is it the coach or the players?
View Single Post
01-28-2009, 03:12 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
good point...of course one can come back and say that quality organizations do have guys come and go and a team should be able to withstand the loss of a guy like Jagr, who by many accounts underperformed last season by a country mile. And the arcitecht is the GM, who replenishes the system with players who make sense, as opposed to what was done in the late-90s and early-00s, when the system was replenished with players who didn't make sense. This is why both Drury and Gomez were signed. And presumably Redden would soften the blow on Toots. Naslund was an upgrade to scoring over Shanny. Zherdev would take some of the pain away from losing Jagr and the maturation of Girardi and Staal helped as would the signing of Kalinin.
When I say is it the coach or players (be it the Rangers or whomever), it's really the perception of the players that determine how good the coach is. If there are a bunch of players on a team that a fan likes and the team isn't doing great, it's the coach's fault (especially if their favorite players aren't playing). Of course when I say like I don't mean that a consensus means they're good, but it's a player that some fans feel should be doing better and getting more chances (best example currently is Prucha, but there are plenty of Rudy-like players that fans across the league root for and it's the coach's fault when they amount to nothning). And there's the opposite too. And there's always an interesting debate as to what the coach really did for a player's development. Let's take the Rangers for instance. If Dubi turns out to be a great player,or Korps, etc., I'm sure Renney supporters will talk about what a great job Renney did to groom them and bring them along. If they don't turn out like that, it will be that it's all on them, that there was a possibility that Korps would be a fourth liner, not a second liner, etc.
Last edited by Fletch: 01-28-2009 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fletch