View Single Post
05-06-2013, 04:16 PM
Richter Scale
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
lets use the flip side to that argument as the basis for firing him.

Lets assume that they DO practice offence.

They practice offence and this is the product that we get? Isn't that alone enough of a reason to find someone else for the job?

They Practice the PP and we get what we have been getting? I mean, at some point we are going to need to see some progress and he's been here how long? No progress.

It's a funny line to use "We don't practice offence", what's NOT funny is that they DO practice offence and it looks like they need ALOT more practice.
The reason I think this argument is a poor one; and the difference between us is you - and other who use that line - seem to blame the lack of offense entirely on the coach.

I won't say he isn't at fault at all (especially for the PP) - but I see a bigger part of the problem being the consistent roster turnover and the player personnel.

It is nice to blame the coach for all the team's problems - because that means that one, arguably easy, thing needs to be changed and suddenly this is a Stanley Cup contender! If instead the problem is some combination of having players under-performing, a lack of depth, a lack of finishers or offensively creative players, constant roster turnover from your GM, or a group of fine players but mismatched pieces -- then suddenly that is a lot bigger of a hurdle to overcome.

Don't get me wrong, I think this team can be a lot better than what they're showing right now. But I think that most of that will have to come from the players stepping up - not from the coach.

Last edited by Richter Scale: 05-06-2013 at 04:24 PM.
Richter Scale is offline