Jump to content

Devils Have Talked To Olczyk About GM Role?


Recommended Posts

Calling them loaded when they were favorites in the West and had the best defensemen group in the league over the past decade with arguably the best goalie and a solid forward group isn’t a stretch. 

Edited by devlman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hard pass. 

I didn't mean to direct that at you in particular. Its a common opinion that we don't want guys because "he's been to the finals and lost three times", which is about the stupidest fvcking logic I hav

At this point this whole GM and HC search is a farce.  3 months since the Devils played their last game and they are still evaluating?  At this point this feels this is more theatrics than actual sear

Posted Images

If you take 3 different teams to a Stanley Cup Final, including winning one of them and somehow still aren't considered a good coach then what does that make so many of the other coaches in the league? It's really a ridiculous statement. Sure his message might wear off eventually but that's really true for a lot of coaches in all of sports. 

Edited by Satans Hockey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, devlman said:

Calling them loaded when they were favorites in the West and had the best defensemen group in the league over the past decade with arguably the best goalie and a solid forward group isn’t a stretch. 

Their best forwards (Duchene, Forsberg, Johansen) are all typically around 60 point guys. Not exactly TB, TOR, BOS, etc. Those are the types of teams I think of as far as being “loaded.” And before Duchene they were pretty think down the middle. They never even have a single PPG player in any given season down there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Satans Hockey said:

If you take 3 different teams to a Stanley Cup Final, including winning one of them and somehow still aren't considered a good coach then what does that make so many of the other coaches in the league? It's really a ridiculous statement. Sure his message might wear off eventually but that's really true for a lot of coaches in all of sports. 

I didn’t say it doesn’t make him a good coach or that he’s not a good coach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, devlman said:

I didn’t say it doesn’t make him a good coach or that he’s not a good coach. 

You said he’s the most overrated coach in the league...

Edited by Nicomo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, devlman said:

That absolutely does not imply that the correct coach has to have won a cup. If your criteria is any coach who has had any more success than us over the last decade than you’d likely be happy with anyone rather than the coach best able to develop our young players and play a competitive style suited to our roster. The next coach has the enormous responsibility of bringing along our young stars and squeezing as much out of this roster as possible. Lav’s loaded teams have looked underwhelming the past few years. I dont care that he took Carolina and Philly to cup finals 10-15 years ago (ancient history in hockey). Doesn’t make him the right coach.  

If it’s Lav vs Nas then sure give me Lav. Give me anyone but Nas. I’m not saying Lav is a bad coach but if it comes down to Lav vs Gallant then give me Gallant.

That’s a better argument than just saying “no thank you” when someone’s name is mentioned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

You said he’s the most overrated coach in the league...

He is. Good coach but overrated and I don’t think is the best fit for our roster makeup.

Edited by devlman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, devlman said:

He is. Good coach but overrated and I don’t think is the best fit for our roster makeup.

That part is fair, even if I disagree with it. I just personally like his fiery style, without being a full on POS like Torts. And the fact that he’s succeeded everywhere he’s gone. Here are the only coaches currently in the NHL with more wins than Lav (637)

Joel Q, Trotz, Maurice, Vigneault, Julien, Torts. 

That’s a short list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

That part is fair, even if I disagree with it. I just personally like his fiery style, without being a full on POS like Torts. And the fact that he’s succeeded everywhere he’s gone. Here are the only coaches currently in the NHL with more wins than Lav (637)

Joel Q, Trotz, Maurice, Vigneault, Julien, Torts. 

That’s a short list. 

He’s a compiluh! Good for a contending team to maybe get over the hump. Cordell had a good analysis of Lav not being the right fit for a rebuilding, young, fast team, especially not w Gallant/Boudreau available:
https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=106010

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, devlman said:

He’s a compiluh! Good for a contending team to maybe get over the hump. Cordell had a good analysis of Lav not being the right fit for a rebuilding, young, fast team, especially not w Gallant/Boudreau available:
https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=106010

Good read. I agree, he (Laviolette) might not be the right fit! Wondering if Boudreau might have the temperament? I'd love to see Gallant, but stranger things have happened.  How about Jay Leach (Prov. Bruins) ? spent a lil time here as a Dev & in Albany. I'm a lil scared of a college coach.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, devlman said:

He’s a compiluh! Good for a contending team to maybe get over the hump. Cordell had a good analysis of Lav not being the right fit for a rebuilding, young, fast team, especially not w Gallant/Boudreau available:
https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=106010

Well if Todd Cordell says it... :P

But I’m not surprised a young analytics guy doesn’t want an old school coach like Lav. Personally I think that’s probably exactly what we need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 1:57 PM, Nicomo said:

Well if Todd Cordell says it... :P

But I’m not surprised a young analytics guy doesn’t want an old school coach like Lav. Personally I think that’s probably exactly what we need. 

Personally i mean i'd be fine with him and he'd be welcomed to prove me wrong. But he's the type of guy like Torts, Hartley etc etc who will get the best out of his players during the first year (or few years) by being really hard on them and having them push themselves beyond their limits but it almost never translating to the next season, it's going to fade and the players will become frustrated with his hard-ass approach, disconnet and will sh!t the bed again. Especially a young group. Plus it's not like we're close to be contenders, i just don't see a coach like this being a good long-term fit. I'd rather have a players coach who would grow with the kids. 

But hey, beggars can't be choosers right

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a good proven coach. A veteran coach with a track record of winning who has led teams at various stages in their development (building teams, win now teams etc) Laviolette fits the bill. Other than the Isles where he was foolishly fired after two seasons. He made the playoffs both years, Laviolette has been to the Cup Finals with all three teams he's coached since, winning once. We should be out front offering him a contract right now

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 9:44 AM, Satans Hockey said:

If you take 3 different teams to a Stanley Cup Final, including winning one of them and somehow still aren't considered a good coach then what does that make so many of the other coaches in the league? It's really a ridiculous statement. Sure his message might wear off eventually but that's really true for a lot of coaches in all of sports. 

It was true with Pat Burns too. And Lemaire.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Personally i mean i'd be fine with him and he'd be welcomed to prove me wrong. But he's the type of guy like Torts, Hartley etc etc who will get the best out of his players during the first year (or few years) by being really hard on them and having them push themselves beyond their limits but it almost never translating to the next season, it's going to fade and the players will become frustrated with his hard-ass approach, disconnet and will sh!t the bed again. Especially a young group. Plus it's not like we're close to be contenders, i just don't see a coach like this being a good long-term fit. I'd rather have a players coach who would grow with the kids

But hey, beggars can't be choosers right

You mean like John Hynes? Who Taylor Hall and the rest of the guys supposedly loved so much... 

No thanks. Been there, done that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the big infatuation with Gallant other than the one year taking LV to the finals?  That was hardly your typical expansion team I'm pretty sure their average age was not what you would of expected for an expansion team and some of their key players had significant experience and a goalie with how may cups?  Does he really have a proven track record of working so well with kids that have a ways to go?

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, titans04 said:

What's the big infatuation with Gallant other than the one year taking LV to the finals?  That was hardly your typical expansion team I'm pretty sure their average age was not what you would of expected for an expansion team and some of their key players had significant experience and a goalie with how may cups?  Does he really have a proven track record of working so well with kids that have a ways to go?

He also had a winning record with FLA. CBJ is the only place he didn’t. And we have more talent than those BJ teams did. It was basically just Rick Nash and not much else when Gallant was there.

He’s probably my first choice (although I’d be really happy with Lav), but I certainly don’t get the “Gallant or bust” crowd. He’s not that good of a coach. He just happens to be the hottest name right now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Galant is my first choice, Lavi second, that European guy third.

Galant got a band of misfits, even if his team wasn’t a traditional expansion team, to rally up and get to the finals. Florida he did really well all things considering.

Lavi has three cup appearances, one victory. End of story.

Euro is highly regarded.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jagknife said:

Galant is my first choice, Lavi second, that European guy third.

Galant got a band of misfits, even if his team wasn’t a traditional expansion team, to rally up and get to the finals. Florida he did really well all things considering.

Lavi has three cup appearances, one victory. End of story.

Euro is highly regarded.

I like that a guy is your third choice and you don't know his name. 

I would also like to add "that other guy" as a 4th choice. 

:)

 

Edited by mfitz804
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2020 at 5:24 PM, Nicomo said:

You mean like John Hynes? Who Taylor Hall and the rest of the guys supposedly loved so much... 

No thanks. Been there, done that. 

Yah but... Hynes was only fired once.. laviolette was fired 4 times... that has to mean Hynes is better? (i'm obviously kidding but that's basically what looking strictly at results without context will give you lol) We need a good fit, thats it.

one players coach didn't work out for us in this specific approach so we're gonna throw out the whole approach?

Obviously Lav can be a good coach just like every coach in the NHL can be, there's a reason some have success with some group then not with others and there's a reason some have success with a group then suck with the same group. It's all about the fit and chemistry.

With the roster we have i could be wrong but i just don't see a coach like that working out. There's a reason we knew Torts wouldn't work in Vancouver and we were right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Yah but... Hynes was only fired once.. laviolette was fired 4 times... that has to mean Hynes is better? (i'm obviously kidding but that's basically what looking strictly at results without context will give you lol) We need a good fit, thats it.

one players coach didn't work out for us in this specific approach so we're gonna throw out the whole approach?

Obviously Lav can be a good coach just like every coach in the NHL can be, there's a reason some have success with some group then not with others and there's a reason some have success with a group then suck with the same group. It's all about the fit and chemistry.

With the roster we have i could be wrong but i just don't see a coach like that working out. There's a reason we knew Torts wouldn't work in Vancouver and we were right. 

Torts had a winning record in Vancouver though. Sounds good to me right about now...

Again, results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Torts had a winning record in Vancouver though. Sounds good to me right about now...

Again, results. 

Well "results"... Vancouver are still bad to this day right? See this is the never-ending argument between people that are "win-now at any cost for instant gratification and fvck the future" crowd and the "We want to build a successful team who can actually win it all, build it the right way and being willing to take a step back or being patient if we have to" crowd.

It's been years and nobody here changed side and probably never will. That very basic mindset is dictating how people perceive every moves. So unless something is somewhat a mix of the 2, most people won't find common ground

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

I like that a guy is your third choice and you don't know his name. 

I would also like to add "that other guy" as a 4th choice. 

:)

 

Look I was buzzed (more drunk) from celebrating selling the house, and clearly wasn’t gonna look up Rikard Grönborg’s name to get my point out haha

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Well "results"... Vancouver are still bad to this day right? See this is the never-ending argument between people that are "win-now at any cost for instant gratification and fvck the future" crowd and the "We want to build a successful team who can actually win it all, build it the right way and being willing to take a step back or being patient if we have to" crowd.

It's been years and nobody here changed side and probably never will. That very basic mindset is dictating how people perceive every moves. So unless something is somewhat a mix of the 2, most people won't find common ground

I have no idea what you’re going on about. Lav has won it all, so idk why he’d be seen as a “win now fvck the future hire.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.