Bylsma/coaching staff discussion thread II
View Single Post
02-12-2013, 11:55 AM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Originally Posted by
You're absolutely right. We're one winger short (two ideally), but we can't ignore the fact that we still don't have that one winger we're all pining for.
Here's my problem with the coaching argument RIP. I have pointed out countless examples of "coaching failures" over the years by elite coaches that the anti-Bylsma brigade would prefer having over him. I put the term in quotes because I'm the type who believes that in hockey in particular, coaches get WAY too much credit for success, and way too much blame for losing.
Seems to me that when I point out Babcock's "failures" in the playoffs, they're cast aside.
When I point out how Hitchcock's team was swept last year, I get the old "Well they lost to the Cup Champs..." retort. I'm not sure what their current losing streak is blamed on, but I doubt you'll hear that it's coaching from anyone here.
Guy Boucher? Seems to me with a healthy lineup, the Pens more than manhandled them last seas, and no amount of pixie dust from any magic wand behind the bench was able to stem the bleeding. I don't need to remind you that they didn't make the playoffs, all while having the benefit of one of the best players in the world on the roster.
Quenneville's teams have been booted out of the first round the last two years, and couldn't win a single game at home to Phoenix in their series. As I already pointed out, they had game 6 at home with a chance to make it to game 7, and they lost 4-0. Their PP was also horrendous all of last season.
I could go on and on with this stuff for so long I get a headache just thinking about it. My point being is that I can't stand how after ONE loss, there's a definitive reason as to why. What makes it all the more amusing is that the same people with the anti coaching agenda also openly admit that there's a ton of help needed on the wing.
This argument really is-- or should be-- beneath you.
I remember someone standing in direct opposition to this argument four years ago, and that someone was you.
Yeah, the Pens had personnel issues (personnel issues worse than now, by the way) and injury excuses, but that couldn't absolve the coaching, according to you.
To wit, people replied 'you have an anti coaching agenda', that it was unfair to judge because of personnel issues, that the coach had just been to a finals, that other comparable coaches in comparable situations hadn't been fired, and they'd then use the slightest sign of life to say 'I told you so'.
No, the only difference between now and then is now YOU believe Bylsma is the right coach for the team and anyone who dares to disagree with what you believe is as mindless as they were four years ago when you were on the other side.
If you want to tell me 'this coach really is good and the other one was bad because that's what I believe', then I could respect that.
The naked hypocrisy . . . not so much.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KIRK