[Friedman] Kraken fire head coach Dave Hakstol

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

I think someone like Todd McLellan would be a great hire for you guys if I'm looking at this from a neutral perspective. He seemingly gets a lot out of his players and is historically known to be a 'players coach' and frankly it seems this Seattle team needs a coach to develop young players into a system. McLellan would be perfect in that regard.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

I think someone like Todd McLellan would be a great hire for you guys if I'm looking at this from a neutral perspective. He seemingly gets a lot out of his players and is historically known to be a 'players coach' and frankly it seems this Seattle team needs a coach to develop young players into a system. McLellan would be perfect in that regard.

TMac may have changed since the Sharks days but I am not sold on him being good with developing young players. He is most definitely a players coach but was never able to get the most out of the loaded Sharks teams.

 

[Irie]

TMac may have changed since the Sharks days but I am not sold on him being good with developing young players. He is most definitely a players coach but was never able to get the most out of the loaded Sharks teams.

In McLellan's defense, Wilson had a revolving door of middle six, 4th liners, and bottom pairing guys coming through those teams, and most of his "solutions" were more hail-mary prayers than welll thought out acquisitions imo. They had a great 8 player core or so, and then every year you had 8-10 new faces it always seemed.

Niemii had good overall numbers behind the McLellan system, but he always gave up soft back breaking goals at the worst possible times in the playoffs. I remember two playoff series the Sharks would have absolutely won had they had gotten even average goaltending from Niemi.

I always felt like McLellan did a solid job with those Sharks teams, but a mix of an innability to make adjustments when they needed to be made, and a questionable roster makeup from Wilson was always his undoing in the playoffs.

I have mixed opinions on him being a good development coach. There were times where he seemed to really have the young guys like Pavs and Setoguchi buzzing with confidence, but other times where it felt like some of the younger players that he would bench or give little ice-time to were a bit lost and lacking direction under him, but he was coaching a team that was a cup favorite, which is a tough situation for young players to come into and develop in, so I'll give him some leeway there.

I don't think he is the best development coach, but they could do worse. I also think he is the type of coach that has a 3-4 year max shelf life, so I am not certain he is the best option, unless Francis is looking for just a temporary solution to give the players a more defined system to develop in than what Hakstol brought, which i think some of the young guys could benefit from.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

In McLellan's defense, Wilson had a revolving door of middle six, 4th liners, and bottom pairing guys coming through those teams, and most of his "solutions" were more hail-mary prayers than welll thought out acquisitions imo. They had a great 8 player core or so, and then every year you had 8-10 new faces it always seemed.

There is no disagreement there. He also mortgaged the future considerably during those years, so the Sharks did not acquire any young talent.

Niemii had good overall numbers behind the McLellan system, but he always gave up soft back breaking goals at the worst possible times in the playoffs. I remember two playoff series the Sharks would have absolutely won had they had gotten even average goaltending from Niemi.

I always felt like McLellan did a solid job with those Sharks teams, but a mix of an innability to make adjustments when they needed to be made, and a questionable roster makeup from Wilson was always his undoing in the playoffs.

Yeah. He struggled to make adjustments. Our matchups against Daryl Sutter were terrible.

I have mixed opinions on him being a good development coach. There were times where he seemed to really have the young guys like Pavs and Setoguchi buzzing with confidence, but other times where it felt like some of the younger players that he would bench or give little ice-time to were a bit lost and lacking direction under him, but he was coaching a team that was a cup favorite, which is a tough situation for young players to come into and develop in, so I'll give him some leeway there.

I don't think he is the best development coach, but they could do worse. I also think he is the type of coach that has a 3-4 year max shelf life, so I am not certain he is the best option, unless Francis is looking for just a temporary solution to give the players a more defined system to develop in than what Hakstol brought, which i think some of the young guys could benefit from.

I always felt he failed to rotate lines properly. But like you mentioned he may have ridden the vets really hard simply because the bottom-6 depth was pretty atrocious.

 

[wewantyoursoul]

I know each team and coach is probably a little different...but how much onus lies on the head coach to develop young players. All teams have a staff of (usually) experienced assistants and other team personnel. I would almost think the assistants have as much to do with development as the head coach. If you were to bring in a coach because of their system, maybe the Kraken could insist on bringing in an assistant or two that has proven experience with development.

I only bring this up because, out of sheer ignorance, have no idea how much (in any sport) a head coach actually participates with the development of their young players.

Or...maybe in the NHL, teams allow a newly hired head coach to bring in whoever they want to be on their staff. I dunno. Would love a little insight if anyone is willing to entertain the discussion.

 

[sigma six]

I know each team and coach is probably a little different...but how much onus lies on the head coach to develop young players. All teams have a staff of (usually) experienced assistants and other team personnel. I would almost think the assistants have as much to do with development as the head coach. If you were to bring in a coach because of their system, maybe the Kraken could insist on bringing in an assistant or two that has proven experience with development.

I only bring this up because, out of sheer ignorance, have no idea how much (in any sport) a head coach actually participates with the development of their young players.

Or...maybe in the NHL, teams allow a newly hired head coach to bring in whoever they want to be on their staff. I dunno. Would love a little insight if anyone is willing to entertain the discussion.

An interesting question, I'd like to know more about this too. It does seem like someone other than the head coach would be the one more focused on player development outside of games.

Does the argument against some coaches ability to develope stem from how many minutes or what linemates the coach gives the young up-and-comers?

An example in-progress is taking place at the Flyers board; some posters feel that Tortorella has done Farrabee, Brink and especially Frost no favors in this regard -- and will screw up Michkov when he arrives.

 

[kihei]

It seems logical that the assistant coaches would be more hands on in developing young players than head coaches. But head coaches determine how much time on ice the kids eventually get. And most coaches want to avoid jeopardizing their jobs. Are there any available coaches who actually consistently give their young players ice time? It would also be interesting to see who the assistants are that they hire, too.