Murray never thought Savvy was overmatched
ST. LOUIS - Blues coach Andy Murray, one of the four Central Division coaches cited by Scotty Bowman the other day as having more experience than Denis Savard, never thought Savvy was overmatched in the games he coached against him.
Bowman's comment suggested that Savard was overmatched as a head coach in games and in practices.
"I thought he was tough to coach against. He got all the matchups," Murray said Saturday morning at Scottrade Center. "I was surprised. They fired a very good coach.
"They had a good coach, but they've got a good now now," Murray said. "I've coached against Joel for years and I don't think they differ very much. Tactically, there's probably not going to be a lot different. They'll play hard, just as they did under Savvy."
For the record here, Savard was 19-11-2 against the Central Division last year matching up with Murray, Detroit's Mike Babcock, Nashville's Barry Trotz and Columbus' Ken Hitchcock.
I would be one of the first in line to say I loved Denis Savard the player, and assistant coach. And maybe someday, he could be a first class head coach. But while the kids drew the greatest benefit from his coaching, the veterans did not.
THis move should have been made over the summer to avoid this unnecessary "bad vibe", but Joel Quennville is a proven coach. Someone above muttered something to the effect of "why did the Avalanche fire him"? I am just not sure. By comparison, Savard and the Hawks used an injury excuse (losing Toews, Havlat) but the Avs were much worse off and still made the 2nd round of the playoffs.
I love the move, just not the way it was handled. But this is not grade school and if Scotty Bowman and the new regime (Tallon IMHO was on the outside looking in on this one) see a need, I say go for it and lets get the Cup monkey off of our back.
Joe, You're clueless,,,and yes Andy Murray would have said You were a good coach, just because in the profession you don't bum rap anyone at anytime. You must be related to Tim Sassone Joe......nice try though
lets talk the facts are what we are missing.first of all savard was doing a great job,hes a hall of fame player.i cant believe an organization like the chicago blackhawks would back door a legend.im sure joel quennville has a differnet style than denis,but then again what did denis do wrong.marketing a club is on thing,bobble head dolls,promtion nites,red rugs,limos on madison street and watching all the games on tv.thats mr mc donoughs job,not coaching did he ever put on a pair of skates i doubt it.there was no reason to bring in quennville as a scout let lone a head coach.why did the avalance fire quenville no one knows.this was all set up between scotty bowman and mr mcdonough.in life everything is politics you know its who you know.when were talking hockey and not promtions denis was doing a great job.i wish the chicago blackhawks well as for denis savard you have nothing to prove its because of you the blackhawks are where they are today.not because of marketing promotions.
I don’t mind being “informed” when I’m in error with my facts, but you might want to check & re-check your “facts” before you attempt to make yourself appear knowledgeable…
Bowman was GM in Buffalo from 1979 to 1986, also coaching the team 3 separate times during that period.
However, there were 2 (two) not as you claim 6 other coaches during Bowman’s tenure in Buffalo as you claim – Roger Nielson (1980-82) & Jim Schoenfeld in 85-86.
Buffalo’s record under Bowman’s regime was 289-189-94, a .587 winning percentage, and his record as Buffalo coach was 210-134-60, a .594 winning percentage.
It is hysterical to me that a presumably long time Chicago Blackhawk fan would describe this team as “terrible” given the long mediocre if not miserable history of the Blackhawks under William Wirtz.
Makes me think you were Bob Pulford or something…
Actually, just for fun…lets compare the hawks record during that same period to Buffalo’s under Bowman since that corresponded almost identically with the Denis Savard era as superstar player extraordinaire for the Blackhawks (before that nasty Mike Keenan got a hold of him).
Let’s see, the Hawks went 253-237-82, a .514 winning percentage with 5 (yes that is five) different coaches including Bob Pulford on 3 separate occasions, compared to Buffalo’s .587 percentage under 3 coaches including Bowman. Pulford’s overall record as coach over that time was 105-87-35 (.540) including a season without Savard. His record with Savard was 71-60-16 (.537), actually worse than without him.
In fact, if you take away the one great season the hawks had under Orval Tessier in 82-83 where the Hawks went 47-23-10 (the year Larmer moved up to the hawks and was rookie of the year), the hawks weren’t even a .500 team during that stretch with Savard the superstar.
If Buffalo under Bowman at .587 was “terrible” according to you, how would you describe the Hawks’ record during that time with Denis Savard in his prime as a player?
have another drink.
those 3 pylons are really helping their teams.
they are all out off playoff spots.
first off pp on savard never had quarter back on defense until this year in cambell,
secondly torchetti coached the pp.
as for systems, do you think you know about them? have another drink.
chico
just to inform you.
bowman in buffalo in 8 years had 7 different coaches in including himself.
that tells you about his management skills right their.
The team was terrible in those years under him.
keep kidding yourself.
as for murray he is considered by his peers as top not coach and wouldn't
had said good things about savard if he didn't mean it.
Its nice that Coach Q is giving everyone a fresh sheet of ice...but do we really need to see Havlat on the ice for the game tying goal?
Isn't part of coaching still making tough decisions like benching a guy who likes to only play between the circles in the offensive zone?
And why Versteeg in the shootout? And if you are going to have him in, why not put him first up so there isn't the pressure of tying or winning the shootout?
I would have rather seen Campbell or Sharp (even Havlat!) out there then Versteeg!
Winning only matters and so far Coach Q is down 1.
Havlat, Burish and I believe Sharp out there in the last minute, was questionable - not sure if it was based on their faceoff percentages, but on the tying goal, i think sharp & havlat even collided with each other, which may have cost them a chance to clear a loose puck. then again, i'm not sure the hawks have (m)any experienced shut down guys to choose from to put out the last minute.
Also agree that Versteeg was questionable choice for the SO (someone thought Q asked Torchetti for the choices) - your suggestion of Campbell would have been a better choice, having already scored on Legace and perhaps giving him an edge mentally on the goalie.
That said, it was Quenneville's first game after only 1 practice with the team - you can be sure he will learn who can do what and make better decisions and do it quickly.
As a team, the hawks played their best game by far this season & should have come away with the 2 points in regulation. Aside from the poor faceoff performance (which directly led to 2 St. Louis goals), I liked what I saw.
Hawks won't sniff the playoffs as long as Brent Sopel is manning the blueline as a top 4 d-man. Brent Seabrook's not much better. And, the Hawks won't sniff the playoffs if they don't get at least one more forward (second line center). AT LEAST! Hawks won't sniff the playoffs if the genius Quenneville keeps choosing guys like Versteeg and Havlat for shootouts. Versteeg's prestigous shootout career boasts a 0-for-0 record. And, Martin Havlat? Pu-lease.. I haven't seen him take a decent shot in a shootout yet! Perhaps Torchetti should be fired. Quenneville was asking him about who he should pick. Translation - they can't fire Dale Tallon soon enough. He's the one who's put "all these pieces in place".
I suspect that the Savard dismissal is just the first of several significant moves this year on the hockey side (actually, its the second after hiring Scotty Bowman).
As for Sopel, he isn't a top 4 Dman - he played over his head last year perhaps due to his contract situation - now that he is overpaid & using up precious cap space (thanks Dale), he has become a glaring liability - he could still be useful as a 5th or 6th guy, but hawks don't have the depth or experience to play him there (one reason why is they wasted cap space on this guy). I did think he looked a bit better last night, but was still a pylon too often.
Seabrook I thought played better last night - he got involved physically which is what he needs to do to be effective. - in his defense, he really hasn't had much help the last couple years from a coach who knows how to play defense (or in his own zone for that matter) & the hawks never added a top veteran Dman to support their young D until this year. I expect Seabrook will improve under Quenneville and with Campbell sharing some of the minutes load.
I agree with you about selecting Versteeg 3rd for the shootout - havlat would have been my choice - but he missed later so...
The much bigger criticism is the game should never have gone to OT - up by two with 11 minutes left should be a lock. What killed the hawks (even Pat & Eddie mentioned it several times) was faceoffs. At least two of the Blues' goals were directly the result of lost faceoffs.
This is completely on Tallon (again). Last year, he signed Perreault (best faceoff guy in the business) & Lang (Montreal traded for him this year specifically to help win faceoffs on the pp), yet he inexplicably lets these guys go essentially for nothing. With the rule changes this year, faceoffs are especially important for the pp - every pp starts with a faceoff in the opposing zone - another reason why the hawks pp looks sick again this year.
Earth to Dale, perhaps you should give Yannick a call - he's still unsigned last I checked - but since you mismanaged the cap space, you probably can't sign him as a player - perhaps you could sign him as a faceoff coach/consultant to teach your young guys throughout the entire organization how to take/win faceoffs? obviously if that was his job last year, it didn't work and/or he didn't finish...
The good news is that if it wasn't an obvious problem before last night to Scotty & the boys, it certainly is now. I wonder what conclusion Scotty is going to draw on who is responsible, Dale?
I think Dale will have a lot of free time to sharpen up his golf game soon. Dale, maybe Scotty will let you stay at his place in Sarasota for the winter...;-)
1). Agree about Seabrook comments. As for help on defense, Johnson I think will be ok the remainder of the season. He is about what you see from him. I don't think he plays this well when there have been problems with defense unless he is confidant in his ability to get the job done. Hjalmarsson eventually can be not just a better defensive presense than Barker, but he can move the puck/even carry the puck up ice. In Rockford it's same old Barker (from one game report only): still carries puck up ice, then dishes off when he is about to get hit. Much is the same with his game overall.
2). Now I finally have a reason why Gainey wanted Lang -- his ability to win face offs and as a veteran depth player. With all those good Canadiens'forwards a player like Lang can rotate on any line and he doesn't hurt you. Not the case in Chicago. As a regular #2 or regular #3 center he'd get plastered or skated right by. Look at Vanc -- just one team that added both speed and toughness. So Lang is good as a support player, not as a regular defined #2 or #3center
3). Don't know how easy it is to find a #2 center who can also win face offs at least at a 50% clip. If Fraser sticks around, then he helps as a descent face off man. For someone who couldn't win any face offs previously, McDonald sure beat us badly in that area sat. night
4). Those comments about the powerplay in other post merits further review. Since Savard has been ast. or head coach, he often had a hand in the powerplay. He didn't have a Campbell on the point -- true -- but he also never could get anyone to stand in front of the net. And whose job is it to give different looks or have lots of motion if the powerplay isn't working. Ultimately it is Savard's responsibility when he is head coach.
Time will tell, but I believe the Hawks made the right move. I said it last year Savard did his best but was not on the same level with most of the coaches in the league. There was no real system in place for these young players to learn and grasp. You will see the difference in a few games.
Is it just coincidence that Bourque, Samsanov, Ruutu, Aucoin all are being big contributors now on their teams? It's the system the coach puts in. And anyone who knows hockey can see th Hawks special teams were so bad under Savard's system. Watch the difference very soon.
So all the Savard lover's who want to give up their season tickets now,,,,bye bye,,and don't come back this spring when we are in the playoffs.
"Is it just coincidence that Bourque, Samsanov, Ruutu, Aucoin all are being big contributors now on their teams?"
---------------------
Yeah, Bourque is pointless in three-out-of-five games and
-1 overall. If that's being a big contributor, then I'd hate
to see the little contributors on Calgary.
1). Bourque is playing very well, all areas of game. Teamattes on ice have hurt this team by taking too many penalties, which have cost them games. They lost last night to Edm because of that. And Kiprusoff has been good for the most part, but not superlative. Don't make it sound like Bourque hasn't been good by way of the -1 rating. If you saw some games for a period or two, then you wouldn't say Bourque has been bad. You also can't judge on goals and points alone.
2). Samsonov showed that he could score again. I wouln't knock him this year until he has 20-25gp and then I'd look at whom he is playing with before judgment.
3). Ruutu has been playing the role of the player along the boards on the top line the first couple of games. He is contributing to his line's success. I'll sneak a few peaks at their game tonight.
At the time Savard was promoted to head coach, Andy Murray was available and I suggested he be the one Tallon should hire.
In any case, with a losing record against the hawks last year, it would be difficult for Murray to say anything other than what he said, without raising more questions about his own abilities, which have already been raised in St. Louis starting last year.
His comments also could serve to cause some of the hawks young players (the ones closest to savard) to perhaps continue to question the move & help get their mind & focus off where it should be ..ie. the game tonite.
murray is smart enough to know that 2 points up for grabs tonite against a divisional opponent in a very tough conference could be very big at the end of the season and playing with the minds of younger players on the opponent might provide an edge.
bottom line - if savard gets another coaching job - or i'll go as far as saying offer anywhere in the NHL, then i'll post that I was wrong about him as a coach, but until then, I'll go with Scotty Bowman's judgement over Andy Murray's.