hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,560
- 944
Todd Mclellan needs go
- Thread starter mjburns
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Hatrick Marleau
Just Win The Game
- May 16, 2012
- 4,609
- 217
Also, we need players willing to try. This was a classic Shark game tonight. Play like crap for 2 periods---Dominate the 3rd----Get false hope.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
No, I mean play an offensive system. We have the personnel to play well in an offensive system.
They don't need safe hockey. McLellan's post-game is a perfect picture of what is wrong with the coaching side of things. They believe that they can't benefit from a track-meet style hockey game. They can if they use their talent properly. But even with that belief, it trickles into their puck play because they're so boxed in and bottled up as a team. They don't stretch the ice. They don't spread out at all especially on the breakout. They don't need four guys on the same side of the ice on a breakout.
Alwalys
Phu m.
- May 19, 2010
- 25,894
- 6,140
Safe hockey is the system they are playing right now. It's what's keeping Murray in the lineup and killing the breakout. Robinson's running the defense.
lsx
Registered User
Yep - that was utterly telling when he said that. Lack of foot speed by some players doesn't mean you need to play a slow game across the board.
Alwalys
Phu m.
- May 19, 2010
- 25,894
- 6,140
They dominated most of the 1st period as well. Don't let that one bad mistake color your memory. The Ducks were due to push back in the 2nd and they just committed several really bad errors.
hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,560
- 944
Beudreau is a better coach for this team, perfect really. I said so when he got fired last year. Should have fired Tmac right then and hired him. DW boned it up again though.
LeeIFBB
Crossing the Rubicon
This team is not suited to play any type of track meet, trade chances, system b/c they dont have the team speed. Hence the reason they play a D first, try to grind it out along the boards, collapse to the house, old Devils and LR sytle....
blame DW for going old and slow as the league gets younger and faster...but he should have fired Toddr a while ago as they arent playing for him or each other and Toddr is waiving the white flag...it is like watching the Titanic in super slow mo
blame DW for going old and slow as the league gets younger and faster...but he should have fired Toddr a while ago as they arent playing for him or each other and Toddr is waiving the white flag...it is like watching the Titanic in super slow mo
Trojan35
Registered User
- Jan 11, 2007
- 1,511
- 0
Boudreau looks like someone who's learned from his mistakes. His stock was at an all-time low after the unflattering HBO contrast vs Bylsma, changing his style to defensive hockey, and the great8 basically helping get him fired. People ignored his amazing record over the last few years and chalked it up to his talented roster (Backstrom, Ovechkin, Semin, Green, etc). How's that working out without him?
Would have loved to ditch TM for BB. The craziest part? Some other team might be saying the same thing about McLellan. His record over the last few years is amazing. People say he's not performing to the talent of JT/PM/Boyle. Some other team might be really itching for TM right now.
Can we put TM on the trading block?
Trojan35
Registered User
- Jan 11, 2007
- 1,511
- 0
He got two things:
1) rid of Lukovich which had negative value
2) Rob Blake via FA
He traded $5M in Ehrhoff/Lukowich for $5m in Rob Blake. And if you take that year's team and replace Blake with Error and scratch Luko, its a much worse team.
hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,560
- 944
Sure, but none of that precludes a better return. Somewhere along the line DW screwed up and showed his cards because that is the only explanation for cap dumping a good offensive defensemen who a short time later got a HUGE contract in free agency.
Ehrhoff should have got at least a 1st round pick, DW got screwed, we'll never know how or why most likely.
Tkachuk4MVP
32 Years of Fail
Lukowich was a solid partner for Boyle (that D group overall is arguably the best we've ever had), so I disagree that he had negative value. More to the point, his value was certainly not low enough to justify that god-awful return.
Nolan11
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2013
- 3,236
- 334
As I recall the timing, Blake was signed a while before DW announce he was trading Error for a bag of pucks. Basically, he announced to the world we now had cap troubles, killing his leverage.
But even still, Error had much more value than he got. I personally think error's lack of accuracy in his shot had DW convinced he was more hype than real. Similar to McGinn, DW did not see the growth in the kid that year. Error had pushed past a plateau at the end of the last season with us, as McGinn did his last season with us, and was poised for better performance.
DW was working off of old data, and it cost us. (Same problem when he signs aging vets, old data).
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 16,739
- 6,197
No.
This is a matter of fact. Plenty of teams were calling for Ehrhoff. They wanted him. It was when DW stipulated that no salary could come back, and that Luko had to go with him, that team's started hanging up the phone.
NHL fans need to dissuade themselves of this idea of "killing leverage". Like when Chicago had cap issues...they were trading valuable players; desireable players. In the market, team's are going to ignore the fact that "he has to take less because of cap issues", because another team will always be willing to ignore it. You would need all teams to mutually hold that against him.
Logically, it makes sense. Why would DW move Ehrhoff to a conference rival unless he had no other option?
Had no option really means put himself in a corner. He had other options but refused to explore them. Like not re-signing Huskins or waiving Lukowich or just trading Ehrhoff for value. There's no excusing that pathetic trade.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 67,403
- 13,244
one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,495
- 8,799
Bingo. He had room to keep error and chose to take a different path, the issue was he painted himself in a corner where he needed a dump and blew it.
Ninja Hertl
formerly sharkohol
I wonder...
Even though they are playing 'safe hockey' they still turn the puck over a ridiculous amount. Would playing a cherry picking run and gun game really increase the amount of turnovers that much? If you already suck at holding onto the puck, might as well take some risks with it.
Even though they are playing 'safe hockey' they still turn the puck over a ridiculous amount. Would playing a cherry picking run and gun game really increase the amount of turnovers that much? If you already suck at holding onto the puck, might as well take some risks with it.
TealTownUSA
Registered User
i'd love for them to take risks and cherry pick, but you need all 5 guys there to clear the puck which they suck at doing.
New here but reader for a long time.
I think Todd needs to go, based on the Ducks game last night alone. The first period the sharks looked good, they were aggressive on the forecheck and the ducks really couldn't break out. It was one of the best forechecking periods i've seen from the sharks in a long time. The second period however it was completely different, there was no forecheck and it would take either the ducks one stretch pass to clear the zone or a quick pass to the winger who then passed it weak side and out they went. There was no aggressiveness at all.
I dont think i saw the sharks pin the ducks in the offensive zone once in the second period which should be easy during the second cause of the short change into the offensive zone. Its much easier to get fresh guys into the zone. The philosophy that the team is playing right now is not working and needs to be changed soon. Once they got scored on there was no sense of urgency. Yes they almost came back but they weren't pushing hard at all.
I think Todd needs to go, based on the Ducks game last night alone. The first period the sharks looked good, they were aggressive on the forecheck and the ducks really couldn't break out. It was one of the best forechecking periods i've seen from the sharks in a long time. The second period however it was completely different, there was no forecheck and it would take either the ducks one stretch pass to clear the zone or a quick pass to the winger who then passed it weak side and out they went. There was no aggressiveness at all.
I dont think i saw the sharks pin the ducks in the offensive zone once in the second period which should be easy during the second cause of the short change into the offensive zone. Its much easier to get fresh guys into the zone. The philosophy that the team is playing right now is not working and needs to be changed soon. Once they got scored on there was no sense of urgency. Yes they almost came back but they weren't pushing hard at all.
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
They turn it over because they hold onto the puck way too long, they try and make plays standing still. A lot of their problems could be fixed if they would look to skate with the puck opposed to throwing it up the boards blindly or hail mary stretch passes.
