 |
| Kirk Muller took over in Carolina - Grant Halverson/Getty Images |
With six coaching changes in the NHL that have taken place in recent months, it is not surprising to see that five of them have not garnered significant results initially.
Three teams in the Western conference (St. Louis, Anaheim, Los Angeles) and three teams in the Eastern Conference (Washington, Carolina, Montreal) have taken the steps necessary to initiate change behind their benches.
With the exception of Ken Hitchcock leading St. Louis, the other five newly tapped coaches (Bruce Boudreau (Anaheim), Dale Hunter (Washington), Kirk Muller Carolina), Darryl Sutter (Los Angeles), Randy Cunneyworth (Montreal)) have not accomplished much - yet.
The blame game
In a tight economy, the need for a business like a professional hockey team to continue to generate revenue is paramount.
Not mutually exclusive, winning and getting people to attend games are necessary factors for a team to remain financially viable and to keep everyone 'feeling good' about their team.
Winning is 'job security' as a professional hockey coach and many of the individuals removed from their posts (Davis Payne, Randy Carlyle, Bruce Boudreau, Paul Maurice, Terry Murray, Jacques Martin) were not meeting standards set by their teams - not winning or not not winning enough.
Change is good so they say and it is easier to remove one person rather than an entire team, right?
A fool's game
With the exception of the St. Louis, Blues the final verdict
has yet to be determined whether these moves will help each of these
teams to win more games in the short and long term.
The rooms full of talent that each team possesses are not showing
much improvement.
You remove one person, the coach, the strategic leader who many lost faith and confidence in, and leave a group of players who are the ones ultimately responsible for not getting the job done on the ice.
These are NHL pros
When a new coach comes in, maybe with a more personable coaching style than the previous one, or who apparently understands the game better with today's younger players, he has the opportunity to 'wipe the slate clean'.
"Let's not look back at the past, but let's focus towards the future," are the first words out of a that coach's mouth because that is what management has told them to do in getting the player's minds settled.
A psychological game takes place and pressure mounts even more as the expectation to win has now squarely been placed on the players shoulders to get the job done.
As professionals in the NHL, these players are expected to perform and achieve success accordingly - win games, make the playoffs, win the Stanley Cup.
If it was the former coach who kept them from winning, then the new one should help them tremendously, right?
Not necessarily so.
Talent lacking
When the new coach comes in to take over with a third of the regular season already complete, how much higher or different are the expectations from team management, media and fans alike than before?
If the team doesn't begin to look and play differently and win games, then the move made during the season was worthless, right?
If the team possesses the talent to win games, and has gotten the change in leadership, as requested or required accordingly, but doesn't win games, then what's the problem?
What if the new coach just doesn't mesh with the players after all or doesn't truly have the ability and experience to coach the team? What then?
The saying 'it is what it is' may very well start to be heard in unison around the league very soon, if not already.
Articles of note:
How valuable is win percentage in one-goal games?
Stakes huge for struggling Habs
The Raleigh Sports Examiner on Facebook
Follow the Raleigh Sports Examiner on Twitter @pksport
The Raleigh Sports Examiner - Sports with a Local Twist
Raleigh Sport Examiner - You Tube channel
