Why all the hate for Babcock?

[glasgowcelticwing 18]

Babcock hasn't been pinned down by anything. I would argue Babcock's job is easier than other coaches because he has a good roster. The Wings spend to the cap, and had several key players making significantly less than they are worth, including Hasek, Zetterberg, Cleary, and Schneider. HOLLAND has been pinned down by the salary cap, and has done a remarkable job in assembling a very talented roster. Babcock has done a good job with what he was given, but he was given a great deal.

So you think it's an easier job to be losing major players like Stevie and Shanny ? As I said earlier not many people expected the Wings to be as competitive as they were last season minus those two. sure Holland has assembled a pretty damn good team . but Babcock has also turned players like Cleary and Lebda into good players . to do things like that it takes talent to do so . Babs done this.

Edited August 18, 2007 by glasgowcelticwing

[eva unit zero 271]

So you think it's an easier job to be losing major players like Stevie and Shanny ? As I said earlier not many people expected the Wings to be as competitive as they were last season minus those two. sure Holland has assembled a pretty damn good team . but Babcock has also turned players like Cleary and Lebda into good players . to do things like that it takes talent to do so . Babs done this.

The Wings lost Stevie and Shanny, true. But they had an impressive roster even losing those two. Babcock took over a President's trophy winning team that had young, rising stars as key players. It's not as if the Wings were succeeding because of Stevie and Shanny, with a roster of third liners.

[Heaton 1]

The Wings lost Stevie and Shanny, true. But they had an impressive roster even losing those two. Babcock took over a President's trophy winning team that had young, rising stars as key players. It's not as if the Wings were succeeding because of Stevie and Shanny, with a roster of third liners.

True, but now it is Zetterberg and Datsyuk with a bunch of 3rd liners.

[glasgowcelticwing 18]

The Wings lost Stevie and Shanny, true. But they had an impressive roster even losing those two. Babcock took over a President's trophy winning team that had young, rising stars as key players. It's not as if the Wings were succeeding because of Stevie and Shanny, with a roster of third liners.

He also took over a Presidents trophy winning team that had bombed in the playoff's since 02. Sure his first season wasn't to good there either . but last season's playoff's wern't to shabby if I do say so myself.minus those superstar players.

[Henkka 0]

What hate? I just love him, I think he's the best coach after Scotty.

[eva unit zero 271]

He also took over a Presidents trophy winning team that had bombed in the playoff's since 02. Sure his first season wasn't to good there either . but last season's playoff's wern't to shabby if I do say so myself.minus those superstar players.

I think the team would have done worse had Shanny stayed. Players like Filppula and Cleary wouldn't have gotten as much ice time during the regular season, and would not have been relied upon offensively in the playoffs. Bertuzzi also would not have been acquired. Bertuzzi's performance was a disappointment, but it was still an upgrade over what Shanahan was doing, despite playing fewer minutes. And the Wings were eliminated in the first round under Babcock, and with Yzerman and Shanahan, so your argument doesn't work. Yes, the reason they were eliminated was Legace. No, I don't believe Legace should have been playing in the playoffs.

[J-Swift 0]

I am a big fan of Babcock as well but the one and only thing I don't like is when he puts Sammy on the point during the PP.

Now that we have Rafalski and his right-handed shot, I'm hoping that our days of using forwards on the point are over. I agree, however, that using Sammy wasn't such a great idea. And using Williams was an even worse idea.

I'm perfectly happy having Babcock as our head coach, but I can't say I'm particularly fond of everything he does. In particular, I don't feel he does enough to support our youth movement. I can't say I'm a big fan of Jiri Hudler, but the guy got shafted repeatedly last season. And even Filppula didn't get the ice time he deserved, despite the fact that Babcock has gushed over him in the past.

[irishtemper14+25 11]

i love babcock, he is a great coach and young...so he should stick around for a long time if he likes it here

[glasgowcelticwing 18]

I think the team would have done worse had Shanny stayed. Players like Filppula and Cleary wouldn't have gotten as much ice time during the regular season, and would not have been relied upon offensively in the playoffs. Bertuzzi also would not have been acquired. Bertuzzi's performance was a disappointment, but it was still an upgrade over what Shanahan was doing, despite playing fewer minutes. And the Wings were eliminated in the first round under Babcock, and with Yzerman and Shanahan, so your argument doesn't work. Yes, the reason they were eliminated was Legace. No, I don't believe Legace should have been playing in the playoffs.

You kinda answered your own question's there. you say that if Shanny hadn't left then Filppula and Cleary wouldn't have been given the chance to step up. My arguement is that it's Babcock who's worked with these players all season and has got the best out of them . For me this makes him one of the best out there . ...oh , and when I said superstars I didn't mean last season's Shanny and Stevie . i'm talking about when they were in there prime , Babs didn't have that to work with . he didn't have any of the superstars that other coaches have had to work with.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

To be honest with you, I don't feel that Wings fans want Babcock fired. He's gotten a lot out of this team, as was shown in the playoffs last year when they played against teams they didn't match up with well. Besides, NHL coaches have a higher turnover than coaches in any other league, and there's plenty of teams that have won cups in recent memory without having a coach that anybody considers one of the elites. I might be wrong, but I've always thought that in hockey, a great coach isn't as important to winning as may be the case in basketball or football. I like Babcock's attitude because he demands a lot from his players and hasn't worn thin on them yet. My ony beef with him is that he gave Lang and Samuelsson too much playing time last year before finally demoting Lang at the end of the playoffs.

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

I'm with glasgow on this.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Football yes; hockey most definitely , & basketball - a big no!

How else can you explain to how certain systems ie: the trap, dump & chase with aggressive forecheck, & the left-wing-lock are implemented? Not by luck, or player skill, but by the will/guidance of the coaching staff...The NBA is a joke IMHO when it comes time to coaching - many of these primadonas do their own thing on the court so what difference does the coach make? Now college basketball is a whole different story.

Yeah, but what I was thinking is that Bob Hartley, Peter Laviolette, Randy Carlyle, Tortorella, etc. aren't guys that I consider to be elite coaches even though they have a Stanley Cup to their name. Don't forget that Babcock was only a game away from winning the Cup himslef in 2003. Nowadays, goalies make coaches look smart, and we see them constantly stealing games for their team. Like I said, it might just be my opinion only, but I don't think that in hockey a great coach is what ultimately pushes a team over the top like in some other sports.

[theman19 47]

Yeah, but what I was thinking is that Bob Hartley, Peter Laviolette, Randy Carlyle, Tortorella, etc. aren't guys that I consider to be elite coaches even though they have a Stanley Cup to their name. Don't forget that Babcock was only a game away from winning the Cup himslef in 2003. Nowadays, goalies make coaches look smart, and we see them constantly stealing games for their team. Like I said, it might just be my opinion only, but I don't think that in hockey a great coach is what ultimately pushes a team over the top like in some other sports.

I disagree, and i think every wings fan over the age of 24 would easily look you in the eye and say "no bowman, no cup". Mediocre coaches are a dime a dozen and i am no way implying that babs is one,..that's yet to be determined. But to say that a hall of fame coach can't put a team over the top,...when a few like bowman have coached several different championship squads is a little off.

[Manoir 70]

BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE PLAYED 6 ON 4 IN THE FINAL MINUTES OF THIS YEAR'S PLAYOFFS.

I don't hate the guy, but that one incident got to me.

My sister barely follows hockey and she turned to me and asked why the Wings wren't pulling the goalie. Whether it's fair or not, the two lasting images I have is Yzerman on the bench in the final minute against Edmonton and this.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Manoir

[Offsides 21]

I think Babs definitely made mistakes in the playoffs because he's stubborn..just like naming Manny all time starter LAST playoffs. He makes stubborn mistakes and that bothers me about him.

[Offsides 21]

Basically. I can think of a lot of instances where he just kept beating a dead horse, or whatever he was doing...just because...I'm not sure. I think he's just stubborn. He's overconfident in his decisions and can't switch directions easily.

I don't think he's a bad coach though, that just bothers me about him.

[Heaton 1]

Add to that he made no attempts @ changing a sad pp (other than putting Sammy @ the point); had all year to work on it, but kept having our D take shots from the point with hopes of Homer screening/deflecting them in :nonono:

The PP had issues during the regular season and could've been better during the playoffs, but even with that said, the Wings had the best PP% during the playoffs in the Western Conference.

People can rag on Samuelsson at the point all they want, but he did his job and did it about as well as you could expect. He wasn't there because he was a great option he was there because of injuries. The right handed shot helped it and the PP actually got better when he took over for Schneider. During the regular season there were stretches where the PP was lights out and almost automatic, I refuse to believe that when it was working like a well oiled machine Babcock demanded to go back to screen and shoot. I believe there is a basic strategy that they employ, but Lidstrom, Schneider, Datsyuk and Zetterberg had free reign to do whatever they wanted on the PP. While Babcock is for sure accountable when things are going bad, the players need to be as well.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Babcock is an awesome coach. Comparing him to Bowman is crazy, and I dont think anybody was doing that directly so much as they were saying hes coaches in a similar style, but then again, people have to remember how young Babcock is, and also the fact that hes not been a one hit wonder. He took the Ducks to a game within the cup, he took the wings farther than anybody expected without his #2 and #3 Dmen, and with an injured Lebda, Zetterberg, and Bertuzzi. Thats as good as a SCF appearance if you ask me.

As for his 1st year as Wings coach, thats hard to include if you want to look at what hes done as a Wings coach, because for all intents and purposes, the likes of Yzerman and Shanahan were running that team. I think people underestimate how much players like Zetterberg and Datsyuk looked to Shanahan, Yzerman, etc to carry the work load and determine the identity of the team. Now that those Hall of Famers are gone, Babcock was able to form his players into grinders, skill guys, leaders, hard workers, etc.

IMO, the greatest value a coach can have is getting the most out of his players. Considering he had Datsyuk playing like a Selke contender, Cleary going from an unskilled version of Yashin to a Mike Fisher type player, Lilja throwing his weight around, Franzen showing off shoot-out worthy skill, and Hudler and Filppula playing like seasoned vets, and had 90% of the roster playing a hard hat gritty game in the playoffs, among other things, Id say hes done an absolutely phenomenal job as a Red Wings coach.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Now that we have Rafalski and his right-handed shot, I'm hoping that our days of using forwards on the point are over. I agree, however, that using Sammy wasn't such a great idea. And using Williams was an even worse idea.

I'm perfectly happy having Babcock as our head coach, but I can't say I'm particularly fond of everything he does. In particular, I don't feel he does enough to support our youth movement. I can't say I'm a big fan of Jiri Hudler, but the guy got shafted repeatedly last season. And even Filppula didn't get the ice time he deserved, despite the fact that Babcock has gushed over him in the past.

Samuelsson scored a pretty good goal from the point on the PP in the playoffs against the Sharks and played a pretty big part in helping put them away the last 2 games of that series.

[Guest LivingtheDream]

Best coach after Scotty? He ain't there yet. Or are we simply saying of Lewis, Babcock and Scotty, Babcock is #2? A little restraint people! :-)

I won't get into it all here, but one really good thing he did was to make a bunch of skill guys play gritty. The Wings were written off as essentially pansies and he made them tough. Anyone can throw a hit seems to be his motto and it paid off in the last half of the season and playoffs.

Edit" YoungGuns1340 said it all much better!

Edited August 19, 2007 by LivingtheDream

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

18.4% on the pp is pretty sad (quite a few 5 on 3 that the Wings missed out on) throughout the playoffs - though it was better than their dismal 17.1% throughout the reg season...My point here is Babcock's refusal to make some changes since every team knows what our pp consists of - shots from the point with the hopes of screening the goalie, or a re-direction by Homer - way to predictable IMO.

I agree, which makes it even sadder that we didn't go after anyone who can be a threat on the slot. A few years ago we had those dangerous one-timers with Hull, Shanny, and Feds. Now we're too predictable on the PP.

[eva unit zero 271]

Forsberg, & O'Neill are 2 guys whom could fill the holes on our 2nd line (hopefully Grigorenko will surprise us all as well, & play great with Dats).

Forsberg has a handful of teams "interested"; if we are able to land him - he'll needs another 3 to 4 months to heal/get himself into shape...As for O'Neill - is this guy capable of playing like he had when he was a Hurricane (25 to 35 goals)? There's also the rumor of him having a fear of flying - not good for the Wings.

Holland may be forced to wait until the deadline once again to get a decent sniper; hopefully it'll work out better this time around.

Holland has a decent sniper. Babcock refuses to play him because he's not 6'3, 205 with 70 PIM per 80 games.

Edited August 19, 2007 by eva unit zero

[Opie 308]

Every coach that sits behind the wings bench will be view with cynisism until they bring back stanley. That is the only reason. As wing rfans we expect nothing but the best, and anything less than the cup is the worst.

That is just how we are.

[Heaton 1]

Holland has a decent sniper. Babcock refuses to play him because he's not 6'3, 205 with 70 PIM per 80 games.

Try using more words in the past tense, Hudler is already penciled in on one of the top 2 lines according to Babcock.

[eva unit zero 271]

Try using more words in the past tense, Hudler is already penciled in on one of the top 2 lines according to Babcock.

News to me. I've heard Grigs will be with Dats, Homer and Z will of course be on the top two, leaving a selection of Filppula, Samuelsson, Franzen, Cleary, and Hudler. I guess I expected Hudler to be Babcock's last pick of those guys to actually get worthwhile playing time given the fact that last season he was the only one who didn't get a shot on the first line at some point, and that Babcock benched him in favor of a recently-back-from-long-term-injury Kopecky, who is 6'3, 205, and posted 22 PIM in 26 games, which projects to 68 PIM over 80 games.