As the Seattle Kraken continue to retool their coaching staff, the team announced today that they have relieved assistant coach Bob Woods of his duties after just one season with the organization.
General manager Jason Botterill said, “As Lane Lambert continues to evaluate the coaching staff, we have made the decision to relieve Bob Woods of his duties. We appreciate all of Bob’s hard work and dedication to the Kraken and wish him luck going forward.”
Woods was hired by the team last July to serve as a veteran support for then-head coach Dan Bylsma. However, following a disappointing season in which the Kraken finished with a 35–41–6 record, placing seventh in the Pacific Division, Bylsma was fired. In his place, the Kraken recently hired Lane Lambert, who will likely seek to add a coach who shares his defensive philosophies.
Woods, who was added to Bylsma’s staff last year to help coach the defensive unit, has a history of success working with notable defensemen such as John Carlson, Ryan Suter, and Jared Spurgeon over his coaching career. However, Seattle’s defense struggled last season, allowing 265 goals, one of the highest totals in the Western Conference.
Woods began his coaching career in 1998 as a player/coach in the ECHL, and also spent time coaching in the AHL, where he won the 2009 Calder Cup as head coach of the Hershey Bears. As an assistant in the NHL, Woods has spent time with the Washington Capitals, Anaheim Ducks, Buffalo Sabres, and Minnesota Wild, in addition to his year with the Kraken.
sad trombone
Just one more that should go, oh wait that’s not going to happen…
And yet one assistant hasn’t been fired. Just a coincidence I’m sure.
So a report comes out that Mitch Love was offered the job, but on condition that Campbell stays on board, and turned it down because of that (good for him). Then Lambert gets hired and every single assistant gets fired–except for Campbell. What a remarkable coincidence…
Can you be more specific on the “report”? I’d like to read it.
It was reported on this site
I read this site several times a day and not once was that reported. There was a report on here referring to a report on Daily Faceoff there were unidentified sources speculating that some folks around the league think maybe the Kraken wanting to keep Campbell was an issue with head coach candidates. Not once has it been reported on here the job was offered to Love.
The plus side of this is that it makes it abundantly clear that Campbell was hired for one reason, irregardless of merit or not.
Irregardless is not a word.
Sure it is:
link to merriam-webster.com
“Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.”
From your own link…
You be you.
From my own link:
Is irregardless a word?
Yes. It may not be a word that you like, or a word that you would use in a term paper, but irregardless certainly is a word.
Learn to take the L.
I’ll take the “L” on this one Gbear… you are right, but somehow I don’t feel like I’m coming away from this one as the loser, regardless.
Good for you.
Gbear, do you actually think there are zero women qualified to be assistant coaches in hockey? I’d lean on the side that there’s more qualified women to do this job than just Jessica Campbell.
First, that has nothing to do with this particular situation. Do you honestly believe that all the other coaches on the Kraken were the problem but not Ms. Campbell?
Second, I’ve addressed my position on women coaching in men’s sports (and vice versa) previously.
Our problem is we don’t have a top line center, have had only 4 drafts so inevitably have little home-grown talent, and the strikeout on Grubauer.
I think teams do this all the time. The Kraken held Briere over after they fired Hakstol even though Grubauer has been THE worst goalie in the NHL under his coaching. I think Seattle – like a lot of teams – are developing Campbell as a coach. None of those other coaches are being “developed”. I also think you don’t know the first thing about what you’re taking about but you’re comfortable leaning on ignorance to soothe your own sense of grievance. Quite honestly, anyone who actually knows the intricacies of NHL assistant coaches isn’t spending their time on the PHR boards. I don’t know either, but I’m not dumb enough to think I do… or to use “irregardless” and then spike the ball for being stupid enough to do so. Seriously, Gbear… you’re a joke.
Fargo Chipper admits earlier that he was wrong about the word irregardless but now claims he was right. This is something a fool does.
Fargo also says that we here on this board lack the knowledge about the intricacies of assisant coaches and then proceeds to lecture on the issue. Again, this is something a fool does.
Fargo has no arguments, so he devolves into ad hominens. Again, this is something a fool does.
Fools get muted
Subtly is not your strength
I’m not trying to be subtle.
@deepseamonster32 – It’s true that the Kraken lack a top line center, but they lacked that two years ago as well. They added Brandon Montour on the back end and at least had some depth at forward and it all went downhill last season. Something clearly went wrong.
Campbell was a rookie assistant coach. I don’t think it’s a big deal that the Kraken are keeping what they believe is a young, promising assistant coach.
The playoff year was anomalous, and they had already regressed to the Francis mean.
I don’t being young or promising has anything to do with it.
Sure, here you go: link to prohockeyrumors.com
Why did you delete this gem…?
“Technically, yes, it doesn’t use the word “offered”, it says the Kraken “appeared to be close to hiring” Mitch Love as their next head coach, but “talks stalled at the finish line”, which Di Marco says was potentially because of “a condition regarding keeping Campbell”. Not a very challenging deduction…”
You really think Love turned down the chance to become a first time NHL head coach because the team wanted to keep an assistant on? He’s not David Carle. Teams aren’t tripping over themselves to hire Mitch Love. Yeah, that is a challenging assumption and the original “article” is purely speculative saying “unnamed sources think maybe this could have happened”. I read the original Di Marco reporting on Daily Faceoff and it was a total joke with him having to clarify the veracity of his previous reporting in the same piece.
This sounds a lot more like someone from Love’s camp trying to cover for the fact that even though they floated his name out there as a “hot commodity” he’s not getting a job. To me that’s the “not very challenging deduction” I come to.
“You really think Love turned down the chance to become a first time NHL head coach because the team wanted to keep an assistant on?”
Yes, I do. It’s a laughable condition. I’ve never heard of a new coach being told that he must keep a specific assistant whether he likes it or not. Whether it’s speculative or not, you now have that report, combined with Lambert’s hiring coinciding with every assistant getting fired…save for one. The same one that supposedly was the reason for Love’s not being hired.
Feel free to disagree, but it’s not a coincidence in the slightest.
(As for why I shortened the original comment: Ironically, because I thought it was redundant/obvious. Felt like I was trying to make my point too hard. Guess not…)
I have not said it was a coincidence… and teams retain assistants all the time when a new coach comes in. Just like players, teams also develop coaches.
You have the BS story from Daily Faceoff and you’re jumping to Love “supposedly” not being hired… that has NOT been reported. You’re drawing the assumption you want to draw and hearing what you want to hear. Not a coincidence… Seattle wants to keep a coach on – which teams do all the time – and there is nothing of actual substance that indicates the misinformation you started this thread with is true. No one has reported Mitch Love was offered a job and the idea that he was “deep in the process” is speculation.
The bit you took out was neither redundant or obvious… unless the actual truth of your statements doesn’t matter.
I guess maybe Andy Chiodo – the hold over goalie coach – was the reason Love getting the Penguins job fell apart. That was widely reported to be a “done deal”. Gee, I wonder where that story came from???
Di Marco states Love was in negotiations to become the coach but talks fell apart, then added that sources tell him there was a condition the Kraken made about keeping Campbell which acted as a deterrent. (Quote: “The deal was close with Love but fell through at the finish line. Some believe that there is a condition for the next head coach in Seattle to retain current assistant coach Jessica Campbell which may throw a wrench…”)
That’s been reported whether you like it or not. The idea that Love was deep in the process is NOT speculation. The condition about keeping Campbell is NOT speculation. If you don’t agree with Di Marco and believe his sources are bogus, that’s one thing, but don’t be dishonest and insist that it was never reported when it clearly was. An active effort to question and dismiss the report does not negate its existence.
First you ask for the report, then, once presented with it, you question its authenticity, then you launch into ad hominem attacks since your original point was debunked.
Thank goodness for the mute button. (Should’ve just taken Gbear’s word for it and clicked that to begin with)
CAN YOU NOT READ?… or does everything just mean whatever you want it to.
It was never reported LOVE WAS OFFERED THE JOB. You seem to think it’s all just the same. You started this whole line of crap with “Love was offered the job”, THAT has not been reported. I did not deny the “deep in the process” report, but I do question it’s veracity.
I did not say the Kraken wanting to keep Campbell was speculation. On the contrary, they’ve been open about that since Bylsma was let go.
I have been trying to deal with your points and have not engaged in “ad hominem” attacks until CAN YOU NOT READ… but it’s clear like everything else, you just think things mean whatever you want them to. I don’t know why I should have expected anything different considereding where they started – but here’s an ad hominem for you – you’re a serious idiot.
I wish sometimes I didn’t wait so long to hit the mute button myself, lol!
You provided the facts here. That ruins their narrative.
LOL
Gbear…. You lack subtly in your thinking moron… not your responses. It’s obvious you’re not trying to be subtle in your thinking with your half baked logic and your nonsensical conclusions.
“Campbell was hired for one reason, irregardless of merit or not.”
This is you… without substance or qualification. Again… seriously… you’re a joke.
The facts? The two “facts” at issue here are No.1 Love was offered the Seattle job. No.2 He turned it down because of a requirement to keep Campbell.
No.1 is not a fact. It has not been reported and even in the DiMarco reporting it wasn’t even speculated. Being “late in the process” – even if true – is NOT a job offer.
No.2 doesn’t even exist without number one.
Listening to you two is like listening to the Scarecrow try and make a straw man argument.
As John Wayne is credited with saying… “Life is hard…”