kipwinger

Yes. Every great coach was a rookie once. I don't see how that precludes someone from being in the discussion. Further I don't think this team is right on the cusp of greatness. It'll be a year or two before we are an elite team again. When our young guys enter their primes. At which point blashill wouldn't be a rookie anymore. He would, however, still be the coach who has won with these guys, developed these guys, built report with these guys, and (hopefully) brought a fresh perspective to their abilities, and dynamic.

I don't expect him to win ever single year, but you guys are downplaying some of the really great teams he had and lost with. His teams were not mediocre in 2005 or 2009. I get irritated when people act like he's had nothing to work with. He's had good, to great teams since joining the wings. He's got one cup. He's not such a super duper coach that its anathema to even consider life after Babcock.

Mike Babcock was a rookie once too. I'd take Blashill, or any number of other coaches provided they fit the team. I'm not saying let babs walk for no reason. But I don't think that its unrealistic to think another coach could get more out of this team. Quenneville and Sutter were cast offs from other teams too. Something tells me their organizations aren't regretting the fact that they took a flier on a fired coach.

He did the same thing with Legwand. I can't say its not situational, but he does have a track record.

Has Babcock grown to such mythic status that its absurd to even consider another coach? Because if he is that good, why don't we have more cups under his tenure? Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that he can be a good coach, but the wrong one for this team, at the same time?

Do Blashill's teams score at 5on 5? If so, adios Babs.

I wouldn't get cocky. You've been accused of being my sock account. Meaning you and jimmy are the same guy too, if true. The accusor? Jimmy.

I'm the worlds best uncle. Last year, for Christmas, I sent my nephews quite a few selfies I took in Vegas. They sent me back a "Thank you" card.

What a lamb. Thank you for noticing!

They've been successful in all the ways Pittsburgh hasn't actually. Pittsburgh has consistently underwhelmed since 2009 precisely because their role players have been terrible, and Crosby, Malkin, and Letang can't win playoff series' alone.

For some reason I get the impression we have the same sense of humor. Can't put my finger on it though.

Your mom is my mom too...because we are the same. So are you saying that I tried to fight our mom? Because nobody talks about our mom that way! And if you say it again I will punch your mom in the face, so help me god!

But here's my vow to you. The next time someone says Dekeyser is our best defenseman over the last three games, and in reality he was wholly (or partially) responsible for three goals against and a breakaway...I'll look up the video. Just do me a favor and point out when people say that about Dekeyser in those situations, because as far as I can tell they never do. I didn't bring Smith up today. Didn't say a word about him.

I don't "dislike" Smith. I just recognize what he is. An underwhelming, third pair, defenseman with upside. He's like a less good MIchael Del Zotto. So basically Jamie McBain.

Sigh. My most recent criticism of Smith was in response to people saying "Smith's been our best defenseman lately". Which wasn't true. During the period in question he'd regularly blown his defensive assignments, and in some cases even catastrophically screwed up (e.g. turned the puck over for goals and/or breakaways). He was awful 5 on 5, and since he doesn't regularly play on the special teams, I'm not sure how that statement could be true. I don't pick on Smith. He's a third pair defenseman, who plays like a third pair defenseman. I only point out Smith's screw ups when dim bulbs around here start saying demonstrably false things like "Smith's been our best defenseman".

Showing video of Smith screwing up, and blaming him for loses aren't the same thing. I did the first. I never did the second. And if you'd take the time to go look at my recent comments on Smith you'd see that I said this at the time I posted the videos of his play: "Third pair defense are rarely to blame for losing streaks, and this is no different. But you are all insane if you think Smith has played well the last three games. He hasn't. I don't blame him for the failures of our PK, but he's EASILY been our worst defenseman 5 on 5. Here's the evidence. Disagree with me? Go find the videos to prove it." I know that you're just dying to catch me contradicting myself, but you're just going to have to keep trying.

It's always easy to pick on the fourth line, or third pair defense. But prolonged losing slumps are rarely their fault. Miller's job isn't to score goals. And we didn't score any. And we lost. Miller's job is to play defensively responsible hockey for about 12:00 a game, and kill penalties. Which he did.

or do this... Erik Cole Henrik Zetterberg Justin Abdelkader Darren Helm Riley Sheahan Tomas Tatar Gustav Nyquist Joakim Andersson Teemu Pulkkinen Drew Miller Luke Glendening Tomas Jurco Ugh. Can this idiot please just go save the Maple Leafs already?

Ideal playoff situation? Keep away from Ovechkin, who had two more last night. Jesus Christ.

Who needs Connor McDavid anyway?

Dear Mike Babcock, Since you're a dumbass (but totally a genius too), will you please just do the first of these things while Datsyuk is out, and the second once he gets back. Mostly because we'll win more. But also because it actually maximizes our players talents in a complementary way. That's called specialization. It's been all the rage since the industrial revolution. It makes things more efficient. Clearly it's not on the curriculum for honorary PhD's from McGill. Nyquist-Z-Abby Tatar-Sheahan-Cole Pulkkinen-Helm-Jurco Miller-Glendening-Andersson/Weiss Zetterberg-Datsyuk-Abby Tatar-Sheahan-Cole Nyquist-Helm-Jurco Miller-Glendening-Andersson/Weiss Anyway, thanks...you ******* schmuck. Kip. p.s. If something works 1 time our of 4, it's not a success...even if it's your idea. So just stop it already.

When Dats and Z are gone we'll have (just listing them here, no particular order) Tatar-Athanasiou-Mantha Nyquist-Larkin-Abby Pulkkinen-Sheahan-Jurco Helm-Glendening-whoever. Yeah, I'm sure we'll suck lol.

We traded for Cole. He's better than Jagr at this point in their careers. Are you guys saying you want Jagr too, or that you'd rather have Jagr than Cole. Besides Babs would just have put him with Zetterberg and Abby...for some reason.

Seems like every few years there's some new kid in the draft that's the elite of the elite. The next Crosby. The next Stamkos. The next Ovechkin. The next Tavares. The next whoever. So what? Crosby, Stamkos, Ovechkin, Tavares, only have one cup between them. Lots of teams do lots of winning without generational talents. And lots of generational talents weren't drafted with the top pick. Connor McDavid will probably be a good NHLer, but I doubt he's going to be so otherworldly good that we'll all be left in awe. At best he'll be Crosby level good. And is anybody really that blown away with him anymore? Sure he's a great player, but not so much better that development, and management, and team building, don't matter. Connor McDavid is more likely to be an Eberle, Yakupov, RNH, or Hall than he is to be another Crosby. Because he'll likely get drafted by a team that only knows how to get that much out of him.

Aside from a crappy game against a decent team, which I don't want to comment on too much, does anybody else notice that when Babs gives the guys the day off, they play like crap? Maybe a mandatory, yet easy, skate would help them look alive? I don't know.