|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 19, 2003 20:50:24 GMT -5
Reading between the lines of Blanchard's article I got the definite subtext that Therrien, through Savard's well-timed "meddling", was set up for a fall. He didn't need to be set up for anything. He's not a good bench coach, he's not a good tactician, he's not a good communicator or teacher, and he's not poised. If you believe that anyone had to set Michel Therrien up, I think you're way off base. The last thing Savard probably wanted was to be forced to make a change in the middle of the season. Therrien gave him no choice.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 19, 2003 20:51:41 GMT -5
Reading between the lines of Blanchard's article I got the definite subtext that Therrien, through Savard's well-timed "meddling", was set up for a fall. I disagree, I think AS wanted to win just as badly as MT did - the problem is just that ultimately they weren't on the same page. You give a meat-and-potatoes coach like MT a soft, talent-based lineup and you get what we got this year - a team with no identity. I'm not going to say that it's MT's or AS's fault, my point is simply that all the mistakes that were made weren't MT screwing up on his own. They were the result of a mismatch between the coach and the GM.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 19, 2003 20:53:49 GMT -5
Before, we thought it was just us who recognized MT as way over his head. Suddenly after he's fired, everyone seems to be saying it. Why is this just coming out now? Savard couldn't have been that far out of the loop, could he? It all seems just too Machiavellian to me. It's easy to blast a coach who just got fired - you can be sure he won't go on a winning streak now. Those columnists who were reporting problems in the room before this week IMO gain some credibility, those who jump on the bandwagon after the press conference are just clueless. BTW: I'm pretty sure Mathias Brunet is among those who saw pieces of this coming - didn't predict a firing, but he knew things weren't rosy.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 19, 2003 20:57:02 GMT -5
Marc, Yes, first I assumed that the entire thing was a based on an interview with MT. When PTH cleared that up, saying it wasn't a record of an interview, he did say that one point was an MT quote, so he in fact did talk to the reporter, even if it was only one quote. My second post was based on that premise. If that's in fact true, then AS, GG and all the other GMs and owners will in fact wonder just what did MT tell the guy, "off the record". My point is that's all it will take for these guys to never trust MT again, ever. I sure know that I wouldn't. HW - the MT quote wasn't a fresh one, it was the reporter recollecting how MT reacted to Brisebois-bashing. I have no idea about the friendship between the reporter and MT, the reporter tends to have some pretty strange points of view.... even MT wasn't pushing hard for Bouillon this season as far as I know.... I think the reporter is just putting together some bits of the puzzle and then making a strong case by pushing things to the limit - kinda like we'd do on here. While I doubt MT will get a flood of job offers, I doubt it'll have much to do with his firing - or at least how he's dealt with it all to date. He hasn't even met the press yet, he does that tomorrow for the first time since his firing.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 19, 2003 21:02:30 GMT -5
By the way, Savard's "meddling" reportedly included the suggestion to put Bulis on the wing when he stalled at center last year, which is something Therrien couldn't figure out on his own. That "meddling" included going into the dressing room and backing up his coach when they stopped playing in November. Savard wasn't the one who sent Lindsay out to take that OT face-off against Carolina. And he wasn't the one who took the bench minor for yapping at Fraser earlier in that same game. He wasn't the one who screwed up his lineup card in Florida last year. He wasn't the one who wouldn't even welcome Czerkawski to the team. He wasn't the one who failed so utterly to address the team's 0 for 29 run on the powerplay that the players went public with the earth-shattering suggestion that they should work on it more in practice. It wasn't Savard who rotated players from the pressbox directly to the first line. And it wasn't Savard who attributed every loss by more than one goal to "not showing up", as though the team was otherwise perfectly well coached and prepared, which they certainly weren't.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 19, 2003 21:06:26 GMT -5
He didn't need to be set up for anything. He's not a good bench coach, he's not a good tactician, he's not a good communicator or teacher, and he's not poised. If you believe that anyone had to set Michel Therrien up, I think you're way off base. The last thing Savard probably wanted was to be forced to make a change in the middle of the season. Therrien gave him no choice. Do I believe that because Savard had confidence in Therrien he gave him a contract extension? No I don't. He was slowly increasing the doses of poison in Michel's Pepsi. Rewarding him with one hand while destroying his confidence and authority with the other by his interventions. We'll never really know whether or not Therrien would have amounted to a decent NHL coach, because Savard began sabotaging him from day one. Of course he gave the public appearance of solidarity with his coach. Privately he was sowing doubt in the players' minds and in Therrien's as well. André Savard is an evil genius. A Gwa agent in fact. Don't you read "The Paranoid Times"? Or trust Michel Blanchard?
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 19, 2003 21:12:28 GMT -5
I disagree, I think AS wanted to win just as badly as MT did - the problem is just that ultimately they weren't on the same page. You give a meat-and-potatoes coach like MT a soft, talent-based lineup and you get what we got this year - a team with no identity. I'm not going to say that it's MT's or AS's fault, my point is simply that all the mistakes that were made weren't MT screwing up on his own. They were the result of a mismatch between the coach and the GM. Couldn't agree more. The Flyers or Leafs would have been a better match for Therrien's style.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jan 19, 2003 21:40:00 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. The Flyers or Leafs would have been a better match for Therrien's style. Humm, Mr. Bozo. are you saying that Therrien would be SUCCESFUL with those teams? Are ya? One thing that I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Most reporters know NOTHING. When I heard Strachan last night and his version of events, when I read some articles from both the English and the French press, well nothing matches at all. Some guys are implying some sort of conspiracy, some sort of Master Plan that is even beyond reason. 1.Players do not have know what is going on behind the scenes, They tell reporters their side of things and that is the end of it. If a player does know something and opens his mouth to a reporter then the GM will fry his butt. 2. No caoch is going to spill the beans to a reporter. Whatever goes on behind close doors has to stay there. If he spout or tries to cross the GM then he becomes a Ted Nolan. You think that lesson is lost on the coaches? Even Bowman was let go when he demanded to run the Hab's and planted stories that the GM was not getting the right players. 3. Some reporters are insiders but they have to wartch what they say or the well will dry up instantly. If no one trust them then they are worthless for getting ANY story. If they leak something important like a coach firing then they are dead meat. Demers knew the firing was taking place and leaked it only a few hours before it was a fact. He is a Savard plant. Some internet poster knew about it way before that but he said nothing to anyone. Red Fisher use to be a huge insider to Pollock but even he respected what was leakable. If reporters want to stay in the loop then they watch what they say and when. 4. No GM worth two cents will tell a reporter what is going on. He will only feed certain people some information that suits his cause. Either planting rumours and trades that never happen and never will. That is normal for their work and does not imply any Master Plan. Just plain day to day information or misinformation. Right now the Bruins are working overtime “creating” a demand for Mclaren. I just got an e-mail that the Bruins are trading Mclaren for Bobby Orr. Look at the events and information in a chronological order. Read the information that is normally available. Use common sense. If you piece all that is available (and a tiny bit more) then you see that this was coming. It was only a matter of time. In the "History" post I wrote: All those factors had a role to play for the decision that was forming a few weeks ago. Remember, Rome was not built in a day and neither are coaching changes.Now we know that Red Fisher overheard the "discussion" between GG and Therrien in Vancouver. Something tells me they were not sharing apple pie recopies, that was probably an ultimatum. Therrien was making a mess of his team, GG was pissed, so pissed he flew to Vancouver. Savard comes back to a mess and that is the end. No conspiracies or Master Plans. Period
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 19, 2003 22:20:33 GMT -5
Humm, Mr. Bozo. are you saying that Therrien would be SUCCESFUL with those teams? Are ya?... Certainly not. What I am saying is that I agree with PTH that a hypothetical Quinn/Therrien or Clarke/Therrien relationship would be more conducive to Therrien's coaching style than the late Savard/Therrien marriage.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 20, 2003 17:17:40 GMT -5
Agree with JV and PTH on any set up. And I think that PTH makes a really good point on the mis-match between coach and GM. (probably because I've been saying the same thing ad naseum for 2 years) I don't think they're different because AS necessarily wants a soft team, rather that AS (outside of his temper) is anlytical and considered and, yes, does want a team built on speed and skill. MT's only angle appeared to be emotion and tough guys.
Right now the Ottawa model looks pretty good to me. Skill, speed, teamwork and the necessary toughness but not goons.
|
|