Absolutely. The only series you can really give Bylsma some slack is two years ago when so many guys were hurt, but even than only so much.
That one may have been his worst job, as we were up 3-1 in that series and had no idea how to close it out. No adjustments once the momentum started to shift, having the wrong defensemen on the ice against the top Bolts, etc. etc.
I was hoping that one feaken team in Pittsburgh would get it. Wake up Shero! Bylsma is a joke at this point. Shero will either hang with him or cut bait shortly. If he stays, both may be in real jeopardy. And by the way Dejan, one good trade doesn't make a good GM. Dallas traded a guy who was going to cost bucks for a guy who was a cost certainity. It was Dallas economics by a GM under the gun. Aramis for Hill and another stiff didn't make Jim Henry a good GM for the cubbies now did it.
Fleury allowed goals on the first shot of the game 3 times. Twice, they were shots from the icing line. The Pyatt goal, in game 4, and the game 7 goal. Let's not forget Moore's fadeaway jumper for goal 2 of that game. By the time the Gonchar fly-by happened, the game was over.
I remember Lapierre scoring a nice goal when he outmuscled Goligoski (which still isn't hard to do 3 years later), but I also remember Lapierre scoring on - you guessed it - a wraparound goal where Fleury took about 5 minutes to realize which side of the net Lapierre was going to come around. I also remember a puck going in off Letang's skate on a centering pass, but it happened so far away from the net that it should have been stopped, but Fleury was once again napping. I also remember zone time being about 65-35.
Don't believe me? Listen to Sid's rant after game 7, where he comes out and says something like "I've never seen a team's strategy to be to get outchanced 2-1 a game. I don't know how long you can win like that"
Listen man, all those things are Bylsma's fault, and since the same thing happened to Washington one series before ours they must have been doing the same wrong things that Pgh was doing.
Wasn't sure where to put this, probably doesn't deserve a separate thread, so I decided to put this article in the coaching thread. As there are several points in here that touch on coaching.
I agreed with a lot of Starkey's points. Agree, disagree, opinions on the article?
Dunno if THAT will happen, but it could be bad ya never know. The Rangers look like more of a team since they were working out the kinks against us the last time (not taking credit away from the Penguins just saying). On the other hand the team has never scared me and, as good as he is most of the time, neither has Lundqvist. He's almost always seems human against us.
It seems like we play to the level of our competition at times. With our lineup we should be able to get past the bottom feeders. Yes just because we have a ton of talent doesn't mean we can coast through every game. The '09 Cup team would waste our current team worse than the Hurricanes. It's frustrating...
I still don't understand how this helps the current problems.
1) the world wasn't created in 2011-2012. Kunitz - Crosby - Dupuis were the best line in the league before Crosby's concussion.
2) This notion that Crosby can produce with 2 of anyone is not correct, is wrong, is an opinion, and needs to stop being paraded around as fact. He's already having trouble now finding time and space with the puck, is little more than a tourist in the opponent's offensive zone, but it's going to get better by taking, as the author says, "one of the teams best puck retriever off" off the line?
3) Chris Kunitz is not displaying a lack of chemistry or rhythm. He's not out of sync with his linemates. He's not confused by where Crosby and Dupuis are on the ice. He's - as of right now - bad. Considering he's just as bad on the PP - where "head-from-ass" specialists Malkin and Neal happen to reside - as he is at ES, I don't think a mere move to the fircond line with Malkin and Neal fixes what's ailing him.
That one may have been his worst job, as we were up 3-1 in that series and had no idea how to close it out. No adjustments once the momentum started to shift, having the wrong defensemen on the ice against the top Bolts, etc. etc.
Well that is why I say some (should have emphasized it more). I fully agree the Pens should have won that series and teh reasons you listed. A severely drained offense did not help is all I was getting at.
I just caught up with the late additions to Cole's +/- thread, and the comparison in there of DB to Tortorella had me scratching my head. Sure, Tortorella's teams have had enough success to make the playoffs, but he isn't a perennial cup winner. Having him behind the bench doesn't give his team a considerable advantage over other teams. Which leads me to this:
If you believe Tortorella would be an upgrade over DB but agree he's not a legendary coach, would it be worth suffering through his soul-crushing brand of hockey for 82 games (or, as it may be, 48) year after year to enjoy slightly improved odds in the postseason?
I don't know how to quantify the odds, but since one coach's style might have a huge positive against one playoff yet a significant detriment against another team, I'll estimate the overall impact at 3-5%.
I know everyone aspires to the cup, but I watch the sport and pay to attend it because I love the game itself. I don't love the game nearly as much when it's played like Tortorella has his team play.
I just caught up with the late additions to Cole's +/- thread, and the comparison in there of DB to Tortorella had me scratching my head. Sure, Tortorella's teams have had enough success to make the playoffs, but he isn't a perennial cup winner. Having him behind the bench doesn't give his team a considerable advantage over other teams. Which leads me to this:
If you believe Tortorella would be an upgrade over DB but agree he's not a legendary coach, would it be worth suffering through his soul-crushing brand of hockey for 82 games (or, as it may be, 48) year after year to enjoy slightly improved odds in the postseason?
I don't know how to quantify the odds, but since one coach's style might have a huge positive against one playoff yet a significant detriment against another team, I'll estimate the overall impact at 3-5%.
I know everyone aspires to the cup, but I watch the sport and pay to attend it because I love the game itself. I don't love the game nearly as much when it's played like Tortorella has his team play.
The thing abouts Torts being appealing for the Pens is that right now they're lacking discipline, motivation and basic fundamentals; they've become horribly lax in their play and attitude. A hardass like Torts is more likely to correct this thigns at this point than a be-you-buddy guy like Bylsma. Just look at Therrien: bad Xs and Os, but he taught the team all those things above that they are lacking now yet seem to have forgotten.
Wasn't sure where to put this, probably doesn't deserve a separate thread, so I decided to put this article in the coaching thread. As there are several points in here that touch on coaching.
I agreed with a lot of Starkey's points. Agree, disagree, opinions on the article?
The thing abouts Torts being appealing for the Pens is that right now they're lacking discipline, motivation and basic fundamentals; they've become horribly lax in their play and attitude. A hardass like Torts is more likely to correct this thigns at this point than a be-you-buddy guy like Bylsma. Just look at Therrien: bad Xs and Os, but he taught the team all those things above that they are lacking now yet seem to have forgotten.
Isn't it weird how we keep dismantling his team so handily?
For me, the thing about Torts is what would he do with OUR team? Would he revert back to 'safe is death' Torts from his Tampa days, or would he want Vagina Martin to start blocking shots like Dan Girardi, and that would become our identity?
I think we need a coach like the old Torts, sure, but one who emphasizes skilled aggression instead of the grinding mentality of our current coach. But honestly, I think I'd rather have Bylsma than any coach who decides shot-blocking is the most important thing to do on the ice, even when you have the puck.
Somehow, I doubt these are the only two ways to coach a team: grind grind grind, or block block block.
Good God, I don't know if I can sit through another Rangers game this season.
I would still can the guy; the stretch pass "systematic" approach is killing me. Having two or three forwards standing at the opposition blueline is asinine. We haven't had entry into the zone systematically with speed in three years. Enough is enough.
Isn't it weird how we keep dismantling his team so handily?
I wouldn't look to replace DB with Torts or Lavy. But sometimes teams are bad matchups for one another. You don't find it weird we own the Rangers who own the Flyers who own us?
Let's see how we play against one of the best teams in the East in NJ on Saturday and against a desperate Caps team who always play us hard.
Not seeing a whole lot of grit or desperation in our game. Part of that is on the players and part of that is on the coach.
Re: who's available to replace Bylsma. I've brought this up before, and it's an outside the box idea, but what about Phil Jackson? Talking about coaching superstar players, the guy has a proven track record of working with HOF players, motivating them and getting the most out of them. Two hands full of rings would command instant respect in the room.
I mean yeah, he probably doesn't know a ton about hockey, but I'm sure he knows some, and could read up more. Obviously you would need some good experienced assistants to deal with the more hockey-centric type stuff, but the head coach position is more of a CEO, leader-of-men type of role anyway. In business you see guys cross industries all the time. Would be one of the most interesting sports stories ever to boot. Thoughts?
Re: who's available to replace Bylsma. I've brought this up before, and it's an outside the box idea, but what about Phil Jackson? Talking about coaching superstar players, the guy has a proven track record of working with HOF players, motivating them and getting the most out of them. Two hands full of rings would command instant respect in the room.
I mean yeah, he probably doesn't know a ton about hockey, but I'm sure he knows some, and could read up more. Obviously you would need some good experienced assistants to deal with the more hockey-centric type stuff, but the head coach position is more of a CEO, leader-of-men type of role anyway. In business you see guys cross industries all the time. Would be one of the most interesting sports stories ever to boot. Thoughts?
Re: who's available to replace Bylsma. I've brought this up before, and it's an outside the box idea, but what about Phil Jackson? Talking about coaching superstar players, the guy has a proven track record of working with HOF players, motivating them and getting the most out of them. Two hands full of rings would command instant respect in the room.
I mean yeah, he probably doesn't know a ton about hockey, but I'm sure he knows some, and could read up more. Obviously you would need some good experienced assistants to deal with the more hockey-centric type stuff, but the head coach position is more of a CEO, leader-of-men type of role anyway. In business you see guys cross industries all the time. Would be one of the most interesting sports stories ever to boot. Thoughts?
Yes, and it is disconcerting to think he would still be an upgrade over what we currently have...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpp9
I wouldn't look to replace DB with Torts or Lavy. But sometimes teams are bad matchups for one another. You don't find it weird we own the Rangers who own the Flyers who own us?
Let's see how we play against one of the best teams in the East in NJ on Saturday and against a desperate Caps team who always play us hard.
Not seeing a whole lot of grit or desperation in our game. Part of that is on the players and part of that is on the coach.
And most of it is because we're 7 games into a lockout shortened season.
And most of it is because we're 7 games into a lockout shortened season.
The lockout explains execution. If any team in the league should be coming out with loads of effort after a disappointing season last year it's us. I'm not seeing it.
