View Single Post
04-17-2008, 01:46 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Acadmus View Post
Please keep this off-topic thread on-topic

The Panthers didn't make the playoffs, so discussion of them in this thread should be limited. Plenty of other threads where you can dissect their strengths and shortcomings.

Originally Posted by KWGoon View Post
This is the crucial difference of opinion we have. I don't think we competed to the level and consistence that we should have. I don't think the coaching staff finished the job on a consistent basis. Everything else falls out from that - JM the HC being replaced, Olli potentially being shopped around, new hockey people being brought in. I agree that this does not equal stability and consistency, but the stability and consistency I look for is one of a winning variety. I don't need a stable losing situation. We are not there in terms of stability of organization yet. It's still under construction, unfortunately.
one quick point - a non hockey person who's wisdom is in question made the decision to remove the coach. in short, that by itself proves nothing.

trying to keep this on topic, take a look the varying results teams have achieved in the playoffs thus far. tell me, each time a team comes out looking flat and/or gets their butts whipped, is it on the coaches? i'll point out the situation here in boston - nobody thought they'd even compete with montreal. after the first 2 minutes of game 1, it doesn't look good. clearly though, julien had worked out a strategy. although they didn't execute in game one, it appears based on the way games 2-4 have gone, that was mostly on the players. folks up here are barking about kessel being benched but he apparently was out there doing his own thing. i don't think the idea is to scapegoat kessel (a couple of other guys came back in game 2 that made a difference as well) but the bottom line is that the difference between not competing and competing hard in those 4 games was on ice performance, i.e., the players - i don't think julien changed his strategy dramatically between games 1 and 2 but the results changed dramatically.

what i'm saying is that there's not a clear delineation between player and coach. you *really* have to know what you're looking at on the ice to be able to say with certainty if there's a systemic issue, i.e., a problem with preparation. there are some tweaks in the playoffs but this is a generally a mano a mano type deal - teams know each other pretty well. even if a team is really system oriented, that stuff doesn't change greatly from game to game. so how, then, do you explain those game situations we're talking about where one team just loses it (or doesn't have it to begin with) in a relatively evenly matched series?

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote