Bruce Boudreau

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

 

 

I know there was a thread on first coach fired, but due to the Todd Richards firing in Columbus, that has been answered and I thought one coach, who has a world of heavy expectations on his shoulders due to the awesome team (at least, based on past recent history) assembled for him this year...deserves his own thread: Bruce Boudreau.

 

In Game #3, some were talking about how the Ducks were failures, how they were duds, how they were destroying all expectations...and I was like "Well, all teams struggle, it's early...give'm time".

 

Well, here we are... Ducks just finished Game #9, they are STILL hapless, STILL disppointing (by a country mile...or a pair of kilometres if you are Canadian, eh)...and Games 10-15 don't offer much solace either: They feature the Blues, Predators, on-the-rise Panthers, Tortorella-led Blue Jackets, division rival Sharks, and upstart Domi and Duclair-led Coyotes.

 

If the Ducks don't show ANY sort of upward trending....as in like, IMMEDIATELY...Mr. Bruce Boudreau may be shown the door!

 

I believe we are far enough into the season where ownership (and the Anaheim fanbase) should be worried that maybe Mr. Boudreau has lost the ears of his players.....yet still early enough to where if some change were made, things can still be turned around and the team can resume being the Cup contender everyone expected them to be since they got eliminated by the Hawks last season.

 

Now, what change might that be is anyone's guess.

But I think we all know the old adage: Easier to fire ONE man (the head coach), than it is to fire a bunch of under performing players.

 

Right now, I really don't know whether this is the coach's fault, or complacent players, or just plain guys all just struggling at the same time getting out of the opening season gates.

But precedents in the past have been set where teams have fired a coach early on, then have gone on to have a good season, followed by some more after that.

 

So the Ducks could be looking at that and thinking "There is still time...maybe if we get someone in here to get the players' attention once again" or "Even if it isn't the coach's fault, maybe his firing will EMBARRASS players enough to up their games".

Either way, with 73 games to go, Bruce Boudreau, unless his team shows MARKED improvement, could be on the unemployment line once again.........and maybe this time, not bounce back as quickly as when he was jettisoned by the Caps and landed in Anaheim in the first place.

 

May this thread be:

THE BOUDREAU WATCH THREAD!

 

Thoughts and commentaries, por favor.

[2nd String Champ]

It's unfair to fire a coach because the forwards aren't scoring goals. It's not the coach's job to score goals. The players are paid to, they know how to, they work very hard for long stretches and try to. It's a goofball gimmick that works because everyone in the NHL knows "you can't fire 25 players".

 

I would only sign players that have performance clauses. Let them earn the money each night, week and year.

[radoran]

I would only sign players that have performance clauses. Let them earn the money each night, week and year.

In thus day and age you're essentially saying you wouldn't sign anybody.

Because there would be 29 other teams offering contracts to any player worth having.

I like the idea, bit it's just a dream.

Coaches get fired when teams under perform. I don't always like it, but that's just the way it is. And sometimes they absolutely do deserve it.

As long as the league has even half of the owners who think that way, it's not going to change.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

It's unfair to fire a coach because the forwards aren't scoring goals. It's not the coach's job to score goals. The players are paid to, they know how to, they work very hard for long stretches and try to. It's a goofball gimmick that works because everyone in the NHL knows "you can't fire 25 players".

 

I would only sign players that have performance clauses. Let them earn the money each night, week and year.

 

 

I agree 100% with this line of thinking.

But, as you know, its just the way it is in sports....team doesn't perform and no other reasons for it are apparent, so it MUST be due to the coach "losing the room".

 

Sometimes a coaching change sparks something in the players (again, I agree its kinda absurd...WHY weren't they 'sparked' before?), sometimes there is no change, sometimes it makes things worse..........and sometimes, the situation fixes itself, but it has nothing to to with coaching, but rather, the players finally got their heads out of their collective arses.....but the NEW coach coming in will be given credit for it.

 

Such a thing has been suggested for the Columbus change. Some have said that ship would have righted itself given time, and if it does now, Tortorella will be given undeserved credit.

That in itself can be a topic for a whole other thread, but the bottom line is, the Ducks were heavy favorites to emerge from the West and have a serious shot at winning the Cup, and right now, they can't even manage to win more than a single game...a game they were thoroughly outplayed in too.

 

Offense, defense, goaltending....nothing is working right for Anaheim.

And with no obvious cause, Bruce Boudreau will likely remain in the crosshairs.

[2nd String Champ]

In thus day and age you're essentially saying you wouldn't sign anybody.

Because there would be 29 other teams offering contracts to any player worth having.

I like the idea, bit it's just a dream.

Coaches get fired when teams under perform. I don't always like it, but that's just the way it is. And sometimes they absolutely do deserve it.

As long as the league has even half of the owners who think that way, it's not going to change.

 

I meant if I ran the league, just change the contracts. Of course if one team tried that it wouldn't work. I would fire a coach too, IF they deserved it. The coach is a scapegoat far too often. The idea of "scaring the players" or "embarrassing them into preforming better" doesn't fly with me. A full grown man needs to be scared or embarrassed into doing his job, which is playing a game? Come on.

[ruxpin]

I'd fire the coach tonight.   I've never been a fan of Bourdreau.  I didn't think he was very good in Washington and was amazed the Ducks hired him as quickly as they did.  i understand if it were a market where they were just happy to make the playoffs.  But Anaheim had and has a good team (I don't think it's as good now, even on paper, as it was 2 years ago).   He has repeated his MO in Anaheim.    The past couple years where they were considered contenders I bet against them.  Based solely on Boudreau.   

 

I completely get the players need to play thing.  I also agree that this is even worse than it should be given it's the same scheme, etc. I know they have a handful of new players, but still.  So the players have culpability.  But it also leads me to believe there is a silent revolt going on there.  I still maintain that some of the core has realized they will not win with Boudreau and have gone on strike, so to speak.

 

 

So, while agree that a finger should be pointed at multiple players, I make the coaching change right now.

[OccamsRazor]

I know there was a thread on first coach fired, but due to the Todd Richards firing in Columbus, that has been answered and I thought one coach, who has a world of heavy expectations on his shoulders due to the awesome team (at least, based on past recent history) assembled for him this year...deserves his own thread: Bruce Boudreau.

 

I think its' a two horse race on who gets axed first Bruce or Bob Hartley.....if i'm a betting man i'd put my money on Bruce getting the axe.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I think its' a two horse race on who gets axed first Bruce or Bob Hartley.....if i'm a betting man i'd put my money on Bruce getting the axe.

 

Hartley would be a good bet too.

The Flames may not have had the expectations the Ducks have, but since they made the post season, I think most were at least looking for Calgary to repeat that.

 

But Boudreau's team had "Stanley Cup" written all over it if you were to go by many sources in the off season.

Add to that, that many felt this may be  down year for both the Sharks and Kings, and the other division rivals (including Calgary) shouldn't be a threat to take the division from Anaheim, and one can easily see how the Ducks slow start is starting all these "Begone with Boudreau" type mindsets.

[OccamsRazor]

Hartley would be a good bet too.

The Flames may not have had the expectations the Ducks have, but since they made the post season, I think most were at least looking for Calgary to repeat that.

 

But Boudreau's team had "Stanley Cup" written all over it if you were to go by many sources in the off season.

Add to that, that many felt this may be  down year for both the Sharks and Kings, and the other division rivals (including Calgary) shouldn't be a threat to take the division from Anaheim, and one can easily see how the Ducks slow start is starting all these "Begone with Boudreau" type mindsets.

 

 

I agree and they went out on a limb sort of and went all out to land Hamilton....and now this crap...and we've already seen them waive Ramo...who they had just resigned. Yes it could be he to. But the Ducks were in the Conference finals and so close...so yes more expectations for sure.

 

And there have already been Randy Carlyle returning rumors.....so who knows.

[mojo1917]

Both Hartley and Boudreau are former Hershey Bears coaches.

 

I think Hartley has more room, that Flames team really over performed last year, they are still rebuilding and i think the front office knows it.

 

Bruce is a cool guy very down to earth,  that said he uh needs to get that team playing better, they are the chalk and are not playing worth damn,  he would be right to be feeling the some heat

[2nd String Champ]

I agree 100% with this line of thinking.

But, as you know, its just the way it is in sports....team doesn't perform and no other reasons for it are apparent, so it MUST be due to the coach "losing the room".

 

Sometimes a coaching change sparks something in the players (again, I agree its kinda absurd...WHY weren't they 'sparked' before?), sometimes there is no change, sometimes it makes things worse..........and sometimes, the situation fixes itself, but it has nothing to to with coaching, but rather, the players finally got their heads out of their collective arses.....but the NEW coach coming in will be given credit for it.

 

Such a thing has been suggested for the Columbus change. Some have said that ship would have righted itself given time, and if it does now, Tortorella will be given undeserved credit.

That in itself can be a topic for a whole other thread, but the bottom line is, the Ducks were heavy favorites to emerge from the West and have a serious shot at winning the Cup, and right now, they can't even manage to win more than a single game...a game they were thoroughly outplayed in too.

 

Offense, defense, goaltending....nothing is working right for Anaheim.

And with no obvious cause, Bruce Boudreau will likely remain in the crosshairs.

 

All true. It's hard to believe that this nonsense can happen in a multibillion industry. 

[2nd String Champ]

I'd fire the coach tonight.   I've never been a fan of Bourdreau.  I didn't think he was very good in Washington and was amazed the Ducks hired him as quickly as they did.  i understand if it were a market where they were just happy to make the playoffs.  But Anaheim had and has a good team (I don't think it's as good now, even on paper, as it was 2 years ago).   He has repeated his MO in Anaheim.    The past couple years where they were considered contenders I bet against them.  Based solely on Boudreau.   

 

I completely get the players need to play thing.  I also agree that this is even worse than it should be given it's the same scheme, etc. I know they have a handful of new players, but still.  So the players have culpability.  But it also leads me to believe there is a silent revolt going on there.  I still maintain that some of the core has realized they will not win with Boudreau and have gone on strike, so to speak.

 

 

So, while agree that a finger should be pointed at multiple players, I make the coaching change right now.

 

I'm half with you but still fall on the side that says Boudreau deserves more time. The first period vs. Dallas last night was all Ducks' hockey. The players can play, they just need to stop stumbling.

[ruxpin]

I'm half with you but still fall on the side that says Boudreau deserves more time. The first period vs. Dallas last night was all Ducks' hockey. The players can play, they just need to stop stumbling.

I agree with that. Boudreau probably does objectively deserve more time. I'm focusing on the word "deserve" and really can't disagree.

And I really do agree with your position on the players.

People here will tell you I don't have a track record of patience with coaches. So be thankful it's not up to me, because I'd fire him anyway. I've just never liked the guy. I just don't think he's a guy that can seal the deal.

[2nd String Champ]

I agree with that. Boudreau probably does objectively deserve more time. I'm focusing on the word "deserve" and really can't disagree.

And I really do agree with your position on the players.

People here will tell you I don't have a track record of patience with coaches. So be thankful it's not up to me, because I'd fire him anyway. I've just never liked the guy. I just don't think he's a guy that can seal the deal.

 

Myself, I'm not a big coach watcher. I know Babcock is great, Scotty Bowman etc. There are coaches I think are decent people but as for coaching styles, I can't say I know much about them.

 

What I think about Bourdeau is; he did a great job in Washington and a great job in Anaheim. This of course can be debated but I think he does a good enough job fixing bad teams... so wouldn't that be enough to get the team to the Stanley Cup? I only assume so.

[2nd String Champ]

But it also leads me to believe there is a silent revolt going on there. I still maintain that some of the core has realized they will not win with Boudreau and have gone on strike, so to speak.





So, while agree that a finger should be pointed at multiple players, I make the coaching change right now.

 

I don't see too much tension from the players, so I can't agree with them going on strike, even to say a couple of players are on strike would be a stretch for me.

 

Who would replace Boudreau in the short term? Is there an assistant coach right now that can just take over and stay head coach? Who will be available from other teams this year that can take over the team?

[ruxpin]

Myself, I'm not a big coach watcher. I know Babcock is great, Scotty Bowman etc. There are coaches I think are decent people but as for coaching styles, I can't say I know much about them.

 

What I think about Bourdeau is; he did a great job in Washington and a great job in Anaheim. This of course can be debated but I think he does a good enough job fixing bad teams... so wouldn't that be enough to get the team to the Stanley Cup? I only assume so.

 

Me neither, to be honest.  But I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express (just not last night).  That should count for something, right?

 

Keep in mind, I'm from Philly.  We change coaches because it's Tuesday.  But I think there's coaches (across many sports) who are great at taking a lousy team and making them respectable and even getting them to the place where they're knocking at the door.  But for whatever reason, they are unable to get the team through the door (to stick with a lousy metaphor).  It sometimes takes the change and bringing in a closer.  The risk, of course, is the change ultimately making the team go backward.   

 

Ultimately, I think you're right that given his track record in Anaheim that he deserves the chance to try to work through this.  I just think he's the knock on the door but it doesn't open guy.

[2nd String Champ]

Me neither, to be honest.  But I did once stay at a Holiday Inn Express (just not last night).  That should count for something, right?

 

Keep in mind, I'm from Philly.  We change coaches because it's Tuesday.  But I think there's coaches (across many sports) who are great at taking a lousy team and making them respectable and even getting them to the place where they're knocking at the door.  But for whatever reason, they are unable to get the team through the door (to stick with a lousy metaphor).  It sometimes takes the change and bringing in a closer.  The risk, of course, is the change ultimately making the team go backward.   

 

Ultimately, I think you're right that given his track record in Anaheim that he deserves the chance to try to work through this.  I just think he's the knock on the door but it doesn't open guy.

 

Well there's a question. Is a coach needed to make the same group of players from a playoff team, say a second round team, to a Stanley Cup winning team?

[ruxpin]

Well there's a question. Is a coach needed to make the same group of players from a playoff team, say a second round team, to a Stanley Cup winning team?

 

You wouldn't think so, would you?   But apparently sometimes.

 

The example I love is the Phillies in the 70s.  The team was up and coming and went to three straight NLCS and lost.  They decided Danny Ozark, the manager, wasn't the guy to get them over the hump.  They fired him and brought in new.  They missed the playoffs (at the time, division winners only) and the following year won the World series.

 

Now.  Was it the coach?  Or was it the fact they added Pete Rose and Manny Trillo (among a couple others)?

 

MAYBE Boudreau's Ducks simply play in a conference where there are several other really very good teams and only one can win each year.   Maybe they simply didn't match up well with who they drew.  Maybe they were missing something.  I can't say that Boudreau was glaringly "outcoached" in the series they lost.  

 

So, objectively I guess I really don't have an answer for you, although I would lean toward the idea that the coach's role here is greatly overblown.  On the otherhand, I do think Coach Q, for example, does contribute to his teams' success in the playoffs in a very real way.

 

but yeah, it's probably just like "chemistry" and just gives us fans something to yammer about.

[2nd String Champ]

You wouldn't think so, would you?   But apparently sometimes.

 

The example I love is the Phillies in the 70s.  The team was up and coming and went to three straight NLCS and lost.  They decided Danny Ozark, the manager, wasn't the guy to get them over the hump.  They fired him and brought in new.  They missed the playoffs (at the time, division winners only) and the following year won the World series.

 

Now.  Was it the coach?  Or was it the fact they added Pete Rose and Manny Trillo (among a couple others)?

 

MAYBE Boudreau's Ducks simply play in a conference where there are several other really very good teams and only one can win each year.   Maybe they simply didn't match up well with who they drew.  Maybe they were missing something.  I can't say that Boudreau was glaringly "outcoached" in the series they lost.  

 

So, objectively I guess I really don't have an answer for you, although I would lean toward the idea that the coach's role here is greatly overblown.  On the otherhand, I do think Coach Q, for example, does contribute to his teams' success in the playoffs in a very real way.

 

but yeah, it's probably just like "chemistry" and just gives us fans something to yammer about.

 

All of that could very well be possible. Some of it just seems like it would be right with what goes on in the NHL.