Fire Clode?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
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.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
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.
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.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,549
I wish they could give him a year and a half vacation. Fire him now because it's clear this team needs a shakeup and firing coaches is probably the most common way in hockey. Let someone else come in with a focus on playing young players and then Claude comes back when they're ready to compete again.

I'm mostly joking but it just sucks he's probably going to lose his job for this. I'm of the opinion that he's one of the best handful of coaches in the league and it's been nice having him. I'd hate to see the Bruins get in the cycle with a lot of other teams around the league where they're replacing coaches every year or 2.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
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.
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.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,577
Between here and everywhere.
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.
Brad Marchand. Patrice Bergeron. Marc Savard. David Krejci. David Pastrnak. All really talented offensively. All seem to do pretty well playing for Claude.

Aside from Kessel (who is on his third team now, and while still a sniper, is not someone any team considers a cornerstone player) and Seguin (yes, that was a huge mistake), who else?
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,399
Falmouth
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?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,857
306, row 14
I'd just like for one person to cite a young player that had their development stunted by Julien's coaching.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They 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.
I expect the new coach would already be with the team for the trip to Pittsburgh
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,399
Falmouth
They've had plenty of players who couldn't play both ways and got a ton of ice time, they were just offensively inept.
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.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
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.
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.

It's the same tired argument based in something other than facts. Yawn.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,857
306, row 14
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.
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.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
The Seguin thing was more of a FO fuckup I think.
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).
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,155
Rhode Island
Making changes because those above him demanded it is an argument with no substance. You suggest one of two things:
He was ordered to make system changes or get fired -or- he was happy to have the team plod along as they were and it didn't occur to him to change things to get better results. There is nothing to suggest over his 10 years that Claude is a status quo coach. There is also nothing to suggest that he is a management lackey. Further, Chia never came across as a my way or the highway type of boss and Neely has done nothing to suggest that he gets anywhere near the level of detail that involves specific plays and systems. There is no doubt management regularly looks at performance in all areas and states where they feel improvement is needed, but that is a huge stretch to imply that Claude is incapable of driving change without being demanded to do so.

The anti-Claude agrument really comes down to one area that looks to be his weakness, which is management of the locker room. His teams appear to do best when he has guys that can manage the room and help bring along some of the younger guys. Thornton and Kelly have always been held up as guys that pulled the team together. Without those surrogates, he needs to find a way to get them ready every night. That hasn't happened consistently enough and that is on him.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
The really talented ones or the ones who show little to no interest in playing both ways?
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.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
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.
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?).

His best high level, best young offensive players over the past 10 years have been Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic, Marchand, Kessel, Seguin, Pastrnak (anyone else major I'm missing)?

1 was traded because he wanted out and that's followed him around his whole career (Kessel). The other becuase the FO made a stupid decision (Seguin). Hamilton, who I don't consider an offensive great player was traded too because he hated the team and they apparently didn't love him. Not to mention that in time, the Hamilton and Kessel trades are likely considered great trades (the Seguin one not so much).

You're hanging your argument on the fact that Kessel and Seguin got traded, only one of which was actually a bad trade and all indications point to it being a Front Office fuckup not his fault.

There are arguments to be made against Claude as a coach. These are not them.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,285
Tuukka's refugee camp
Pretty much every coach not named Mike Babcock or Joel Quenneville falls into the "almost gets fired every 2 years" category. Hell, look at Bruce Boudreau. Has made the playoffs in 8 of 9 years, getting out of the first round in 5 of those, and is on his third team.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
I'd just like for one person to cite a young player that had their development stunted by Julien's coaching.
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.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,285
Tuukka's refugee camp
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.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
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.
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.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,857
306, row 14
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.
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.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
52,330
For once let's just place the blame for everything that has gone wrong with the franchise where it really lies—Kaspars Daugavins.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
It's also really amusing to me that the 2 best offensive seasons in Claude's tenure came in his first two years as a coach - Marc Savard with 88 and 78 points. No one has topped those.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,987
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
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.
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.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
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 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.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,857
306, row 14
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.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,233
Deep inside Muppet Labs
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 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.
 

Daws213

New Member
May 20, 2007
95
Norwood
Kessel scored 36 goals his last season with the Bruins, a total he has only topped 2 other times in his career (37 both times). His seasons with the Bruins also resulted in his best Corsi & Fenwick numbers of his career until last season with the Penguins. As mentioned above, he forced a trade from Bruins, which netted a great return.

Seguin scored 29 and then 16 goals in the lockout shortened season. He also posted his best Corsi & Fenwick numbers of his career with the Bruins and has yet to come close to them with the Stars. Obviously playing with Bergeron helped these numbers. Management, basically Jim Benning who is doing his part to destroy the Canucks, then decided he wasn't worth the trouble and traded him.

Hamilton, who I would argue isn't really an offensive player, improved offensively every year under Claude. Then, as The Four Peters mentioned, Hamilton basically forced himself off the team because he hated the team/teammates/system.


If Claude is stunting the development of these players, the numbers have an odd way of showing it


Edit: what cshea said
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
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 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.

Seguin has never said anything bad about Claude, never asked out or seemed unhappy here, and that trade seemed entirely a front office decision. I can't put that one on Claude at all.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,791
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.

Kessel was late to a playoff practice, which is something no coach anywhere would tolerate. He was benched for 3 games, but several teammates anonymously stated to the press that the benching was a long time coming. Despite all this, the following season Kessel's scoring output doubled, and he was 4th among forwards in ice time, trailing only Savard, Bergeron, and Krejci, which can be explained by the fact that Kessel did not kill penalties. Kessel left because he knew he could score a better deal in restricted free agency with Toronto; the Leafs had the picks to make an offer sheet, and the Bruins had cap issues and were looking at extensions for Krejci and later Lucic. He never once cited Julien as a reason for leaving Boston.

Seguin similarly missed a practice, and was benched. Again, no coach is going to tolerate missed practices, and there were rumors that it was not Seguin's first violation. We'll never know if Julien could have somehow work things out, because Seguin was traded, and by all accounts Seguin's episodes of off-ice immaturity had nothing to do with Julien. Still, Julien has said on multiple occasions he did not have a problem with Seguin. Also, Seguin had already signed an extension the prior summer, so it's not like he forced himself out of town via free agency or even asked to be traded.

As for Hamilton: I'll point out that during Julien's first year, you had guys like Bergeron (22), Krejci (21), Lucic (19), and even 20 y/o Rask (3 starts and 1 relief appearance) play prominent roles, and none of them ever asked out.

Sometimes random dots are nothing more than random dots.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,233
Deep inside Muppet Labs
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.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,791
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.
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.

As for Kessel, I'm convinced that we would not still be talking about him had Chia held firm and got Jamie Benn for Seguin instead of settling for the consolation prize.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,948
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.
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.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,410
Yes, I agree. I thought they were all developing just fine and didn't need to be traded. So why were they?
I believe this has been covered. But the fact that they were developing fine is a mark in Claude's favor, not against him.

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.
Objection, facts not in evidence.

You're just ignoring what I'm posting at this point, aren't you? I don't blame you if you are, most people do.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,987
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Are we seriously arguing about this bullshit notion of Claude not developing young players and is only a defensive minded coach again?

shaggydog, go read all of the historical threads about this where your arguments have been taken apart already. You're not bringing anything new to the table.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,155
Rhode Island
Ultimately the biggest factor in Claude's favor is that Haggerty has been relentless beating the #fireclode drum for weeks. That's reason enough to give him a lifetime contract.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,732
The Dirty Shire
Yeah, if he gets fired, it's because they are laying eggs against bad teams, not because of talent development.

This is the same coach who is giving Carlo 20+ minutes a game, and the kid can't even buy a beer for another year. That's not the issue. Let's move on.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
9,158
Brookline
Everyone who wanted to fire Claude two weeks ago, raise your hand.

This is a mediocre team in the middle of a transition year that has gotten exposed in January, which is always a tough slog.

Some important players are underperforming on offense: Backes, Bergeron, Chara -- heck, the entire defensive corps with the exception of Krug.

In a rebuild you want stability in the front office, so that there is one plan for building a good team. You want stability behind the bench, so the team has a consistent approach to the game and new young players (and pick-ups) know what is expected of them in the team's system.

I don't think Claude has lost the room. I do think this team has the potential to be good -- or even very good -- in 2 years, if prospects develop and key players stay healthy and Sweeney makes a couple of smart moves. And I think if you give Claude the talent, he'll win.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
11,249
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.
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.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,685
The Island
Seems like they have played exactly to their talent level if not a little below the last three plus seasons.
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.
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?

I do offer a third position: a couple of those core players shouldn't be core players and most of the surrounding cast are either JAGs or kids learning how to play in the NHL on the fly.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
11,249
I don't think they they are an elite core ala CHI but I do think they should be a playoff team hence the "a little below talent level" qualifier.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,987
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
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.
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.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,233
Deep inside Muppet Labs
We are all agreed that it's not acceptable to miss the playoffs three years in a row, right?

Claude's high regard in the eyes of others has probably kept him from being sacked after missing them two years in a row, which is quite fair given all he's accomplished. But another DNQ won't be tolerated by ownership, and honestly it's tough to blame them even if the quality of the playing squad isn't where it was in, say, 2013.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,159
Somerville, MA
Their overall defensive talent is probably a bit below average. They have quite a bit of depth and have leveraged that very well, but the closest thing to a top pair defenseman they have is Torey Krug. And he's not one. I think they're forward group is really good, but overall they're realistically not a top 10 talented team.

Despite this, they've been absolutely dominant this season with the exception of converting shots/chances into goals. Shooting is an actual skill but some of the underlying numbers the Brunis are putting up this season are ruining most statistical models. It's not just a matter of them taking a bunch of shitty shots and having an artificially inflated corsi. Expected goal models that factor in various measures of a shot's quality have them as the best team in the league:



I don't know what to make of this to be honest, but I'm more than willing to be patient and see how the rest of the year plays out
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,233
Deep inside Muppet Labs
They haven't been consistent enough to be dominant, IMO, even with the unlucky/poor shooting percentage. Losing 4-0 to the horrible Islanders at home, followed by blowing a 4-1 lead to Detroit on the road....those are terrible results. Just two games, of course, but the pattern this month has been one of horribly inconsistent numbers:

L L W OTL W L W L SOL

Heck, look at December:

W W W L L L W OTL L W L W OTL L W W

They're just all over the place.

If they ever strung together a stretch of good play over 8-10 games I'd feel a lot better about their effort and that the shooting percentages were just bad luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.