Chicago is perfecting the mold again. They employ many puck moving defensemen to make it work. Leddy, oduya, of course Keith. But it seems they are acquiring thr defensemen to make it work. Oduya was available at the trade deadline, but we opted for grossman.
- Just5

Chicago had a rough year last year.

Did they change the identity and panic?

No they stuck the course. Like Detriot is doing. People talk about what this team's identity is. If you want to compare I thought it was somewhat like Chicago. The vibe I am getting from management is they dont have a rats ass what it is, or what they want it to be.

In terms of Grossman, they guy has generally been a rock. At the same time, he isn't a top d-man for a reason. He is a secondary guy that will hopefully slide back into that solid role once the D is improved.

Jury is still out on the Richards, and Carter trades. As well as the JVR trade. Those are the moves that will define Holmgren's tenure.

But a bunch of the other stuff he has done makes little sense. Shelley, Lilja, Walker, the Kubina trade, the Leighton fascination, the swinging and missing this offseason, it goes on and on.

He's done some nice things as well, it hasn't all been bad. There seems to be a personnel disconnect between the GM and the coach. I would choose to keep the coach.
- PLindbergh31

i thought the return for carter was light, but i was wrong- i overvalued him. the richards return was fine, but between the two trades, i don't know how you fail to get the young dman we needed even then. i said so at the time, so it's not a monday morning QB thing. the JVR trade was a backup plan in case homer failed to land a puck mover at the draft. i'd rather have carle and JVR. not a knock on luke. Bill's post clearly outlines the issues here in terms of the mix.

your 2nd paragraph outlines the squandering of assets and knee jerk nature of some of these personnel decisions. i'd also add sacrificing leverage w/ bryz in a buyers mkt.

like you, i want a new org direction with a GM who will stay the course once he does a re-boot like richards/carter. last yrs mantra was "bigger, faster, stonger...i don't know if we are better, but we are different". this yr i don't know what they are...except worse.

Thats the thing.

You can have Murray come in. You may see them get some energy for a few games.

That will not fix anything to me. You will still have streaky D core that is sub par in the transition game. You will still have growing pains of the young kids.

You will then also be asking guys like Briere, Giroux, Simmonds, Brayden Schenn, Hartnell, and Read to play a defensive identity. That is a horrific thought to me. There is a thing about getting your young players to learn good defensive play.

If this team gooes into a Terry Murray type of identity I see them being run into the ground. An aging Kimmo will be hit into dust, and the undersized forwards who aren't that great defensively to begin with will be even more exposed.
- flyer_nutter

Definitely don't want Murray being brought in. If Laviolette is fired and Murray is named the interim coach, I'm gonna blow my stack.

Holmgren will do whatever Snider asks.

He will build the team around what he thinks but Sniders input goes a long ways.
- stveshdy

so yea then we're handcuffed by what snider thinks is best and that will never change until he's gone

Babcock is a very good coach, he hasn't exactly been void of talent. If Babcock was the coach of the Blue Jackets what would happen? Maybe the go from 15th in they Conf, to 13th.
- PLindbergh31

I am not sure if even Scotty Bowman could get Columbus much better.

Thats the thing.

You can have Murray come in. You may see them get some energy for a few games.

That will not fix anything to me. You will still have streaky D core that is sub par in the transition game. You will still have growing pains of the young kids.

You will then also be asking guys like Briere, Giroux, Simmonds, Brayden Schenn, Hartnell, and Read to play a defensive identity. That is a horrific thought to me. There is a thing about getting your young players to learn good defensive play.

If this team gooes into a Terry Murray type of identity I see them being run into the ground. An aging Kimmo will be hit into dust, and the undersized forwards who aren't that great defensively to begin with will be even more exposed.
- flyer_nutter

The best thing about Murray is that he's a good coach that can get younger players to be better two way players, which is a big issue right now.

Also, Murray isn't Jacques Lemaire. Did he stifle Eric Lindros' offensive ability? Or Rod Brind'Amour? Or John LeClair?

There are not. Part of that is going through the growing pains of Brayden Schenn, Voracek and Coots. If the organization believes they are worth going through.

I think too much is being made of the current situation. They need some star power on offense, and to change up the mix of the D, hopefully by bringing in a young guy with star potential.

Thats it. Thats the problem. You need the off-season to probably fix that. For now you watch the kids, and see what kind of balls they have in hard times. To see if their growing pains, are worth going through.
- flyer_nutter

I'm with you here!

If Lavi were fired, who would be your choice of people out there? Just wondering.

The best thing about Murray is that he's a good coach that can get younger players to be better two way players, which is a big issue right now.

Also, Murray isn't Jacques Lemaire. Did he stifle Eric Lindros' offensive ability? Or Rod Brind'Amour? Or John LeClair?
- Jsaquella

The best thing to do is ride this out for another month and see where we are before making any moves.

Yeah I think he's refused mainly for family reason (I could be wrong).

Outside thought how about Paul Fenton the Assistant General Manager in Nashville?
- ob18

Fenton would be an interesting hire. I've seen enough national journalists rave about him to definitely have him on my list.

The Devils and Wings have systems in place that work for them. They draft/acquire players who fit and buy into their system, they do not rush their younger players into positions they can't handle.

They are two very patient franchises, or basically the opposite of what we have here.
- 77rams

well we don't have the right players for the type of system lavi likes to play so either we rebuild the team around that, lavi changes his system to match the players, or lavi walks

Definitely don't want Murray being brought in. If Laviolette is fired and Murray is named the interim coach, I'm gonna blow my stack.
- PLindbergh31

If Murray is brought in so be it.

They better make bigger changes in the off-season then. People talk about the team not fitting Lava's aggressive system.

How exactly would a group of mistake prone, young and undersized forwards do in a defensive system, where the D is sub-par in the transition game.

Bryzgalov will buying one way tickets to Mars.

Fenton would be an interesting hire. I've seen enough national journalists rave about him to definitely have him on my list.
- Jsaquella

Those would be my top choices if they went the way of a new GM.

If Lavi were fired, who would be your choice of people out there? Just wondering.
- watson1195

terry murray wouldn't be bad choice if we're going to do a rebuild

Definitely don't want Murray being brought in. If Laviolette is fired and Murray is named the interim coach, I'm gonna blow my stack.
- PLindbergh31

you'll blow your stack regardless i'm not worried

i thought the return for carter was light, but i was wrong- i overvalued him. the richards return was fine, but between the two trades, i don't know how you fail to get the young dman we needed even then. i said so at the time, so it's not a monday morning QB thing. the JVR trade was a backup plan in case homer failed to land a puck mover at the draft. i'd rather have carle and JVR. not a knock on luke. Bill's post clearly outlines the issues here in terms of the mix.

your 2nd paragraph outlines the squandering of assets and knee jerk nature of some of these personnel decisions. i'd also add sacrificing leverage w/ bryz in a buyers mkt.

like you, i want a new org direction with a GM who will stay the course once he does a re-boot like richards/carter. last yrs mantra was "bigger, faster, stonger...i don't know if we are better, but we are different". this yr i don't know what they are...except worse.
- isaiah520

Agreed. There isn't a tree you can go out and pick a coach who has a SC on their resume. As far as GM/Personnel guys, there are smart guys who we have no clue who they are that are qualified and only need a chance. I haven't been thrilled with a good amount of moves Holmgren has made. I'm not saying he must be fired, but if a choice had to be made between the coach and GM I would keep the coach.

My issue is, that a coach needs to be able to adapt to what he has on hand. Laviolette doesn't have a roster that is ideal for his system. I see adjustments, but as often as not they haven't been effective.

The players need to be able to adapt, too. Part of the issue is the younger guys are still learning how to be NHL players and adjusting to their roles. But there's also veteran players that are making dumb plays and rookie type mistakes.
- Jsaquella

I agree with all of that. But I'll just emphasize that if you're waiting for Laviolette to change his system, philosophy, or style of play. Then you'll be waiting a long time. I think there is conflict between the front office and the Head Coach. And if I was Laviolette, I wouldn't be too happy about it.

terry murray wouldn't be bad choice if we're going to do a rebuild
- 2Real

For some reason, I always wanted to give Mike Keenan another look.

I agree with all of that. But I'll just emphasize that if you're waiting for Laviolette to change his system, philosophy, or style of play. Then you'll be waiting a long time. I think there is conflict between the front office and the Head Coach. And if I was Laviolette, I wouldn't be too happy about it.
- MJL

Not that I disagree but great coaches make adjustments to the personnel they have. Play to your strengths and limit the weaknesses.

The best thing about Murray is that he's a good coach that can get younger players to be better two way players, which is a big issue right now.

Also, Murray isn't Jacques Lemaire. Did he stifle Eric Lindros' offensive ability? Or Rod Brind'Amour? Or John LeClair?
- Jsaquella

Do not get me wrong, I am all for getting the young kids to get solid defensive games.

The point I am getting at is... Is it easier to fit this rag tag group to an aggressive hunt the puck identity? Or a defensive one?

The forwards as assembled aren't a group that will excel in a defensive role to me.

well we don't have the right players for the type of system lavi likes to play so either we rebuild the team around that, lavi changes his system to match the players, or lavi walks
- 2Real

The thing is...

If the team has Parise and Suter.
Or Weber.

They are much better suited to fit that aggressive mold. Especially with a healthy Meszaros and the growing pains of the kids not being as extreme as they are.

If Murray is brought in so be it.

They better make bigger changes in the off-season then. People talk about the team not fitting Lava's aggressive system.

How exactly would a group of mistake prone, young and undersized forwards do in a defensive system, where the D is sub-par in the transition game.

Bryzgalov will buying one way tickets to Mars.
- flyer_nutter

Murray is a retread. Not interested in him being the coach. Didn't he just refuse to speak to reporters in Adirondack? Very professional of a 60+ year old man.

I agree with all of that. But I'll just emphasize that if you're waiting for Laviolette to change his system, philosophy, or style of play. Then you'll be waiting a long time. I think there is conflict between the front office and the Head Coach. And if I was Laviolette, I wouldn't be too happy about it.
- MJL

Agree absolutely. I don't like the public comments by Snider and I'd understand being mad if I was Laviolette.

That said, I don't now if behind closed doors Lavy was asked to make changes due to the inability to add the kind of players they'd need to work his system.

But the ever changing approach that the team has used in team building is the biggest issue.

Thats the thing.

You can have Murray come in. You may see them get some energy for a few games.

That will not fix anything to me. You will still have streaky D core that is sub par in the transition game. You will still have growing pains of the young kids.

You will then also be asking guys like Briere, Giroux, Simmonds, Brayden Schenn, Hartnell, and Read to play a defensive identity. That is a horrific thought to me. There is a thing about getting your young players to learn good defensive play.

If this team gooes into a Terry Murray type of identity I see them being run into the ground. An aging Kimmo will be hit into dust, and the undersized forwards who aren't that great defensively to begin with will be even more exposed.
- flyer_nutter

I see the opposite. Any player is capable of being a better player defensively. Terry Murray will instill defensive responsibility in the players. Or their icetime will suffer. Murray will make players such as Brayden Schenn better all around players. And the FLyers will be better off in the future for it. He may not be the Coach you want for the long term, but he will make the Flyers better in some areas. And make no mistake bout it. Murray had a huge hand in LA winning the Cup, and putting the foundation in place for that team.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for getting the young kids to get solid defensive games.

The point I am getting at is... Is it easier to fit this rag tag group to an aggressive hunt the puck identity? Or a defensive one?

The forwards as assembled aren't a group that will excel in a defensive role to me.
- flyer_nutter

They're not, for the most part. But at the same time, learning to be defensively responsible can only help matters. I'm not sure why Giroux and schenn can't become better defensive players. Giroux showed good defensive instincts in the past. Schenn was a good two way player throughout his junior career. Why can he be that as a pro?

I mean, sure a guy like Hartnell will likely never be an exceptional defensive player. But John LeClair wasn't a good defensive player and he did fine under Murray.