View Single Post
Old
01-26-2013, 01:50 AM
  #87
TheSniper26
No cure for being...
 
TheSniper26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Youngstown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
I don't know if he's the right coach or not. If I felt this was even close to a complete team, coaching is the first place I would look.

But it's not a complete team, and I swear what irks me the most on these boards, more than anything else, is the assumption that because of two bodies, the TEAM is and should be better than everyone else. Its such an Xbox mentality that I honestly want to stay away from these boards.

Crosby, Malkin, Neal , do not equate to what Chicago can roll out there. When healthy, it doesn't even come close to what Philly could throw out there. I'm using them as two prime examples, but they aren't the only ones.


You have to understand one thing about me: I love my Penguins and Broncos as much as anyone loves their favorite teams, but I never overrate them in terms of talent. That's why whenever I hear these moron prognosticators automatically say "Penguins", I feel like punching the screen because they fall into the same trap that fans do: they overrate the team because of two players, while completely ignoring the supporting cast. That's why the Broncos loss still stings. Yeah they were missing a couple of pieces, but they were finally primed to win, and that's why I still haven't gotten over it. Pens losing to Philly last year? How could anyone not see that coming?

Dupuis can score 30 goals, but he wouldn't be a 30 goal scorer if that makes any sense to you. Same with Kunitz. All I see, and all I've seen for years is one legit scoring line, and glorified third liners sandwiching either Malkin or Crosby (depending on who is healthy) This is not sustainable by any stretch once things start to ramp up in the postseason.

We have three bodies, THREE, who can produce offense on their own. Frankly, its embarrassing when you compare that to the other contenders in the league. That's why I get a kick out of reading silly posts complaining about chest sniping and lack of creativity: what else do these penguin rosters have, other than chest snipers and uncreative forwards littered everywhere? Why are we complaining about kunitz and dupuis not being able to do more when they're clearly incapable of it? You think we are turning pucks over now? Wait until the blunt instruments start attempting "five foot passes" through defenders in the neutral zone, then it'll get really interesting to see everyone's reaction when the puck starts going the other way.

As to why they won the cup? Why did Carolina win it then not make the playoffs the following year. Why hasn't Detroit won a playoff round in three years? Why did Chicago need a Dallas loss on the last day of the season to even make the playoffs the following year after they won? How did Boston blow a 3-0 lead to Philly one year, then sweep them the next? Sometimes, the stars simply align, and sometimes they don't.

I could care less if bylsma gets fired and ends up in a shelter, as long as his replacement is someone I know will make things better. My point in all this is that this team has been fatally flawed for years personnel wise, and while coaching may be a problem, its near the bottom of the list of what's wrong with this team.
I agree with you for the most part. In terms of offensive depth, we can't go punch for punch with a few teams. But what value do put on the fact that our elite talent is a step above almost all other teams' elite talent? Is a group of five really good players better than a group of 3 great players? Is a group of 3 great players better than the two best players on the planet?

It's a hard thing to compare and, ultimately, there really is no answer. It's more about how those pieces fit together and how they're being used by the coaching staff. But ultimately I think we can all agree that, at the very least, our roster has had the kind of talent on it that should make us a contender every year. But when the playoffs hit, we look like anything but a contender.

Take the Martin and Michalek signings. The truth is that, regardless of whether or not those contracts were an overpayment, they were still two dmen who were really good players up until that point. Those signings should have helped our team. We had a top 4(Letang/Orpik/Martin/Michalek) that many felt would be one of the best in the league. So what happened? Martin and Michalek just magically became lousy players because they're in Pittsburgh? Is that really a logical conclusion?

The coach's job is to adapt to what he has and put his team in a position to play to their strengths. It shouldn't be the other way around. Bylsma has tunnel vision about how NHL players should play. He makes seemingly no effort to utilize the strengths of what he has. Which is why we see Paul Martin thrust into more of an offensive role than he is suited. Or why we see Kris Letang launching stretch passes instead of using his speed to carry the puck. Or why Tangradi is never used as a net front presence. Or why Malkin's two way game has been neutered.

I'm not saying that the roster is perfect and that the players are absolved from all responsibility. But at some point the lack of results necessitates a change. Is it fair that, in the end, the axe comes down solely on the coach? Probably not. But that's just the nature of the job.


Last edited by TheSniper26: 01-26-2013 at 01:56 AM.
TheSniper26 is offline   Reply With Quote