A third, a third, a third
Firing a coach is as old as time. As a player, I have already experienced the departure of my coach in the middle of a season. I experienced this feeling with the Penguins, but also with the Flyers.
In Philadelphia, Craig Berube replaced Peter Laviolette after only three games (three losses). That was in 2013-14.
In Pittsburgh, Michel Therrien took Eddie Olczyk’s place during my rookie season (2005-2006). Three years later, Dan Bylsma took the torch from Michel.
I always liked Mike. He had me coached for five seasons, including a year in Wilkes-Barre in the American League. I say this today with hindsight. If we don’t trade Mike for Dan in 2008-09, I don’t know if we win the Stanley Cup.
I’m repeating myself, but I loved Mike. I’m not criticizing him. He was good for me. The change, however, paid off. We needed a different voice at that time. Yes, we won with Bylsma in his first months behind the Penguins bench. He had an impact on our victory. But there were other elements as well. Sergei Gonchar missed a large portion of the season and we made trades at key moments that year. Bill Guerin changed the dynamic of our team when he arrived.
A change of coach changes several things in the middle of a season. It’s like you can start from scratch. It is a renewal and a rebirth. It’s a renaissance of culture, a renaissance of practice, and a renaissance of routine and team meetings. There is a wind of change affecting the entire organization.
The change from Mike to Dan had propelled our team.
When there is a dismissal, there is a mathematical phenomenon. Guy Boucher has already explained it well. Inside a locker room, there are a third of the players who are happy with the departure of the coachthere are a third of the players who are sad and the other third stay on the line.
The goal for a new coach is not to motivate the third of the unhappy people, but to make sure to bring the guys who remained ambivalent into the group of happy guys. When a large majority of players believe in the values of the new coachthe others who sulk have no choice in following. There are always guys grumbling in an NHL locker room anyway.
With the arrival of a new coachthere is a new energy. You have the feeling of starting a season again. The voice in the locker room changes, the lines change and the players seek to gain the trust of the new man behind the bench. For a player who is not having a good season, a change of coach is also an opportunity to put a season back on track. You can no longer blame the person who managed your playtime. You only have to look in the mirror.
As for Jim Montgomery, I know him from afar. I don’t have a specific relationship with him. I still have antennas in Boston and I know that he is a fair, but demanding, coach. He was loved by his players. When you maintain a record over .700 (120-41-23) behind a bench on an NHL team, you don’t stay out of a job for long.
Doug Armstrong and the Blues did not hesitate to open a door for him. Montgomery deserved another chance. I watched interviews with several Bruins players and there was one line that kept coming up: “We’re losing a good human being.”
In the first round of the playoffs last year, Montgomery said that David Pastrnak needed to play better against the Maple Leafs. He criticized him publicly. Who scored the overtime goal in Game 7 to eliminate the Leafs? Pastrnak. It’s a sign that his message was still getting across.
But a few months later, the Bruins wanted a change. Once again, this is the cruel law of professional sports.
*Comments collected by Jean-François Chaumont, senior journalist LNH.com
