Melrose to Coach Lightning, What Says You, the NHL FAN

You Might Like

Asked By: MarkTheShark

Who liked it? 40

Jahiegel (+)
Dallas Stars

vivyanne94 (+)
Swimming

amir_zahari90 (+)
Jeff Gordon

alexiselizabeth (+)
Gallant Fox

Scout-Team-All-American (+)
Adam Scott

Shadowstep01 (+)
Olympics

derms33 (+)
Detroit Red Wings

x0_lovable_0x (+)
Fencing

jengirrl2007 (+)
Minnesota Wild

yicong1 (+)
Weightlifting

... and 30 other fans

NHL Results Skip to Next Poll »

Like it?

Melrose to Coach Lightning, What Says You, the NHL FAN

Read the Article: Melrose to Coach Lightning for Buddies (And Oh Yeah, They're the Owners)

Barry Melrose has come out of the studio and will stand behind the Lightning's Bench.

Featured by:

Jess at 6/25/08 1:24AM
| Closed on 09/14/08 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | NHL, Tampa Bay Lightning | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Teams: Tampa Bay Lightning

56 Fans
23%	a. Barry!, Barry!, Barry!
7%	b. Will he be as prepared as he was in the studio?
18%	c. Now he can afford better hair grease
4%	d. NO! God NO!
11%	e. He led the Kings to a Cup Finals , he can do it again
23%	f. The Bolts will be way better, but not because of Melrose
14%	g. I DON'T CARE

	&nbp;
TOP COMMENT
#13 \| 107 days ago kteacher (+)	danny_n94 wrote: He is not a good coach. He used Gretzky and a good offense to get into the playoffs. He started 20-8-3 and then limped into the playoffs with only 39 wins. They got lucky and went to the Stanley Cup Finals. To say he can coach is like saying Michael Vick is a great pocket passer. Its just a lie +6 I agree with you some what. In fact Gretzky was pretty much injured that year and didn't shine in the play offs till the Toronto series---mainly due to some comments in a Canadian newspaper. Any team who reaches the finals doesn't get there based solely on luck. Luck doesn't help you beat not one, not two, but three Canadian teams, and if not for Marty's curved stick they might have beaten the Canadians. I think time will tell on whether or not Barry is a good coach. He might not have had a lot of NHL coaching experience, but he has been around the league for a long time, so he has seen what works and what doesn't. So who knows? Will he be as prepared as he was in the studio?
	Was this comment...? (5)


38 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 108 days ago RenegadeLG (+)	I'd call it a laughable publicity stunt by a team struggling to hold onto it's fanbase after the strike made us all forget about their Cup, but they still draw a good crowd so I guess it's just a bad hire.
	Was this comment...?
#2 \| 108 days ago Jess (+)	+3 All I could say when I heard about it was "ohhhkay. Thats.....odd". I don't even know how to react. Who knows though, I'm sure stranger things have happened. Right?........Right? I'm just not thrilled to see him leave broadcasting - we have so few decent guys out there already; to lose one is a bummer. Will he be as prepared as he was in the studio?
	Was this comment...? (2)
#3 \| 108 days ago nyrangers (+)	+2 so basically, this means there is not a single ESPN guy who wants to cover hockey. Awesome. They better get someone to do their 5-minute per day NHL segment Now he can afford better hair grease
	Was this comment...? (1)
#4 \| 108 days ago hskrdave (+)	i kind of agree with Renegade, about the publicity stunt. I don't know why he would want to go to Tampa, which is in the dregs of the NHL (both competively and geographically, which my hurricanes belong to). I wonder if he applied to Toronto, and why he didn't get it. He should stay in the booth where he is better. I DON'T CARE
	Was this comment...?
#5 \| 108 days ago Monty40 (+)	RenegadeLG wrote: I'd call it a laughable publicity stunt by a team struggling to hold onto it's fanbase after the strike made us all forget about their Cup, but they still draw a good crowd so I guess it's just a bad hire. Publicity Stunt? He's a good coach and the Lightning have a decent team still. It's a good fit. He led the Kings to a Cup Finals , he can do it again
	Was this comment...?
#6 \| 108 days ago kteacher (+)	+3 I don't know about this one. I know there were quite a few Kings fans who wanted him back---I wasn't one of them, and it wasn't because I didn't like him. The fact that he took the Kings to the finals is big; however, you got to remember he was a younger coach and Gretzky basically ran the team back then. The Kings were not that good of a team. In fact they played much better with Gretzky out of the line up then in that year. They did what many teams do in the playoffs by going on a winning streak. The Kings had the same line up (Gretzky, Sandstrom, Robitaille, Rob Blake, Daryl Sydor, Alex Zhitnik, Tony Granato, and others) the following year and were pretty bad, and this continued into the following year till he was fired. So I can't really say he is or even was a good coach. I guess we will see.-----------He is a pretty great guy and analysis so maybe he learned a couple of things sitting in front of the camera. Will he be as prepared as he was in the studio?
	Was this comment...? (2)
#7 \| 108 days ago HULL_17 (+)	+2 BARRY MELROSE IS MY IDOL!!! GO BOLTS!! Barry!, Barry!, Barry!
	Was this comment...? (1)
#8 \| 108 days ago RenegadeLG (+)	Monty40 wrote: Publicity Stunt? He's a good coach and the Lightning have a decent team still. It's a good fit. How do you know he's a good coach? He hasn't coached in more than a decade.
	Was this comment...?
#9 \| 108 days ago Monty40 (+)	RenegadeLG wrote: How do you know he's a good coach? He hasn't coached in more than a decade. He was a good coach with the Kings. I'm sure he hasn't forgotten how to coach. He led the Kings to a Cup Finals , he can do it again
	Was this comment...?
#10 \| 108 days ago RenegadeLG (+)	Monty40 wrote: He was a good coach with the Kings. I'm sure he hasn't forgotten how to coach. +2 I could have coached Wayne Gretzky!
	Was this comment...? (1) (1)
#11 \| 108 days ago MarkTheShark (+)	RenegadeLG wrote: I could have coached Wayne Gretzky! +1 I'm still very undecided....I only know what Becky has told me about Melrose (she met him). It does kinda seem like he's a player's coach. This could be a welcome respite to club that dealt with the bludgeoning of Tortorella for several years. The locker room had tuned him (Torts) out. But still, Melrose and Rick Tocchet!? Yikes. The Bolts will be way better, but not because of Melrose
	Was this comment...? (1)
#12 \| 108 days ago danny_n94 (+)	+2 He is not a good coach. He used Gretzky and a good offense to get into the playoffs. He started 20-8-3 and then limped into the playoffs with only 39 wins. They got lucky and went to the Stanley Cup Finals. To say he can coach is like saying Michael Vick is a great pocket passer. Its just a lie NO! God NO!
	Was this comment...? (1) (1)
#13 \| 107 days ago kteacher (+)	danny_n94 wrote: He is not a good coach. He used Gretzky and a good offense to get into the playoffs. He started 20-8-3 and then limped into the playoffs with only 39 wins. They got lucky and went to the Stanley Cup Finals. To say he can coach is like saying Michael Vick is a great pocket passer. Its just a lie +6 I agree with you some what. In fact Gretzky was pretty much injured that year and didn't shine in the play offs till the Toronto series---mainly due to some comments in a Canadian newspaper. Any team who reaches the finals doesn't get there based solely on luck. Luck doesn't help you beat not one, not two, but three Canadian teams, and if not for Marty's curved stick they might have beaten the Canadians. I think time will tell on whether or not Barry is a good coach. He might not have had a lot of NHL coaching experience, but he has been around the league for a long time, so he has seen what works and what doesn't. So who knows? Will he be as prepared as he was in the studio?
	Was this comment...? (5)
#14 \| 107 days ago RenegadeLG (+)	I just can't think of a profession, let alone one with so much pressure, where you can just pick back up after 12 years and get after it. I realize he's been covering the game, but his old-school tendencies go beyond his hair. I think the game is going to eat him alive. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but his watered-down 'aw shucks' token Canadian views that ESPN simpleton viewers eat up don't exactly inspire confidence.
	Was this comment...?
#15 \| 107 days ago danny_n94 (+)	kteacher wrote: I agree with you some what. In fact Gretzky was pretty much injured that year and didn't shine in the play offs till the Toronto series---mainly due to some comments in a Canadian newspaper. Any team who reaches the finals doesn't get there based solely on luck. Luck doesn't help you beat not one, not two, but three Canadian teams, and if not for Marty's curved stick they might have beaten the Canadians. I think time will tell on whether or not Barry is a good coach. He might not have had a lot of NHL coaching experience, but he has been around the league for a long time, so he has seen what works and what doesn't. So who knows? But that also saying that same year if the replay judge in the Quebec/Montreal series says that Quebecs disallowed goal want jit with a high stick Montreal doesnt go to the next round. They would have been down 3-0. So luck does have a lot to do with how far a team goes on in the stanley cup playoffs. A bounce here or there and the series can change. Like, say a curved stick. McSorely knew what he was playing with and with a possible 2-0 lead on the line why chance it? Plus back in 1993 the first 2 rounds were played against your divisional rivals so anything can happen in a divisonal game. Now with Toronto beside the press calling out Gretz dont forget how chippy it go after MArty nialed Gilmore in open ice and the Leafs players and press calling that a cheap shot. But I do believe that luck does play a part in the hockey. But back to my main point Melrose is a better analyst than a coach. My point is brought home he failed to make the playoffs in his final 2 seasons NO! God NO!
	Was this comment...?
#16 \| 107 days ago MarkTheShark (+)	danny_n94 wrote: But that also saying that same year if the replay judge in the Quebec/Montreal series says that Quebecs disallowed goal want jit with a high stick Montreal doesnt go to the next round. They would have been down 3-0. So luck does have a lot to do with how far a team goes on in the stanley cup playoffs. A bounce here or there and the series can change. Like, say a curved stick. McSorely knew what he was playing with and with a possible 2-0 lead on the line why chance it? Plus back in 1993 the first 2 rounds were played against your divisional rivals so anything can happen in a divisonal game. Now with Toronto beside the press calling out Gretz dont forget how chippy it go after MArty nialed Gilmore in open ice and the Leafs players and press calling that a cheap shot. But I do believe that luck does play a part in the hockey. But back to my main point Melrose is a better analyst than a coach. My point is brought home he failed to make the playoffs in his final 2 seasons +3 All those things are specific and well researched, but Danny winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest championship to win in professional North American sports. You might get a call here or a bounce there, but you can NEVER say the team that wins Lord Stanley got lucky. The Kings got to the Finals and just couldn't finish the job. IMO luck didn't have much to do with it. Like you said, McSorley knew he had too much curve. The Bolts will be way better, but not because of Melrose
	Was this comment...? (3)