Jump to content

Photo

Of all the times Lou has curiously fired coaches out of the blue


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#81 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,761 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 11:50 AM

anyway im done talking about this. Absolutely nobody will ever change their opinion on that subject ever. There's no point


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#82 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:40 PM

Lou said Zach's injury was never even brought up in negotiations that they trust their medical staff and bla bla. Again, people will simplybelieve what they want to believe even if its Lou.

Lou may not have brought it up, but you're never getting max value for a player coming off an injury. Ever. That makes trading Zach a piss poor idea that offseason. So unless you think he should have gutted a team that looked pretty good at the deadline, and eventually went to the finals, I don't get what you want to do. If I was wrong about the effect of the injury on negotiations when he was RFA, sorry, but it doesn't affect my overall point.


anyway im done talking about this. Absolutely nobody will ever change their opinion on that subject ever. There's no point

I'm willing to be swayed by a convincing argument, I've just seen nothing but anecdotes that are at best tangentially connected. Hell, I've changed my opinion of certain aspects of Lou's management this season to some degree, as my previous posts on this thread should show.


Edited by mouse, 18 March 2014 - 02:41 PM.

  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#83 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,993 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:55 PM

What is most concerning is that some people believe this season is caused by lazy, unmotivated players and not lack of talent. 

 

Who on this team is lazy exactly?


  • 0

#84 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,218 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:58 PM

What is most concerning is that some people believe this season is caused by lazy, unmotivated players and not lack of talent. 

 

Who on this team is lazy exactly?

 

It's not exactly the right time to ask that after they completely no-showed in Tampa Bay and against the Wings in vital games.


Hell they were on their way to a total no-show in Florida too till Pete's timeout late in the first period.


  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#85 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,993 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 03:03 PM

It's not exactly the right time to ask that after they completely no-showed in Tampa Bay and against the Wings in vital games.


Hell they were on their way to a total no-show in Florida too till Pete's timeout late in the first period.

They suck. There's a difference. 


  • 0

#86 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 03:33 PM

problem is that you're looking at this comparing results. AFTER our cup run that's not where the mistake was made, it was way before that. Go back to that summer when Lou made the decision, he didnt know he'd make it to the cup finals. I dont think nobody really thought we could make it either.

And dont get me wrong with what you said that i said. Of course i enjoyed the cup run but ultimately the results of that is years and years of failures so far and it's not about to get that much better.

no offense, but imo this is one of the most ridiculous arguments you have ever made. When we discuss things now, we have the benefit of hindsight, so to ask us to go back to the summer of 2011, pretend we have no idea how the coming season will play out, and argue Lou should have gotten rid of our captain and best player who was coming off a serious injury is so outrageously twisting and contorting events to try and service your point of view.

Seriously, it's like Lou can never win in your eyes. Even when he puts a team together that gets to within two wins of a Stanley cup, he should have had the foresight to realize he didn't have a good team and should have sold low on zach before the season. Do you realize how outrageously ridiculous that is?

More and more it just seems like you have an agenda against Lou. I realize lately there have been some questionable moves but if you were here in 2011 and arguing that zach should be traded, he proved you wrong by putting together a team that made a deep run.
  • 1

#87 AEWHistory

AEWHistory

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 11:32 PM

Yet when someone criticizes him for the crap he's created for a decade they are bashed for it. Agree 100% on your last part. I said if they miss the playoffs again he needs to go. Question is will the new head honchos have the balls to do it.


Hey, not by me. Prior to 2012 I was very down on Lou. I figured, what with the SC run, that perhaps I was wrong after all, but the more I see the more I think the SC run was a lucky break or a fluke in an otherwise very mediocre stretch of GMing. LL just doesn't have it any longer but, like MB, is holding onto a job because of their history.
  • 0
Aaron / AEWHistory --- Rockies/Devils fan since 1981!

Trenton Makes and the World Takes..... Or.... Trenton Uses What the World Refuses

#88 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 06:59 AM

Hey, not by me. Prior to 2012 I was very down on Lou. I figured, what with the SC run, that perhaps I was wrong after all, but the more I see the more I think the SC run was a lucky break or a fluke in an otherwise very mediocre stretch of GMing. LL just doesn't have it any longer but, like MB, is holding onto a job because of their history.

it is so incredibly unfair to call the final run a fluke without pointing out that if we don't make the playoffs this year, it will only be the third time in twenty years, the other two times were a lockout shortened season where we dealt with injuries and a year where Lou admittedly made a mistake in hiring the coach. So what's more of a fluke? The 3rd playoff miss, or the fifth conference championship?

Edited by dmann422, 21 March 2014 - 07:00 AM.

  • 0

#89 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,761 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 07:35 AM

no offense, but imo this is one of the most ridiculous arguments you have ever made. When we discuss things now, we have the benefit of hindsight, so to ask us to go back to the summer of 2011, pretend we have no idea how the coming season will play out, and argue Lou should have gotten rid of our captain and best player who was coming off a serious injury is so outrageously twisting and contorting events to try and service your point of view.

Seriously, it's like Lou can never win in your eyes. Even when he puts a team together that gets to within two wins of a Stanley cup, he should have had the foresight to realize he didn't have a good team and should have sold low on zach before the season. Do you realize how outrageously ridiculous that is?

More and more it just seems like you have an agenda against Lou. I realize lately there have been some questionable moves but if you were here in 2011 and arguing that zach should be traded, he proved you wrong by putting together a team that made a deep run.

 

wow you absolutely missed my point and what i meant and by like a thousand miles lol great job

 

i assume you we're not even following the discussion there but my point was that whoever i was arguing with was trying to make a point as if Lou took his decision KNOWING we we're gonna make it to the cup final so that it was like a clear and literal decision for him, either A) trade Zach B) Make it to the cup final.

 

So then by your logic... if that they made a deep run proved me wrong... NOT trading Clarkson since we didnt make the playoffs is proving me right then? (not saying that's what im saying but just following your logic there)


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#90 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 07:45 AM

Stevens would be a terrible coach. I cannot stress this enough.

Can you back it up with some reasoning that goes beyond intuition?  By saying you cannot stress it enough you imply some empirical data you have access to.  I dont have anything - just suspicion.  You probably won't respond -- so I'll end up assuming you've got nothing beyond "have you SEEN our defence?" I'd like to know why someone with such a huge competitive streak and knowledge of the game is floundering as an assistant coach.  "Because he doesn't know how to coach, some have it some don't is absolute nonsense.  It really sucks but everything can be learned EVERYTHING, and Stevens doesn't shy away from hard work.  he does shy away from effective communication - sure he doesn't want to step on anyone's toes, sure he hates the spotlight in a certain sense.  Mostly I think at the heart of the matter is he doesn't like to not be listened to.  It's too close to outright failure and it is completely out of his control - people will listen or they won't -- so is he being erratic being all calm and supportive and quiet and then flipping out in an ineffective alienating way?  So if you have some examples even if you've just noticed it yourself - I'd like to hear them.  It's the first step on the road of correcting and improving.

 

 

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE:

 

I think one has to logically deduce that questioning the players and the coaches is in fact, questioning the GM. There is a chain of accountability that ends at Lou.  The team coaches and players and scouting and training  ALL SUCKS -- then it's all on Lou.  So you then ask, why?  What were the extenuating circumstances? 

 

DR33 concludes Lou just sucks now.  as do many many others.  OK -- so who's better?  Who do you all want as the new GM of the Devils?  You always have an idea on who should coach and play -- so who should GM then?  It's the same conversation - so offer up your alternatives not simply throw out the garbage  -- and then what?  What young gun do you want to bring in?  It's a good time to do it - the whole organization has been lost by Lou, right?  So who's the new guy?  Who will right the ship?

 

It's one thing to point the finger....  it's another to say It's one thing to ppint the finger but THAT GUY is REALLY to blame.  OK -- so how do you fix it then?  I'm just sayin'


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#91 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:18 AM

wow you absolutely missed my point and what i meant and by like a thousand miles lol great job

i assume you we're not even following the discussion there but my point was that whoever i was arguing with was trying to make a point as if Lou took his decision KNOWING we we're gonna make it to the cup final so that it was like a clear and literal decision for him, either A) trade Zach B) Make it to the cup final.

So then by your logic... if that they made a deep run proved me wrong... NOT trading Clarkson since we didnt make the playoffs is proving me right then? (not saying that's what im saying but just following your logic there)

I've read the entire thread and I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly, but correct me if I'm wrong- you are saying that prior to the 2011-2012 season, Lou had no idea how well the team would do, so he should have traded parise and gotten at least something for him.

I think this is wrong and a ridiculous argument, because now in hindsight we have facts that show Lou was right in not trading parise- we came within two overtime games of a Stanley cup. You are asking us to ignore these facts by magically transporting us back to he summer of 2011, pretend like we don't know what will happen and try and service your argument.

Look, I'll freely admit Lou has made mistakes and misses here, but keeping parise for that run was not one of them.
  • 0

#92 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,258 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:23 AM

Can you back it up with some reasoning that goes beyond intuition? 

 

If you want specifics that anyone can see, you can use the following:

 

gelinas altering his game to be more physical because that's what stevens told him to do. gelinas isn't a physical defenseman and going out of his way to make hits makes his already subject defensive game that much worse.

larsson getting yo-yo'd and then demoted - essentially taking a step back. this is stevens' responsibility.

 

he's also not the best communicator with the defensemen. you hear from the beat guys when a guy is scratched that they generally aren't given a reason. that's not lip service. and it's the assistant coaches and specifically stevens with the defense that is supposed to communicate the most.

 

sure stevens is a novice coach in any right so that gives him a little leeway. and comparing him to larry isn't particularly fair because larry is one of the best coaches this team has had. for the last several defensive coaches this team has had, stevens is at the bottom.

 

as for why he should not be the head coach of this team, maclean proved that bringing back a team legend can turn out very badly. and mac actually had pretty good experience. at the time, that made perfect sense and just ended in disaster. stevens from a coaching perspective, would be just as bad. these men are complete extensions of lou. for everything that people want to get on pete, he is NOT that. lou has plenty of influence on roster decisions (obviously) but pete does not have the feel of "lou's boy". mac most certainly did.


  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#93 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,761 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:26 AM

I've read the entire thread and I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly, but correct me if I'm wrong- you are saying that prior to the 2011-2012 season, Lou had no idea how well the team would do, so he should have traded parise and gotten at least something for him.

I think this is wrong and a ridiculous argument, because now in hindsight we have facts that show Lou was right in not trading parise- we came within two overtime games of a Stanley cup. You are asking us to ignore these facts by magically transporting us back to he summer of 2011, pretend like we don't know what will happen and try and service your argument.

Look, I'll freely admit Lou has made mistakes and misses here, but keeping parise for that run was not one of them.

 

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

 

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#94 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:49 AM

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years

fair enough, you can prognosticate all you want that we will "continue to suck for at least a few more years" and that zach was "the first domino" that started all of this predicted sucking. If that's the case I would recommend becoming an oiler, panther or sabres fan, because those are the types of teams constantly looking down the road at "the next few years" and worrying about how to be competitive 3 years from today instead of now.

And what constitutes a "fluke"? Was the kings run a fluke? Because they were dominant that postseason but haven't been nearly at that level ever since. I'll gladly take one "fluke" cup!
  • 0

#95 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:57 AM

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

 

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years

So we would have gotten fair value for Zach that would ensure we don't suck? At best, we get draft picks and a couple Ryder type guys. Our team would therefore look exactly the same, with maybe one more prospect in the system. The only was we get another superstar for Zach is if 1) the team knew he was going to re-sign (not happening, since the only teams he wanted to join were us and the Wild), and 2) the team was stacked in goal or on d and needed forwards (not useful to us, since we have a ton of good d in the system, will hopefully lock Schneider up long term). I get that you want something rather than nothing, but a run to the finals is more valuable to the Devils than any pieces they would have gotten for Parise. And Clarkson wasn't bringing much back either. It's not easy to be a GM. Not saying Lou's done perfectly, but no matter how many times you've criticized him, you've yet to come up with a coherent thing he could have done better.

 

And btw, much as I've defended Lou this season, if he retires at the end of the year, I think it's entirely possible we'll be better off. I just don't think his refusal to trade guys like Zach and Clarkson is the reason.


Edited by mouse, 21 March 2014 - 08:58 AM.

  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#96 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,761 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 08:58 AM

fair enough, you can prognosticate all you want that we will "continue to suck for at least a few more years" and that zach was "the first domino" that started all of this predicted sucking. If that's the case I would recommend becoming an oiler, panther or sabres fan, because those are the types of teams constantly looking down the road at "the next few years" and worrying about how to be competitive 3 years from today instead of now.

And what constitutes a "fluke"? Was the kings run a fluke? Because they were dominant that postseason but haven't been nearly at that level ever since. I'll gladly take one "fluke" cup!

 

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#97 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,676 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 09:10 AM

If you want specifics that anyone can see, you can use the following:

 

gelinas altering his game to be more physical because that's what stevens told him to do. gelinas isn't a physical defenseman and going out of his way to make hits makes his already subject defensive game that much worse.

larsson getting yo-yo'd and then demoted - essentially taking a step back. this is stevens' responsibility.

 

he's also not the best communicator with the defensemen. you hear from the beat guys when a guy is scratched that they generally aren't given a reason. that's not lip service. and it's the assistant coaches and specifically stevens with the defense that is supposed to communicate the most.

 

sure stevens is a novice coach in any right so that gives him a little leeway. and comparing him to larry isn't particularly fair because larry is one of the best coaches this team has had. for the last several defensive coaches this team has had, stevens is at the bottom.

 

as for why he should not be the head coach of this team, maclean proved that bringing back a team legend can turn out very badly. and mac actually had pretty good experience. at the time, that made perfect sense and just ended in disaster. stevens from a coaching perspective, would be just as bad. these men are complete extensions of lou. for everything that people want to get on pete, he is NOT that. lou has plenty of influence on roster decisions (obviously) but pete does not have the feel of "lou's boy". mac most certainly did.

 

MacLean did have success as an assistant coach with the Devils in that he was more or less running the team from a nuts and bolts standpoint when Lou took over for Julien.  And while he was a popular player during his time he proved pretty easy to cut bait on when it became clear he was out of his element.

 

Stevens is a different matter.  His number is hanging from the rafters.  After Marty, he's probably the most popular player among the fans, not to mention that he's very respected around the league.  While if he proved to be a disaster as a head coach, I think Lou would get rid of him, it could get pretty ugly. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#98 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 09:14 AM

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.

I'm not quite sure how you interpreted this from my post. I never evaluated our performance over the past 3 years, and the only one trying to predict what will happen in the next 3 years is you.
  • 0

#99 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 09:14 AM

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.

Considering we're in good shape at 2 of 3 positions if we re-sign Schneids, and not in terrible shape with the cap, you don't know and neither does he. If we can't bring in a couple of high end forwards, we will suck. If we can, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, we won't.


  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#100 Brandon

Brandon

    Trenton Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 09:30 AM

Anyone else notice last night when they announced DeBoer as the head coach, it was met with a flurry of boos? I loved it.
  • 0
25smul5.png




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users