from the Avs‘ site:
The Colorado Avalanche Hockey Club announced today that Joel Quenneville will not return to coach the team next season.
“After meeting with Joel, we mutually agreed that the best decision for both parties involved is to go separate ways,” said Avalanche Executive Vice President & General Manager Francois Giguere. “On behalf of the organization, I want to thank Joel for his years of service and wish him the best in his coaching career.”
Not at all surprising, as there were a lot of hints that this was coming. I’ve been meaning to weigh in on Quenneville all week, but just never quite got around to it. Honestly, I’m more on the fence than most people, and wouldn’t have been that upset if he were to return. But change is good, and I’m curious to see what another coach can do.
surprised to hear you were OK with him returning, DD.
I myself am rejoicing. FG has done a really good job.
I’m not surprised. DD just wants to break up the Avalanche Blogger Circle Jerk.
I’ve really been trying to break away lately, haven’t I?
I don’t know how to really put it into words, which, I guess, is why I haven’t. I certainly think he’s got his faults, I’m just not sure I’m convinced that a new coach will necessarily be a better coach.
I feel the same way DD. Let me see if I can phrase my feelings on it.
I think Q is a safe coach. You know your defensive rotations will be pretty good. You know he’s going to leave your veterans alone. He’s got a ton of street cred with his experience as a coach and as a player. The thing with Q is that you know any team he coaches is going to compete and be in the mix. I think he could get hired in Florida and give them their first playoff birth. I think that’s the reason I personally am not totally comfortable in seeing him go. Now, with that said, any mild introspective analysis of him makes me write off those strengths relatively quickly. I think he was a pretty good coach to come out of the lockout with when your talent was pretty thin.
In retrospect, what were the signs that Q was a poor choice to begin with? I was really dumbstruck with his stress/exhaustion issue in 2004 when he stepped down as the Team Canada head coach. He was so geared up he didn’t sleep for four nights? The other thing I wasn’t altogether comfortable with is that some things slipped out of the St. Louis lockeroom that never should have. Things like Q questioning Braithwaite’s work ethic and rumors of certain players being disliked in the lockeroom. That’s not a very dissaplined room he ran for that kind of thing to get out.
Speaking of the lockeroom… I find it very curious that Brunette would even breath a hint of dissatisfaction with coaching decisions. First, he’s a veteran. Next, he’s tight-lipped about anything and everything else. Next, he’s very deliberate with anything he says. Last, could he be the only veteran player that was frustrated? What other possible veteran players could possibly have the power to force Q out? I know main stream journalists are just ripe to jump on any blog that starts unfounded rumors so let me say that this is total speculation and has no basis in known fact, but what if Sakic felt the same way as Brunette?
The good news is that this means a second chance for Richardson who could be great. It means a possible change in direction for Budaj and Wolski. It means a different dog-house mentality that might see problem areas like Skrastins, Laaksonen and Rycroft sooner rather than later while guys I have issues with like Arnason get harder looks.
I’m exited about seeing a new system. I can’t imagine that Q’s system was ever going to be anything different than shuffling lines and goalies while playing favorites to some and benching others.
“safe coach”
yeah, I think you summed up my thoughts really well.
Safe got us swept. Not that I’m saying safe is altogether a bad thing, but I don’t necessarily think it will get us back to an elite level either. I would not say that Q is a bad coach, I just don’t think his ideas fit with the avs current team. As someone else said, “Ryan Smyth in a behind the net offense? Really?” My take is just that if we are not going to be an elite team (and the det series , well, I’m not too sure we had a chance even if we were healthy) then we should at least try something else. It is after all the revolving door of coaches NHL. Can someone else come in and be any better? I don’t know, and unfortunately I feel there isn’t going to be much to work with. Our draft picks are depleted, we have no real high quality goalie, and in short the cavalry does not seem to be coming. It may be time to ditch some salary, get some draft picks, and yes, maybe even rebuild. Lord knows I don’t want to see any of my favorite players go, but I’ve been watching them since 95 and some of them like me are a little long in the tooth. The upshot of this somewhat rambling post is that if we are going to suck I’d prefer it to be as short as possible and not end up like the maple leafs just barely trying to get in the playoffs (or failing miserably at that even) every year. If we can’t be elite next year (likely more than a few players’ last) I don’t see the point of bad aid fixes like the get hossa suggestions I’ve been hearing.
I’m rejoicing over the Q firing.
My father mentioned that Hartley was available and looking for work. With all the vets on the team, could it be a possibility? (just throwing it out there on no basis whatsoever). Whoever the coach is, they obviously have someone in mind. And the draft/free agency looms near - a coach is going to be necessary for those decisions.
My biggest problem with Quenneville was special teams. I thought they were absolutely horrible all year and arguably cost us the division. 5 on 5 hockey I can buy the argument of injured players, but on special teams I think a large majority of the success is coaching. I don’t know if it was Granato or the other assistant that worked on special teams (I’m assuming it was Granato - god help us if they name him HC), but someone had to be held accountable.
I’m guessing they’re resigning Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, etc. and they’ll bring in a veteran HC to match. I agree with everyone else that the personnel decisions will be interesting, and these will come from Giguere rather than the coach - we’ll find out if he is pro or con on a lot of these guys on the fence. Liles may have a shot of sticking now, as well as Finger and Richardson. Sauer probably loses some value without coach Q in his corner. And I still think Theo is gone. If/when Huet resigns, as it’s now looking like an almost certainty, Theo’s agent would be doing his client a disservice not to try and go grab a 3 or 4 year deal (I’m crossing my fingers the Avs are only offering 2).
Dario, I think it’s worth noting that these revelations didn’t come out until after the season was over. I have a feeling that Brunette said a lot of things off the record and requested they not get aired until it no longer mattered. There was no sense of grumbling during the regular season, and that’s the sign of a classy player.
And yeah, I share your speculation that Brunette was not the only veteran upset by the coaching. He and Sakic are pretty similar in temperament (from what I’ve heard), and Sakic’s been around since the start, so he knows what works and what doesn’t.
“safe coach”
interesting choice but I can see the reasoning behind it. Quenville has often got his teams to the playoffs, but then the fall flat on their faces. If your goal is to make the playoffs most years, he can do the job. But if your goal is to win the Stanley Cup, I don’t think you wnat a guy like Quenville. For all his so called strengths he has never coached a team that far, his second year in St Louis, I believe was the closest he got.
I know I won’t miss the inconsistent “dog-house” benching, the goalie-go-round, the constant line changes, nor the sit back in your own zone while trying to protect a 1 goal lead strategy.
The phrase you all seem to be struggling to find is ‘mediocre’. That sums up the Coach Q philosophy IMO. He does just enough to get by. Remember, more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs, and with the screwing three-point system in place, it’s easier then ever (historically).
My biggest fear with a continued Q-ationship was that it would have sent a clear message that ownership was happy to JUST make the playoffs. To do JUST enough to get to the golden parachute that is the post-season. Another word for that is Toronto Maple Leafs. The die-hard fans are getting screwed up there because even though the team sucks and there is no hope in sight, the ownership continues to make wads of cash. Therefore they have no reason to improve the team. It would be a bad business decision if they did.
oh, and Dario, not to nitpick, but Florida has had a playoff birth. They made it to the SC Finals against, wait, let me check….the Avalanche!
Yeah, didn’t finish my sentence. You can guess what it should have said.
Safe and mediocre are relatively the same. You get the right mix of guys to the playoffs and anything can happen. I said it a long time ago here but Q just never let the team become great. His tweaking kept the team competitive but never gave them the freedom to fail and learn and become a great team. By that standard, he might never be more than a mediocre coach. However, mediocre coaches can lead great teams to the finals and perhaps even a cup. Great coaches can do it more often with less talent.
I figured that’s what happened.
And I agree about mediocre/average coaching. Many teams succeed DESPITE mediocre coaching, but rarely because of it.
Stuck in mediocrity. Just good enough to get lower draft picks and keep they same coach/players/staff. That is what Q brings in the long term as a coach.
Just good enough to get lower draft picks*
That should read
Just good enough to not get early/good draft picks.
And yes late round gems are good, but top 5 picks are mucho betta.