kipwinger

In the context of a "who is best" discussion, I'd argue that its very important to point out when other people have done similar or better things than what he is being given credit for.

You mean aside from Dan Bylsma. Who did the exact same thing, in the exact same year, only better. He had even more injuries that year and won his division, and a playoff round. Actually, maybe Dan Bylsma is the best coach in the world when I think about it. I mean, he's got a better win percentage than Babs AND Quenneville. Just as many Cups as Babs (but who cares about those when evaluating coaches anyway), and he WILLED his team to a division title, the playoffs, and a first round win despite massive amounts of injuries to key players. Now that's impressive. I'm completely sour on Q now. All he ever did was win 3 Cups and is 20 wins away from overtaking Al Arbour (in fewer games) for second all time in wins. Which I've been reliably informed isn't all that impressive because Quenneville has coached for a long time. 1. Bowman 2. Bylsma 3. Babcock 4. Arbour 5. Quenneville. Seems just as plausible as any other top five eh?

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise. Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

I want nothing to do with Lupul. He's a really good player when healthy, but he's never healthy. Also, I don't want any of our guys to catch Toronto's loser germs. We need to keep the locker room sterile of Maple Leaf filth. It might be contagious.

If he wants more scoring I'm sure Mike would agree that the league should do away with the neutral zone trap in the same way that the NBA did away with the zone defense. That generated massive scoring increases.

My point isn't even to denigrate Babcock. He's accomplished what he's accomplished. I just can't stand how people pretend like he's been dealt a tougher hand than other guys. Most criticisms of other coaches are criticisms of him too and most of his strengths are strengths of other guys too. Yet all that is conveniently forgotten by those folks that beat the "Babcock is best" drum. People say Babcock is great because he nearly beat eventual Cup finalists on a number of occasions. They forget that Quenneville did the same thing on even more occasions. They say Babcock is great because he took a marginal team to the finals on the back of good goaltending. They forget that Sutter did that too (with Calgary). They say Quenneville and Sutter had "stacked" teams. They forget how good Babcock's teams were from 2005-2010 (seriously, his first year he coached four 80 point players, neither Quenneville or Sutter have ever had that kind of talent). All the things true of those guys are true of Babcock too. And vice versa. And they won more championships than he did in the same number of opportunities. And that's conveniently overlooked by those saying he's the best.

So did Babcock. And he won less. Unless you don't consider Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa, Rafaski, Lidstrom, and Kronwall stacked. In 2005 Babcock had four 80 point players and lost in the first round. This insinuation that Quenneville has had better teams is a complete joke.

All I've ever said is that Babcock is "one of the best". I've said so hundreds of times. I've NEVER said he was a bad coach. What I've refuted, and what started this discussion yesterday, was this asinine "Babcock is the greatest coach in all of hockey, period" argument. I even said so. Something to the effect of "Nobody would argue that he's good, but he's not the best". And I stand by that. To be the best you have to win Championships. Quenneville, Sutter, and Babcock have all gone to the finals three times. Babcock won the fewest of the three. If he truly was "the greatest coach in all of hockey", I'd expect a different outcome. He's not the best. If you want to call it an "opinion" fine. But it's an opinion based on the fact that other people have won more than he has at the highest levels. Which is a little more sound than your average "Babcock is the best and there's no debate" type of opinion. And yes, I do know that Quenneville coached before Chicago. I assume that if Babcock gets credit for getting knocked out of the playoffs by eventual Cup finalists (Edmonton, Tampa, and Chicago) that Quenneville would to. During his tenure before Chicago he was knocked out by the eventual Cup finalist 6 times.

Nobody is saying that upsets are impossible. But they're upsets precisely because there is an underdog and a favorite. And Canada is the favorite in every single Olympic tournament. You were making it seem like winning the Olympics was some huge thing for Babcock because he was facing "the best players in the world". You forgot to mention that he was playing the "best players in the world" with even better players. His teams should win...barring an upset. Winning with the best team in the league/tourney/etc. is what good coaches are supposed to do. Babcock does it, Quenneville does it, Sutter does it. What makes them better than Babcock is that they do MORE winning with good teams than he does. None of them coached bad teams to championships, and when (in the past) they have coached bad teams, they all had roughly the same results.

If you're the coach of team Canada every single team you play is inferior to yours. They aren't playing AGAINST the best players in the world. They ARE the best players in the world. You make it seem like he's overcoming adversity or something.

I would assume Cam Fowler, since he's on the block and it's rumored that the Ducks are only willing to send him to the East.

Lol. Because you have to play 82 games just to qualify, and then for several more months in the post season, overcome a grueling travel schedule, and win 16 games to win the Stanley Cup. You have to win 4 games in one place to with an Olympic Gold. How is that not apparent? I'm not ignoring anything, I've already told you why that's silly. If being Canada's coach makes you the best coach, then being Canada's captain makes you the best player. Which means that in 1994 Fabian Joseph was the best player in the world, and not Sergei Fedorov. Lol. I didn't say he had as many gold medals. I said he has as many Cups as Babcock has Cups AND Gold Medals. And Cups are harder to win.

By my count he's about 9X the coach Babcock is.

I don't even ague that. Nobody can take Babs' successes in international play away from him. I'm certainly not trying to. I'm simply stating that it's easier to win a Gold Medal than to win the Stanley Cup. So holding up gold medals as accolades is dubious. Especially when Quenneville has as many Cups as Babcock has Cups AND Gold Medals. It's like saying a guy with 1 Superbowl Championship and 2 NCAA championships (Pete Caroll) is a better coach that a guy with 3 Superbowl Championships and zero NCAA championships (Joe Gibbs, Bill Walsh). Nobody would believe it in any other sport, but they do in Babcock's case for some reason.

Lol. Way to rewrite history. Babcock had as good, or better, teams that Quenneville for the vast majority of his career. Quenneville has NEVER coached a single player better than Datsyuk, Zettererg, or Lidstrom. Babcock had all three, in their primes, at the same time. Babcock had 2 Hall of Fame goalies (yes, Osgood will get in), Quenneville has had none. And you're trying to make it seem like he had nothing to work with. Lol. Even the last few years Babcock has had playoff caliber teams. He wasn't coaching the Buffalo Sabres into the playoffs. He was coaching a perennial winner with a number of stars, some of whom were occasionally hurt. Big deal. The year we had the 2nd most man games lost to injury we limped into the playoffs and lost in the first round. That same year the Pens had the MOST man games lost and won their division...and a playoff series. Yet nobody says Bylsma is the greatest coach in the league (despite having as many Cups and a higher win percentage than Babcock I might add). You're selectively remembering the past to support an untenable argument. And I don't understand why. Canada DOES have the best coach in hockey. A guy who consistently wins. A guy who consistently brings out the best in his talent. A guy who displays, and expects, excellence. His name just isn't Mike Babcock. Embrace it.

Who knows? Probably for the same reason that John Tortarella is the Coach for Team USA instead of better coaches like Laviolette, or Cooper, or Bylsma. You're not the best because you have a particular position. You're the best when you've had more success at the highest possible level. And by that (completely reasonable) standard, Quenneville is the best. Edit: That's like saying whoever is Team Canada's captain is by default the best player in the world (so long as they win Gold), regardless of what they've done in the NHL. Which is absurd.

It's problematic that you're seemingly equating being the best coach with being Canada's National team coach. It makes your argument at tautology . Babcock is the best because regardless of his NHL successes (by which he's been good but not great) he's been REALLY successful with Team Canada, and he's REALLY successful with Team Canada because he's obviously the best. Which would work were it not for the fact that there's this whole other level of hockey, which is WAY more difficult to succeed at. And at that level, Babcock has been notably outshined by several other active coaches. Quenneville is pretty clearly the best hockey coach in the world. At the highest possible level, in the best possible league, he's got the most wins and the most championships. That's a lock.

Good point. f*** Boudreau.

Firing Boudreau would be dumb. Who are they going to get that's any better? Carlyle? The Ducks and the Blue Jackets have the same problem. They had a lot of expectations going into this year, and when they didn't perform excellently right out of the gate everybody panicked, which only made the problem worse. The last thing they should do is start screwing with a competitive team just because they started their season with a slump. Anybody remember when we lost six in a row last year? It would have been dumb to start firing coaches or trading good players. It would be equally dumb for Anaheim to do the same. Let them work through it.

He's not even our guy. That's the funny part. It would be like Dallas fans insisting that Ken Hitchcock is the "best coach in hockey". It woudn't make any sense at all. Not only because he's clearly not, but also because why the hell would Dallas fans care about Ken Hitchcock anymore.

Acquiring Byfuglien in 2015 would be the equivalent of acquiring Rasheed Wallace in 2004. First, it would give the team a little swagger. A little moxie. Second, it would be the most "Detroit" thing the Red Wings could do. An intense, hulking, maniac representing an intensely maniacal city would be perfect. Let Zetterberg be the stoic, humble, face of the franchise. Let Byfuglien be a wrecking ball.

How many Stanley Cups does Joel Quenneville have to win before people stop calling Babcock the "Best coach in the world"? Six? Seven? Fifteen? This is the biggest issue I have with Babcock. He's clearly a good coach. Nobody would argue that. But it's this asinine insistence, by his legion of acolytes, that he's "the bestest of the bestest" that drives me ******* crazy. He's not. There's not a single objective measure that indicates he's the best at anything. Other people have more wins. Other people have a higher win percentage. Other people have more Cups.

We haven't won without Lidstrom, Holmstrom, and Draper yet either. And those guys didn't intimidate anyone. It's a little short sighted to pretend that Dallas Drake, or Joey Kocur played more of a role on those winning teams than some other, non-fighters, did.

You're welcome?

Kindl has been good all season. Not a superstar or anything, but solid. Also, why is Dodge Ram promoting the Hunger Games? Not exactly the same demographics I'd think.