Here's a hint of where I'll start: since 2007-2008 (Claude's first year) until today - the Bruins are 6th in the NHL in goals for.
No, really.
No, really.
And with 2 of top 6 defensemen out, the margin of error for covering up for the defensive shortcomings of Vatrano and Spooner has disappeared.Mediocre teams are inconsistent. It's kind of their nature. And that is the level of overall talent they have, especially with Bergeron not producing as he normally does.
He made changes when the people above him demanded it. I don't see that as being flexible, more trying to keep his job. I also think he's not a good offensive coach because the power play sucked for the first half of his tenure until the people above him also demanded changes. His best young offensive players have been traded, mostly in bad trades, and then rumors spread about how unhappy they were playing for him. I'm kind of tired of that crap, especially when the media and fan-base always side against the talented players I'd actually want to watch play and with the coach whose system bores me. I'm not saying all young players, just the really talented offensive ones. And that seems like a problem to me, because guys like that are the most difficult to get.I don't see it that Claude isn't flexible or adaptable. He's consistently made system changes on both offense and D. The biggest example is that they were almost exclusively a dump and chase team during the 1st half of his tenure (which drove everyone nuts). They now look to enter the zone moving the puck with speed. The power play has seen a number of iterations, most of which were adapted to the players he had. The young player is a fallacy that has been debated over and over. He's a damn good coach in all phases.
Brad Marchand. Patrice Bergeron. Marc Savard. David Krejci. David Pastrnak. All really talented offensively. All seem to do pretty well playing for Claude.He made changes when the people above him demanded it. I don't see that as being flexible, more trying to keep his job. I also think he's not a good offensive coach because the power play sucked for the first half of his tenure until the people above him also demanded changes. His best young offensive players have been traded, mostly in bad trades, and then rumors spread about how unhappy they were playing for him. I'm kind of tired of that crap, especially when the media and fan-base always side against the talented players I'd actually want to watch play and with the coach whose system bores me. I'm not saying all young players, just the really talented offensive ones. And that seems like a problem to me, because guys like that are the most difficult to get.
The really talented ones or the ones who show little to no interest in playing both ways?He made changes when the people above him demanded it. I don't see that as being flexible, more trying to keep his job. I also think he's not a good offensive coach because the power play sucked for the first half of his tenure until the people above him also demanded changes. His best young offensive players have been traded, mostly in bad trades, and then rumors spread about how unhappy they were playing for him. I'm kind of tired of that crap, especially when the media and fan-base always side against the talented players I'd actually want to watch play and with the coach whose system bores me. I'm not saying all young players, just the really talented offensive ones. And that seems like a problem to me, because guys like that are the most difficult to get.
They've had plenty of players who couldn't play both ways and got a ton of ice time, they were just offensively inept.The really talented ones or the ones who show little to no interest in playing both ways?
I expect the new coach would already be with the team for the trip to PittsburghThey also play a matinee game at Pittsburgh on Sunday... My guess would be if they are going to make the change Claude doesn't return with the team after that one and they come home to a new coach waiting for them. New coach gets a home game against the Wings as his first.
If anything sealed the deal these last two games would have done it more than losses against tough Chi/Pitt opponents will. This team needed points against weak competition to secure themselves a lead given all the games in hand, and think with all the smoke surrounding this rumor its already been decided. Would be an incredibly shitty end to a coach who has put in a lot of time here, I don't love it but I think thats how it goes.
And I bet all of them played with effort on both ends.They've had plenty of players who couldn't play both ways and got a ton of ice time, they were just offensively inept.
Seguin had 2 very good years under Claude before they traded him. But let's not forget he was a top 6 player in the playoffs and SUCKED and is near the top of the list of players that cost them a Stanley Cup.And I bet all of them played with effort on both ends.
Clode insists on an amount of defensive effort to get on the ice and I'm okay with that.
The Seguin thing was more of a FO fuckup I think.
The two bench assistants, Joe Sacco and Bruce Cassidy, have NHL head coaching experience. I'm not saying either are good options, but I'd assume one of them would get the interim tag if a change is made.I'm guess if Claude gets canned in the middle of the season then either Sweeney or Cam ride the season out behind the bench.
Careful what you wish for.
Yeah I've never faulted Claude for Seguin. I'm sure he had his issues with Seguin but he's obviously not the one who pulled the trigger on the trade (as the Behind The B ep where it showed the FO guys, most notably Bradley and Benning, hammering away about babysitting Seguin showed).The Seguin thing was more of a FO fuckup I think.
To me, the issue is ok if it was one player, but it's been more than that. And getting your players with the most potential to buy into your system is a quality a coach should have, ideally. I still think he's a top ten coach, I just don't think he's all around great. He could easily have been fired 3-4 times by now, and I think the lucky bounces that led to a cup has saved him each time. And that is not to lessen the value of that cup win, because all cup winning teams need luck to go with talent and coaching to win, the sample sizes are so small you basically have to. But he was just one bounce from being out in the first round and fired instead of winning a cup, right? I don't think he would have deserved it then, and since then each time he's come close to being fired I don't think he was the real problem, the talent has been. But I just don't think he's making much of a difference with this team, and if they fire him they could do a lot worse, but they don't have the talent to be a contender no matter who they put behind the bench, no matter how much the front office and ownership talk like they do.The really talented ones or the ones who show little to no interest in playing both ways?
6th in goals in the NHL since 2007-2008. 9th in PP% since 2007-2008. These are facts that are easily verifiable and directly disprove your opinions, which are apparently rooted in deep knowledge of the inner workings of the Bruins Front Office (maybe legitimately so?).He made changes when the people above him demanded it. I don't see that as being flexible, more trying to keep his job. I also think he's not a good offensive coach because the power play sucked for the first half of his tenure until the people above him also demanded changes. His best young offensive players have been traded, mostly in bad trades, and then rumors spread about how unhappy they were playing for him. I'm kind of tired of that crap, especially when the media and fan-base always side against the talented players I'd actually want to watch play and with the coach whose system bores me. I'm not saying all young players, just the really talented offensive ones. And that seems like a problem to me, because guys like that are the most difficult to get.
It's been 2, right? Who else are you talking about besides Kessel and Seguin?To me, the issue is ok if it was one player, but it's been more than that.
Hmm, that's a good question actually. Blake Wheeler maybe? Even then, he got plenty of ice team on an offensive juggernaut and couldn't stay onside long enough to score goals.I'd just like for one person to cite a young player that had their development stunted by Julien's coaching.
And you could say that Hamilton for Senyshyn, JFK, and Lauzon could work out very well too, although it's obviously way too early to tell.Kessel for Hamilton and Seguin was a great trade that people will always crap on because of the subsequent handling of both players. Which is a dumb way to evaluate a trade unless you want to judge the Cam Neely trade on how it is currently paying off now.
Wheeler is really the only one I can come up with. Smith seems to be the same player in Florida that he was in Boston. Good first year, bad / mediocre second year. Runs hot and cold.Hmm, that's a good question actually. Blake Wheeler maybe? Even then, he got plenty of ice team on an offensive juggernaut and couldn't stay onside long enough to score goals.
Reilly Smith is potentially another one, but he spent a full season playing with Bergeron and Marchand and couldn't score on a shooter tutor.
Let's be clear, Claude isn't merely a top 10 coach, he's easily a top 5 coach. He's about as close to an elite coach as you can get without Pat Burns or Scotty Bowman walking through that door.To me, the issue is ok if it was one player, but it's been more than that. And getting your players with the most potential to buy into your system is a quality a coach should have, ideally. I still think he's a top ten coach, I just don't think he's all around great. He could easily have been fired 3-4 times by now, and I think the lucky bounces that led to a cup has saved him each time. And that is not to lessen the value of that cup win, because all cup winning teams need luck to go with talent and coaching to win, the sample sizes are so small you basically have to. But he was just one bounce from being out in the first round and fired instead of winning a cup, right? I don't think he would have deserved it then, and since then each time he's come close to being fired I don't think he was the real problem, the talent has been. But I just don't think he's making much of a difference with this team, and if they fire him they could do a lot worse, but they don't have the talent to be a contender no matter who they put behind the bench, no matter how much the front office and ownership talk like they do.
I would say Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton would be the three I would name. But it's not like guys that talented are that common. Smith and Wheeler area lower tier, although it would have been nice to keep them as well, but with salary cap stuff, that gets tough anyway.Wheeler is really the only one I can come up with. Smith seems to be the same player in Florida that he was in Boston. Good first year, bad / mediocre second year. Runs hot and cold.
I don't disagree with this point at all, but I would argue that looking at the reasons these players were traded may shed more light on the view of Clode.Tyler Seguin led the team in scoring in his second season, and was 3rd in the his final year.
Phil Kessel developed into a team leading 36 goal scorer under Julien.
Hamilton developed into a 42 point, #2 defensemen under Julien.
They all developed into elite players under Julien. Try again.
Those 3 were traded for a variety of reasons, both right and wrong, but in no way, shape or form did Claude Julien stunt their development.
I think it's fine to put Kessel and Hamilton on Claude if you want. I personally would put it on the players, but from a devil's advocate perspective, that's fair. But it means you need to credit him for developing Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic, and Marchand (and hopefully Pastrnak). And when I say "you" here, I mean devil's advocate you as I know you as SJH are not explicitly making these arguments.I don't disagree with this point at all, but I would argue that looking at the reasons these players were traded may shed more light on the view of Clode.
- Kessel had a very public benching in his first playoff year (in a series where the Bruins really could have used his goals) and IMO never really seemed to get over it; maybe he and Claude simply didn't connect. (Given Kessel's issues in Toronto, I'd put the blame for that on Kessel, but I'm playing devil's advocate here).
- Hamilton is rumored to have asked out because he didn't like the way Claude coached him (didn't like getting corrected, etc). Again, that could be on the player, but I'm just saying.
- Seguin was an immature, stupidly talented shithead who needed to grow up a bit. Tampa had the same thing in Drouin and managed to eventually work things out with him. For whatever reasons and due to whoever's blame that didn't happen here with Seguin.
Those who criticize Claude may not be pointing to the initial development, but rather the inability to keep these players past their initial contracts for whatever reasons.
Let's take a closer look at these.I don't disagree with this point at all, but I would argue that looking at the reasons these players were traded may shed more light on the view of Clode.
- Kessel had a very public benching in his first playoff year (in a series where the Bruins really could have used his goals) and IMO never really seemed to get over it; maybe he and Claude simply didn't connect. (Given Kessel's issues in Toronto, I'd put the blame for that on Kessel, but I'm playing devil's advocate here).
- Hamilton is rumored to have asked out because he didn't like the way Claude coached him (didn't like getting corrected, etc). Again, that could be on the player, but I'm just saying.
- Seguin was an immature, stupidly talented shithead who needed to grow up a bit. Tampa had the same thing in Drouin and managed to eventually work things out with him. For whatever reasons and due to whoever's blame that didn't happen here with Seguin.
Those who criticize Claude may not be pointing to the initial development, but rather the inability to keep these players past their initial contracts for whatever reasons.
I stand corrected on Seguin. But I've yet to hear any evidence that either that incident (which Julien publicly said was dealt with internally), or any other incident involving Seguin (there are rumors there were numerous, unreported off-ice incidents) had anything to do with Julien, or that Claude even could have done anything about them.I don't wish to get into a huge back-and-forth over this, lex, because I am in agreement with most of those points. However:
- Kessel getting benched for 3 playoff games is a VERY extreme punishment if it was for missing a practice (first I've heard of his missing one, actually). He was benched IMO because Claude had doubts about his attention to his defensive responsibilities.
- Seguin's was late for a coach's team meeting (not a practice) in Winnipeg the morning after a night game, in part because of a time zone change that his iphone did not pick up on (Rask said afterwards that his phone did not go off either but he woke up on his own. Shawn Thornton also defended Seguin on the radio that week for the mistake). I have not heard he missed a playoff practice. Benching him for the Winnipeg game was perfectly appropriate. Seguin's Boston issues were not over this incident.
Yes, I agree. I thought they were all developing just fine and didn't need to be traded. So why were they? The tarring of their character, which has been the normal occurrence after every good player leaves, seemed to suggest they didn't like the system and couldn't get along with Claude. And that was supposed to be a black mark on them. But if it happens too often, and I think 3 top players is enough for me, then it eventually has to be on Julien as well. Coaching means dealing with all the players, not just the ones whose talents already line up with what you like.Tyler Seguin led the team in scoring in his second season, and was 3rd in the his final year.
Phil Kessel developed into a team leading 36 goal scorer under Julien.
Hamilton developed into a 42 point, #2 defensemen under Julien.
They all developed into elite players under Julien. Try again.
Those 3 were traded for a variety of reasons, both right and wrong, but in no way, shape or form did Claude Julien stunt their development.
I believe this has been covered. But the fact that they were developing fine is a mark in Claude's favor, not against him.Yes, I agree. I thought they were all developing just fine and didn't need to be traded. So why were they?
Objection, facts not in evidence.The tarring of their character, which has been the normal occurrence after every good player leaves, seemed to suggest they didn't like the system and couldn't get along with Claude.
No, it's not. But he was restricted. They could've matched any offer he got.Is it now just accepted that Hamilton would have signed in Boston?
If he is a top 5 coach then how much worse would this team be with a different coach?Let's be clear, Claude isn't merely a top 10 coach, he's easily a top 5 coach. He's about as close to an elite coach as you can get without Pat Burns or Scotty Bowman walking through that door.
Seems like they have played exactly to their talent level if not a little below the last three plus seasons.
These seem to be pretty contradictory statements. Are the Bruins, as the late Dennis Green said, who we thought they were, or are they a wildly underachieving club that's tuned out their mediocre coach?A team with a core of Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, Krejci, Krug etc. Should not miss the playoffs multiple years in a row and wilt towards the finish like they have.
Claude has done more with less over his years with the Bruins. His record speaks for itself, if you want to play the game of cherry picking portions of seasons to make your argument, then go for it, but I'm not falling for it.If he is a top 5 coach then how much worse would this team be with a different coach?
Seems like they have played exactly to their talent level if not a little below the last three plus seasons.
If Claude is that great then either the talent is overrated or coaching doesn't matter much at all.
A team with a core of Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, Krejci, Krug etc. Should not miss the playoffs multiple years in a row and wilt towards the finish like they have.