Poll of the Week

[BigTed3]

Now that we have a general manager, the next step is to hire a coach. There have been a number of options discussed, but who are you putting at the head of the class and does it matter whether they have experience with us or in the league in general? Select as many criteria/options as you see your ideal candidate fitting.

[hatethosebruins]

Im on the Roy bandwagon, a little cautious but it just seems too awesome.

[kinot-1]

Someone who coached the Habs before and knows the city:

No,,,,been there and done that, and except for riding Halak in the CF, was disappointed in most of those coaches.

Someone who's been an NHL head coach before but is currently out of the league:

A good possibility, and the only one I see as a good fit, would be Marc Crawford.

A minor league coach whose ready for his first stint in the NHL:

Not in this pressure-cooker of a franchise.

An NHL assistant coach whose ready to become a head coach:

I am not sold on that idea, I want experience.

Someone he has prior ties to and whom he'll work well with:

Ideally, yes, (can you imagine a GM and coach who didn't get along ?),,but the candidate must also have a "winning attitude", know how to motivate players, and be a good communicator, among other abilities.

Someone francophone, no matter what their background:

,,,,nuff said.

[weepingminotaur]

The francophone candidate can't be any of the first five options? As if ANYONE thinks hiring only based on language is the way to go? Seriously, guys, srsly.

[roy_133]

Other than the final option, which I assume was thrown in as some kind of joke, I'm not set against any of the options but it would be ridiculous to narrow the choice to any of those specifically. I suppose the answer is all of the above, other than the last option. He should look at all possible options the way we did with the GM. There's something more tangible in prior head coaching experience at the NHL level but even then you're just hiring a retread. I don't like Crawford, I don't like Hartley and I don't like Therrien. I love Vigneault, but who knows if he even becomes available. Other than that, I just don't know. I have faith in them to conduct another exhaustive search and find a worthwhile candidate though.

[weepingminotaur]

Other than the final option, which I assume was thrown in as some kind of joke, I'm not set against any of the options but it would be ridiculous to narrow the choice to any of those specifically. I suppose the answer is all of the above, other than the last option. He should look at all possible options the way we did with the GM. There's something more tangible in prior head coaching experience at the NHL level but even then you're just hiring a retread. I don't like Crawford, I don't like Hartley and I don't like Therrien. I love Vigneault, but who knows if he even becomes available. Other than that, I just don't know. I have faith in them to conduct another exhaustive search and find a worthwhile candidate though.

+1

[Manatee-X]

I don't think that limiting it to any one pool is the way to go, and obviously a lot would depend on the individuals being mentioned. Generally speaking, though, I'd choose to go with an NHL assistant.

NHL coaches who have been fired are usually (no, not always) fired for a reason. Sometimes you get the guy who's canned just for the sake of making a change, but usually those guys get snapped up quickly. So if Vigneault is available, yes, grab him, but that kind of hire requires a whole lot of luck and fortuitous timing.

Again it depends on the individual, but in general I also don't like the idea of hiring a guy based on junior or AHL experience. There's one reason for this: the coaching dynamic changes once the players start making more money than you do. I'm not saying that money is the be-all-end-all, but you really have to earn the respect of your players in the NHL. They've already made it, and they're not going to put up with as much abuse as an AHL trying to earn a call-up. Coaches from the minors are more likely to try the sort of "everyone's a grinder" and tough love strategies that we saw with Cunneyworth, and they just don't work at the pro level.

For this reason I'd grab an up-and-coming assistant coach who has experience at the NHL level.

[roy_133]

I don't think that limiting it to any one pool is the way to go, and obviously a lot would depend on the individuals being mentioned. Generally speaking, though, I'd choose to go with an NHL assistant.

NHL coaches who have been fired are usually (no, not always) fired for a reason. Sometimes you get the guy who's canned just for the sake of making a change, but usually those guys get snapped up quickly. So if Vigneault is available, yes, grab him, but that kind of hire requires a whole lot of luck and fortuitous timing.

Again it depends on the individual, but in general I also don't like the idea of hiring a guy based on junior or AHL experience. There's one reason for this: the coaching dynamic changes once the players start making more money than you do. I'm not saying that money is the be-all-end-all, but you really have to earn the respect of your players in the NHL. They've already made it, and they're not going to put up with as much abuse as an AHL trying to earn a call-up. Coaches from the minors are more likely to try the sort of "everyone's a grinder" and tough love strategies that we saw with Cunneyworth, and they just don't work at the pro level.

For this reason I'd grab an up-and-coming assistant coach who has experience at the NHL level.

It's tough because, if a coach is strictly an assistant with no head coaching experience at the pro level his ability to game plan and implement systems could be poor. If anything, I think I'd rather have a headman from a lower professional/junior league but there's no obvious choices there either, other than Roy and part of that is just his name factor.

I think if we were to make this same thread a month ago about the GM, we probably wouldn't have voted on the criteria that landed us Bergevin. There's no specific formula because every job, situation and roster is different. We interview a large pool of guys, assistants, ex head coaches, current AHL/CHL coaches, just whoever we think has a chance to be competent and we start narrowing it down from there IMO. The biggest key is that management and the new coaching staff are completely on the same page. There's too many variable to say, this is the type of guy we need to look for at the end of the day.

[weepingminotaur]

The biggest key is that management and the new coaching staff are completely on the same page.

This.

Whatever direction we go in, everyone has to be on board with it and committed to it. No use hiring an offensive-minded coach if the GM wants to bring in defensive players. I think one of the ways we'll improve off the bat is by getting a competent pro scout. We've dropped so much money and term over the past decade on players who just weren't worth it and I have to believe whoever becomes director of pro scouting will do a better job than Gainey & Gauthier.

[BigTed3]

It's tough because, if a coach is strictly an assistant with no head coaching experience at the pro level his ability to game plan and implement systems could be poor. If anything, I think I'd rather have a headman from a lower professional/junior league but there's no obvious choices there either, other than Roy and part of that is just his name factor.

I agree on the point that we want a guy whose had some experience as a head coach before, but there are some assistants (robinson, Hartsburg, king, etc.) who fit that bill. When it comes to Patrick, yes, a large part of why some fans want him is name recognition and judgment on his ability as a player. But I also wouldn't want to exclude him just on account of the fact that we lump him in with the likes of Gretzky. Patrick has actually put in 7 years in the minors and seems to be into the art of coaching, not just using his own expertise from his playing days. And his winning percentage as a coach is in the range of .700. He's never had a losing season, although his team has never won the Q either. To me, the hesitation with Patrick is his temper and rash way of dealing with things, which may hurt him with the Habs. But as far as his resume goes, he's actually got what it takes to get a shot at being a coach in the NHL. Some have said he'll wait it out until Quebec city gets a team again, but with Phoenix surging in the playoffs, they may be less inclined to move the team this summer and Patrick may be more likely to bite at another offer.

[roy_133]

I agree on the point that we want a guy whose had some experience as a head coach before, but there are some assistants (robinson, Hartsburg, king, etc.) who fit that bill. When it comes to Patrick, yes, a large part of why some fans want him is name recognition and judgment on his ability as a player. But I also wouldn't want to exclude him just on account of the fact that we lump him in with the likes of Gretzky. Patrick has actually put in 7 years in the minors and seems to be into the art of coaching, not just using his own expertise from his playing days. And his winning percentage as a coach is in the range of .700. He's never had a losing season, although his team has never won the Q either. To me, the hesitation with Patrick is his temper and rash way of dealing with things, which may hurt him with the Habs. But as far as his resume goes, he's actually got what it takes to get a shot at being a coach in the NHL. Some have said he'll wait it out until Quebec city gets a team again, but with Phoenix surging in the playoffs, they may be less inclined to move the team this summer and Patrick may be more likely to bite at another offer.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to come off as anti Patrick, I was just stating that the only reason he comes to mind is because of his name recognition. For all I know, there maybe a better candidate coaching in the Q or some other league I don't follow religiously that I don't know much about.

I'd be excited if we hired Patrick. Unlike Carbo he's absolutely put in his dues and if we deem he's ready and gives a good interview, I'll be on board.

[Guest habs1952]

I went with 'None of the Above".

[Guest]

I went with 'None of the Above".

So your holding out for Vigneault too??.

[Guest habs1952]

So your holding out for Vigneault too??.

I wish I were but I think he'll stay with the Canucks. I just don't want a has been or someone because he's a buddy. I want the best man available who speaks French.

[CANADIENS27]

How about current and experienced NHL head coach or assistant? Second selection needs to be amended slightly.