I Also Think Granato Should Go
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Mar 12, 2009 7:00 AM MDT
Email
Print
If you go back and look at my volumonous ramblings on the Avalanche this year, you might notice that while I have criticized Tony Granto, I've stopped short of calling for his job. That's partly because I think it's really hard for anyone on the outside to evaluate a coach. Plus, I think the firing of a coach to fix a team is a crutch that too many people are far too quick to use. But I've been thinking a lot about this beloved team of mine lately, and I've come to one conclusion:
Tony Granato must go.
I don't know about Xs and Os. I've never heard one of his pep talks. I've never observed his delegation techniques. Maybe this team really is junk, and would be even worse without Granato's skillful coaxing. Maybe.
Whatever the process going on behind the curtain, the end result has been dreadful. For the most part, this is the same team that went to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year - 20 guys on the roster right now were on the roster exactly one year ago. But this team isn't going to the playoffs; it's "fighting" for a lottery pick. The team is scoring less goals while allowing more goals than last year. The powerplay has improved, but just slightly. There really isn't any measure - statistical or otherwise - where this team is better than last year's model.
Perhaps this season is just a fluke, but there sure seems to be a pattern developing. In 2002, Granato took over the team midway through year after the quick-trigger firing of Bob Hartley. He led the team to a 32-11-4-4 record during the final 51 games, even managing to coax the team into first place in the NW on the final day of the season. That's the last division win for the Avalanche, and, to date, is the high point of Granato's coaching career. He didn't stay in the stratosphere long - the Avalanche suffered a humiliating upset in the first round of the playoffs, blowing a 3-1 lead to the Minnesota Wild.
The following season was the Selanne / Kariya year. Instead of cruising through the year, the star-studded Avalanche struggled and ultimately were ousted by the Sharks in the 2nd round. Yes, there were injury issues (Kariya was lost for the year, and Selanne wasn't himself), but there's little question that this team performed below expectations.
Fair or not, "performed below expectations" is the one unifying thread among the three clubs that he's coached. Whatever the mitigating factors, the end results have been the same - a team that didn't play as well, or as consistently, as it should have. And that, my friends, is why I'm finally throwing my hat into the fire Granato ring. I feel bad about it, but I want my favorite team to succeed more than I want to see Tony Granato succeed. The latter isn't going to happen - not in Colorado - so let's cut bait now and start working on the former.
16 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Am I mistaken or was Granato also responsible for special teams last year, specifically power play?
When Granato was promoted this time, I seem to recall comments along the lines of “If his power play coaching is an indication of how he’ll do as head coach, we’ll be in for a long season.”
Assuming this is true, I hope he doesn’t take another “demotion”. I’d like to see him out of the Avalanche coaching/front office completely.
My only question when discussing the power play is what changed? If he was in charge of the power play last season then would it not be safe to assume he was also in charge the other years in which Quenville was the head coach? Two seasons ago we had one of the better Power Play units in the league, so what changed?
MHH: Like the Avs organization, we’ve now officially lost our minds.
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Mar 12, 2009 12:39 PM MDT up reply actions
Good point
I don’t know if Granato was the PP coach two seasons ago, but thanks for prodding me to check the stats on NHL.com and becoming even more discouraged after checking out the past four years.
This year and last year, our PP% is within the bottom 5. The previous two years, the top 10.
there was a lot of discussion about this last year as well, and a lot of it centered around other teams adapting better. The years of success we got the puck low, then exploited 2 on 1s and 3 on 2s down low with give and gos, and behind the net play. The point men also would sneak in from the point often, getting below the top 2 defenders in the box.
Last year and this year, teams began completely ignoring Liles, Clark, Salei and Leopold at the points, except to prevent them from sneaking in. When the puck moved low, the top 2 defenders are coming much further down as well, closing off back door passes from the point and preventing any odd man action down low. The drawback to this defensive approach SHOULD be that the point men get off lots of good shots from the point. But we don’t have hard or accurate shots from the point, and the defensemen don’t seem to want to pull the trigger either. I don’t know whether the defense is coached not to shoot, or if they don’t want to, or whatever. There’s personnel issues here with poor point shots, and coaching issues with the inability to work around those issues — plenty of teams don’t have good shots from the point and are more successful than the Avs.
There’s also the inability to get things set up on the power play. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a team so inept at gaining the zone on the power play. I’ve no idea what the issue is there.
by thedoctor on Mar 12, 2009 12:51 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
One person that may or may not have made a difference? In 05-06 we still had Rob Blake and his shot from the point. Looking back on his career, almost every season, roughly half of his goals came on the power play. He was gone in 06-07, but maybe it took other teams that long to adapt to us not having that point shot? Did we have other D-men that are now gone who’s power play shooting would also figure into that and keep the other teams players higher in the zone?
(more research for the number people)
MHH: Like the Avs organization, we’ve now officially lost our minds.
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Mar 12, 2009 1:13 PM MDT up reply actions
Personally
I subscribe to Structural Poke’s Unipron- non Unipron theory myself.
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 12, 2009 1:17 PM MDT up reply actions
X's and O's
You know I think it’s impossible for anyone to judge the X’s and O’s from their couch. With TV angles what they are, and not always picking up on the plays I think even solid coaches would have a hard time picking up the subtleties of the game from TV. As everyone here knows, it’s a much different game in person…
…However most people have a very elementary knowledge of Rocket Science, but when the shuttle exploded on re-entry, most people could make an educated guess that something that deflected heat from re-entering the atmosphere probably failed. And most people aren’t qualified to be civil engineers, but when New Orleans was flooded it didn’t take a genius to figure out the levee’s had probably failed. And finally most people really don’t (or didn’t) know much about the financial industry, but when the housing market imploded I think most reasonable people could tell “Yeah it probably had something to do with all those absurd loans that were being given to, and taken by, anyone with a pulse”
I may not know much about X’s and O’s, but I can spot an epic disaster when I see it, and feel fairly comfortable in a rudimentary diagnosis. I may not be able to pinpoint exactly what went wrong (and really for epic disasters it’s multiple failures anyways) but I can figure out the biggest things.
The biggest problems with the Avs have been behind the bench, coupled with a poor off-season by the front-office.
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 12, 2009 9:22 AM MDT reply actions
I was with you for quite a while as well, DD, saying that Cloutier needed to go over Granato. I still think Granato has done some things better than Quenneville too. But the way this team has quit has pushed me towards calling for his firing. Just like you, BiB, and Jibble, I’m not a hockey Xs and Os expert, but disasters are still easy to see and this team definitely qualifies as a schematic disaster.
TG must go.
Granato did a better job with the goalies, although the meltdown of the team ultimately dragged Budaj under. He’s also given the younger guys more of a chance – Wolski probably would have been traded by now if Q was still around.
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Mar 12, 2009 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions
Agree
with you both. He certainly has handled his players better than Quenneville. But it’s become obvious that Quenneville is far superior in X’s and O’s
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 12, 2009 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions
Sounds like
what you guys are saying is that a good coach for this team would be one who works well with the players, especially the younger ones and goalies, but also one that is good with the X’s and O’s. That makes a lot of sense. That would create a team where each individual player would have confidence in himself, but also a team that would have confidence in their ability on the ice because the coach would have a system and know the X’s and O’s. Soooo, who is that coach?
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
