OT: Should Doug Armstrong get fired?

Should Doug Armstrong get fired?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 40.4%
  • No

    Votes: 34 59.6%

  • Total voters
    57
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,719
What IT would take to get Army fired?

This team needs new direction.
He has to do something that causes someone in ownership that's not Tom Stillman to say "OK, I've had enough - he has to go." Like, say, proposing to send Torey Krug to Springfield for not waiving his NTC - an idea a few people here have floated that (1) isn't going to happen, but (2) I'd love to see Armstrong float in a FAFO kind of way. Or, his refocus goes on for another year or two and the team never makes the playoffs. Maybe then.

Beyond that? Armstrong is never getting the boot. He'll get to leave on his own terms and he'll get feted on the way out the door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranksu

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,722
9,346
Lapland
Blues-Game-Transparent-Blue-900x576.png
 

BrokenFace

Registered User
Aug 15, 2010
1,578
1,865
STL
If Army was fired this off-season, who would you want him replaced with? Not someone who has never been a GM, but someone with a track record of running a team that we can judge. Even if you prefer someone who hasn't been a GM yet, I'm wondering what candidates who have been GM before would make a good replacement.
 

Xerloris

reckless optimism
Jun 9, 2015
7,182
7,729
St.Louis
If Army was fired this off-season, who would you want him replaced with? Not someone who has never been a GM, but someone with a track record of running a team that we can judge. Even if you prefer someone who hasn't been a GM yet, I'm wondering what candidates who have been GM before would make a good replacement.

Obvious answer would have to be Chiarelli right?
 

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,722
9,346
Lapland
If Army was fired this off-season, who would you want him replaced with? Not someone who has never been a GM, but someone with a track record of running a team that we can judge. Even if you prefer someone who hasn't been a GM yet, I'm wondering what candidates who have been GM before would make a good replacement.
Im not man who knows who is right guy GM Job. I only know what Army has done. Blues direction is downsliding and looks like Army isnt The right guy to FIX IT. He has only make us worse.
 

GoldenSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
7,092
6,360
Out West
Made Bannister HC instead of getting someone like Gallant onboard?

Are we starting to have budget concerns or is Army still staring at his magic board?
 

LogosBlue

Registered User
May 16, 2018
183
187
Why would you want Gallant when you're not competing?
I think DA made it pretty clear he wants to compete for playoffs while re-whatever it is he is doing. We should have went after Gallant with a serious effort. That's like saying, we don't want to compete or don't bring in any good players because it's not our year for another two years.
 

Xerloris

reckless optimism
Jun 9, 2015
7,182
7,729
St.Louis
I think DA made it pretty clear he wants to compete for playoffs while re-whatever it is he is doing. We should have went after Gallant with a serious effort. That's like saying, we don't want to compete or don't bring in any good players because it's not our year for another two years.

Competing for the playoffs and competing for cup are two very different things. We can give it a serious effort without actually competing. We have to wait for prospects to develop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueston

Drubilly

Registered User
Sep 23, 2018
350
335
Collinsville
There is a discussion on the main regarding Gallant and Berube. I suggest folks read up if they're still handwringing over the Bannister hire and "missing out" on another coach such as Gallant.
 

GoldenSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
7,092
6,360
Out West
Why would you want Gallant when you're not competing?
Because when you're ready to, he probably won't be available. You grab pieces when the opportunity arises. Plus, this team IS competing, there will be NO blowup, NO rebuild, so we ARE competing whether the roster shows it or not. Signing subpar because you're 'waiting' for the right moment and timing is really sideways.
 

Xerloris

reckless optimism
Jun 9, 2015
7,182
7,729
St.Louis
Because when you're ready to, he probably won't be available. You grab pieces when the opportunity arises. Plus, this team IS competing, there will be NO blowup, NO rebuild, so we ARE competing whether the roster shows it or not. Signing subpar because you're 'waiting' for the right moment and timing is really sideways.

So we should go out and try to make a big splash in the UFA market and trade market even if they don't meet our core age group and timline and will be to old and on the downside of their career when we are ready to actually compete. Makes sense. That's basically what you just said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueston

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
19,109
19,935
Houston, TX
Because when you're ready to, he probably won't be available. You grab pieces when the opportunity arises. Plus, this team IS competing, there will be NO blowup, NO rebuild, so we ARE competing whether the roster shows it or not. Signing subpar because you're 'waiting' for the right moment and timing is really sideways.
he'll be available. he's always available. he gets fired after like 2 years every time. i don't want him. now or probably ever.
 

GoldenSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
7,092
6,360
Out West
So we should go out and try to make a big splash in the UFA market and trade market even if they don't meet our core age group and timline and will be to old and on the downside of their career when we are ready to actually compete. Makes sense. That's basically what you just said.
You're talking about players, I'm talking about coaching. You BUILD YOUR SYSTEM FIRST. You sign, draft and put your players through it and create the ethics, standards and integrity you want the team to stand by. Its an investment. I don't see the coaching to help develop this team into what it needs to be under Bannister. You stopgap players, not coaches.
 

Xerloris

reckless optimism
Jun 9, 2015
7,182
7,729
St.Louis
You're talking about players, I'm talking about coaching. You BUILD YOUR SYSTEM FIRST. You sign, draft and put your players through it and create the ethics, standards and integrity you want the team to stand by. Its an investment. I don't see the coaching to help develop this team into what it needs to be under Bannister. You stopgap players, not coaches.

Sorry bud but you're off the deep end. You don't just decide on a system and force your team into it. You build a system that can help your team succeed, you don't force round pegs into square holes. If you do you end up with Krug.
 

LogosBlue

Registered User
May 16, 2018
183
187
Sorry bud but you're off the deep end. You don't just decide on a system and force your team into it. You build a system that can help your team succeed, you don't force round pegs into square holes. If you do you end up with Krug.
Sorry big guy but your not correct. Your coach sets the system of play and the team led by the captain needs to adopt the game plan and play to it. You don't let the inmates run the asylum. If anyone is off the deep end on this one, its you. You can bring in players that play to the coaches system strengths etc. but the players don't determine the system of play.
 

Xerloris

reckless optimism
Jun 9, 2015
7,182
7,729
St.Louis
Sorry big guy but your not correct. Your coach sets the system of play and the team led by the captain needs to adopt the game plan and play to it. You don't let the inmates run the asylum. If anyone is off the deep end on this one, its you. You can bring in players that play to the coaches system strengths etc. but the players don't determine the system of play.

At no point did I say you let the players decide on the system, I said you build a system that helps your team succeed. I don't see how you figure that means letting the players decide the system. It means you build to your teams strength. Ok so before I continue, this next part is hypothetical which means not real, ok? Let's say Kyrou is a rookie and you put him on the 4th line with Blais and Torpo, do you think Kyrou would have any hope of succeeding? of course not. You're forcing a round peg into a square hole. So it looks like Kyrou sucks right, so you trade him to Detroit for a 2nd round pick, they then put him on the top line and he scores 30 goals and 40 assists. Maybe we should have tried to play to his strength and not make him a 4th line checker? Do you get it yet? You can't just decide a system and then think all your players can play that system. Sure you can only bring in new players thatr CAN play it but our existing players have to be considered.
 

GoldenSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
7,092
6,360
Out West
At no point did I say you let the players decide on the system, I said you build a system that helps your team succeed. I don't see how you figure that means letting the players decide the system. It means you build to your teams strength. Ok so before I continue, this next part is hypothetical which means not real, ok? Let's say Kyrou is a rookie and you put him on the 4th line with Blais and Torpo, do you think Kyrou would have any hope of succeeding? of course not. You're forcing a round peg into a square hole. So it looks like Kyrou sucks right, so you trade him to Detroit for a 2nd round pick, they then put him on the top line and he scores 30 goals and 40 assists. Maybe we should have tried to play to his strength and not make him a 4th line checker? Do you get it yet? You can't just decide a system and then think all your players can play that system. Sure you can only bring in new players thatr CAN play it but our existing players have to be considered.

That's why coaches, good coaches, while they have a Plan, they'll tweak it and adjust and adapt when necessary. You never know when your GM is going to call you and say X is being traded and we're getting Y and Z. The team has to have a core identity and strengths it needs or trains to aspire to. So saying what you have, what system do we run, because I don't see one. I see no ethic, I see very little team integrity, I mean doesn't the Note mean a damn thing for some of these folks? Doesn't the front office enforce the ethic of fighting for the logo? Does anyone?

I see our leadership upstairs basically looking at stats on a page and saying this team is good enough, we should be able to make the playoffs and do things, but that takes a plan and I don't see someone like Bannister having a plan, at least I haven't seen one from him yet. When we talk about Hitch, we always mention the system of coaching and the type of ethic the players had. When we talk about Berube and Bannister, much as I love Berube, but neither seems to have a real plan, it's more ebb and flow, work towards that players strengths on a team that needs more strong players.

And that fault lies with Army.

Every piece of this team is of his making or at worst, his approving, from coaching all the way down. He holds nearly unlimited power and if he was as smart and forward-thinking as some here lead us to believe, he would have options. This team on paper looks amazing but when you see the final product you realize The Boss spends all his time looking at statistics on a printed page than outside the window of his office at the players playing the game.

Like Captain Picard said once in paraphrase, you can do everything right but still lose, I'd expect what's left to look more like a team that's out to contend over what I see now.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad