Agreed it is hard to truly evaluate Hiller, but based off what I saw I 100% believe that bringing on either Gallant (my top choice) or Berube would place the Kings in a far superior position to make a deep run into the playoffs.
Based on Hiller's time as Head Coach, here is my opinion:
Positives:
-High Emotional Intelligence (which goes a long way to building a team culture and getting all players engaged)
-Added a very strong supporting Assistance Coach (DJ)
-Is able to adapt gameplay to the opponent on a limited basis (better than McLellan was able to)
-Seems to take ownership
-Has good composure
Negatives:
-Lacks experience
-Makes adjustments but is far to slow in enacting them; adjustments made are incomplete (failed to alter the PP, made adjustments to PK but not until game 5, made slight adjustments to defensive zone net front presence, rode a goalie in a cold streak and waited to the series was almost lost to put in the better goaltending option)
-Didn't utilize all players efficiently
-Still a question mark when it comes to player development
-Didn't see anything that stood out as being Hiller's impact on the team system (appeared to strongly ride what McLellan has put in place)
Side note: There was a reason Cassidy was let go as head coach of Boston as well. What did he do? He went to Vegas and won a Cup, with the potential to win another this year.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty fair analysis of Hiller. I can’t really argue against your points. And I think the Cassidy note is worth considering.
All coaches get the axe eventually. Some are hired just to get fired. Some are fired because they aren’t up to the task. Others have issues with the front office. Myriads of reasons.
I am not familiar enough with the dynamics with every situation about any of the potential candidates if Hiller is let go.
Gallant was in Vegas before DeBoer & Cassidy. Why was Gallant let go? I can’t say I know the details well enough.
But with Hiller my sense is there just isn’t enough info on him. Too small of a sample size. Which certainly makes it risky certainly. It also makes him cheaper in both term and $’s. I think Hiller would take a one one or two year deal.
Gallant isn’t coming for less that 5 years at $5M.
Not that I’m paying, so I don’t necessarily care. But my point with a Hiller contract is you take a chance and it’s easy to move on with less years and dollars committed if he turns out to be over his head.
With regard to your negatives about Hiller (which again, are entirely fair) I can’t say that Hiller had a lot of choices with his strategic moves. Not many players were doing enough.
I do agree that he was slow on the special teams issues.
I think he did go too long with Talbot, but I don’t think Rittich was good at all in Game 5. Pick your poison with two guys in net who were adequate at best.
Really, it comes down to the sample size. I suspect Hiller was told to get to the playoffs and see what this team wants to be.
I just don’t think there was enough time for system changes when he took over, and I doubt Scotty Bowman could have saved this team in the playoffs.
With Hiller, I almost think of Pat Riley with the Lakers decades ago. Riley did not have the resume but actually was a good coach. There is enough with Hiller that I wonder if perhaps he might actually be the guy if given the opportunity.
I don’t know what the Kings will do. I don’t know what they should do, to be honest. I just don’t know that I personally think I’d walk away from Hiller after 30 games. But I can easily be wrong. It actually has happened
mayorsmanor.com
