Goalie usage shouldn't be anywhere near the top. The goalies didn't play well last year and play badly this year based on usage.
- Feanor

I'm more puzzled with his recent use of first Neuvy nonstop, then Mason nonstop. It just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I also think he burned Mason out during the stretch run last year. I know he was hesitant to play a rookie at that point, but during one of the back to backs, he needed to get Stolarz a game.

Well said, and for the most part I agree. My 2 biggest issues with Hak are basically his usage of his goalies and his overuse of the PEB/VdV pairing on the PK. I like his overall system, but a major part of coaching pros, much more than coaching college kids, is handling the egos and personalities of highly paid professionals. I think it's a fair statement to say that the jury is still out on judging Hak as an NHL coach.
- BiggE

He is supposed to be a developmental coach. Thats what I gathered anyway out of the hiring. The 'right' guy for this time period of a retool, and influx of youth.

I dont agree with the benchings, and some of the usage of Konec + Ghost. I dont agree with many of the lineup decisions, and the love affair with some of the guys on the fourth line - especially on the PK. I dont agree with the handling of the goaltenders.

I would prefer if he took more timeouts to help his team out - as silly as that sounds. I would also prefer if he vocally advocated for his team to the officials like many coaches do (in turn getting calls later in the game) - instead of just taking it on the chin.

I have issues when he chooses favourites from players who are borderline NHL quality, instead of young kids. I have zero doubt in my mind that he advocated for the re-signing of Bellemare and believes him, along with VDV are core guys to that fourth line + PK.

I have concerns that the whole team is regressing, and the system is too limiting in teams of creativity.

I have huge problems with his usage of players on the 3 on 3.

/end rant

lol! Puh-leez....the frankers here would've gone ballistic had he been hired here.
- Scoob

God can you imagine how entertaining that would have been though?

Haven't ranked them numerically. Not ducking the question, but I just tend to think more qualitatively than quantitatively in those sorts of debates.

From a qualitative standpoint, I'd say he is among the large glut of coaches who could do just fine with a stacked roster and who could push whatever buttons he wanted to with a flawed roster and other teams would still exploit those flaws. Also, like most ever NHL coach, he has a shelf life.

I'll give you an example. Over the years, Lindy Ruff has had stacked rosters that have done very, very well (at least in the regular season), teams that overachieved, touted teams that have underachieved (like his 2016-17 Stars), so-so rosters that have been dormats. He's had teams that have racked up the goals, but struggled to keep the puck out of their own net. He had one year in Buffalo where there was modest firepower but the team GAA was among the best. Yet Ruff's coaching style never varies and the system he employs may have been tweaked to his rosters a few times yet is basically the same.
- bmeltzer

You are exactly right. There just aren't that many Scotty Bowmans and Fred Sheros out there to choose from. I think most NHL coaches fit your description.

Yup, none of us are ever going to know what really went on behind the scenes. Also, if Hextall's thinking was that a lot of young kids are going be coming onboard over the next few years, than maybe a guy out of the college ranks makes more sense.
- BiggE

There are a lot of things I like and then there are some I just hate. It doesn't all add up to me. He recognizes how to play the game today, but there is a stench of old time hockey all over him. Almost like he is reading it off a script.

The 4th line is the perfect example (D pairs could be used as well). You can tell he values skill out of the top 3 lines, but then is just completely okay with punting on the 4th line.

I know the hot topic with the uneducated right now is how he has no emotion and therefore the players dont care. I dont really buy that at all.

Haven't ranked them numerically. Not ducking the question, but I just tend to think more qualitatively than quantitatively in those sorts of debates.

From a qualitative standpoint, I'd say he is among the large glut of coaches who could do just fine with a stacked roster and who could push whatever buttons he wanted to with a flawed roster and other teams would still exploit those flaws. Also, like most ever NHL coach, he has a shelf life.

I'll give you an example. Over the years, Lindy Ruff has had stacked rosters that have done very, very well (at least in the regular season), teams that overachieved, touted teams that have underachieved (like his 2016-17 Stars), so-so rosters that have been dormats. He's had teams that have racked up the goals, but struggled to keep the puck out of their own net. He had one year in Buffalo where there was modest firepower but the team GAA was among the best. Yet Ruff's coaching style never varies and the system he employs may have been tweaked to his rosters a few times yet is basically the same.
- bmeltzer

Thanks for the response.

Team negative always looking for more members good sir

What if he had a Boucher-esque scar?
- Scoob

then he might be tied for 3rd

He is supposed to be a developmental coach. Thats what I gathered anyway out of the hiring. The 'right' guy for this time period of a retool, and influx of youth.

I dont agree with the benchings, and some of the usage of Konec + Ghost. I dont agree with many of the lineup decisions, and the love affair with some of the guys on the fourth line - especially on the PK. I dont agree with the handling of the goaltenders.

I would prefer if he took more timeouts to help his team out - as silly as that sounds. I would also prefer if he vocally advocated for his team to the officials like many coaches do (in turn getting calls later in the game) - instead of just taking it on the chin.

I have issues when he chooses favourites from players who are borderline NHL quality, instead of young kids. I have zero doubt in my mind that he advocated for the re-signing of Bellemare and believes him, along with VDV are core guys to that fourth line + PK.

I have concerns that the whole team is regressing, and the system is too limiting in teams of creativity.

I have huge problems with his usage of players on the 3 on 3.

/end rant
- flyer_nutter

Hard to really argue with any of this, though I think some of what you posted is out his control, especially the regression. Having Giroux seemingly playing at about 75% effectiveness all season was something he had no chance of overcoming on a team so lacking in overall offensive depth, especially at the center ice position. I'm also not sure it's the system that is limiting the offensive creativity, I think it's more the lack of fast, offensively creative and skilled players that is the main culprit there.

Other than that, you are right on the money. However, I do want to see what he can can do next season with (hopefully) a more talented and younger squad.

There are a lot of things I like and then there are some I just hate. It doesn't all add up to me. He recognizes how to play the game today, but there is a stench of old time hockey all over him. Almost like he is reading it off a script.

The 4th line is the perfect example (D pairs could be used as well). You can tell he values skill out of the top 3 lines, but then is just completely okay with punting on the 4th line.

I know the hot topic with the uneducated right now is how he has no emotion and therefore the players dont care. I dont really buy that at all.
- YuenglingJagr

To a point I do. Silly I suppose.

I think for me anyway, it would be easier to 'get up' for a game, or get that extra push from a guy that has the vocal passion behind you. I know they are pro's and all, but I will always believe that teams to a point take on the personality/vibe of their HC. Who knows.

He is supposed to be a developmental coach. Thats what I gathered anyway out of the hiring. The 'right' guy for this time period of a retool, and influx of youth.

I dont agree with the benchings, and some of the usage of Konec + Ghost. I dont agree with many of the lineup decisions, and the love affair with some of the guys on the fourth line - especially on the PK. I dont agree with the handling of the goaltenders.

I would prefer if he took more timeouts to help his team out - as silly as that sounds. I would also prefer if he vocally advocated for his team to the officials like many coaches do (in turn getting calls later in the game) - instead of just taking it on the chin.

I have issues when he chooses favourites from players who are borderline NHL quality, instead of young kids. I have zero doubt in my mind that he advocated for the re-signing of Bellemare and believes him, along with VDV are core guys to that fourth line + PK.

I have concerns that the whole team is regressing, and the system is too limiting in teams of creativity.

I have huge problems with his usage of players on the 3 on 3.

/end rant
- flyer_nutter

It would be the same standard talking points for any coach of a team that was struggling.

God can you imagine how entertaining that would have been though?
- flyer_nutter

He is entertaining for sure.

This place would've been unbearable.

It would be the same standard talking points for any coach that was struggling.
- MJL

Dead on.

I know this squad is a hard teet to squeeze milk from.

Just hard to believe that a guy like McLellan, DeBoer or Julien couldn't squeeze a bit more out of it going forward.

He is supposed to be a developmental coach. Thats what I gathered anyway out of the hiring. The 'right' guy for this time period of a retool, and influx of youth.

I dont agree with the benchings, and some of the usage of Konec + Ghost. I dont agree with many of the lineup decisions, and the love affair with some of the guys on the fourth line - especially on the PK. I dont agree with the handling of the goaltenders.

I would prefer if he took more timeouts to help his team out - as silly as that sounds. I would also prefer if he vocally advocated for his team to the officials like many coaches do (in turn getting calls later in the game) - instead of just taking it on the chin.

I have issues when he chooses favourites from players who are borderline NHL quality, instead of young kids. I have zero doubt in my mind that he advocated for the re-signing of Bellemare and believes him, along with VDV are core guys to that fourth line + PK.

I have concerns that the whole team is regressing, and the system is too limiting in teams of creativity.

I have huge problems with his usage of players on the 3 on 3.

/end rant
- flyer_nutter

The coaches challenge has changed timeout usuage. If he uses it early and then there is an offsides he can't challenge how may people would question his usuage then.

Also this favorites thing people talk about is a false statement. The 4th line plays less minutes then anyone. Also yes they are on the PK. But is it Bellemare and Vandeveledes fault when a defenseman fails a clear or goalie gives up a softie? It's a unit. If I am not mistaken Provorov and Gudas is on the PK. How comes they aren't at fault?

Here's a question. Will the coach look better when more talent is added?

I know the hot topic with the uneducated right now is how he has no emotion and therefore the players dont care. I dont really buy that at all.
- YuenglingJagr

Oh, that's gonna leave a mark lol

Thats Hak.

Lappy for me, I loved you as a player. As a key component to that fourth line and the PK.

Get the (frank) out of here though. I always believe he fixes that PK from the passive box we are used to, and then we see it right back.

Dead on.

I know this squad is a hard teet to squeeze milk from.

Just hard to believe that a guy like McLellan, DeBoer or Julien couldn't squeeze a bit more out of it going forward.
- flyer_nutter

Why do you say DeBoer?

Florida and NJ both took steps back after his first season. So far SJ is only team that has had a good second season.

It would be the same standard talking points for any coach of a team that was struggling.
- MJL

yep, pretty much

Dead on.

I know this squad is a hard teet to squeeze milk from.

Just hard to believe that a guy like McLellan, DeBoer or Julien couldn't squeeze a bit more out of it going forward.
- flyer_nutter

You should re-read Bill Meltzer's comments. He explained how it really is, instead of just listing standard generic talking points that really aren't the reality.

I'm more puzzled with his recent use of first Neuvy nonstop, then Mason nonstop. It just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I also think he burned Mason out during the stretch run last year. I know he was hesitant to play a rookie at that point, but during one of the back to backs, he needed to get Stolarz a game.
- BiggE

I think with goalies it is very mental. For all we know they could have said they would rather start a string than play every other. I personally would HATE to play every other or even worse not know that I was starting.

The coaches challenge has changed timeout usuage. If he uses it early and then there is an offsides he can't challenge how may people would question his usuage then.

Also this favorites thing people talk about is a false statement. The 4th line plays less minutes then anyone. Also yes they are on the PK. But is it Bellemare and Vandeveledes fault when a defenseman fails a clear or goalie gives up a softie? It's a unit. If I am not mistaken Provorov and Gudas is on the PK. How comes they aren't at fault?

Here's a question. Will the coach look better when more talent is added?
- J35Bacher

The answer to your question is of course, any coach will. However, look at the PK ice time and tell me that VdV/PEB aren't getting too much time. All I know is that when I go by the eye test, Couturier/Simmonds seem to be a much more effective PK pair. Having the 2 pairings getting equal time would make more sense to me.

Thats Hak.

Lappy for me, I loved you as a player. As a key component to that fourth line and the PK.

Get the (frank) out of here though. I always believe he fixes that PK from the passive box we are used to, and then we see it right back.
- flyer_nutter

Agreed. I'd be very disappointed if Lappy was back next season.

To a point I do. Silly I suppose.

I think for me anyway, it would be easier to 'get up' for a game, or get that extra push from a guy that has the vocal passion behind you. I know they are pro's and all, but I will always believe that teams to a point take on the personality/vibe of their HC. Who knows.
- flyer_nutter

I would still describe Hakstol as intense. I don't think his reactions on the bench really show what he might say in the locker room either.

The vocal passion guys seem to be the ones with the shortest shelf life too

I think with goalies it is very mental. For all we know they could have said they would rather start a string than play every other. I personally would HATE to play every other or even worse not know that I was starting.
- YuenglingJagr

Almost any goalie is going to say he wants to play every game, you don't make the NHL if you don't have that mindset. This is why coaches are hired, you can't have the players making these decisions.

I think with goalies it is very mental. For all we know they could have said they would rather start a string than play every other. I personally would HATE to play every other or even worse not know that I was starting.
- YuenglingJagr

And that's why the 1/1A situation (or 1A/1B, or whatever you want to call it) sucks.

The answer to your question is of course, any coach will. However, look at the PK ice time and tell me that VdV/PEB aren't getting too much time. All I know is that when I go by the eye test, Couturier/Simmonds seem to be a much more effective PK pair. Having the 2 pairings getting equal time would make more sense to me.
- BiggE

What would your eye test look like if Couturier and Simmonds were playing the same minutes in the same situations, against the same quality of opponents, that Vandevelde and Bellemare are?