the sky is falling!

Beats you have seen the major turnarounds at Windsor and especially Owen Sound. Both teams built with proper management & coaching & with very bare cupboards. Since the arrival of 'Vendetta Dips' both squads have had huge success, Mem Cup appearances & success, and a few of those coaches now toil in the NHL or are earmarked to do so! Don't expect major league success with minor league leadership!

Beats....you say if a player doesn't back check it's not the coaches fault...I agree that directly it is not. However.....when that player clearly could care less he needs to be sent a message not put out his next shift etc.. and this also sends a message to the team that this is not tolerated. Dips is inconsistent with this. You also mention decision making is not coaching....I disagree as that is one of the major things a coach needs to to teach young players...when, where, why. The third thing you mention is how they won't cut it in the NHL quitting on a coach......This happens all the time in the NHL.....They don't fire the team....End result the coach gets axed.....This team is disorganized and I know you and others are sick of hearing the coach needs to go but obviously the majority of hockey fans here see the same things....No disipline, no respect, no plan, no future.....Nobody wants them to do better than all of us on here and I would love nothing more than to praise each and every one of them including the coach, but I can't right now

BS gensman, you would have had Mark Reeds fired in 2007-08. There was no sudden improvement in Owen Sound, they took FOUR YEARS to accomplish that. In his first three years, he missed the playoffs twice and a quick exit in between. The year before the Attack won the championship, it actually looked like they regressed because they made a brief playoff appearance but then missed the playoffs the year after. You know why Owen Sound won a championship? Because they actually had the patience to give their coach the full four-year cycle. You would've fired either Reeds or De Piero halfway through their first month on the job. Mark Reeds didn't suddenly become a good coach, he was ALWAYS a good coach. It takes three full seasons to develop a junior hockey team into a contender and then add on some intangibles and some luck to become a champion.

Boughner only needed two years in Windsor but you consider a cupboard with Ryan Ellis and Taylor Hall to be a bare cupboard? Oh yeah, he had absolutely nothing to work with. (Let's not forget the players Windsor got in the sell-the-farm-for-Neuvirth trade as well)


Mark Reeds
2007/08: 20-41-7 (missed playoffs)
2008/09: 26-27-15 (lost in first round)
2009/10: 27-33-8 (missed playoffs)
2010/11: 46-17-5 (won championship)

From my previous posts, some may be surprised, but I actually think that this coaching staff should not be let go mid-season, unless it is true that they have lost the respect of the team. As hockeybeats has said, this is his 4th year of the cycle, the year they were 'going for it', and lets see what they can do (If the previous 3-1/4 years have proven anything, it's very little). If at the trade deadline, they're still showing this poorly, then try and re-coup all those draft picks we've given up for Altshuller, Lessio and Maggio, and let the coaching staff resign at the end of the year. No GM role either - For every Di Salvo or Tavares/Del Zotto trade, he's had a Quinn, Maggio or Carnevale (He would have been helpful these last two years)
As for our poor defense, none of the young guys from last year who are being asked to play a big role have actually had any meaningful minutes until this year. This coaching staff loves to ride the veterans and let the young guys learn by sitting on the bench or in the stands.
We have talented players on defense (Suellentrop, Hope, McDowell - Remember DiPiero calling it 'a coup' that they got him to commit to the Gens?), but they sat on the bench all last year and watched De Haan, Valentine, Maggio and DeHart play all the minutes. Same went with Payne, Petaccio and Laughton. Last year, we were never much of a threat to go any farther in the playoffs than we did, and had a huge lead on Kingston for home ice in the first round. Why not use that opportunity to let these guys get some playing time? Instead you just bury them on the bench or scratch them, so now we're paying for it this year. You know who else went with that idea of playing his veterans and not developing his young guys? Doug Gilmour, and now look where the Fronts are. That'll be us shortly when our 'stars' graduate - only we don't even have any decent draft picks left.
Emerson Clark has been one of our few bright spots this season, and only last weekend did he actually see more than a couple shifts in a period. On Friday night with the Gens up 5-0 on the Bulls mid-way through the 3rd, he was still just alternating the top two lines, with the young guys all plastered to the bench! No wonder these guys aren't developing like we hope they will. My last post a few weeks ago, I had stated how people point to Jenner, Lessio and Jenson all going fairly high in the draft as a sign of great development, but they all dropped significantly from the October rankings to where they were drafted in June. This year, the same is happening with Laughton. I remember how Josh Brown was a first year 1994 to look out for this year. I never thought that it meant I'd have to search the seats and boxes to find him.
Finally, somebody on the Noof had posted about an overage Windsor defenceman (Robertson, maybe?) how they would prefer to see a young guy making terrible defensive plays over a 20 year old, which is exactly the same way I think of the Maggio situation. I refuse to believe that Brown or Carlisle are any worse out there than Maggio, so why not let the guy who's 3 years younger and will be around beyond this year get a chance to see the ice and learn? Veterans are only good to have if they're OHL calibre. Instead, he trots Maggio out there for 30 minutes a game to try and justify all those picks we spent to get him.
Sorry for my rant, but it's frustrating as heck, because there are 4 solid forward lines (probably even 5 when everybody is healthy and not suspended), our defense have loads of potential and for once we started the year with two seemingly solid goaltenders. There's no good reason why this team shouldn't be at the top of the conference instead of fighting for a playoff spot.

hockeybeats wrote: Where I differ in opinion here is that if a player fails to backcheck, I don't think that's a coaching issue. That's the player being lazy. When elite players keep shooting high and wide and missing the net, particularly far side leading to a counter attack the other way, that's not a coaching issue. It's poor decision-making and poor execution.

Because you have criticized others for this in the past, I know you don't mean it this way but that comment is starting to sound like whenever something goes well, it is the coach, and when things aren't good, it is the players fault. This is no different than most things not being black or white. To me, when you have this situation, you can find fault with:

1) The player
2) The GM for selecting a lazy player
3) The Coach for allowing that behaviour to continue or to allow the player to keep playing if it can't be corrected

hockeybeats wrote:
However, the hounds were already out after De Piero when the Gens lost in the third round of the playoffs simply because of the score in the last game (11-0 vs the Bulls)

That is in fact exactly when the tide turned on Dips in my books. The indicators were seen much before that however, and that game result was to me when his performance just 'jumped the shark'. Sellwood was in over his head and rightfully deserves a lot of criticism but anyone close to the team knows Chris's role and influence during that period of time. It isn't a big surprise to me that the criticisms of the team during Sellwood's tenure are really no different than the criticism's you hear now.

As a long time fan of this team, this recent outpouring of passion is actually quite refreshing. It would be great if it was all positive comments but at this point, any kind of emotion is fun to see. Over the years, we have become non-existent on the NOOF, this Board came down to only 5 regular posters, the crowd at the GMC had no life, the crowds started to erode, noone talked about the team, there was no 'buzz' as in years past, and on and on. It's nice to see a lot of hidden fans who actually 'care' one way or the other.

Will Rocco make a change? Hard to say but I think 1 of 3 things would have to change first:

1) The focus shifts to Rocco and casts him in a negative spotlight
2) The financials of leaving things as they are becomes more negative than the financials of making a change
3) Chris's personality changes and is no longer the type that Rocco likes to have around him

Personally, I would let the season ride out unless there is a star replacement candidate out there. The next two weeks will be key as this week will be tough but next week the easy games come along again. As I've said before, this team and its style will still be successful and entertaining regardless of who coaches them in this year's version of the OHL. I don't think the staff can take them to the promised land where they should be at this stage but I'm more concerned about the future as I haven't been sold on Chris as a GM either.

Keep the comments coming everyone as this is at least entertaining!

Because you have criticized others for this in the past, I know you don't mean it this way but that comment is starting to sound like whenever something goes well, it is the coach, and when things aren't good, it is the players fault.

The players make a far bigger difference, the impact of coaching is minimal whether positive or negative. At the end of the season, the cream eventually rises to the top regardless of who's coaching. There is very little to separate most of the coaches in the OHL, the difference in wins and losses is on the player's ability to execute what coaches have taught them.

PAYNE TO PLYMOUTH

who did the gens get for him

where is that posted.
It isn't on the Gens site or the ohl site

Here's a bit of twitter talk from a few mins ago.

@twharry "Sounds like the Payne deal is done, and if the rumored return is true (3rd-4th rd pick), I like that deal for Plymouth. Oshawa making room? Between the Payne deal and what else I'm hearing, Oshawa could be making room for a big acquisition."

Beats....just lost alot of respect for your hockey knowledge reading your novel. I actually thought that you knew what you were talking about when you posted most times. I know better now. Enjoy the game.
By the way,
If you every get the opportunity, ask an owner, player, etc about coaches. Your comment about moving the 20 around in the OHL and it wouldn't make a difference tells me how you think. Oh well, to each their own. Like I said, enjoy the game.

I shortened my novel considerably just as you posted that, I agree that it was too wordy but the essence is still there. The players decide the outcome. That's my opinion. Coaches get fired and move on to other teams all the time and when they're given a good team to work with, they succeed. They don't suddenly get better or worse on a different team. We'll agree to disagree.

hockeybeats wrote:I shortened my novel considerably just as you posted that, I agree that it was too wordy but the essence is still there. The players decide the outcome. That's my opinion. Coaches get fired and move on to other teams all the time and when they're given a good team to work with, they succeed. They don't suddenly get better or worse on a different team. We'll agree to disagree.

I think you should put the book back for everyone to read. You removed the point I replied to LOL.

what big acquistion r u talking about it better be a defenceman since the gens need 1 badly just saying.

I think you should put the book back for everyone to read. You removed the point I replied to LOL.

If you insist, here it is again. There is very little that separates coaches that are at the OHL level. You can swap De Piero with pretty much any other coach presently in the OHL and the results would be similar because the players decide the outcome. One of the reasons I shortened it was that it initially sounded like you could take out the coach altogether or put in any fan from the stands and it doesn't matter and that's not the case. All the coaches who have made it this far have very little that separates them. The reason that teams win and lose are the talent and experience level on the roster (management) and the players ability to execute what the coach has taught them. I didn't word it well the first time. That's what the edit button is for.

Where? You didn't put it back......it was a couple pages long LOL. I like you Beats....we just don't agree about coaching...I believe that coaching does make a difference, they are not interchangeable. Swap this years London team with the Gens.....bet there is a difference.

Coaches don't make the money they do to stand behind the bench and look pretty....Just ask any NHL owner, manager or player.

hey beats , dipiero isn't getting bad , he has always been bad as a coach !!! they 've given enough time to improve and it isn't happening , this guy can't coach period l, not at this level anyway , and it looks likes the players don't like him , not rumours , it looks that way on the ice to me , why you keep defending this guy is beyond me too !

hockeybeats wrote:

Because you have criticized others for this in the past, I know you don't mean it this way but that comment is starting to sound like whenever something goes well, it is the coach, and when things aren't good, it is the players fault.

The players make a far bigger difference, the impact of coaching is minimal whether positive or negative. At the end of the season, the cream eventually rises to the top regardless of who's coaching. There is very little to separate most of the coaches in the OHL, the difference in wins and losses is on the player's ability to execute what coaches have taught them.

I'm glad you shortened it regardless of your motivation

I agree that coaching is less important than talent acquisition. Talent will always be a limiting factor and will either make coaches look better or worse than they really are. Having said that, I do however believe that coaches can be a difference maker and the great coaches are able to make their teams over-achieve their talents at both the individual and collective whole levels. I think in Chris's case you are seeing frustration from people because they do not see his teams over-achieving and maybe even under-achieving their capabilities. Similar to the best school teachers which you are more than familiar with, the best coaches are able to:

1) be great communicators - every coach has their drills, their plays, their strategies, but as good as they may be, if they can't communicate them then players can't execute and everyone hears and learns differently - way too many examples of past players or great tacticians knowing what they want but never seeing results because they are ineffective communicators

2) be great motivators - everyone has their own built-in motivations but great coaches seem to be able to understand that and leverage that even more for a player - and great coaches understand that everyone had different ways to be motivated externally and tailor their motivational techniques to the individual (some need discipline, some need praise, some need public expression, some need one on one...)

3) create an environment that allows people to learn and to excel

Hockeybeats: Since you are a teacher, are you telling us that an outstanding teacher doesn't make a difference to all students? That is what a coach is, a teacher. Look at the success Brian Kilrea had when you were a 67's fan.

Definition of 'coach': to give tuition or instruction to, verb - to give instruction or advice to in the capacity of a coach:instruct: 'she has coached the present tennis champion.'

What gets me is the long term support and patience for mediocre leadership - while calling for trades, criticism, and changes for 'under performing' players. Unmotivated & undisaplined 'players' is a huge leadership red flag!

Like 'superstar' performers who make all others better in the field of play - great coaches get the most out of EACH of their 'selected' troops to the point of 'over achieving!' Two line coaches are a dime a dozen and get changed like underwear.

Very few can lay claim to these skills. Even less for those who are designated both coach & GM! Oshawa has been in a leadership drought for decades! The search for the 'great ones' should never end!

the croc wrote:Hockeybeats: Since you are a teacher, are you telling us that an outstanding teacher doesn't make a difference to all students? That is what a coach is, a teacher. Look at the success Brian Kilrea had when you were a 67's fan.

A fair comparison and that's why I modified my post to say that if you replace the Gens coach with anyone currently coaching in the OHL - the way I said it originally sounded like any Joe Blow off the street can coach and that's clearly not true. This is the difference with teaching. All coaches in the OHL have worked their way up from lower levels and have joined an elite group. Yes, some bonus points for someone with years of experience like Brian Kilrea but that difference is not as significant as one might think. Kilrea couldn't take say last year's Gens team and make them a contender. The talent and experience simply wasn't there yet.

There is a select group of 60 head coaches in the NHL and AHL plus assistants. 200 people let's say? The next highest level is the CHL. Out of thousands of coaches across North America, this is basically the next 60 best across the CHL. They've all worked there way up to get here and if you put all 20 OHL coaches in a room, while they each have their own personalities and strengths and weaknesses, they are all of a similar level of quality - if they were that good, they would have moved up by now and if they weren't good enough, they wouldn't be here. There would be a ton of hockey knowledge being shared if you can put all 20 together in a discussion.

Oustanding teachers do make a huge difference but if you take the 300 best teachers in North America, there would be little to separate them. They're all oustanding teachers. Unlike hockey, we don't take all the best teachers and put them with the best students. Teacher's don't "move up" to better schools so it's harder to identify the best because they're spread out all over the place.

So coaching does make a difference but all 20 coaches in the OHL have earned their way up here. I said earlier that the OHL has 19 and not 20 because of Kingston but that was when Doug Gilmour was coaching where they parachuted in a local hero who didn't put in his time coaching at lower levels and was only part-time so that's a special case. Every other OHL coach has earned the right to be there - I don't know much about Kingston's new coach, I haven't looked him up. Generally though, the OHL coaching fraternity is an elite group and having won at the next highest level, De Piero deserved his chance to coach in the OHL and I'm confident that he belongs there. He didn't only win at the Provincial Junior A level, he built a franchise from nothing (expansion team) and in a few short years, turned that into a consistent champion (not a flash-in-the-pan, a team that retooled instead of rebuilt). It's the same age group as OHL players and I believe the model for success is quite similar and that's why I think he will do the same for the Gens. I also believe that if Peter DeBoer and Adam Graves advised to promote him to a dual role at a time where a whole bunch of other people were fired, they obviously see something in him that many here don't. I trust their judgement even if I get shelled with attacks from a vocal group on an internet forum. Obviously some disagree with their view and mine. We'll see how the season plays out.