|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 12:12:48 GMT -5
There's been a fair bit on Twitter today, relating to this:
I have no idea who Peter Yannopoulos is or who his connections are. He said in an earlier tweet that Habs had met with Carbo for 3 hours. Could have been sharing a beer and chatting up old times.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 5, 2016 12:22:44 GMT -5
Carbonneau ...#TherrienLight
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 5, 2016 12:37:43 GMT -5
Carbonneau ...#TherrienLight Carbonneau = no system + bowling ... Nein danke ...
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 5, 2016 12:55:08 GMT -5
Interim coach maybe? IceCaps?
Or Management simply went to get the point of view of a coach that was there during another troubled season...
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 12:55:14 GMT -5
Yeah, he wouldn't be my choice either. His possession stats were even worse than Therrien's despite having a high PDO, high shooting pecentage and above average goaltending. I wouldn't be getting his advice either. I hope Berg's talking to retired GM's or successful hockey people, not guys who have failed.
I'm still puzzled by Carbo's performance as a coach. He's smart and good defensively. You'd think he'd have the exact basis for a good coach. If I recall, though, his communication skills were badly lacking.
|
|
|
Post by mikeg on Feb 5, 2016 14:25:30 GMT -5
Marinaro actually made a good point yesterday (I was stunned) ... that since Jacques Lemaire was contracted as a consultant to the Leafs, Therrien no longer had access to him as a source for advice. Something he allegedly did with frequency in past seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 5, 2016 14:40:07 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain the aversion to Guy Boucher. Successful in junior, successful in AHL, successful in Tampa with a pretty crap team outside Stamkos, a McGill grad!!, a francophone, worked in the organization previously, and is currently sitting at home watching the snow fall. Maybe now is an awkward time to make the move, but on paper isn't he the obvious choice?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 15:06:38 GMT -5
That's what I've been wondering ever since Tampa fired him, BH. Is he being blackballed for some reason? Why is he rarely even in the discussion for the Habs coach? He has an excellent resume'. His teams score. Stamkos had his best years with Boucher. (Maybe a side benefit for hiring him?). Yet its as if he has BO or halitosis.
|
|
|
Post by mikeg on Feb 5, 2016 15:07:27 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain the aversion to Guy Boucher. Successful in junior, successful in AHL, successful in Tampa with a pretty crap team outside Stamkos, a McGill grad!!, a francophone, worked in the organization previously, and is currently sitting at home watching the snow fall. Maybe now is an awkward time to make the move, but on paper isn't he the obvious choice? The knock against Boucher was that it was his way or the high way. He was allegedly abrasive and butt heads with players and management. Vets especially did not enjoy playing for him. He got plagued with no gooaltending, an injury ravaged team and the vets who hated playing for him. It's sad really because he had what was by all accounts a terrible group, playing reasonably well every night. One can only imagine how he would do with an elite goalie....
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 5, 2016 15:32:15 GMT -5
Well, that description fits a lot of coaches. Successful ones too. There has to be more to it than that, and I'm sure Boucher has learned a lot since then.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2016 15:44:50 GMT -5
All I can think of re Carbo is arms crossed behind the bench, shaking his head, with a stupid grin on his face. Great player, not so great coach.
I'd have no great qualm with Boucher being the next coach. My recent philosophical epiphany is that with no Stanley Cups on the bench, it's best to have some behind it. To that end, I'd prefer a scenario with the likes of Crawford, Robinson and Ducharme. Two coaches with Stanley Cup rings. One to coach our defense. One that knows the modern young player well, and can work with skilled players.
|
|
|
Post by mikeg on Feb 5, 2016 15:48:44 GMT -5
All I can think of re Carbo is arms crossed behind the bench, shaking his head, with a stupid grin on his face. Great player, not so great coach. I'd have no great qualm with Boucher being the next coach. My recent philosophical epiphany is that with no Stanley Cups on the bench, it's best to have some behind it. To that end, I'd prefer a scenario with the likes of Crawford, Robinson and Ducharme. Two coaches with Stanley Cup rings. One to coach our defense. One that knows the modern young player well, and can work with skilled players. All I can think of is this:
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2016 16:09:30 GMT -5
All I can think of re Carbo is arms crossed behind the bench, shaking his head, with a stupid grin on his face. Great player, not so great coach. I'd have no great qualm with Boucher being the next coach. My recent philosophical epiphany is that with no Stanley Cups on the bench, it's best to have some behind it. To that end, I'd prefer a scenario with the likes of Crawford, Robinson and Ducharme. Two coaches with Stanley Cup rings. One to coach our defense. One that knows the modern young player well, and can work with skilled players. All I can think of is this: LOL that too.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Feb 5, 2016 16:17:58 GMT -5
No more retreads please .....let's hope the Bruins make the playoffs or Julien wil return.
It won't happen but it looks like no Anglos will be considered
Still don't be shocked if MT Refurns .... For our sakes And the potential top pick let's hope not
HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 5, 2016 16:39:43 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain the aversion to Guy Boucher. Successful in junior, successful in AHL, successful in Tampa with a pretty crap team outside Stamkos, a McGill grad!!, a francophone, worked in the organization previously, and is currently sitting at home watching the snow fall. Maybe now is an awkward time to make the move, but on paper isn't he the obvious choice? Whereas Therrien seemingly is only successful with elite goaltending, Boucher is only successful with high scoring teams ... You think the Habs will score 260 goals? No thank you to Boucher.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2016 16:44:18 GMT -5
I think we can squash this one to some extent ... RDS's Luc Gelinas is reporting that Guy was in a room with 100 other people for a marketing event put on by Evenko. Yes, there were Habs 'senior mgt' in attendance, but they were there for the conference as well. It was in no way a cloak and dagger meeting between just Carbo and mgt behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Feb 5, 2016 17:36:40 GMT -5
WHY NOT CARBO? Yes, why not? Might as well recycle Houle and finish off the job. I'm ill......
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Feb 5, 2016 17:53:48 GMT -5
I think we can squash this one to some extent ... RDS's Luc Gelinas is reporting that Guy was in a room with 100 other people for a marketing event put on by Evenko. Yes, there were Habs 'senior mgt' in attendance, but they were there for the conference as well. It was in no way a cloak and dagger meeting between just Carbo and mgt behind closed doors. Thats right they had some event where a whole bunch of speakers were there. .. it is a few hundred a person to attend
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 5, 2016 18:09:07 GMT -5
I've heard Chris Nilan's name is making the rounds as a possible replacement.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 18:48:17 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain the aversion to Guy Boucher. Successful in junior, successful in AHL, successful in Tampa with a pretty crap team outside Stamkos, a McGill grad!!, a francophone, worked in the organization previously, and is currently sitting at home watching the snow fall. Maybe now is an awkward time to make the move, but on paper isn't he the obvious choice? The knock against Boucher was that it was his way or the high way. He was allegedly abrasive and butt heads with players and management. Vets especially did not enjoy playing for him. He got plagued with no gooaltending, an injury ravaged team and the vets who hated playing for him. It's sad really because he had what was by all accounts a terrible group, playing reasonably well every night. One can only imagine how he would do with an elite goalie.... Where did you hear that, mikeg? Boucher has a degree in psychology and was reputed to be a good communicator. That seems contrary to a "my way or the highway" mentality. People can be labelled with anything if someone chooses to keep calling them that. Soon, it becomes fact rather than someone's rumours. Like Boucher being labelled a trap coach when all his teams were good scoring teams. The trap was only used when his team was giving up goals like no one's business. PS. He was also an assistant coach with the U-18 Canadian Juniours in 2006/07//08 and won a gold medal. He was an assistant with the 2009 World Juniour team and helped win gold in that one as well. I recall that he was in charge of the Power Play and used an unusual formation, putting PK in a central spot just above where a forward would normally be, between the faceoff circles, but a bit closer to the blue line. It threw off the usual zone positioning of the defending team. Creativity. That's rare in Montreal. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he won the Spengler Cup this year with a makeshift Canadian team. Pretty damn good if you ask me. But why would we want a smart, young winner behind the bench?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 20:32:19 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain the aversion to Guy Boucher. Successful in junior, successful in AHL, successful in Tampa with a pretty crap team outside Stamkos, a McGill grad!!, a francophone, worked in the organization previously, and is currently sitting at home watching the snow fall. Maybe now is an awkward time to make the move, but on paper isn't he the obvious choice? Whereas Therrien seemingly is only successful with elite goaltending, Boucher is only successful with high scoring teams ... You think the Habs will score 260 goals? No thank you to Boucher. I think you have the cause and effect reversed.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 5, 2016 22:13:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think I do ...
He coached three years in the NHL ... Twice missing the playoffs
His team's gave up over 240 goals. That's not all on the goalie, that's on systems too. He reverted to a trap cause his other system wasn't working and his trap, the easiest system to coach mind you, never worked either.
The year he went to the Finals. He had players that scored at will, a Hart trophy calibre forward, a Rocket Richard calibre forward, ...that's what hid his warts, you may say it was his system or coaching that got them into positions to score, ...to which I'd reply, two straight years out of the playoffs after that season. Boucher the great communicator couldn't repeat that rookie year.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 5, 2016 22:18:20 GMT -5
The knock against Boucher was that it was his way or the high way. He was allegedly abrasive and butt heads with players and management. Vets especially did not enjoy playing for him. He got plagued with no gooaltending, an injury ravaged team and the vets who hated playing for him. It's sad really because he had what was by all accounts a terrible group, playing reasonably well every night. One can only imagine how he would do with an elite goalie.... Where did you hear that, mikeg? Boucher has a degree in psychology and was reputed to be a good communicator. That seems contrary to a "my way or the highway" mentality. People can be labelled with anything if someone chooses to keep calling them that. Soon, it becomes fact rather than someone's rumours. Like Boucher being labelled a trap coach when all his teams were good scoring teams. The trap was only used when his team was giving up goals like no one's business. PS. He was also an assistant coach with the U-18 Canadian Juniours in 2006/07//08 and won a gold medal. He was an assistant with the 2009 World Juniour team and helped win gold in that one as well. I recall that he was in charge of the Power Play and used an unusual formation, putting PK in a central spot just above where a forward would normally be, between the faceoff circles, but a bit closer to the blue line. It threw off the usual zone positioning of the defending team. Creativity. That's rare in Montreal. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he won the Spengler Cup this year with a makeshift Canadian team. Pretty damn good if you ask me. But why would we want a smart, young winner behind the bench? I don't think Boucher has a degree in psychology. He studied sports psychology, but I don't think he has a degree in it. I'll have to fact check that. He does have a degree in history, and in architectural engineering, if I'm not mistaken. EDIT: He has three degrees .... History and Biosystems Engineering. He also holds a master's degree in sports psychology. Strange the Hamilton Bulldog site says he has two degrees and doesn't says it is a masters degree, (which would be three degrees) just a masters.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 22:31:27 GMT -5
Where did you hear that, mikeg? Boucher has a degree in psychology and was reputed to be a good communicator. That seems contrary to a "my way or the highway" mentality. People can be labelled with anything if someone chooses to keep calling them that. Soon, it becomes fact rather than someone's rumours. Like Boucher being labelled a trap coach when all his teams were good scoring teams. The trap was only used when his team was giving up goals like no one's business. PS. He was also an assistant coach with the U-18 Canadian Juniours in 2006/07//08 and won a gold medal. He was an assistant with the 2009 World Juniour team and helped win gold in that one as well. I recall that he was in charge of the Power Play and used an unusual formation, putting PK in a central spot just above where a forward would normally be, between the faceoff circles, but a bit closer to the blue line. It threw off the usual zone positioning of the defending team. Creativity. That's rare in Montreal. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he won the Spengler Cup this year with a makeshift Canadian team. Pretty damn good if you ask me. But why would we want a smart, young winner behind the bench? I don't think Boucher has a degree in psychology. He studied sports psychology, but I don't think he has a degree in it. I'll have to fact check that. He does have a degree in history, and in architectural engineering, if I'm not mistaken. EDIT: He has three degrees .... History and Biosystems Engineering. He also holds a master's degree in sports psychology. Strange the Hamilton Bulldog site says he has two degrees and doesn't says it is a masters degree, (which would be three degrees) just a masters. My bad, two different degrees and studies in sports psychology. You read Wikopedia as well. Would you say he's well educated? A university degree is basically to teach you to think as well as learning a specific area.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 5, 2016 22:34:30 GMT -5
I don't think Boucher has a degree in psychology. He studied sports psychology, but I don't think he has a degree in it. I'll have to fact check that. He does have a degree in history, and in architectural engineering, if I'm not mistaken. EDIT: He has three degrees .... History and Biosystems Engineering. He also holds a master's degree in sports psychology. Strange the Hamilton Bulldog site says he has two degrees and doesn't says it is a masters degree, (which would be three degrees) just a masters. My bad, two different degrees and studies in sports psychology. You read Wikopedia as well. Would you say he's well educated? A university degree is basically to teach you to think as well as learning a specific area. No, you were right. I edited my post
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2016 22:45:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think I do ... He coached three years in the NHL ... Twice missing the playoffs His team's gave up over 240 goals. That's not all on the goalie, that's on systems too. He reverted to a trap cause his other system wasn't working and his trap, the easiest system to coach mind you, never worked either. The year he went to the Finals. He had players that scored at will, a Hart trophy calibre forward, a Rocket Richard calibre forward, ...that's what hid his warts, you may say it was his system or coaching that got them into positions to score, ...to which I'd reply, two straight years out of the playoffs after that season. Boucher the great communicator couldn't repeat that rookie year. You say potayto and I say potahto. You say he inherited the scoring and I say he contributed to it. His 2011/12 Lightning missed the playoffs after going to the 3rd round the year before. His defence consisted of MA Bergeron , a 20 year old Victor Hedman , a 32 year old Eric Brewer on his last legs , Keith Aulie , Matt Gilroy , Brett Clark , Bruno Gervais and Brendan Mikkelson . I'd go to war with those guys. C'mon Skilly. That's a putrid defense. Boucher is supposed to generate offense with those guys? They still put up 2.83 goals per game, which is pretty darn good.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 6, 2016 11:01:40 GMT -5
Marinaro actually made a good point yesterday (I was stunned) ... that since Jacques Lemaire was contracted as a consultant to the Leafs, Therrien no longer had access to him as a source for advice. Something he allegedly did with frequency in past seasons. This is very interesting and it may explain a few things, for sure ... wish I had been in the car to hear that one, MikeG ... if true, this is a VERY interesting revelation ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Feb 6, 2016 11:21:16 GMT -5
Marinaro actually made a good point yesterday (I was stunned) ... that since Jacques Lemaire was contracted as a consultant to the Leafs, Therrien no longer had access to him as a source for advice. Something he allegedly did with frequency in past seasons. This is very interesting and it may explain a few things, for sure ... wish I had been in the car to hear that one, MikeG ... if true, this is a VERY interesting revelation ... Cheers. Makes sense MT is a Lemaire disciple and he would go to him for advice
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 6, 2016 11:36:02 GMT -5
This is very interesting and it may explain a few things, for sure ... wish I had been in the car to hear that one, MikeG ... if true, this is a VERY interesting revelation ... Cheers. Makes sense MT is a Lemaire disciple and he would go to him for advice Right on ... as an aside, take it easy coming into K-town today ... the snow started coming down ... light but steady ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 6, 2016 12:20:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think I do ... He coached three years in the NHL ... Twice missing the playoffs His team's gave up over 240 goals. That's not all on the goalie, that's on systems too. He reverted to a trap cause his other system wasn't working and his trap, the easiest system to coach mind you, never worked either. The year he went to the Finals. He had players that scored at will, a Hart trophy calibre forward, a Rocket Richard calibre forward, ...that's what hid his warts, you may say it was his system or coaching that got them into positions to score, ...to which I'd reply, two straight years out of the playoffs after that season. Boucher the great communicator couldn't repeat that rookie year. You say potayto and I say potahto. You say he inherited the scoring and I say he contributed to it. His 2011/12 Lightning missed the playoffs after going to the 3rd round the year before. His defence consisted of MA Bergeron , a 20 year old Victor Hedman , a 32 year old Eric Brewer on his last legs , Keith Aulie , Matt Gilroy , Brett Clark , Bruno Gervais and Brendan Mikkelson . I'd go to war with those guys. C'mon Skilly. That's a putrid defense. Boucher is supposed to generate offense with those guys? They still put up 2.83 goals per game, which is pretty darn good. And the following year they added Matt Carle , led their defense in points and Sami Salo , led their defense in plus/minus and still missed the playoffs. You've heard me more than once say I don't buy into the philosophy that defense creates offense. Offensive players create offensive. What got Boucher fired was he couldn't figure out how to keep the puck out of their own net. Going to far as to rely on the trap with one of the best offensive teams in the league. Where you say PK Subban and Brendan Gallagher would have been the same player no matter who the coach was , I'll use the same arguement with Steven Stamkos and Martin St. Louis. Boucher didn't have to worry about the offense in Tampa, and he couldn't coach defense. In Montreal, we need offense, ...heck we now even need defense. I just don't see Boucher as the type of coach they need. I'm willing to be proved wrong. I won't be upset if he does get the job. But he won't have the offense behind him in Montreal, and Carey Price will hide a lot of his warts too.
|
|