The GM debate
View Single Post
06-16-2011, 04:12 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Originally Posted by
Well it comes off as somehow trying to draw parallels between the two to some conclusion.
Just like the Bowman stuff.
Trying to rationalize our loser is fine if that helps some people. But its not a persuasive argument. I'll have to see some semblence of cohesiveness and teamwork before I even begin to draw comparisons.
When the rationale of calling Boudreau a "loser" is based on his playoff failures, then it is a proper rebuttal using the same criteria many are already using. Many of the same issues people are seeing with Boudreau and the Capitals also can be seen with the Bruins' playoff performances from previous years. The point is that playoffs are an extremely small sample size; anyone who watches hockey knows that all teams in the regular season will go through stretches where they're unbeatable or where they can barely tie their own skate laces. In the playoffs, that becomes deadly, because all you have to do is lose four games at the wrong time. My problem with Boudreau is that he isn't a guy who can identify a problem and modify his gameplan quickly enough, which lead to the defeats against Tampa Bay and Montreal (in which the Capitals had a 3-1 lead after a dominating two victories following their Game 2 comeback win).
Julian, to be blunt, has the exact same issues, which is what led to that massive collapse last year, and which is why before this year, he was a coach, to put it the way fsnoles did, who consistently couldn't "get it done" despite the quality of team he helmed.
Boudreau is not a great coach, but he is a very good one with some weakness that hurt him in the playoffs. Which is why he's had playoff disappointments at other levels (lost in the first round 5 times and the second round once in the AHL before winning with the Bears and going to the finals the following year).
The question is whether you want to risk waiting to see if Boudreau can get the Caps over the hump like Julian got the Bruins this year (and for how long), or whether you want to risk bringing in a new voice from the coaching staff who will need to prove that he could work with this team.
Really that much more talented down the center?
Yes. Backstrom is the only real top center on the team, and he was having a horrible year. Jason Arnott was a rental in the twilight of his career, while Marcus Johansson is a non-elite prospect and teenager in his first NHL season. Gordon's a fine defensive center and PK specialist with no offense, while Beagle's a right wing in the NHL.
Meanwhile Krejci and Bergeron are solid two-way centers in their prime, and their offensive numbers were equal to Backstrom's. Marchand's more experienced than Johansson, while Peverley's a more productive player than Gordon and Beagle.
The Capitals had question marks in center all this year. The Bruins were rock solid, even with Savard's health (and with Horton being a center most of his career, that absence was further minimized).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by exwhaler