Who's the better coach?

[Pat 44]

An Ex-Detroit coach is simply out coaching Detroit hands down. You cannot tell me this isn't the case. Babcock REFUSED to change his lineup after they were DEAD in game 1. Now we are in an 0-2 hole and on the brink of elimination. Refusing to change the lineup, not changing the lines during the game, and yet Babcock can be seen laughing on the Detroit bench. Is it just me or is it his time to go?

[Carman 387]

I'll take the one with the Stanley Cup and Olympic gold please.

[Blueliner 69]

An Ex-Detroit coach is simply out coaching Detroit hands down. You cannot tell me this isn't the case. Babcock REFUSED to change his lineup after they were DEAD in game 1. Now we are in an 0-2 hole and on the brink of elimination. Refusing to change the lineup, not changing the lines during the game, and yet Babcock can be seen laughing on the Detroit bench. Is it just me or is it his time to go?

Are you serious? Wow.

[Pat 44]

I'll take the one with the Stanley Cup and Olympic gold please.

Don't forget that Todd Mclellan also won the cup with us(he was part of it)

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

It's obvious now that Mclellan was the reason we won the Cup. As for the Gold Medal, that was Crosby's doing.

Bring back Hitl.......I mean Dave Lewis.

Edited May 1, 2011 by GMRwings1983

[Finnish Wing 110]

McLellan did have a big impact on our puck control game. At first I though it was all Babcock, but when McLellan left it showed. I'm not saying he's the better coach, but I think he is better tactically while Babcock is better in mental coaching.

[Greatness=PavelDatsyuk 65]

An Ex-Detroit coach is simply out coaching Detroit hands down. You cannot tell me this isn't the case. Babcock REFUSED to change his lineup after they were DEAD in game 1. Now we are in an 0-2 hole and on the brink of elimination. Refusing to change the lineup, not changing the lines during the game, and yet Babcock can be seen laughing on the Detroit bench. Is it just me or is it his time to go?

Last time I checked it takes 4 wins, not 3, plenty of hockey left to play

[Pat 44]

When someone knows how you prepare for games and has his team prepared for it, then you HAVE to make changes. Until the Redwings make changes, they are not even in this series at all.

I can't wait for Babby to get up there and say we got outworked and his normal bulls***, how about he takes the blame for not coaching a team?

[Nev 1,085]

Swapping the lines around, or changing a couple of 4th liners isn't going to solve our problems. The Sharks are bigger, faster, just as skilled and (possibly) hungrier. The only people keeping us in this series are Datsyuk and Howard, and thats not a knock on Babcock.

What changes do you want? Our D sucks. Who are you going to swap Rafalski, Ericsson and Salei for that is better? How are you going to make Lidstrom a thirty-something again?

Edited May 1, 2011 by Nev

[Pat 44]

Last time I checked it takes 4 wins, not 3, plenty of hockey left to play

If we lose the next game we are not going to win this series. That's what I meant by saying we are on the brink of elimination.

[ricky0034 89]

Last time I checked it takes 4 wins, not 3, plenty of hockey left to play

yep

just this year already in the first round Boston came back from down 2-0 to win(and those first two games were home games for Boston),Tampa Bay came back from down 3-1 to win,and Chicago was 1 goal away from winning their series after being down 3-0

[SDavis35 140]

If we lose the next game we are not going to win this series. That's what I meant by saying we are on the brink of elimination.

lol, it's happened plenty of times before... teams go down 0-2 all the time. relax and let the coaches duke it out. If we win next game, suddenly we're only down by 1 right?

[MulesWillFly93 199]

If we lose the next game we are not going to win this series. That's what I meant by saying we are on the brink of elimination.

If we lose the next game, we are on the verge of complete suckitude. If we lose the game after that, THEN we are not going to win the series.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Babcock is the better coach. Olympic gold and a Stanley Cup, with 2 finals appearances as well. But head to head? McLellans 6-1 record against Babs in the postseason is hard to argue.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Detroit # 1 Fan

[Grypho 195]

I don't see how that question can even be answered. They are both absolutely amazing coaches in my estimation.

The only way to know which one is better would be to have one coach a team for a year, then GO BACK IN TIME and place the other coach at the helm of the exact same team. And even then, it is only going to tell you who was better for that year, and for that team. Otherwise, it's all speculative nonsense, and truly apples to oranges.

Even a win history does not guarantee that one coach was better than the other. Great coaches can be saddled with s***ty players and teams, just as s***ty coaches can be gifted with great players and teams. It happens. Hey, give me nothing but full houses against Doyle's consistent trips, and watch just how "great" I am against him as a coach of the hands I was dealt.

But then again, I don't think the Wings' performance in this series relative to the last one was the fault of the players OR the coach anyway, and I don't think line changes could have done anything to address what I thought was the real problem.

[I Red Wings I 40]

Brink of elimination eh

[Finnish Wing 110]

I don't see how that question can even be answered. They are both absolutely amazing coaches in my estimation.

The only way to know which one is better would be to have one coach a team for a year, then GO BACK IN TIME and place the other coach at the helm of the exact same team. And even then, it is only going to tell you who was better for that year, and for that team. Otherwise, it's all speculative nonsense, and truly apples to oranges.

Even a win history does not guarantee that one coach was better than the other. Great coaches can be saddled with s***ty players and teams, just as s***ty coaches can be gifted with great players and teams. It happens. Hey, give me nothing but full houses against Doyle's consistent trips, and watch just how "great" I am against him as a coach of the hands I was dealt.

But then again, I don't think the Wings' performance in this series relative to the last one was the fault of the players OR the coach anyway, and I don't think line changes could have done anything to address what I thought was the real problem.

You make it too complicated. Coaches can be compared. Or if you argue it like that then why would it be any different when comparing players? Players play in different teams, coaches coach different teams. You can compare coaches if you can compare players.

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

I don't see how that question can even be answered.

Uh, no. It's Babcock right now. Right now. McLellan's resume isn't even in the same tier yet. Babs has championships within different leagues of hockey, multiple 50 win and 100 point NHL seasons, NHL finals appearances, a gold medal, etc. McLellan still hasn't coached a team that has won a game in the third round. In fact, McLellan could win a cup this year and he still wouldn't be a better coach. Babs is better right now. It's as simple as that.

[Grypho 195]

You make it too complicated. Coaches can be compared. Or if you argue it like that then why would it be any different when comparing players? Players play in different teams, coaches coach different teams. You can compare coaches if you can compare players.

Oh, then by all means compare. Vote or come to a conclusion, and let the question be settled once and for all.

The difference between comparing coaches and players should be obvious, since the players are the only ones with 99%+ control over the game, and the sheer number of specific stats for each player makes their caliber differences far more obvious. Coaches can coach different teams, but only in different years. And every coach has a different chemistry with its team.

I'm not saying you can't compare coaches. Obviously you can. I'm saying that it's all going to be almost completely subjective. You won't have any way of separating, or knowing for sure, which successes and/or failures were more attributable to the coaches, vs. the players, the team captain, other teams, or even other factors. Those are built-in complications. How do you deal with them to get a reliable metric that any disinterested observer could agree on?

[Zonly1 46]

Babcock is the better coach. He's just not really good at motivating his players in pressure situations.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

McCrimmon ruined this team.

Babcock then proceeded to poke more holes in the sinking ship by keeping this team from having any drive, motivation, or adaptation to other team's playing styles.

[Klunzo 36]

I'll take the one with the Stanley Cup and Olympic gold please.

I will actually agree with Carman for once....isn't even a question.

[wingfan1991 221]

f*** McLellan wanna be Babcock... Hearing him talk is making me sick... He knows exactly what to say.

[Green Wing 26]

This year is the big question - if the Sharks get through and still f*** it up then forget about it. But I have a feeling that they might actually do something this year. And whether McLellan is better than Babcock or not, I think he was invaluable to the cup run 07/08. Also, I think McLellan's time here has meant he has Babcock's number.

McCrimmon and his s***ty coaching record of rubbish defense (Calgary/Atlanta) can get f***ed for all I care.

[Hockey Convert 55]

There's also the consideration that the coach is not the GM. The old saying goes that only a poor carpenter blames his tools, and there's some wisdom in that. However, I'm fairly sure that if you put the greatest carpenter in the world in a bare room with some boards and a rock only, he's not going to get very ******* far either. Babcock has the tools he has, and can't change it. And I'm starting to get the sense more and more that he might want to. McClellan has the tools he has. I think both coaches are legit, and working out which is "better" is difficult at best given the variables involved.

The Wings have a lot of skill, I won't deny that; and I like most to all of our players. My point though: on the surface, in terms of a Cup fight, I might be forced to admit I'd rather have San Jose's toolkit on hand.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Hockey Convert