View Single Post
06-24-2013, 06:04 PM
Registered User
chosen's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,443
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JCresty View Post
The cups yes and no is kind of dramatic. A better coach would get better results, hence better coach. If a better coach doesn't get better result, then what makes the coach better? I just don't think the question makes sense and why did you put quotations around "better"?Are you suggesting that a better coach according to me isn't actually better and so you've use the quotations? If that's the case, the better coach (in my opinion) would in fact produce better results by logic and if you disagree with the notion that a new coach is better, then I would assume you would then disagree that a better [different] coach would not be better. I just can't make sense of the question.

Would a better coach have won us a cup, maybe, maybe not, cups can't be won because you've made a coaching upgrade and I think everyone would answer the same if they were realistic.
Would a better coach have produce better results? By logic, yes.
Okay. we are getting somewhere. Since you believe Vigneault is a better coach than Torts, if he had been coaching the Rangers the last two years, you are saying they would have done better.

In 2011-12, that means, at the very least making the finals and perhaps winning the Cup. Correct?

Otherwise, you are saying there would be no net gain from the coaching switch.

What makes Vigneault a better coach, by the way?

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote