mikey287 wrote:You said "extensive", I just said "coaching days". But yes, those days. He was actually supposed to be something just short of a wunderkind in the NHL coaching ranks. Supposed to be one of the next big coaches in the early 90's. It wasn't a lack of knowledge or ideas that knocked him out in Hartford, it was the same thing that makes people dislike him now as an on-air personality...his personality. He was a dictator and treated his players too harshly. He was too exact with his science and it turned the organization against him.
A number of teams have inquired about him in recent years but he's turned them down because he's happy doing what he's doing. There's more job security in broadcasting than coaching or management. To put "knowledge" in quotation marks in your post is to insinuate that Pierre doesn't have any...unfortunately, you're hoisted by your own petard on that count...
Interesting that you defend him so vigorously that you resort to personal attack, however clevery insinuated. I, as would nearly anyone, find it difficult to believe a coaching wunderkind would bounce around to a few teams primarily as an assistant over five years followed by an unsuccessful year in the ECHL, of all things, and never be seen in the coaching ranks again. Seems like someone would want to utilize some of that genius for their team regardless. His resume speaks for itself, no amount of spin can wipe away the fact that he couldn't stick in the NHL as a coach. Being a dictator and treating his players harshly doesn't come close to explaining it away, either. Plenty of NHL coaches have spent many years coaching in the NHL with just such a description, Mike Keenan immediately comes to mind, but Scotty Bowman would also probably fit.
A number of teams have inquired according to whom, him? A common theme among people who cannot compete at the highest levels of any occupation is that they are "happy where they are". In certain instances, that is completely understandable. However, it is a rare thing that someone who appears to have such passion for an occupation would be happier talking about it than actively participating in it. There are an awful lot of examples of commentators that have been more than happy to leave their job security behind to return to the coaching ranks. Most movement the other way comes from a coach being fired and unable to get another position, or as a retirement move to finish their career.
As for why "knowledge" was in quotes, that then led you to imply I had none for daring to have a different opinion than yours of an NHL commentator, was not to imply he doesn't have any. It was to imply that a team getting him is not like hiring an encyclopedia. You don't just get his knowledge, you get his personality and everything else that comes with him, and he is an annoying putz, regardless of his knowledge... the same reason he turns off so many fans.
on further review, I think we are just in a circular argument here. I, and I think many of the other people here that dislike him, aren't complaining about his hockey knowledge. The problem is that he is like an idiot circus clown on the air. No amount of knowledge can overcome that in my mind, while others may not care or have a higher tolerance for it. I didn't convey that very well in the first post, but I think that's where the problem lies. I do, however, still doubt his coaching skills. Being book-smart does not necessarily translate into being able to do a particular job.