The Krueger Crux? "Not thinking out there"

[...]

Nice! IOW, RK's prospects would look better if Botterill had done something about the goal scoring problem.

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, Zamboni said:

Since this thread is going off the rails with Nolan talk... The only thing Ted could possibly do better than Ruff, Bylsma, Housley, and RK, is grow a good head of hair. For my money, Ted flat out sucked for most of his coaching career. And besides the Islanders, the rest of the NHL owners/GM’s agree. 

This is no small thing for an NHL head coach, mind. 

[Stoner]

54 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Has he given us any reason to hope more than "new coach could mean anything"? 

The last time Ralph was in the NHL, his Oilers (in the shortened season) were 16-13-7, in a playoff spot, and coming off a 5 game win streak with 12 games left to play. They went 3 - 9 - 0 to finish the year, and missed. That is IDENTICAL to the story of the 16-17 and 18-19 Sabres as well, in a condensed form - right when the calendar turns and it's feeling like there's the time and possibility to go on a run and make it, the bed gets shat, in spectacular fashion. I've seen arguments to the effect that more of a buy-in from the players is what could have prevented these seasons from turning out the way they did, and you're expressing your hope in that type of buy-in, but the presence of literally the exact same type of season from a Krueger team in the only one we have a recent sample for, I'm not saying it makes me pessimistic or skeptical for how he will affect our team, but it certainly provides zero push towards feeling that type of hope any more than I would with [insert NEW coach name here]. 

It's my belief that the 10 game win streak was completely absurd, and itself provided far more of a drive/belief for those players than any coach can. Can you imagine how giddy those guys must have felt in that locker room after San Jose? All they could talk about for months after was getting that feeling back again. The thing that was missing that kept them from ever getting back to it wasn't in their heads, or in the locker room, it was in the tape, and the roster structure. I certainly haven't docked Ralph any points for anything he's said, because that wouldn't be fair, but I haven't heard him once indicate that he understands what the real problem with this team is, more than vague generalities about getting the best out of guys and what have you. Which again is completely fine and doesn't mean he has no idea, I don't expect him to necessarily say anything useful, but it also doesn't make me GIVE him points for the things he is saying. At least we're not getting the "didn't watch any tape from the previous year so Moulson gets the first 15 games" vibe yet. 

But I'm not inspired or given extra hope by his words, because they, and our reactions to them, are fundamentally identical to the sentiments expressed by Dan, Phil and our reactions to those sentiments at the time. And the supposed character difference between what he does to a room when he enters it (compared to a Phil) that people gush about doesn't point to the thing that in my view is actually wrong, so it's kinda neither here nor there for me. I don't doubt that there's some amount of room for improvement via Ralph's massaging of the locker room psyche, but 100% of the time I'm focusing on my hockey team becoming an elite hockey team, and the single biggest jump that I think they can take towards that end involves a lot more change in what happens on the ice than off of it, change that cannot happen via the brief, irrelevant tactical clues we've been given to this point like "instincts." Which is fine, but until I see that, it looks like a frustrating ~80 point season to me dawg

Who hurt you? Don't answer that. We know who.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

Has he given us any reason to hope more than "new coach could mean anything"? 

The last time Ralph was in the NHL, his Oilers (in the shortened season) were 16-13-7, in a playoff spot, and coming off a 5 game win streak with 12 games left to play. They went 3 - 9 - 0 to finish the year, and missed. That is IDENTICAL to the story of the 16-17 and 18-19 Sabres as well, in a condensed form - right when the calendar turns and it's feeling like there's the time and possibility to go on a run and make it, the bed gets shat, in spectacular fashion. I've seen arguments to the effect that more of a buy-in from the players is what could have prevented these seasons from turning out the way they did, and you're expressing your hope in that type of buy-in, but the presence of literally the exact same type of season from a Krueger team in the only one we have a recent sample for, I'm not saying it makes me pessimistic or skeptical for how he will affect our team, but it certainly provides zero push towards feeling that type of hope any more than I would with [insert NEW coach name here]. 

It's my belief that the 10 game win streak was completely absurd, and itself provided far more of a drive/belief for those players than any coach can. Can you imagine how giddy those guys must have felt in that locker room after San Jose? All they could talk about for months after was getting that feeling back again. The thing that was missing that kept them from ever getting back to it wasn't in their heads, or in the locker room, it was in the tape, and the roster structure. I certainly haven't docked Ralph any points for anything he's said, because that wouldn't be fair, but I haven't heard him once indicate that he understands what the real problem with this team is, more than vague generalities about getting the best out of guys and what have you. Which again is completely fine and doesn't mean he has no idea, I don't expect him to necessarily say anything useful, but it also doesn't make me GIVE him points for the things he is saying. At least we're not getting the "didn't watch any tape from the previous year so Moulson gets the first 15 games" vibe yet. 

But I'm not inspired or given extra hope by his words, because they, and our reactions to them, are fundamentally identical to the sentiments expressed by Dan, Phil and our reactions to those sentiments at the time. And the supposed character difference between what he does to a room when he enters it (compared to a Phil) that people gush about doesn't point to the thing that in my view is actually wrong, so it's kinda neither here nor there for me. I don't doubt that there's some amount of room for improvement via Ralph's massaging of the locker room psyche, but 100% of the time I'm focusing on my hockey team becoming an elite hockey team, and the single biggest jump that I think they can take towards that end involves a lot more change in what happens on the ice than off of it, change that cannot happen via the brief, irrelevant tactical clues we've been given to this point like "instincts." Which is fine, but until I see that, it looks like a frustrating ~80 point season to me dawg 

 

He has a presence that Dan and Phil lacked; that’s obvious even from this distance.

He ain’t done *****.

Edited September 4, 2019 by dudacek

[triumph_communes]

Krueger made Yakupov look like a budding star. That Edmonton roster was atrocious. I would take their finish to the seasons with a grain of salt. 

[Randall Flagg]

24 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Krueger made Yakupov look like a budding star. That Edmonton roster was atrocious. I would take their finish to the seasons with a grain of salt. 

Did he also ruin RNH, a first overall pick with a wonderful rookie year that was followed by a very disappointing one with Ralph?

If not, why attribute one to him and not the other? 

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Has he given us any reason to hope more than "new coach could mean anything"? 

The last time Ralph was in the NHL, his Oilers (in the shortened season) were 16-13-7, in a playoff spot, and coming off a 5 game win streak with 12 games left to play. They went 3 - 9 - 0 to finish the year, and missed. That is IDENTICAL to the story of the 16-17 and 18-19 Sabres as well, in a condensed form - right when the calendar turns and it's feeling like there's the time and possibility to go on a run and make it, the bed gets shat, in spectacular fashion. I've seen arguments to the effect that more of a buy-in from the players is what could have prevented these seasons from turning out the way they did, and you're expressing your hope in that type of buy-in, but the presence of literally the exact same type of season from a Krueger team in the only one we have a recent sample for, I'm not saying it makes me pessimistic or skeptical for how he will affect our team, but it certainly provides zero push towards feeling that type of hope any more than I would with [insert NEW coach name here]. 

It's my belief that the 10 game win streak was completely absurd, and itself provided far more of a drive/belief for those players than any coach can. Can you imagine how giddy those guys must have felt in that locker room after San Jose? All they could talk about for months after was getting that feeling back again. The thing that was missing that kept them from ever getting back to it wasn't in their heads, or in the locker room, it was in the tape, and the roster structure. I certainly haven't docked Ralph any points for anything he's said, because that wouldn't be fair, but I haven't heard him once indicate that he understands what the real problem with this team is, more than vague generalities about getting the best out of guys and what have you. Which again is completely fine and doesn't mean he has no idea, I don't expect him to necessarily say anything useful, but it also doesn't make me GIVE him points for the things he is saying. At least we're not getting the "didn't watch any tape from the previous year so Moulson gets the first 15 games" vibe yet. 

But I'm not inspired or given extra hope by his words, because they, and our reactions to them, are fundamentally identical to the sentiments expressed by Dan, Phil and our reactions to those sentiments at the time. And the supposed character difference between what he does to a room when he enters it (compared to a Phil) that people gush about doesn't point to the thing that in my view is actually wrong, so it's kinda neither here nor there for me. I don't doubt that there's some amount of room for improvement via Ralph's massaging of the locker room psyche, but 100% of the time I'm focusing on my hockey team becoming an elite hockey team, and the single biggest jump that I think they can take towards that end involves a lot more change in what happens on the ice than off of it, change that cannot happen via the brief, irrelevant tactical clues we've been given to this point like "instincts." Which is fine, but until I see that, it looks like a frustrating ~80 point season to me dawg 

 

Re-reading this, you seem to have taken my earlier post as “Ralph has given me hope” when it would be better read as “I hope Ralph...”

Just because I believe that the Sabres had subpar leadership last year does not preclude me from thinking the Sabres had subpar tactics, or subpar talent, or should lead you to assume that I believe that fixing our leadership issues will automatically make our other flaws irrelevant.

The certitude some people have about how summer moves are going to work out is baffling to me. All I know is Toronto added one of the best players in the world last year, dropped five points in the standings and were two losses away from missing the playoffs. The Islanders lost that same player, replaced him with no one and shot up 23 points in the standings.

Hockey is a chaotic, unpredictable dance. You get the best talent you can, temper it in the best environment you can, work your ***** off and hope the puck bounces in the right direction.

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Curt]

37 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Did he also ruin RNH, a first overall pick with a wonderful rookie year that was followed by a very disappointing one with Ralph?

If not, why attribute one to him and not the other? 

The same RNH who has recently publicly expressed glowing support for Ralph and his tenure with the Oilers?  Just saying.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Curt

[Randall Flagg]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Re-reading this, you seem to have taken my earlier post as “Ralph has given me hope” when it would be better read as “I hope Ralph...”

Just because I believe that the Sabres had subpar leadership last year does not preclude me from thinking the Sabres had subpar tactics, or subpar talent, or should lead you to assume that I believe that fixing our leadership issues will automatically make our other flaws irrelevant.

The certitude some people have about how summer moves are going to work out is baffling to me. All I know is Toronto added one of the best players in the world last year, dropped five points in the standings and were two losses away from missing the playoffs. The Islanders lost that same player, replaced him with no one and shot up 23 points in the standings.

Hockey is a chaotic, unpredictable dance. You get the best talent you can, temper it in the best environment you can, work your ***** off and hope the puck bounces in the right direction.

I get it, but the Islanders also added THE coaching guru and THE defensive coach, which took a team with the most goals allowed since 2005 save one team (IIRC) and made them allow a lot fewer goals, which covered the fact that their forward corps reeeeeeeally took a hit. That hit was noticeable, they just rode that new style and a spurned, low-expectation driven attitude further than you'd have guessed. So they were affected by the loss of Tavares, they were just more effected by what anyone would have called a potentially organization-stabilizing/saving coaching hire beforehand. I'm not sure I see us sitting with that same kind of potential in any respect, even if a guy like Dahlin absolutely takes off. Because I don't think they've come close to "getting the best talent you can" over the last few offseasons, and I don't think Krueger is a can't-miss kind of hire a la Trotz. I hope he is. I also hope Jack wins the Art Ross, while Dahlin scores 75 points. I don't see a meaningful difference in the amount of expectations I should have for either of those cases based on all we could possibly know about Ralph now


 

1 minute ago, Curt said:

The same RNH who has recently publicly expressed glowing support for Ralph and his tenure with the Oilers?  Just saying.

I'm sure he liked the guy, he also only scored 4 goals (24 pts) in 40 games under him after previously having what would likely be the best season of his career in his rookie year just before. RNH was never the same player after he played Krueger hockey. 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I don't actually believe Krueger ruined RNH, but I'm not sure saying so is different from saying that Krueger made Yakupov good. 

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I get it, but the Islanders also added THE coaching guru and THE defensive coach, which took a team with the most goals allowed since 2005 save one team (IIRC) and made them allow a lot fewer goals, which covered the fact that their forward corps reeeeeeeally took a hit. That hit was noticeable, they just rode that new style and a spurned, low-expectation driven attitude further than you'd have guessed. So they were affected by the loss of Tavares, they were just more effected by what anyone would have called a potentially organization-stabilizing/saving coaching hire beforehand. I'm not sure I see us sitting with that same kind of potential in any respect, even if a guy like Dahlin absolutely takes off. Because I don't think they've come close to "getting the best talent you can" over the last few offseasons, and I don't think Krueger is a can't-miss kind of hire a la Trotz. I hope he is. I also hope Jack wins the Art Ross, while Dahlin scores 75 points. I don't see a meaningful difference in the amount of expectations I should have for either of those cases based on all we could possibly know about Ralph now


 

Did you think what happened was going to happen?

At the time, did you think that the firing of Bill Peters was going to improve Carolina by 16 points and Calgary by 24?

Who was a more suspect acquisition: Robin Lehner to the Islanders last summer, or Jimmy Vesey to the Sabres this summer?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Way more accurate than predictions.

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

36 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Re-reading this, you seem to have taken my earlier post as “Ralph has given me hope” when it would be better read as “I hope Ralph...”

Just because I believe that the Sabres had subpar leadership last year does not preclude me from thinking the Sabres had subpar tactics, or subpar talent, or should lead you to assume that I believe that fixing our leadership issues will automatically make our other flaws irrelevant.

The certitude some people have about how summer moves are going to work out is baffling to me. All I know is Toronto added one of the best players in the world last year, dropped five points in the standings and were two losses away from missing the playoffs. The Islanders lost that same player, replaced him with no one and shot up 23 points in the standings.

Hockey is a chaotic, unpredictable dance. You get the best talent you can, temper it in the best environment you can, work your ***** off and hope the puck bounces in the right direction.

True, but the Leafs of last season aren't a great example of that. 

They added Tavares, but the also lost two key pieces in Van Riemsdyk and Bozak, in addition to Nylander missing considerable time to start the year and not being close to himself once back. There were definite signs they could take a bit of a step back back, or at least not a step forward. 

Those things weren't going unmentioned at the time, either. 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

True, but the Leafs of last season aren't a great example of that. 

They added Tavares, but the also lost two key pieces in Van Riemsdyk and Bozak, in addition to Nylander missing considerable time to start the year and not being close to himself once back. There were definite signs they could take a bit of a step back back, or at least not a step forward. 

Always signs in hindsight.

A year ago, how many saw Vegas adding good players and dropping 16 points? Winnipeg’s emerging young roster slumped by 15? Nashville by 17?

If the Sabres make the playoffs this year, you can bet someone will be saying “Their patience with the kids had to pay off sometime” or “kudos to Botterill for the way he rebuilt that defence” or “Krueger has done a fantastic job” or (gasp!) “Vesey for a 3rd was the under-the-radar steal of the summer.”

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Always signs in hindsight.

A year ago, how many saw Vegas adding good players and dropping 16 points? Winnipeg’s emerging young roster slumped by 15? Nashville by 17?

If the Sabres make the playoffs this year, you can bet someone will be saying “Their patience with the kids had to pay off sometime” or “kudos to Botterill for the way he rebuilt that defence” or “Krueger has done a fantastic job” or (gasp!) Vesey for a 3rd was the under-the-radar steak of the summer.

No, see edit. 

The Leafs situation isn't hindsight at all. Plenty of notable names were saying "hold it" on the coronation that ensued after Tavares was added. 

For every unpredictable standings drop/rise you can point to, there are 2/3 teams that ended up exactly where one would have expected. (Seemingly, to your point) random, unpredictable things do happen, or course. But more often than not, they don't.

People are already saying Kudos to Botterill for the defense. Vesey isn't gonna happen. 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No, see edit. 

The Leafs situation isn't hindsight at all. Plenty of notable names were saying "hold it" on the coronation that ensued after Tavares was added. 

And there were also plenty who celebrated the coronation anyway.

Anyway, it’s not just about who correctly read the Leafs, it’s about how plenty of things happen every year that defy general expectations.

Maybe one of them will be Casey Mittelstadt taking a Tyler Seguin level jump in year two.

Maybe another will be 95 points from Eichel and 70 from Dahlin and others growing around them, feeding and feeding off it?

Just because neither of us expect it doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

13 minutes ago, dudacek said:

And there were also plenty who celebrated the coronation anyway.

Right, but the point is, it wasn't unpredictable. It just depended on who was doing the predicting. And more to the point, the team building.

The desire to inject so much allowance for randomness into things removes responsibility from Botterill, intention or not. That's why it's about timeline, for me. You'd think over a three year period the randomness evens out to the point a good GM should be able to get his team to the playoffs. That's my bar, at least. YMMV.

If you're more about the larger point that at the end of the day, we just don't know what's going to happen to a certainty - I agree. 

"The point bein', that even in the contest between man and steer, the issue is not certain." - Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men

Edited September 5, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right, but the point is, it wasn't unpredictable. It just depended on who was doing the predicting. And more to the point, the team building.

The desire to inject so much allowance for randomness into things removes responsibility from Botterill, intention or not. That's why it's about timeline, for me. You'd think over a three year period the randomness evens out to the point a good GM should be able to get his team to the playoffs. That's my bar, at least. YMMV.

It doesn’t remove any responsibility from Botterill: he is clearly counting on Mittelstadt, Montour, Miller, Dahlin, Vesey, Skinner etc. to make us better. They aren’t random; he acquired them. If they dont make us better, he’s responsible.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Did you think what happened was going to happen?

At the time, did you think that the firing of Bill Peters was going to improve Carolina by 16 points and Calgary by 24?

Who was a more suspect acquisition: Robin Lehner to the Islanders last summer, or Jimmy Vesey to the Sabres this summer?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Way more accurate than predictions.

No, but I think real-time analysis of the ingredients of those situations would have led each of us, and many other fans, to assign a higher probability to those things happening than we'd/they'd be comfortable assigning to OUR situation with THIS group. Remove hindsight from the equation, I don't think this year's Coyotes and this year's Sabres have similar chances of a breakout like that. Like, just because wild stuff happens, doesn't mean we have as much of a shot at a good season as Carolina did at theirs. Especially because of how excellent the shift-to-shift hockey of the Hurricanes had been for a couple years, compared to our base! 

I realize how obnoxiously pedantic I'm being and I do apologize. Overall, my point is that Ralph's words, and the fact that crazy things can happen, don't override the way I look at the players we're throwing out there, a lot of whom I've watched very closely, pausing shift after shift to re-watch over and over again. I'd never tell you it can't happen but I would argue heavily that an organization that has the recent and distant track record of this one is less likely to be in a position to make that story happen than the ones that do write these Cinderella stories, for the most part. And so while I'm going to completely bomb my season predictions, it's not going to be because it's impossible to ever see this stuff happening, but because some almost-well-situated organizations are just going to have things work out while others aren't, and we haven't shown we're deserving of that belief yet 

[PerreaultForever]

In my opinion a good coach in any sport, any team, is a guy who has a system, has an idea of what he wants, BUT also understands the players he has and all their strengths and weaknesses. He then adapts his system to fit those players strengths and weaknesses. He understands their individual psychology and he knows the best way to motivate them and get them to perform at their highest level possible. 

Kreuger approaching individuals and sitting down and getting to know them gives me hope he is that kind of guy. What his actual system will be and whether or not our roster has the talent level to perform under him remains to be seen. 

[...]

We all would like to hope that RK forces us to swallow the "culture does matter" pill for a season too many.  However, there isn't one thing in his past that says he alone has the coaching ability to work the magic needed by the Sabres.  He hasn't said one thing that we can point to and say "that, there, is an insightful coaching mind".

He does come with the culture and team building credentials, which is great if he were VP of Hockey Ops, but he's not, he's the head coach.  It took a little to sink in, but one of the first things we have to accept is that with RK, the term "head coach" is being redefined.

I'm okay with this, as I keep pointing out.  It's an interesting, bold move that, as I began, if it is successful will come with a lot of bitter pills to swallow.

We do have to face the fact that there was no Trotz available to us.  I'm going to guess Quenneville had no interest in coming here.  That's it.  After that, what do you do?  You aim in a different direction.  And that's RK.

I think it's foolish to say he gives hope.  Based on what?  There is nothing, as we've been discussing, to indicate he is worth blind faith.  He will have to earn it. I am willing to give him that chance.

I also think it's foolish to give up on him before he starts.  The potential is there and success can be there for the person who pulls it all together properly.  RK has been built up as the guy, if there is one, who can do that.  Okay, but don't waste my time.  If this even begins to look like a bust, they will lose me, again, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

[LGR4GM]

RNH had a bizarre low sh% the year under Krueger at 5.1% as opposed to his career average of 11.8%

If he had 9g and 20a for 29pts in 40 games, would you be saying the same thing? Maybe it wasn't Krueger but RNH. Hard to tell especially after so many years. 

 

I am not up or down on Krueger. I am glad Housley and his moping no energy self is gone. Is RK an upgrade? We're about to find out. 

[triumph_communes]

14 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Did he also ruin RNH, a first overall pick with a wonderful rookie year that was followed by a very disappointing one with Ralph?

If not, why attribute one to him and not the other? 

You mean the player who barely scored after his 20 game absence for a shoulder injury the season prior?  He needed to find his groove post-injury.  Plus, RNH LOVED Krueger.  Couple this with his below typical shooting % and I wouldn't look too far into it.

[Randall Flagg]

14 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

You mean the player who barely scored after his 20 game absence for a shoulder injury the season prior?  He needed to find his groove post-injury.  Plus, RNH LOVED Krueger.  Couple this with his below typical shooting % and I wouldn't look too far into it.

You can love a bad coach - I'm not sure why that would be seen as convincing evidence that a player dipping from a form he never returned to has nothing to do with said coach. 

The point is, I'm not buying the good seasons under Ralph as being due to his hand while hand-waving away the bad ones. We did that ***** with Housley too - the Nashville D became great BECAUSE of things he did, he wasn't just along for the ride. Many posters argued that who would scoff at that notion today, but we're always ready to attribute good things to the new guy and excuse away the potentially inconvenient ones.

For the record, I don't actually believe that Krueger ruined RNH. I just don't think he was some secret sauce for Yakupov that Nail just couldn't handle not having. I think Nail benefited from an absolutely wild NHL that season, and the fact that it's the low-IQ guys who tend to burst on the scene, quickly get figured out, and be incapable of ever adjusting to that.

 

[triumph_communes]

22 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

You can love a bad coach - I'm not sure why that would be seen as convincing evidence that a player dipping from a form he never returned to has nothing to do with said coach. 

The point is, I'm not buying the good seasons under Ralph as being due to his hand while hand-waving away the bad ones. We did that ***** with Housley too - the Nashville D became great BECAUSE of things he did, he wasn't just along for the ride. Many posters argued that who would scoff at that notion today, but we're always ready to attribute good things to the new guy and excuse away the potentially inconvenient ones.

For the record, I don't actually believe that Krueger ruined RNH. I just don't think he was some secret sauce for Yakupov that Nail just couldn't handle not having. I think Nail benefited from an absolutely wild NHL that season, and the fact that it's the low-IQ guys who tend to burst on the scene, quickly get figured out, and be incapable of ever adjusting to that.

 

I think Yakupov flourished as much as that flawed player ever could because Krueger heavily utilized him on the PP in a way that played to his strengths, and otherwise hid his weaknesses in ways that no other coach could, even after Krueger already paved the way for him.  And have you looked at the D-corp that team had?!

 

Krueger was my #1 choice for a coach before Housley was even fired.  He was my #1 before Housley too.  He is a player's coach, and that is what this team struggled with the most over the last few seasons, both with Bylsma and with Housley.  Disconnect between coaching staff and players and their buy-in/motivation.  This is the BEST coach out there to bridge that gap.  He literally wrote the book on it.  And he is a guy who Team Canada thought was world-class to use for his Xs and Os and video breakdown analysis, so it's not like he's some Ted Nolan either.

 

I understand your devil's advocate position, but I countered it with what I considered objective facts of the situation that could readily explain the drop regardless of the coach.  A sophomore player who struggled post-injury, and had a lock-out summer before he's really understood how to off-season as a pro, struggled to put up numbers under a new coach/system is not just the coach's fault.  Especially when the player loved the coach and was shooting below his career averages that one shortened year.

Edited September 5, 2019 by triumph_communes

[dudacek]

A lot of good coaches fail in the NHL. A few bad ones succeed.

I don’t think there are any coaches with a universal “magic bullet.” It’s about finding the right guy to maximize the potential of the group he’s handed. Craig Berube last year in St. Louis was the prime example.

To paraphrase Herb Brooks: we don’t need the best coach, we need the right one.

Edited September 5, 2019 by dudacek

[Randall Flagg]

2 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

I think Yakupov flourished as much as that flawed player ever could because Krueger heavily utilized him on the PP in a way that played to his strengths, and otherwise hid his weaknesses in ways that no other coach could, even after Krueger already paved the way for him.  And have you looked at the D-corp that team had?!

 

Krueger was my #1 choice for a coach before Housley was even fired.  He was my #1 before Housley too.  He is a player's coach, and that is what this team struggled with the most over the last few seasons, both with Bylsma and with Housley.  Disconnect between coaching staff and players and their buy-in/motivation.  This is the BEST coach out there to bridge that gap.  He literally wrote the book on it.  And he is a guy who Team Canada thought was world-class to use for his Xs and Os and video breakdown analysis, so it's not like he's some Ted Nolan either.

 

I understand your devil's advocate position, but I countered it with what I considered objective facts of the situation that could readily explain the drop regardless of the coach.  A sophomore player who struggled post-injury, and had a lock-out summer before he's really understood how to off-season as a pro, struggled to put up numbers under a new coach/system is not just the coach's fault.  Especially when the player loved the coach and was shooting below his career averages that one shortened year.

In what ways were Yakupov's weaknesses hidden? Can you get into details here? Was it just the fact that he was probably heavily sheltered? Is it really unique that a volatile rookie is sheltered in an offensive role? Is Phil thus a genius for giving Mittelstadt a higher percentage of offensive zone starts than like any other skater in the NHL? 

The year after Krueger, Nail's power play time dropped from 17% of his total ice time to 15% of his total ice time. Is this statistically meaningful, indicative of what would be the fall of a player that Ralph had set up to be something someday? I don't see it. What was different about the makeup and strategy of this power play time under Ralph vs the next guy, that put Nail in a box and slowly led to him withering away in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise?

Did Ralph key into something that every other coach who had him, plenty with better track records, just somehow missed, failed to pick up on themselves?

I just can't get excited about a young player having a good season under Ralph Krueger. That ***** happens on every team ever, and there's nothing there to grasp on to indicate that Ralph somehow had something special that will carry over and affect us differently than if it was another coach. It reads far more like the list of vague good stuff you can come up with for literally any head coach hire ever, which is fine, but not a compelling narrative.