Management Travis Green [Head Coach]

[aragorn]

Every coach has risk.

Boudreau had over 1000 games and 600 career wins with one of the best w% all time, but he crapped the bed in Vancouver,

Meanwhile, Tochett came in with a virtually no successful track record and has Vancouver winning

The reality is evaluating a coach properly requires more than just looking at the results their former teams got.

Some of the top coaches in the league last year had limited experience when hired by their teams, Montgomery, Tochett, Bednar, Cooper, Brindamour. These guys weren't hired because they had a long track record, they were hired because they showed they have the right skill set and plan to be successful. That's not something you can evaluate on hockey DB.

Matching the right coach with the right team is key, which is not easy & is what takes the most time to find the right fit. Especially in a copy cat league where almost every team is doing the same thing & playing basically the same way. It's the teams that play with the most structure, the right way, defensively responsible & have a few very good key players that make the difference. And in this market finding the right coach who will come here is also a challenge.

 

[Beech]

Still not sure if you wanted him or not, after your posts, first sounded like you did, now sounds like you don’t.
It’s hard to tell with you’re off topic rants.

it was not a question of wanting him or not.

it was in reference to, quality coaches out there. The hockey world has been buzzing with coaching changes the last 2 years And the #1 candidate by a country mile, is clearing charred remains of himself.

the post was to highlight just how successful he was. How Berube/Green/MOUSE/twidle-de/twidle-dumb, would all be second fiddles.

I had never took time to look at his body of work. I was surprised. This is Scotty Bowman territory.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Evason seems like a pretty "safe" choice. He brings stability and know sort of know what you're getting. Was hoping for him.

 

[Micklebot]

it was not a question of wanting him or not.

it was in reference to, quality coaches out there. The hockey world has been buzzing with coaching changes the last 2 years And the #1 candidate by a country mile, is clearing charred remains of himself.

the post was to highlight just how successful he was. How Berube/Green/MOUSE/twidle-de/twidle-dumb, would all be second fiddles.

I had never took time to look at his body of work. I was surprised. This is Scotty Bowman territory.

It's difficult to separate a coaches impact from a team

Once a coach gets a good reputation, they can almost pick their landing spot.

Is Quenneville a all time great coach, or did he find himself in the right place at the right time. StL had hall of famer D in McInnes and Pronger, went to Colorado post Roy where he didn't accomplish much despite Sakic, before landing in Chi right on time for Toews, Kane, Keith et al. Did he create the dynasty in Chi, or did the dynasty create him?

There's something to be said for not having your message go stale, I'll gladly give credit to him for not seeing a drop off, but he never once coached a bad roster. Put him in SJ and their still a terrible team.

 

[senswon]

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I don't feel excited for next year

Maybe just start a thread.

 

[Beech]

It's difficult to separate a coaches impact from a team

Once a coach gets a good reputation, they can almost pick their landing spot.

Is Quenneville a all time great coach, or did he find himself in the right place at the right time. StL had hall of famer D in McInnes and Pronger, went to Colorado post Roy where he didn't accomplish much despite Sakic, before landing in Chi right on time for Toews, Kane, Keith et al. Did he create the dynasty in Chi, or did the dynasty create him?

There's something to be said for not having your message go stale, I'll gladly give credit to him for not seeing a drop off, but he never once coached a bad roster. Put him in SJ and their still a terrible team.

so much of what you say is true, but at the same time, you must also give credit to repeated success, even if it is from an advantaged position.

4 stops, 4 very good results. Few coaches can match the moving around, the longevity and the success!

Crawford came into a wonderful situation in Colorado, led to an Olympic HC role. Nothing afterwards. Hartley.. the same. Even our own Jacques M. had incredible ups and downs. Pat Quinn and others. Longevity, but ups and down.

there are few coaches out there that have moved as often, lasted as long and yet avoided failure.

I think of Bill Parcels. I think of Phil Jackson, of Pat Riley. Of Tony LaRussa. There may be one or two others that have moved, lasted and succeeded. (Joe Torre, Nick Sabin, Pete Carrol).

Scandal aside, his resume is super elite. But the scandal is like a can of paint dumped on a mural.

 

[Golden_Jet]

so much of what you say is true, but at the same time, you must also give credit to repeated success, even if it is from an advantaged position.

4 stops, 4 very good results. Few coaches can match the moving around, the longevity and the success!

Crawford came into a wonderful situation in Colorado, led to an Olympic HC role. Nothing afterwards. Hartley.. the same. Even our own Jacques M. had incredible ups and downs. Pat Quinn and others. Longevity, but ups and down.

there are few coaches out there that have moved as often, lasted as long and yet avoided failure.

I think of Bill Parcels. I think of Phil Jackson, of Pat Riley. Of Tony LaRussa. There may be one or two others that have moved, lasted and succeeded. (Joe Torre, Nick Sabin, Pete Carrol).

Scandal aside, his resume is super elite. But the scandal is like a can of paint dumped on a mural.

So who did you want them?

 

[Loach]

Yes but thats a very rare t hing to happen at some point the Sens need to hire a coach and have him implement a system that works for years

I don't want a coach that's a MAYBE we dont need that

We need a sure thing someone to light a fire under these players ass

This is not Travis Green

You're like a little kid who won't eat peas. Why don't you like peas Little Sensfan4lifee? Because they're Greene!

 

[Beech]

So who did you want them?

No idea. I am explaining Joe Q. And relating to present day coaches.

It is unusual to see this. Even Bill B. in New England was/is different. He was a product of Brady. Once Brady left, he got exposed.

Riley moved upstairs
Phil Jackson is banging the Laker's owner and has made oodles of cash and aged
LaRussa aged
Bowman aged
Bill Parcel aged
Joe Torre aged
Pete Carrol aged
Nick Sabin aged
Sparky Anderson aged

as of now, Joe Q is the only "5 star coach" whose career ended due to scandal/issues. You can make some argument for Paul Brown, but his resumé is the Browns only and he left coaching to pursue ownership of the expansion Bengals.

Lombardi died of cancer before he can cement his legacy in Washington and any stop thereafter.

Tom Landry never left Texas and aged
Red Auerbach went upstairs and never left Boston
Don Shula had Baltimore and then 30 years in Miami and then aged.

it pretty much leaves Joe Q.. unemployed 5 star coach.

As for the Sens, they reached for one of 5-6 candidates that are the same. Vanilla, Chocolate, strawberry, butterscotch. Different ice-cream. But still ice-cream.

we were too busy looking at Babbcok as the super coach 2004-2018.. we missed Joe Q.

 

[sensfan4lifee]

You're like a little kid who won't eat peas. Why don't you like peas Little Sensfan4lifee? Because they're Greene!

No because I think Travis Greene is a poor choice of coach for this team and what it needs, we needed an experienced bench boss who can guide us, not another "WHAT IF". Greene will fail this team as a coach and I will be right, ask Vancouver fans.

 

[bert]

No because I think Travis Greene is a poor choice of coach for this team and what it needs, we needed an experienced bench boss who can guide us, not another "WHAT IF". Greene will fail this team as a coach and I will be right, ask Vancouver fans.

8th post and still haven't used one tangible example other than one record with one team that had unstable ownership a terrible GM and a horrible roster. No actual example or fact. Plenty of posters have provided context.... But you haven't answered.

 

[GCK]

No because I think Travis Greene is a poor choice of coach for this team and what it needs, we needed an experienced bench boss who can guide us, not another "WHAT IF". Greene will fail this team as a coach and I will be right, ask Vancouver fans.

Which coach would have kept you from complaining.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Every coach has risk.

Boudreau had over 1000 games and 600 career wins with one of the best w% all time, but he crapped the bed in Vancouver,

Meanwhile, Tochett came in with a virtually no successful track record and has Vancouver winning

The reality is evaluating a coach properly requires more than just looking at the results their former teams got.

Some of the top coaches in the league last year had limited experience when hired by their teams, Montgomery, Tochett, Bednar, Cooper, Brindamour. These guys weren't hired because they had a long track record, they were hired because they showed they have the right skill set and plan to be successful. That's not something you can evaluate on hockey DB.

Well WVERYTHING has risk. It’s about mitigating the risk.

I don’t think hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record was mitigating the risk to the best of our abilities, of having poor coaching this year.

The risk is having poor coaching.

The control on that risk shouldn’t be “hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record”.

 

[Micklebot]

Well WVERYTHING has risk. It’s about mitigating the risk.

I don’t think hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record was mitigating the risk to the best of our abilities, of having poor coaching this year.

The risk is having poor coaching.

The control on that risk shouldn’t be “hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record”.

So here's the problem.

A teams record has less to do with the quality of the coach, and far more to do with the quality of the roster.

You mitigate the risk of poor coaching be evaluating the actual coaching, not by looking at Hockey Db.

Now, if the team was hiring a coach with absolutely no information about the coach other than Hockey db, sure, you aren't mitigating the risk by hiring a guy with a poor record, but the team has more information than that available.

You don't mitigate risk by basing your hiring decisions on hockey DB.

 

[sensfan4lifee]

So here's the problem.

A teams record has less to do with the quality of the coach, and far more to do with the quality of the roster.

You mitigate the risk of poor coaching be evaluating the actual coaching, not by looking at Hockey Db.

Now, if the team was hiring a coach with absolutely no information about the coach other than Hockey db, sure, you aren't mitigating the risk by hiring a guy with a poor record, but the team has more information than that available.

You don't mitigate risk by basing your hiring decisions on hockey DB.

No but you should be making decisions that give your team the best chance to win, I would rather have proven coach with a track record of consistent winning to teach the team, than a "WHAT IF" in Travis Greene, and also you're wrong the right coach can have a huge impact on how a team performs. The Sens need to instill a culture in that room, they need something anything, Greene is not the right choice for what this team needs. And no I'm not complaining? Like how many f***ing poor coaches do we need to sit through? Sorry but the Dorian era still pisses me off, and as a fan of t his team since 93/94 I cheer when they win, support them when they suck, but you're damn right I'm going to complain when they make shitty decisions, especially since as of late this franchise has made so many of them.

 

[Micklebot]

No but you should be making decisions that give your team the best chance to win, I would rather have proven coach with a track record of consistent winning to teach the team, than a "WHAT IF" in Travis Greene, and also you're wrong the right coach can have a huge impact on how a team performs. The Sens need to instill a culture in that room, they need something anything, Greene is not the right choice for what this team needs. And no I'm not complaining? Like how many f***ing poor coaches do we need to sit through? Sorry but the Dorian era still pisses me off, and as a fan of t his team since 93/94 I cheer when they win, support them when they suck, but you're damn right I'm going to complain when they make shitty decisions, especially since as of late this franchise has made so many of them.

I'd rather the hiring staff evaluate the skill sets and strengths/weaknesses of the options and make the choice they feel best meets their goals. I would hope (and am pretty confident that) they dig deeper than hockey DB. The fact that you don't understand the hire stems from you not being privy to their evaluations of the options, not that they didn't evaluate the options a make what they felt was the best option.

 

[OD99]

No but you should be making decisions that give your team the best chance to win, I would rather have proven coach with a track record of consistent winning to teach the team, than a "WHAT IF" in Travis Greene, and also you're wrong the right coach can have a huge impact on how a team performs. The Sens need to instill a culture in that room, they need something anything, Greene is not the right choice for what this team needs. And no I'm not complaining? Like how many f***ing poor coaches do we need to sit through? Sorry but the Dorian era still pisses me off, and as a fan of t his team since 93/94 I cheer when they win, support them when they suck, but you're damn right I'm going to complain when they make shitty decisions, especially since as of late this franchise has made so many of them.

I will try too. Who would you have targeted for HC? Did you want JM to remain at the helm?

The team seemed like they had a proper process and didn't go looking for bottom of the barrel types. He has been a head coach, and most importantly, the entire staff has lots of experience. When I look at the collective, I think it is a massive upgrade over what we had in place for many years.

No sure things, but if he instills an NHL system and holds players accountable we are much further ahead we have been.

Add in better slotting of players, a bit more experience and vastly improved goaltending then projecting a significant bump in play seems reasonable.

 

[SpezDispenser]

No but you should be making decisions that give your team the best chance to win, I would rather have proven coach with a track record of consistent winning to teach the team, than a "WHAT IF" in Travis Greene, and also you're wrong the right coach can have a huge impact on how a team performs. The Sens need to instill a culture in that room, they need something anything, Greene is not the right choice for what this team needs. And no I'm not complaining? Like how many f***ing poor coaches do we need to sit through? Sorry but the Dorian era still pisses me off, and as a fan of t his team since 93/94 I cheer when they win, support them when they suck, but you're damn right I'm going to complain when they make shitty decisions, especially since as of late this franchise has made so many of them.

What is the single worst decision your team ever made?

Be it the wrong decision at the draft or a UFA signing or whatever it is. What is the one thing that was worse than anything they ever done? As a Leaf fan the Kessel trade is up there, but in the end it wasn’t that bad. Trading Rask is probably up there too. But I think the worst had to be...

forums.hfboards.com

Check out post #20 for how little fans know about coaching.

I realize Green isn't the most popular opinion, but how much of that is because he had a lame duck team and how much of it is his system etc? No offence, but you can't even explain WHY he's a bad choice, just that he had bad numbers in Vancouver.

 

[aragorn]

I'd rather the hiring staff evaluate the skill sets and strengths/weaknesses of the options and make the choice they feel best meets their goals. I would hope (and am pretty confident that) they dig deeper than hockey DB. The fact that you don't understand the hire stems from you not being privy to their evaluations of the options, not that they didn't evaluate the options a make what they felt was the best option.

Hiring the coach is similar to drafting, when people don't see or understand the rational & what goes on behind the scenes & all that goes into making the pick or the hiring of the coach they get frustrated when they think there are better people available. Some also fail to realize that not all coaches or players want to come here & the better they are (or more sought after) the more power they have to determine their own destinations. And coaches like players want to go with teams that have a better chance of winning a cup sooner rather than later.

People see how the prospects are ranked on internet sites & when a team goes off the board they lose it. Clearly the team has seen something in the prospect they like & want for their team & if it works out they are genious & when it doesn't they are the worse scouting staff in the league. Tyler Boucher hasn't yet worked out because of injuries, not because of where he was picked in the draft & yet the scouting department is blamed because the guy can't stay healthy.

Green hasn't had a great record in the NHL yet, but there could be all kinds of reasons for it. Sometimes it's just a matter of finding the right coach & the right situation with the right team that respond well to his systems. Some coaches get lucky & land with a team with a great roster that just need a different voice in the room, other teams have more challenges to overcome. It will be interesting to see whether Green is the right pick for this roster or not. JM & Alfie were brought in to calm the waters & the fan base with a guy who was known but they were not long term solutions. Hopefully, Green has better luck.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I would rather have proven coach with a track record of consistent winning to teach the team,

Who’s that guy you would have picked/wanted, I don’t believe you mentioned that last time.

The Sens need to instill a culture in that room, they need something anything, Greene is not the right choice for what this team needs.

Why can’t Greene install that, from all the interviews/podcasts I think he might be a good fit. I also don’t think we’ll know the answer for a year.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Isn’t his name Green?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Isn’t his name Green?

Ya I think I got sucked in, by responding to a wrong with a wrong.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

So here's the problem.

A teams record has less to do with the quality of the coach, and far more to do with the quality of the roster.

You mitigate the risk of poor coaching be evaluating the actual coaching, not by looking at Hockey Db.

Now, if the team was hiring a coach with absolutely no information about the coach other than Hockey db, sure, you aren't mitigating the risk by hiring a guy with a poor record, but the team has more information than that available.

You don't mitigate risk by basing your hiring decisions on hockey DB.

yeah again. Can say that about anything. Stats are stats for a reason. Super successful coaches are usually deemed so because of their success which is a direct translation of their stats.

I hav choice but to give green a chance. But he’s not seen as an elite coach for a reason. And those reasons are in the numbers.

 

[BigRig4]

It’s interesting in Staois’ interview today he brought up Sean Tierney (analytics guy) when discussing the decision to hire Green. Wonder what data they have to make them high on him.