Lightning fire Barry Melrose

I never understood why hockey fires their coaches so quickly, until I read a story about soccer in SI where a soccer guy explained that coaches don't do much during the game. The players play, there really aren't many moves a coach makes during a game. I figure hockey is the same way. Most likely the GM felt the style of play Melrose was encouraging wasn't suited for the team he put together. Which is really odd for a coach just hired. That said, I wonder how much of an impact a coaching change really has besides making the GM feel better.

 

Rick Tocchet will be the interim head coach. Go forth with your illegal betting and Janet Jones comments.

 

Just read the story on SI.com. Is the GM the same Brian Lawton who was the No. 1 overall draft pick many years ago?

And, the Lightning was 11 games under .500 last year, I'm still trying to figure out how a 5-7-4 start under a new coach is "unacceptable."

 

I'm STILL trying to figure out how Denis Savard got canned four games into the season. The Blackhawks simply need some veteran leadership.

 

Because they had a better coach in the organization. I think it was totally unfair to Savard if they were going to do it they should have done it in the summer

 

MPcincal - yes, same Lawton.

 

After suffering through his ruination of the Kings, I came to the conclusion that as a coach, Melrose makes a damn good broadcaster.

That said, this is kneejerk to the nth degree and says more about Lawton and Co. than it does about Melrose.

 

One could use this firing as another reason why hockey STILL has yet to grab the American sports scene as a whole.

 

Hell, I think it's great that Chicago gave Savard "a chance" this season. Anyone know how long the average coach's contract is? I figure at least two years right? And how can you have any confidence in a GM who cans a coach he hires after such a short time?

 

Yes, because a coach being fired is why a lot of Americans don't like hockey. Ridiculous.

 

This might be the most ridiculous argument I've read in some time. Yes, it's a stupid firing. But to equate it with hockey's lack of popularity in the United States is silly.

 

Drip - You can leave the hockey bashing party at any time.

Hockey doesn't have the mainstream media or tv deal in the US because there is virtually little interest in the sport by a huge segment of the population (i.e. African-Americans, Hispanics). The sport is too expensive for kids growing up in the ghetto or whatever you want to call low income housing/projects/neighborhoods. The kids who have $25-50 to spend, will buy a baseball, bat, and glove or football or soccer ball or basketball. There are more small neighborhoods with a sandlot to play baseball/football/soccer or a basketball court than ice skating rinks. It is economically impossible for hockey to ever reach the level of the big 3 or the southern love affair that is NASCAR.