All Habs Hockey Magazine is proud to provide a platform for guest writers to express their views on current issues. Today, we present a fan piece on differing fan perspectives on coach Michel Therrien. Your comments are welcome.
by Jeff Dawson, Guest Contributor, All Habs Hockey Magazine
When it comes to the Habs, expressed views come from emotion-based opinions that are often formed based on pre-conceptions. This is to be expected as the topic of discussion here is a passion: the fate of the Montreal Canadiens.
The thing is that when fans express themselves from an emotional starting point we tend to avoid contradictory information because frankly speaking we already think we are “right.” Personally, the majority of the time I read opinion pieces I consider them as a cross between rants (often amusing and fun) and something akin to a casual hockey discussion that usually occurs at the local sports bar during and after the game. That is conducive to emotion-based discourse and can be a lot of fun if all participants remain respectful of others and understand that what is being discussed are simply opinions.
The issue that confounds me is when some people try to pass off opinion pieces as factual analysis. When it comes to the Habs, the issue of Michel Therrien is the nexus of what I will call emotionally-fueled opinion pieces that make very selective use of opinion-friendly facts. In such an environment, facts are often obstacles to the point being made or objects that can be molded like playdough to fit ones reality.
Before going further, I will state that I have no love for Therrien as a coach. When he was hired I was not very enthusiastic. In the past few years he has earned a measure of respect from this fan for his team’s record.
Finally, before moving on to the next section, let us consider that in the hurry to ask for Therrien’s head, some fans seem to forget that this team prematurely fired many coaches since the last Stanley Cup in 1993 and that this resulted in mediocrity for long stretches and in no championships. As a simple reminder, the Montreal Canadiens at one time had the following two coaches at the helm and, in my personal opinion, fired them prematurely. I am speaking of Alain Vigneault (two Cup finals with two teams) and Claude Julien (one Cup win (2011) and one final.)
With Marc Bergevin confirming that the coaching staff will remain in place until the end of the season, this seems like an appropriate time to discuss how narratives are used, or abused, when it comes to discussing this head coach.
Let us now examine the creative, amusing and very artistic use of four supporting arguments that underpin the need, as expressed by some fans, to fire Michel Therrien.
Argument 1: Therrien cannot take a team all the way, much less win a Cup
This is well done as far as warped arguments go because it stretches a bit of factual truth very, very far. This deserves credit for pure creativity and maximization of resources.
So, Therrien took the Pens to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008, only to lose to the Detroit Red Wings in six games. The following year, he was fired mid-season and replaced by Dan Bylsma who promptly took the Pens to the finals and won in seven games. Thus we get the seed of the “Therrien cannot win a Cup” argument.
In this narrative, Bylsma is presented as the good coach who won. Yet, did he not inherit Therrien’s stacked team and get a boost by the return of the Pens top defenseman (Sergei Gonchar)? He won a Cup and then failed to win another Cup until he too was fired. In fact, the Bylsma-led Pens never even made it to the finals under his guidance after that 2009 win.
Therrien had coached that team for a few seasons and worked with its young, raw and superbly talented core players. When Bylsma took over, is it possible the team was simply ready to win? The thing is that in most of the pieces in the fire-Therrien category, this “cannot win a Cup, thus is a bad coach” thing gets bandied about like it’s a fact. The reality seems to be a tad more complex.
Argument 2: Therrien stifles the development of young players and those that do develop do so despite him
This argument is amusing because it is a self-reinforcing fallacy that can be hard to deal with if you take it at face value. It is also self-contradictory if you look at it more closely. Here the playdough effect is rather evident.
This argument will typically include select examples (players) to really ram home that Therrien cannot develop young players. Proponents of this fact will cite players they feel Therrien has stifled. These are guys like Lars Eller (the top-6 guy who is being held back by his coach), Jarred Tinordi (the great misunderstood defensive prospect who suffers from Therrien injustice), P.K. Subban (for the early part of Therrien’s tenure, then the story switched to “oh he would have developed under any coach”), Alex Galchenyuk (ice time issue.)
While debate can occur on how the coach uses players, the flip-side of the argument is so glaring that it becomes a bit embarrassing. Under Therrien, the following young players have thrived and developed: Subban, Max Pacioretty, Brendan Gallagher and Nathan Beaulieu. These are just a few of them.
Is Therrien the sole reason for their development? No. He did have a hand in it however.
So maybe Therrien can develop some young players successfully but fails with a few others for various reasons. Therrien also coached the Penguins farm team for a couple of years before getting the job with the big club and he developed a lot of the players that later went on to become solid contributors to the Pens.
The problem I have is that any young player that underperforms is free of fan blame as the tsunami of blame falls squarely on Therrien. Should a young player develop, he did so despite Therrien. The reality seems to be that all coaches tend to get success with a portion of players and fail with others. Heck Guy Lafleur said on numerous occasions that Scotty Bowman’s only contribution to the team’s success was to open and close the bench door during games.
Argument 3: Therrien’s system is bad and stifles offensive players
This is another interesting argument. It makes full use of the playdough method but also uses a bit of smoke and mirrors to conveniently obscure the inconvenient aspects that are a part of it.
Therrien’s system seems to require high energy, speed, fore-checking and back checking. This can be demanding and it does require a certain type of effort and a certain type of player. Offense also requires actually top six forwards.
The reality is that under this general manager, the Habs have never had more than four top six forwards that I would deem legitimate. In my opinion they are: Galchenyuk, Pacioretty, Gallagher and Plekanec. This is a thin top six.
Faced with this, perhaps a coach would try to apply a system that maximizes what he has and protects the weaknesses of his club (namely the absence of a No. 1 center.)
Now his system is not perfect! One could argue that under Therrien each of these legit top six players has either thrived or is developing very well. Pacioretty had three consecutive 30+ goal seasons. Gallagher has progressed offensively in leaps and bounds. Plekanec had productive seasons under Therrien. And finally Galchenyuk is coming along nicely in my opinion.
Argument 4: Therrien hates certain players, loves others
Now this final argument is interesting because it contains an actual kernel of truth! How that truth gets used and abused is amusing but still it’s true, this coach does prefer certain players to others. Then again, I will be daring and say that in team sports, the coach will always prefer certain players over others and even, gasp, treat these players differently.
If you have any doubts, check out guys like Jimmy Johnson or Bill Walsh or even Bill Belichick in the NFL or Phil Jackson as an NBA coach. Yes these are other sports but the comparison makes the point: coaches, like the human beings they are, have favorites. In more a NHL-centric look at other teams and you will notice coaches all have “besties”, even the fabled and celestial Mike Babcock! As a final cautionary note, your boss also has favorite employees. Yes I know, shocking!
So Therrien prefers some players to others and rewards players that give him what he wants. That may include on ice performance and off ice behavior. Is this a perfect approach? No its not and some players get too much ice time (Desharnais) when others could get more (Galchenyuk.)
The casting of players in certain roles is also interesting here because fan perceptions or hopes, fueled by an emotional attachment to certain players will drive opinion of how that player is used or misused.
In conclusion
In my opinion, firing the coach at this point would be premature. Now, with the GM’s press conference behind us, it appears the coach will not be fired until the season is over and perhaps not even then. I personally think that it is now up to the GM to help out his coach and his team with some proper offensive talent.
Bergevin has been excellent thus far but he now stands at a crossroads in terms of an organizational decision. In my opinion, the time is ripe for a substantial trade to bring in offensive talent, and by that I mean true top six talent both on the wing and at center. Who gets traded is for someone else to say or for another article.
