The W
Views: 100048007
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 1509
The 7 - Hockey - Pulling Double Duty: Can it still work
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(474 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (6 total)
Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 492/2805
EXP: 10157466
For next: 196966

Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3592 days
Last activity: 2011 days
#1 Posted on 20.9.02 0357.09
Reposted on: 20.9.09 0357.32
Wondering what you guys think of one man being both head coach and GM for a team ie Pat Quinn in Toronto.

I really think it can be a conflict of interest. Like if you sign someone for major cash and he's not playing well you might not bench him or cut ice time because that in some way takes says you were wrong in signing him... Or if someone rubs you the wrong way you could trade him for lesser value then you can get because you have a personal problem with him. And I didn't even mention trade deadline time and you have a game and you have to either give an assistant coach more responsibility for the game or really do double duty.

I think both is a full time job and separation from General Manager and Coach is important. And you must have some power hungry ego freak to think you can do both
Promote this thread!
dMp
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 784/2737
EXP: 9792704
For next: 207331

Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 22 min.
Last activity: 22 min.
#2 Posted on 20.9.02 0629.45
Reposted on: 20.9.09 0630.48
Some people can pull it off.
I believe Scotty Bowman did it for a few years.
I think that even if you weren't the one who signed the guy you still might feel obliged to play him, as your boss is looking over your shoulder
It is important for a coach and GM to be on one line, and if that can be accomplished by the same person doing the one job then it's fine by me.
Todd
Longanisa
Level: 15

Posts: 31/35
EXP: 13850
For next: 2534

Since: 26.7.02
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4253 days
Last activity: 4250 days
#3 Posted on 20.9.02 0711.22
Reposted on: 20.9.09 0712.46
I think when you're talking about one guy doing two guy's jobs, you need to be talking about one hell of an exceptional person. Even then, you might be better off with someone a little less talented in each position.
haz
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 242/904
EXP: 1859250
For next: 17357

Since: 2.1.02
From: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 38 days
#4 Posted on 20.9.02 0716.55
Reposted on: 20.9.09 0717.57
Someone on the radio was discussing this topic this morning, not in relation to Quinn/hockey, but rather in terms of Football.

An interesting point was that if you are both, you are one of two things.

1> Too close to the players to really have an unbiased opinion when dealing as GM

2> Not close enough to the players to deal with them well as coach

I buy that argument and think it is better to have 2 people doing the jobs. No-one has proven that they can do both and be effective, least of all Quinn.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 178/443
EXP: 637803
For next: 22366

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2868 days
Last activity: 2868 days
#5 Posted on 20.9.02 2059.15
Reposted on: 20.9.09 2059.35
It's definitely not a good idea.

I remember back when the Flames were in a contract dispute with Doug Gilmour. Gilmour attended during the day an arbitrator's meeting, at which the GM Doug Riseborough ripped into him, calling him a career second-line centre who can't score, &tc. &tc. who didn't deserve the money he was asking.

Then at that night's game coach Doug Riseborough sent him out on all the power-plays and he took all the key faceoffs, &tc. &tc.

So then Gilmour loses it and walks out on the team which precipitates a trade to Toronto for Gary Fucking Leeman and Gilmour tore up the league for Toronto while Leeman sucked donkey's balls and the Flames' organization never recovered from that trade to this very day.

A smart team owner should demand separate people for the GM and coach jobs.


Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 699/3504
EXP: 14186075
For next: 222857

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 307 days
Last activity: 4 days
#6 Posted on 27.9.02 1632.47
Reposted on: 27.9.09 1633.13

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    It's definitely not a good idea.

    I remember back when the Flames were in a contract dispute with Doug Gilmour. Gilmour attended during the day an arbitrator's meeting, at which the GM Doug Riseborough ripped into him, calling him a career second-line centre who can't score, &tc. &tc. who didn't deserve the money he was asking.

    Then at that night's game coach Doug Riseborough sent him out on all the power-plays and he took all the key faceoffs, &tc. &tc.

    So then Gilmour loses it and walks out on the team which precipitates a trade to Toronto for Gary Fucking Leeman and Gilmour tore up the league for Toronto while Leeman sucked donkey's balls and the Flames' organization never recovered from that trade to this very day.

    A smart team owner should demand separate people for the GM and coach jobs.





Ah, yes...when The Flames jumped the shark. I mean, The Toronto Trade was the single swoop that crippled the burgeoning dynasty that was the Flames. Hell, look at their record during the six years before the trade, and the six years afterwards...

THE TRADE: Calgary trades F Doug Gilmour, F Kent Manderville, D Jamie Macoun, D Ric Nattress, & G Rick Wamsley to Toronto for F Michel Petit, F Craig Berube, F Gary Leeman, F Alexander Godynyuk & G Jeff Reese

1997-98: (T+6) 22-41-15 [67 pts] Missed playoffs
1996-97: (T+5) 32-41-9 [73 pts] Missed playoffs
1995-96: (T+4) 34-37-11 [79 pts] 2nd in Pacific; Lost to Chicago, 4-1 first round
1994-95: (T+3) 24-17-7 [55 pts] 1st in Pacific; lost to Sharks 4-3 first round
1993-94: (T+2) 42-29-13 [97 pts] 1st in Pacific; lost to Canucks 4-3 first round
1992-93: (T+1) 43-30-11 [97 pts] 2nd in Smythe; lost to L.A. first round
1991-92: (THE TRADE) 31-37-12 [74 pts]
5th in Smythe Division, missed playoffs
1990-91: (T-1) 46-26-8 [100 pts]
2nd in Smythe Division; lost 4-3 to Edmonton in Conference Quarterfinals
1989-90: (T-2) 42-23-15 [99 pts]
1st in Smythe Division, 2nd overall; lost in Conference Quarterfinals 4-2 to L.A.
1988-89: (T-3) 54-17-9 [117 pts]
1st in League, Conference & Divison; won Stanley Cup 4-2 in Montreal after beating Vancouver, L.A. & Chicago.
1987-88: (T-4) 48-23-9 [105 pts]
1st in League, Conference & Divison; lost in Conference Semi-Finals 4-0 to Edmonton after beating Kings 4-1
1986-87: (T-5) 46-31-3 [95 pts]
2nd in Smythe Divison; lost in Conference Quarterfinals to Winnipeg
1985-86: (T-6) 40-31-9 [89 pts] 2nd in Smythe; lost in Finals 4-2 to Montreal

So...
1985-1991: 276-151-53 [605 pts]
Average: 46-25-9 [101 pts]

1992-1998: 197-195-66 [460 pts]
Average: 33-33-11 [77 pts]

Yeah, disparity in games...but they screwed with the schedules a bit. But still, a loss of almost 25 WINS per season on average after the trade. Scary, eh? I Hate Risebrough. HATE HIM BAD.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Ron McLean no longer on HNIC
Next thread: No Fantasy Hockey
Previous thread: Bure out
(474 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Hockey - Pulling Double Duty: Can it still workRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.168 seconds.