Good morning David. I wasn’t sure which forum is most appropriate to pose this question, but Jack Han had an interesting note on Jim Montgomery. Monty with the Bruins now has the highest winning percentage EVER through 100 games.
He said during FLA game he wants his team to hang onto the puck more. Modern tactics, but kit ground breaking according to Jack & he dives into a technical teach piece.
What I find interesting is comparing & contrasting what’s going right with Monty in BOS vs what he did/had to do here in DAL. He pretty famously had to change from his preferred style to a more hard core defensive game to give success here. He also couldn’t really unlock the mystery of Dallas slow starts.
Obviously, BOS & DAL have two different sets of players, but I wonder why his preferred style was a no-go in DAL & why it is finding greatest win percentage ever success in BOS even spanning into a “rebuilding” year there?
Was the overhaul of the roster for & defensive programming done by Hitch in going back to dead puck hockey insurmountable in Monty’s first year plus here (wrong personnel)? Did the players not really buy in? Something else?
I wonder if the compare & contrast between success in BOS & mediocre results here might be instructive about DAL from a roster construction or player implementation perspective.
My gut tells me it might have something to do with the defensive corps & their skill set, but wanted a more expert opinion.
Montgomery very famously followed Hithcock's system. Hitch was an advisor during this time, and this was also the time of Dallas' "all defense, no offense" years, which felt driven by Gaglardi.
Montgomery also famously said "we let our identity get in the way" when they started out 1-8 (I think), and it took a singular effort by Alex Radulov to initiate a comeback versus the Wild (Sean Shapiro recalls writing a draft during that game about the heads that were about to roll if Dallas lost another). Once they turned it around, if you look at Dallas' analytics during the last two months of Monty's tenure, they were elite in every way. Good defense, AND potent offense.
So I think Monty WAS running the system he'd eventually refine under Boston. But it was all cut short just as he was distancing himself from Hitch's whispers. (And sure, the personnel has something to do with it, but at the time, the Stars had a rookie phenom in Miro, Klingberg who still had his legs, and a grab bag of supporting players who while not elite, were still capable.)
Good morning David. I wasn’t sure which forum is most appropriate to pose this question, but Jack Han had an interesting note on Jim Montgomery. Monty with the Bruins now has the highest winning percentage EVER through 100 games.
He said during FLA game he wants his team to hang onto the puck more. Modern tactics, but kit ground breaking according to Jack & he dives into a technical teach piece.
What I find interesting is comparing & contrasting what’s going right with Monty in BOS vs what he did/had to do here in DAL. He pretty famously had to change from his preferred style to a more hard core defensive game to give success here. He also couldn’t really unlock the mystery of Dallas slow starts.
Obviously, BOS & DAL have two different sets of players, but I wonder why his preferred style was a no-go in DAL & why it is finding greatest win percentage ever success in BOS even spanning into a “rebuilding” year there?
Was the overhaul of the roster for & defensive programming done by Hitch in going back to dead puck hockey insurmountable in Monty’s first year plus here (wrong personnel)? Did the players not really buy in? Something else?
I wonder if the compare & contrast between success in BOS & mediocre results here might be instructive about DAL from a roster construction or player implementation perspective.
My gut tells me it might have something to do with the defensive corps & their skill set, but wanted a more expert opinion.
On the contrary: this is the perfect place!
Montgomery very famously followed Hithcock's system. Hitch was an advisor during this time, and this was also the time of Dallas' "all defense, no offense" years, which felt driven by Gaglardi.
Montgomery also famously said "we let our identity get in the way" when they started out 1-8 (I think), and it took a singular effort by Alex Radulov to initiate a comeback versus the Wild (Sean Shapiro recalls writing a draft during that game about the heads that were about to roll if Dallas lost another). Once they turned it around, if you look at Dallas' analytics during the last two months of Monty's tenure, they were elite in every way. Good defense, AND potent offense.
So I think Monty WAS running the system he'd eventually refine under Boston. But it was all cut short just as he was distancing himself from Hitch's whispers. (And sure, the personnel has something to do with it, but at the time, the Stars had a rookie phenom in Miro, Klingberg who still had his legs, and a grab bag of supporting players who while not elite, were still capable.)
Thanks for the response. It sucks that the Stars could not be the beneficiary of GMJN’s find from the college coaching ranks.
Unfortunately, Monty’s personal issues got in the way.
Nill handled the situation with aplomb and it looks like the Bruins are the beneficiaries of Monty getting his shit together.