with the dramatic turnover from the team 2 years ago and you have a lot of players coming and going and over that 18 month period, quite a few key players for that matter.
This feels like a very transient group of players. Like the teams between the end of the Bourque era and the start of the Chara era. 3 years from now, how many players from the current roster do you expect to still be with the team? I expect well over 50% of the roster will be different. I attribute much of that to a goodly number of the current players not being of the type that you are keeping with a team on any kind of long term basis, or just aging off the team or out of the league. Transient. This isn't like the Buffalo Sabres underachieving where you can at least believe there are about 10 promising young players you hope will progress and be the nucleus of the team for a long time.
All that said, they are underperforming. That's where a coach change has to be tried. They have become the worst show in town. The players look disinterested, the fans look miserable. A different coach and adding some type of energy player seems like the minimum to at least get as much out of this team as possible. The good news is that the current NHL is not exactly filled with strong teams. Even if the Bruins are "just okay" if they can right the ship a bit, that should get them into the playoffs with a chance to at least win a round. Beyond that, I'm not a believer that we can expect more from this roster.
