Speculation: The search for a new Head Coach - Rumors and Speculation

Didn’t the Oilers lose 5 of their first 7 to open this season too? Anyone who paid attention to that team over the last few years knows they’ve had their fair share of issues. A lot of it being on the players. McDrai can only cover so much. You think seeing Gudas and Trouba on the ice a lot is painful, I give you Darnell Nurse with Jack Campbell and Stuart Skinner
 
Last edited:
As I said earlier, I'm not fully sold on Woodcroft. But that has more to do with questioning the reasons for his success than the reason for his firing. Can he be successful without two superstars?

I have no doubt Woodcroft unfairly took the blame for that slow start. As soon as they started getting decent goaltending, they were better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckRogers10
I like woodcroft as a maybe. But how do you start a season, which Stanley cut aspirations 3-9-1 (last place in the western conference) with Peak McDavid, and then get fired and that teams loses in game 7 of the Stanley cup finals.

IIRC, McDavid started super slow ... Remember those threads asking if he was washed? So he really didn't have peak McD during that stretch.
 
Eakins 2.0?

Kidding... relax. :sarcasm:

I don't want another unproven coach, which I think most of us agree on. I really wish Q wasn't black listed, such a great coach, minus the "situation".

I still think Bruce B. could be a really good fit for this team. I know he's 70, but he's still pretty involved in the game, and has expressed interest in returning. (Not to mention, we have a 79 yr old running the country. world and another one just left at 82). :cool:
 
IIRC, McDavid started super slow ... Remember those threads asking if he was washed? So he really didn't have peak McD during that stretch.
I just looked and he had 8 pts in the first 5 games. Missed two games. Then 2 pts in 5 games. Then woodcroft was fired. So he was still a PPG player.
 
I just looked and he had 8 pts in the first 5 games. Missed two games. Then 2 pts in 5 games. Then woodcroft was fired. So he was still a PPG player.

10 in 10 games for a team built around the idea that McD is the best scorer in the league is a disaster.

They aren't a team that can ride the defense or lean on goaltending, or even depend on depth, to cover for their superstar playing like a mortal.
 
Cronin does have a way of speaking and presenting himself where he is effective at making his observations and approaches to coaching sound profound. People who communicate like that can be persuading at first.

For Cro, It just never translated to success either because it doesn’t work in reality, isn’t that good of an idea(s), or he doesn’t/can’t actually implement what he’s trying to do. I thought some stuff he’d say didn’t sound like a good idea but he said it in a way with that air of conviction he has.
 
I think it's pretty aggressive to judge someone's intelligence based on how they coached for 2ish seasons. Cronin didn't work for a number of reasons, but he seems generally nice, and there's no reason to believe he isn't smart.

To me, the disconnect between veterans and youth was the main ongoing issue. It has been referenced by former players, media, and Verbeek. I think Cronin thrived in youth hockey where the players were similar in age, goals, and needs. His message applied to most players, and the process was simpler. In the NHL, what works for the young players doesn't work for the vets. They don't need lectures about basics regularly because they are vets. That will rub people the wrong way over time.

Add on top of that the structure and style of play wasn't working because he's never been a NHL head coach before and clearly struggled to adapt quick enough in the NHL. His supporting coaching staff was either ineffective or inexperienced to help him overcome these challenges. In hindsight, hiring a veteran or former NHL head coach to be an assistant on the bench could have helped him learn faster.

Regardless, this guy just lost his job. Maybe we don't need to insult his intelligence because we disagree with lineup choices or PP usage.
 
I think it's pretty aggressive to judge someone's intelligence based on how they coached for 2ish seasons. Cronin didn't work for a number of reasons, but he seems generally nice, and there's no reason to believe he isn't smart.

To me, the disconnect between veterans and youth was the main ongoing issue. It has been referenced by former players, media, and Verbeek. I think Cronin thrived in youth hockey where the players were similar in age, goals, and needs. His message applied to most players, and the process was simpler. In the NHL, what works for the young players doesn't work for the vets. They don't need lectures about basics regularly because they are vets. That will rub people the wrong way over time.

Add on top of that the structure and style of play wasn't working because he's never been a NHL head coach before and clearly struggled to adapt quick enough in the NHL. His supporting coaching staff was either ineffective or inexperienced to help him overcome these challenges. In hindsight, hiring a veteran or former NHL head coach to be an assistant on the bench could have helped him learn faster.

Regardless, this guy just lost his job. Maybe we don't need to insult his intelligence because we disagree with lineup choices or PP usage.
I imagine this was the reasoning for adding Tim Army to the staff this season. But yeah, with a rookie head coach, you probably need to have a guy or two with head coaching experience as assistants. Doesn't even have to be somebody with a ton of success, just someone who's been around and been there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hey234
Watching that interview between numb nuts and Woodcroft…reallllly makes me a fan even more. Guy seems like he really has added knowledge and perspective to add to an already above average resume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuGBuG and Kalv
When has the 2nd time around with the same coach worked out? My impression is that it rarely turns out well in sports.
I'm not fully sold on the Boudreau idea, but how much would this realistically matter if there's been nearly a complete personnel turnover? Gibson would be the only guy left from his first stint, wouldn't he? (And that's with the obligatory offseason caveat of 'if Gibson is even a Duck next season.')
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gliff
I'm not sure BB is the answer, but the team would be more fun to watch. Guys would play a more offensive style game and I'm sure we could make the playoffs. We could do worse than 2-3 years of BB before we can him when all the best coaches might then want to come here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad