Loss to Blues brings out Richards' frustration

Did I say only Lemaire runs a defensive system? I don't understand that question.

I don't begrudge the guy his difficulties with getting everything together. I just think a coach (and manager) are hired to establish their vision. In this case I never anticipated it being manifested right away. They don't have the stable. Additionally they have a ridiculous injury situation right now. I just don't want to hear talk about the old boss. With the exception of the collapsing thing (which I still contend happens on some instinctual level anyway when a team is overwhelmed) a lot of the other problems sound like nothing new.

I wont take the word of an NHL coach just like I wont take the word of a CEO or a Politician. Perhaps the problem here is that the guy offered too many words to be taken. Maybe that's a new coach error. I think he said too much. I didn't even need an explanation. I have always contended that you'd have to be a fool to think some radical departure into an offensive posture would take hold with this roster (with any immediate success). I'd love to see it. It just does not seem like a reasonable expectation. But to bring the old coach into explaining the difficulties? Maybe they should have "managed their expectations" better. Personally I think the guys comments make him look like a weaker coach than I think he really is.

I hope quality players don't refuse to come here because the club is haunted.

forthewild wrote:

yeah there is excuses starting to fly, this season is going to be a massive failure :/ man i am going to cry so hard.

I'm not. I was willing to watch them play the youth last season when I knew they would struggle and I am willing to watch them struggle with this. The kind of hockey they are TALKING about is what most of us want to see I think. I'll cry if it's a massive failure with regards to personnel. Other than that I just want to see growth... without sad, reflective excuses. No excuses, no regrets.

shmiddy wrote:

TaLoN wrote:

We understand it will take time to learn a new system et al, the problem is with Richards' attempt to explain. He is claiming that deprogramming Lemaire's teachings is part of the issue, yet the players he's been using have hardly if ever even played for Lemaire. How can you deprogram Sifers from Lemaire's teachings when he never played for him?

He shouldn't have even brought it into it. It's cheese. Whine about injuries. What ever. The fact that it's being accepted "as fact" is just a sign that their bullshit has traction. Fact is that good players are out of the lineup. Fact is that they don't have that many good players to begin with. Bullshit is that the players collapse into some old defensive system when they're getting spanked. That happens at every pick up game when the ice is tilted. If Richards is right that it means that players who publicly say they like his system, have more faith in the old one in the game. Players as Talon and Fargo point out werent really steeped in it. It was stupid to bring up on his part.

BINGO!

Funny how you qou quote the a bunch of irrelevant BS like it means something and totally gloss over the shittalk about DEPROGRAMMING LEMAIRE'S SYETEM!!! That isn't blaming Lemaire and making an outrageously lame ass excuse? Shame on Russo for not pointing out the obvious!





[flash][/flash]

Jarick wrote:

Bouchard and other unnamed players in on the conspiracy to make Lemaire look bad

I'm confused...

You don't get it. My criticism of Richards' defeatist comments have nothing to do with his system or Lemaire or "second guessing" him. They would apply to any coach or manager in any sport or business at any level. That kind of attitude does not promote success, it's an excuse for failure. "Frustration" is an emotion for little kids.

And YES, blaming Lemaire's "Programming" is about as limp dick an excuse as I've ever heard for a chitty performance by a sports team. Another basic Leadership tenant, you never bla,e the former leaders or managers, you drive on with your own program.

"Defeatist"? LOL. Lemaire was the king of defeatism. After every game he would harp on things done wrong, and he loved to say how bad we were in a game. And he would do this without being specific like Richards. Your bias is disgusting.

And yet nobody has ever blamed Lemaire. Richards took some blame for not teaching them the system, and the players took responsibility to ask the coach for additional instruction. You're the only one who's read into the situation as a backhanded comment about Lemaire's system.

Personally, I'm not sure I would be so forthright to the media if I were Richards. He's literally called himself a failure. I think that is a rookie mistake. As you said, you can't show that kind of weakness as a leader.

I would instead take the approach that "I expect and demand my players to learn this system. It will take time and there will be some bumps along the road." End of discussion. Maybe he should pick up a copy of Belichick's book

I haven't read the whole piece I just got up to Weller on wavers..... YAY!

Wild Fan #1 wrote:

"Defeatist"? LOL. Lemaire was the king of defeatism. After every game he would harp on things done wrong, and he loved to say how bad we were in a game. And he would do this without being specific like Richards. Your bias is disgusting.

I suspect that he meant defeatist in the respect that the coach is expressing his disappointment and frustration publicly that he can't overcome, as a coach, the programming of a coach that is gone. For what purpose?

As for the stuff you say Lemaire did, it appears Richards did all that stuff too. I'll reserve comment on the wisdom of Richards' specificity until he has accomplished something. I don't really know what you're talking about there anyway.

Fargo's bias? That's funny shit right there. You were all about holding the new regime to the standard of the old... but you must have meant only so far as the GM, because you're an apologist already for the coach. I don't know why he's disappointed and frustrated already, I figured he was blowing smoke up everyone's asses when he implied a go get 'em system right off the go. I figured on seeing things start to materialize the end of the season beginning of next. He doesn't even have the talent yet comparatively and what he has is hurt. With the way other teams have improved, I think it'd be commendable if he got the squad into the playoff hunt.

I think the guy will be a good coach, I just suspect he's making rookie mistakes. Like "mismanaging expectations", evidently even his own. There was probably corporate pressure on that one. And blabbering to the media.

Jarick wrote:

And yet nobody has ever blamed Lemaire. Richards took some blame for not teaching them the system, and the players took responsibility to ask the coach for additional instruction. You're the only one who's read into the situation as a backhanded comment about Lemaire's system.

Personally, I'm not sure I would be so forthright to the media if I were Richards. He's literally called himself a failure. I think that is a rookie mistake. As you said, you can't show that kind of weakness as a leader.

I would instead take the approach that "I expect and demand my players to learn this system. It will take time and there will be some bumps along the road." End of discussion. Maybe he should pick up a copy of Belichick's book

I agree with you. We can only speculate as to why he brought up the "deprogramming" thing. Maybe it was a compliment, but even if it didn't come off as "blame" is it by definition an excuse. I don't think it wise to bring that into it for multiple reasons at this stage.

As Fargo suggested, the use of "disappointment" and "frustration" is the most troubling thing. I suspect it was more bad word choice than the guy's real emotional state. I don't think a guy gets that far being susceptible to those emotional pitfalls on any significant level. He's taking blame, but I personally don't think he should be at this point. And I don't mean that as additional criticism of his decisions. I just think it's too early for that given all the factors. I've heard some people blame his decision to practice hard on soft ice, but I refuse to go in for that.

Belichick's book? Does that have a pentagram on the cover?

Well I'd agree I'm not going to seriously criticize anything Richards has done yet. As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't accomplished a thing. Then again, I also feel Lemaire didn't accomplish much either with the Wild, so it's not like Richards has this high expectation to live up to. We had nine years of failure under Risebrough-Lemaire, so I feel Fletcher-Richards deserves at least 1-2 years of leeway.

If I were to generalize Lemaire's philosophy, it would probably go something to the effect of "you can teach defense, but you can't teach offense, so my job is to teach my players to play as well defensively as possible." If I were to guess at Richards philosophy, it would probably go something like "the best defense is a good defense, but in order to score you must be aggressive."

And I still think Richards' style won't lean so heavily on speed as people think. I already went through how Gaborik was the only offensive weapon we had 5-on-5 under Lemaire. Lemaire's style was more on trying to score off turnovers at our blue line, which requires a great deal more speed than skating the puck into their end and sending in two forecheckers and a pinching defenseman. That requires smart players who know when to pick their battles.

And I can see how, if your first reaction is to stay back and prevent them from attacking, it will be an adjustment for them to instantaneously read and react to the play, because they now have the option to attack or pinch, rather than the only option to start moving back (or get benched, haha).

Last years team cycled well, defended well, and dropped the D down low (mostly Zid). That gives this coach some foundation. What it didn't do was pursue the puck aggressively in it's own end, get it's best forwards out of the zone first on the transition and take the shot or hit the net when they did.

This coach can probably get them to improve their cycling and make the D more comfortable taking chances (and I suspect there will be instances of horror hopefully offset by glorious moments. Burns and Zid can bothe excell at sneaking low weak side for the one timer. Hopefully Burns is back on).

Obviously the defensive fundamentals are intact.

I have seen indications on both the roster and in pre-season that D men will do more than stand at the posts and wave their sticks around in the D zone this season. That was good for the PK but I hated it 5on5.

Perhaps this coach can coax the players into shooting but I think some of them just cant hit the net. I'd expect crashing and banging on the forecheck to be pretty much the same based on the roster, maybe a little better on the top line.

I think we have to distinguish between forechecking and what they do with the puck in the O zone once they get it. In my estimation it's tough to forecheck without some combination of speed and physicality. I think this squad has a curious imbalance in that respect, but I think they ought to cycle well.

I guess the bottom line for me is that, while I don't think they can be a great forechecking team with this roster, I think they can develop the players who can be while they figure out what to do about the balance of players. I suspect we wont see them go all in on the system for another season. I hope they can make the PP go this season. I don't see why it wouldn't. It was a mystery to me last season.

Well the PP has been good %age wise, but it's always been a get it to the point and shoot philosophy. I think that might be the biggest difference with Richards.

And I also agree the best is yet to come in terms of applying this system to the roster. It will be very interesting to see what kind of players fill the roster spots of Nolan, Brunette, Belanger, and Miettinen.

Let's just chalk Richards' comments to a poor choice of words. But if he's frsutrated now, I hate to think what he might be like after the brutal first 11 games...

Lemaire's neutral zone trap defintiely was helped by speed - force the tunrover than fast on the transition attack.

But a two man forecheck most definitely requires LOTS of speed - first to get in on the Dman fast and secondly, to haul ass back into your own defensive zone. Slow teams will without a doubt die a death of a thousand odd man rushes against... Too slow to get there and the Dman makes that outlet pass. Too slow getting back and your goalie is screwed.

Lemaire a failure? Hardly. The Wild are pretty clearly the most successful Expansion Franchise of the modern era. He didn't win the Jack Adams for his undenialbly GREAT post games talks. And team doesn't come back from TWO impossible black holes like the Wild did TWICE in one playoff sseason with a brilliant coach. My bias? That's a freakin' laugh. You think I'm the one who picks the JackAdams trophy? You think I somehow made all those players say over nd over what a great coach he is? Read THN and what his players say about him. Shep the punk wouldn't listen to him. Martin Brodeur, arguably the greatest goalie of all time, says he was the best coach he ever had. Who are you going to believe?

Take out the fluke 2003 season and you have five years of missed playoffs and two quick first round exits. To me, that's a failure.

Lemaire could win the Jack Adams as the best Coach in the League and you'd still call him a failure. WAIT! He DID win the JackAdams!!! Oh, never mind that, it doesn't support your Hate-Lemaire agenda. Fall back to the "He didn't win a Cup!" After all look how many Cups have been won by modern era Expansion Teams. There's Tampa Bay (after how many years of high Picks) and, ummm FLA, SJ, Nash, Ott... Nevermind that excuse, either. You want to blame Leamire for something, blmae him for turning shit into sugar with the Expanson Wild. He did was too good a job nad got the bands of misfits to way overachieve, costing the team those very Top Picks so many times...

And who were all those great players from the good old days of the Wild that shuld have propelled them to the Cup? Cliff Ronning? Kuba? Jason Marshall? Willie? Park? Super stud Demitra? Any of the Euro Trash or waiver wire guys Dumpster Doug picked up year after year instead of quality NHL players? Where was the talent to take the club anywhere? NAME NAMES. Lemaire WAY over-achieved with the talent he was given. Failure my ass.

Man, I feel sorry for that old man, I don't know how he can sleep at night with the weight of your hate... And I'm the one who's biased!

Fargocase wrote:

Lemaire could win the Jack Adams as the best Coach in the League and you'd still call him a failure. WAIT! He DID win the JackAdams!!! Oh, never mind that, it doesn't support your Hate-Lemaire agenda. Fall back to the "He didn't win a Cup!" After all look how many Cups have been won by modern era Expansion Teams. There's Tampa Bay (after how many years of high Picks) and, ummm FLA, SJ, Nash, Ott... Nevermind that excuse, either. You want to blame Leamire for something, blmae him for turning shit into sugar with the Expanson Wild. He did was too good a job nad got the bands of misfits to way overachieve, costing the team those very Top Picks so many times...

And who were all those great players from the good old days of the Wild that shuld have propelled them to the Cup? Cliff Ronning? Kuba? Jason Marshall? Willie? Park? Super stud Demitra? Any of the Euro Trash or waiver wire guys Dumpster Doug picked up year after year instead of quality NHL players? Where was the talent to take the club anywhere? NAME NAMES. Lemaire WAY over-achieved with the talent he was given. Failure my ass.

Man, I feel sorry for that old man, I don't know how he can sleep at night with the weight of your hate... And I'm the one who's biased!

No shit.

Jarick wrote:

Take out the fluke 2003 season and you have five years of missed playoffs and two quick first round exits. To me, that's a failure.

Name an expansion team that played as many seasons and did MORE than the Wild did under Lemaire.

Minnesota Wild made the playoffs three times and made it to the Conference finals once.
Florida Panthers made the playoffs three times and made it to the Cup finals once.
San Jose Sharks made the playoffs four times and made it out of the first round twice.
Nashville Predators made the playoffs three times although they never made it out of the first round.

So the Preds aren't that great of an example. The Panthers are, and San Jose is a perfect example of a squad that has been given all sorts of talent and can't seal the deal. I dare say Lemaire wasn't provided a roster even approaching that of San Jose. I think it's worth mentioning Trotz pretty much achieved his success with a similar philosophy, though one could argue the management did better by him.

I don't really want any piece of this argument any more, but I firmly believe boiling Lemaire's tenure down to a failure is hyperbole at best. The synergy of DR and JL added up to some degree of failure in my opinion, though not absolute, but I'm weary of the narrow fixation on Lemaire.

Suffice it to say, we have a new regime now and perhaps we can judge them by what they do this season opposed to last or what they do in the next ten opposed to the last ten. Leaving the quality of the roster out of the equation leads to a faulty conclusion though, with respect to the coaches role. Also the remarkable mistakes made with personnel leaves the "people wouldn't come here because of the system" argument flabby. Not that it didn't play a role, but it's significance and is temporally flawed IMO.

I feel these example disprove the failure theory as much as prove it. So then "failure" is inherently too strong a description if anything.

I was asked to list expansion teams that had similar success to the Wild, and I did. I'm not talking about where they are now, simply saying it's not like Lemaire was turning water into wine, he had one successful year out of eight.

When the team made the miracle run in 2003, it was all attributed to Lemaire. When they flopped year after year post-lockout, it was the players and Risebrough's fault. Now that we have a new coach, a lot of you are saying we're going to be worse because the new coach is going to run the wrong system. Well, which is it, the players or the coaches?

New Jersey won three Stanley Cups under three different coaches. They had five different coaches in that time frame. They reached the Cup Finals four times. The players had a bigger impact than the coaches, bottom line.

With a lesser roster than most, you can't call that a failure is the point.

Just for the record, I'm not saying the new coach is running the wrong system. I think I've said all along that I'd be happy with a different system. I don't think the new coach has the roster for the new system, and I didn't think it was prudent to expect any great deal of success with a radical departure from last season's system with the existing roster. As I said before, I figured the coach (or maybe the organization) was blowing smoke touting (or perhaps strongly implying) some San Jose sort of system with this roster straight out of the gates... or at least linking immediate success to it. It caught me off guard to see the coach articulating frustration and disappointment (already) in the OP. It made me wonder if he believed his own hype. Bringing "deprogramming" into it was just weak.

As for a new system, I welcome it. I also welcome management who has shown some initial glimpse of providing the requisite talent (and ditching the dead weight I might add).