BluesfanInSwampLand Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Hey, unfortunately, we in Blues country may be looking for a new head coach. Coach 'Q' has the players, but has yet to make the jump out of the West, couple this with a possible loss tonight after being up 3-1 on the Nucks and it may be bye-bye time for the coach. Whats Larry Robinson like behind the bench? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Players coach that some took advantage of. Others would go to hell and back with him. They miss him when he's not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 IMO, he's a great coach for a disciplined team. He's not the guy to get if you're trying to whip a club into shape ala Mike Keenan. He is a players' coach to the n'th degree, and he's just a great guy. I hope he gets into coaching again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekes Head Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 I really doubt Larry's going to be a head coach ever again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesfanInSwampLand Posted April 22, 2003 Author Share Posted April 22, 2003 why would he not coach again???? what the hell happened to Trottier in NY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry Robinson might not want to coach again because of what happened in NJ. First the players quit on him, then he was scapegoated and fired. It's the kind of thing that happens to coaches from time to time, but Larry, in particular, didn't deserve it, and it was pretty deplorable. As for Trottier in New York, well, he coached in New York, that's what happened to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Trottier was handed a job he couldn't possibly accomplish. The egos in that room were way too much for even a Hall of Famer newby coach to handle. Its difficult to tell who was really pulling the strings at any given time while Trottier was behind the bench. Insofar as Robinson is concerned, he seems content to relax and has stated several times that head coaching is way too stressful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry was scapegoated? Come on. Larry was like the cool high school teacher who just told stories and talked about whatever, then expected you to have read the material for class when test time came. Yeah, you want that A, but he's not going to motivate you. Eventually you stop caring, because he's not on your ass about it. The fact is, NHL players cannot be entirely self-motivated and need accountability. Larry hates that, because he was never that kind of player, and to carry the analogy, he would've gotten an A in that teacher's class and enjoyed every minute of it. Larry shouldn't coach again. He has a 2 year shelf life. I think he's an excellent assistant coach and a wonderful hockey guy. But he's just not fit for head coaching. He knew it too, which is why he wanted to turn down succeeding Ftorek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekes Head Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry wouldn't want to coach again because he's made it quite clear that he lost the passion he once had for coaching...he was reluctant to even take the job when Ftorek got fired. He's not the type of guy that like to yell at the players. He's a player's coach. He'd much rather be an assistant, or be behind the scenes, so he can do all the fun stuff and not have all the worries and aggrevations of being a head coach. That's why I think Larry won't coach again...at least, a head coach position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry was scapegoated?Come on. Larry was like the cool high school teacher who just told stories and talked about whatever, then expected you to have read the material for class when test time came. Yeah, you want that A, but he's not going to motivate you. Eventually you stop caring, because he's not on your ass about it. The fact is, NHL players cannot be entirely self-motivated and need accountability. Larry hates that, because he was never that kind of player, and to carry the analogy, he would've gotten an A in that teacher's class and enjoyed every minute of it. Larry shouldn't coach again. He has a 2 year shelf life. I think he's an excellent assistant coach and a wonderful hockey guy. But he's just not fit for head coaching. He knew it too, which is why he wanted to turn down succeeding Ftorek. NHL players are not high school kids. They are supposed to be professionals and self motivating. When that fails, then a disciplinarian needs to be hired. In my mind the captain and Alternates also shoulder a lot of the accountability load. Larry Robinson isn't some "gee isn't hockey fun" coach. He knows the game inside out, he's incredibly smart, and his communication skills are superb. Like I said before, Robinson is a good coach for a team that already has a high level of discipline and few locker room problems. Who cares if his shelf life is 2 years? Burns' shelf life is only 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry will not get results if he goes somewhere else. Certainly not Stanley Cup winning results. The Devils in 2000 needed a coach in absentia, and that's what Larry provided. But that simply didn't work in 2001, and may very well have been the Devils' undoing. Every team has 2 or 3 guys that aren't self-motivated, and you need 20 guys who are for Larry to win. And it's not even motivation, it's the lack of the need to win. To win in hockey, the guys have to need to win.. All hockey coaches are disciplinarians. How many "player's coaches" are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry took the fall last year for Lou not resigning Mogilny, even if Larry stayed around as head coach that team didn't have the offense or the luck to get by Carolina. Larry was the type of guy who was more into teaching and encouraging, wih occassional outbursts to wake the team up. Burns is just angry all the time, win or lose. That's why he never lasts long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry will not get results if he goes somewhere else. Certainly not Stanley Cup winning results. The Devils in 2000 needed a coach in absentia, and that's what Larry provided. But that simply didn't work in 2001, and may very well have been the Devils' undoing.Every team has 2 or 3 guys that aren't self-motivated, and you need 20 guys who are for Larry to win. And it's not even motivation, it's the lack of the need to win. To win in hockey, the guys have to need to win.. All hockey coaches are disciplinarians. How many "player's coaches" are there? Ftorek was a nut, did anyone think that The Devils were going to do anything in the 2000 playoffs? Larry Robinson came in and all of the sudden they couldn't be stopped. That's not the work of a coach in absentia. And how can you possibly blame Larry Robinson for the Devils losing in 2001? I'm sorry, but if you are plaing in your own building, with a chance to win the cup (and the cup is, of course, IN THE BUILDING) and you can't motivate yourself, the problem is not the coach. The problem is a certain muscle located in the ribcage that is supposed to pump 1.4 gallons of blood per minute IF YOU CARE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Larry was like the cool high school teacher who just told stories and talked about whatever, then expected you to have read the material for class when test time came. Nice thought Tri but i totaly disagree. He WAS a nice guy but not the blue jeans wearing pot smoking highschool teacher who just wants to be your buddy. I elaborated on your analogy because i think you were selling Larry short on his effort to reach these guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Oh fer gads &*$()^!#$^*()^&*)!#% Triumph is your head up your butt today? Thank you Blackjack! I responded to Tri's first post before I saw the rest of the thread! And 7 what did Mogilny give you that your lips are so firmly pasted to his bunghole? You're just frightening man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 geez, what's up with these personal attacks? where did all this hate come from? I feel sorry for that kid of yours, you have quite a temper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekes Head Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Both of you, stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetReal Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Thanks Blackjack, I totally agree with you about Larry. PepperKorn you're correct "up very far." The Devils players quit on him because they weren't professional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Oh 7! I said just 'today' for Tri...you know his head being where it is and all -- now you're lips, well... oh RD we're just kiddin' around! I'll stop now though i guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Blackjack: Ftorek was a nut, did anyone think that The Devils were going to do anything in the 2000 playoffs? Larry Robinson came in and all of the sudden they couldn't be stopped. That's not the work of a coach in absentia. Agreed totally. I'd say he'd be a good coach for St. Louis if Quenneville was a taskmaster but he strikes me as closer to Larry than Mike Keenan. Usually you don't replace a taskmaster with a taskmaster or a players' coach with another players' coach (not that Quenneville comes off as a total softie; he strikes me from afar as one who's trying to be well-balanced but probably still leans too much toward the soft side) Actually I don't think the coach should be scapegoated for the Blues anyway they just don't have enough talent to get over the hump. They're a brain dead team (i.e. once you get used to losing first/second round you do) and they've never adequately solved the goalie riddle (I admit I thought Osgood would help a little but it's too little too late for the Blues from a big picture sense). And Tri I don't think you can say Larry hurt the Devils in 2001, cause I'm not sure any single taskmaster you want to name or whomever else would have got a Cup-winning effort from that team (I'd say Scotty Bowman may have been able to but he wasn't available so he doesn't count to me). It was over for that team hungerwise after 2000, and Lou knew it from all the trades he's made since. It's not like the 'same' team is winning under Burns that lost under Larry. Larry pulled all the strings he could but it wasn't enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 As usual, most of the discussions on this board come from semantics.. Anyway, Blackjack rightly called me out on the "coach in absentia" phrase, that was wrong to say. But what Larry did do was lighten everything up, and that was what the Devils needed, not a taskmaster. Agree about 2001, but I don't think Larry was the right coach for that team at all. They got within 1 game of winning it all, and coming that close, the blame can go on any number of people, from Arnott, to Stevens, to Mogilny, to Robinson, to Claude Lemieux. Everyone's got their reasons. But, I do not think Robinson could coax a Cup out of another team. He came in at exactly the right time with the right players. The 2000 Devils could possibly be the most talented team of the past 10 years, what with Mogilny and Madden on the 4th line.. but it was these players sloven play elsewhere (Arnott, Mogilny, Malakhov) that enabled them to be Devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 why would he not coach again????I am not sure Robinson will coach again. I think the situation would have to be perfect for him to consider. what the hell happened to Trottier in NY? Like some have already said, he was the wrong choice for a veteran-laden squad. You don't bring in a rookie coach for a team that's supposed to be built to win now. It didn't workout well. Also, don't be surprised if George McPhee gets fired for hiring Cassidy for his veteran team built to win now. Another colossal error in judgment. Cassidy was badly outcoached by Tortorella in that series and lost his team from what I heard. I also found out that Sharks fans love the fact that Dean Lombardi got fired. They hated him and said he made bad personnel decisions. They also said Darryl Sutter had a lot of influence on things there which made the Sharks a good team. The same fans that hated Lombardi loved Sutter and wish he was never fired. So, maybe those of us who were under the assumption Lombardi was a great g.m. in the Lou-mold were mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Ftorek was a nut, did anyone think that The Devils were going to do anything in the 2000 playoffs? Larry Robinson came in and all of the sudden they couldn't be stopped. That's not the work of a coach in absentia. And how can you possibly blame Larry Robinson for the Devils losing in 2001? I'm sorry, but if you are plaing in your own building, with a chance to win the cup (and the cup is, of course, IN THE BUILDING) and you can't motivate yourself, the problem is not the coach. The problem is a certain muscle located in the ribcage that is supposed to pump 1.4 gallons of blood per minute IF YOU CARE.Agreed Blackjack. That team didn't have the killer instinct and that's why they came up short that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Oh 7! I said just 'today' for Tri...you know his head being where it is and all -- now you're lips, well... oh RD we're just kiddin' around! I'll stop now though i guess... That scared me for a sec PK . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brylin18 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 killer instinct wasn't the problem. overconfidence and desire were the problems, and that's why, robinson, as a coach, and a motivator, took some of the blame for them losing that year, and also for allowing that same problem to infect the 2002 regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.