• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Datsyukian-Deke

Losing Streak affecting Babcock's Decision?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Who do you feel is equal to, or a better coach, or who would you like to see behind the Wings bench?

I'd like to see Blashill behind the bench. Or Dave Tippett, if Phoenix goes in a different direction. I like Blashill because he's already familiar with the talent, they've bought into his scheme, he's got report with the guys, and he's won with them. I like Tippett because he's got about 20 fewer career wins than Babs, with about one twentieth the amount of talent. Tippett gets more out of less than anyone in the league and I"d love to see what he could do with a payroll, some stability, and some quality hockey players.

When it comes to who is better, the results speak for themselves. Quenneville, Hitch, and Sutter have credentials that surpass Babs. Laviollete and Julien are in the same ballpark. Vignault, Trotz, Tippet, and Mclellan are nipping at his heals.

Edit: I would add that this is a rough ranking of guys based on a few variables (Cups, finals appearances, career wins). Ideally you'd rank these guys on a few other factors as well. Notably, long playoff runs, President's trophy wins, division wins, injuries, quality of team, etc. As all make a major difference in either A) determining who is best, or B) identifying legit reasons why they've struggled. I just don't have the time to do it though, and I suspect you'd probably end up with the same guys (in a slightly different order) anyway.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Blashill behind the bench. Or Dave Tippett, if Phoenix goes in a different direction. I like Blashill because he's already familiar with the talent, they've bought into his scheme, he's got report with the guys, and he's won with them. I like Tippett because he's got about 20 fewer career wins than Babs, with about one twentieth the amount of talent. Tippett gets more out of less than anyone in the league and I"d love to see what he could do with a payroll, some stability, and some quality hockey players.

When it comes to who is better, the results speak for themselves. Quenneville, Hitch, and Sutter have credentials that surpass Babs. Laviollete and Julien are in the same ballpark. Vignault, Trotz, Tippet, and Mclellan are nipping at his heals.

Edit: I would add that this is a rough ranking of guys based on a few variables (Cups, finals appearances, career wins). Ideally you'd rank these guys on a few other factors as well. Notably, long playoff runs, President's trophy wins, division wins, injuries, quality of team, etc. As all make a major difference in either A) determining who is best, or B) identifying legit reasons why they've struggled. I just don't have the time to do it though, and I suspect you'd probably end up with the same guys (in a slightly different order) anyway.

While I agree that Hitchcock, Quenneville and Sutter are high level coaches, I don't think Babcock can be likened to Laviolette and Julien. Babcock has a better win% that the big three and 3 cup final appearances with it. Babs is also the fastest coach since bowman to reach 500 regular season wins as well so there's that too. Also, since I chose to look up the stats, Babs regular season win% is way higher than the big 3, so what exactly makes those 3 signifcantly better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that Hitchcock, Quenneville and Sutter are high level coaches, I don't think Babcock can be likened to Laviolette and Julien. Babcock has a better win% that the big three and 3 cup final appearances with it. Babs is also the fastest coach since bowman to reach 500 regular season wins as well so there's that too. Also, since I chose to look up the stats, Babs regular season win% is way higher than the big 3, so what exactly makes those 3 signifcantly better?

Their rosters ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that Hitchcock, Quenneville and Sutter are high level coaches, I don't think Babcock can be likened to Laviolette and Julien. Babcock has a better win% that the big three and 3 cup final appearances with it. Babs is also the fastest coach since bowman to reach 500 regular season wins as well so there's that too. Also, since I chose to look up the stats, Babs regular season win% is way higher than the big 3, so what exactly makes those 3 signifcantly better?

Winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest thing to do in hockey (or sports for that matter). Quenneville and Sutter each have two. Quenneville also has the added bonus of having over 700 wins (only the third person to do so). Hitch has 700 wins and as many Cups as Babs.

To be honest, I think win percentage and "first to 500" are less meaningful in this case for two reasons. Mclellan AND Boudreau will be faster to 500 than Babcock, and they both have a higher win percentages. Bylsma has a higher win percentage and just as many cups. Yet I think it would be misleading to suggest that any of them are better or worse than Babs based on those stats. Certainly it's a factor, but if you go down that rabbit hole you might not like where you end up.

As I said, these are just my (partially informed) impressions. You could definitely figure out a way to factor in all the relevant information, and then plug each guy in. And that might totally change my mind. But needless to say, Babs is a very good coach. Easily top 5 in the league. But if someone asks me (and they did) "who's the best", I've got to give it to the guys with the hardware and longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Blashill behind the bench. Or Dave Tippett, if Phoenix goes in a different direction. I like Blashill because he's already familiar with the talent, they've bought into his scheme, he's got report with the guys, and he's won with them. I like Tippett because he's got about 20 fewer career wins than Babs, with about one twentieth the amount of talent. Tippett gets more out of less than anyone in the league and I"d love to see what he could do with a payroll, some stability, and some quality hockey players.

When it comes to who is better, the results speak for themselves. Quenneville, Hitch, and Sutter have credentials that surpass Babs. Laviollete and Julien are in the same ballpark. Vignault, Trotz, Tippet, and Mclellan are nipping at his heals.

Edit: I would add that this is a rough ranking of guys based on a few variables (Cups, finals appearances, career wins). Ideally you'd rank these guys on a few other factors as well. Notably, long playoff runs, President's trophy wins, division wins, injuries, quality of team, etc. As all make a major difference in either A) determining who is best, or B) identifying legit reasons why they've struggled. I just don't have the time to do it though, and I suspect you'd probably end up with the same guys (in a slightly different order) anyway.

I disagree about Quenneville and Sutter being better coaches. I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table. The Blackhawks squad has probably had the most raw talent from top to bottom throughout the entire league over the past few years, and better still is that the most important pieces have been playing hockey in their prime age. Before becoming Chicago's coach, Quenneville was coach of some pretty solid teams, yet he got to the conference finals only once in nine playoff appearances, where his team was promptly eliminated 4-1. He's had some good success in Chicago, with two Cups, two more conference finals appearances, and two first round exits sandwiched between the two. But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career, especially considering the skill-set he has had at his disposal during his only period of success. Its kind of similar to the argument that people make against Babs being a good coach because he won a gold metal with a stacked Canadian team, except on a smaller scale, and unlike Babcock, Quenneville doesn't have any other credentials or success stories to fall back on.

Sutter I have more respect for, mostly because I think his lack of success in the postseason can be attributed largely due to his teams being playoff bubble teams up until LA (and he also managed to get Calgary to the finals). But the big red flag for me with him is that he has repeatedly struggled to even get a proven Stanley Cup winning roster into the postseason. Right now they're on the outside looking in despite largely the same roster winning the cup last year. In 2012, LA won the Cup as an 8th seed. Awesome feelgood story, but its not a story of a Cinderella team overcoming all odds to win the Cup. Its a story of a super talented team who underperformed for 82 games, almost didn't even get an opportunity to compete for the Cup, and turned it on at the right time. The amount of talent on that team is inarguable. They've won two Cups in the past four years, and again, little turnover in talent from season to season. Why is it that they are struggling to even make the playoffs?

Dave Tippet I respect immensely and I also respect Trotz, largely because they've gotten a hell of a lot out of some very average teams. Tippet I would put in the same tier as Babcock. With Trotz, I want to see what he can do with the Capitals before I pass judgment on him, but I gotta say I think Ovechkin has really grown under Trotz already.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I think we've discussed this before so I'm not expecting to change your mind on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about Quenneville and Sutter being better coaches. I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table. The Blackhawks squad has probably had the most raw talent from top to bottom throughout the entire league over the past few years, and better still is that the most important pieces have been playing hockey in their prime age. Before becoming Chicago's coach, Quenneville was coach of some pretty solid teams, yet he got to the conference finals only once in nine playoff appearances, where his team was promptly eliminated 4-1. He's had some good success in Chicago, with two Cups, two more conference finals appearances, and two first round exits sandwiched between the two. But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career, especially considering the skill-set he has had at his disposal during his only period of success. Its kind of similar to the argument that people make against Babs being a good coach because he won a gold metal with a stacked Canadian team, except on a smaller scale, and unlike Babcock, Quenneville doesn't have any other credentials or success stories to fall back on.

Sutter I have more respect for, mostly because I think his lack of success in the postseason can be attributed largely due to his teams being playoff bubble teams up until LA (and he also managed to get Calgary to the finals). But the big red flag for me with him is that he has repeatedly struggled to even get a proven Stanley Cup winning roster into the postseason. Right now they're on the outside looking in despite largely the same roster winning the cup last year. In 2012, LA won the Cup as an 8th seed. Awesome feelgood story, but its not a story of a Cinderella team overcoming all odds to win the Cup. Its a story of a super talented team who underperformed for 82 games, almost didn't even get an opportunity to compete for the Cup, and turned it on at the right time. The amount of talent on that team is inarguable. They've won two Cups in the past four years, and again, little turnover in talent from season to season. Why is it that they are struggling to even make the playoffs?

Dave Tippet I respect immensely and I also respect Trotz, largely because they've gotten a hell of a lot out of some very average teams. Tippet I would put in the same tier as Babcock. With Trotz, I want to see what he can do with the Capitals before I pass judgment on him, but I gotta say I think Ovechkin has really grown under Trotz already.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I think we've discussed this before so I'm not expecting to change your mind on the matter.

I'm going to address two of your points...

1. "I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table".

Who's better, Toews, Kane, and Keith or Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstom? If you answer the latter, as I suspect you will, then your argument applies even more to Babcock then it does to Quenneville. Babcock's best teams were better than Quenneville's best teams, or Sutter's best teams. Yet they won more Cups with theirs.

Babcock's 2005 roster was WAY better than anything Quenneville has ever coached. It's better than anything ANY of those guys have ever coached. He had four 80+ point players. And he lost in the 1st round. So don't act like he's been given some hard road and the rest of these guys had a cake walk based on their rosters.

2. "But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career".

The rest of his career where he had more wins and more playoff appearances than he had in Chicago?

Quenneville's got over 700 wins. He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games. Chicago is not an anomaly. It's more of the same. True Chicago's where he won his cups, but that's true of Babs and Detroit too. He didn't win anything until he had Dats, Z, and Lids to work with. In fact, he missed the playoffs 50% of the time he wasn't with the Wings. That's right, Babs missed the playoffs with a team that went to the finals the year before...just like Sutter.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do want to add that I'm really not intending to knock Babcock here. I'm just stating my reasons for answering F. Michael's question the way I did. I maintain that Babs isn't the best coach for our team, but that still doesn't make him a bad coach, and it's not even the point I'm trying to make with this discussion. I think that Quenneville, Suter, and Hitch are better because they've got the accomplishments, and because there's no serious criticism of them that doesn't apply to Babs too. But again, he's clearly a very good coach, in pretty illustrious company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to address two of your points...

1. "I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table".

Who's better, Toews, Kane, and Keith or Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstom? If you answer the latter, as I suspect you will, then your argument applies even more to Babcock then it does to Quenneville. Babcock's best teams were better than Quenneville's best teams, or Sutter's best teams. Yet they won more Cups with theirs.

Babcock's 2005 roster was WAY better than anything Quenneville has ever coached. It's better than anything ANY of those guys have ever coached. He had four 80+ point players. And he lost in the 1st round. So don't act like he's been given some hard road and the rest of these guys had a cake walk based on their rosters.

2. "But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career".

The rest of his career where he had more wins and more playoff appearances than he had in Chicago?

Quenneville's got over 700 wins. He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games. Chicago is not an anomaly. It's more of the same. True Chicago's where he won his cups, but that's true of Babs and Detroit too. He didn't win anything until he had Dats, Z, and Lids to work with. In fact, he missed the playoffs 50% of the time he wasn't with the Wings. That's right, Babs missed the playoffs with a team that went to the finals the year before...just like Sutter.

Cherry picking three players from a team of 20 players isn't an effective defense of saying one team is better than the other. It also doesn't discredit anything I've said. I think the Wings were the best team in the league in 2008 and 2009 skill-wise. I think since then, its been the Blackhawks. Both teams have experienced success in those periods, as expected they would given their makeup on paper.

Babcock's 2005 squad was a solid team and they underperformed when the got to the playoffs. The same way Quenneville's Chicago teams underperformed when they were eliminated in the first round two years in a row after winning a Cup, and the same way Quenneville's Blues underperformed earlier in his career. I would say its the same way Sutter's team is currently under-performing, but if the reigning Cup champs end up missing the playoffs altogether, I think that's taking it to a new level, and I certainly don't think that is something that would be on the resume of one of the best NHL coaches in the league. We'll have to see what happens on that one.

Also, forgive me if I don't jump up in disbelief of Quenneville's 700 wins. The guy has been coaching playoff caliber teams his whole career dating back to 1996-1997. That's almost 20 years of opportunity to work with. Also your comparison to his time with the Blues and Blackhawks ("He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games") is flat out wrong. 307 wins with St. Louis in 593 games coached =/= 266 wins with Chicago in 454 games coached. That comes out to 51.7% wins vs 59% wins, which isn't a small margin. That amounts to an extra six games won per 82 games, or a 12 point gap in an 82 game season. So while they were both playoff-caliber teams, his time in St. Louis definitely isn't "more of the same". Its quantifiably worse. And the contrast between the two teams in the playoffs is even more apparent. 34 wins, 34 losses in seven playoff appearances with the Blues. 57 wins, 37 losses (and two aforementioned Cups) in six playoff appearances with the Hawks. Definitely not more of the same. But considering those Blues teams only made it past the second round once in seven seasons (eight if you include the year he was fired) it does further support the notion that Quenneville is unable to achieve any level of success with teams that aren't totally stacked and favored to win the Cup. In short, Quenneville's teams don't exceed expectations. They either meet their expectations, or they fall short.

And yes, Babcock has missed the playoffs 50% of his time not with the Wings (n=2, ie one time in his career). Its also worth mentioning the skill level of that squad was marginal at best. The year the Ducks went to the finals they went as a 7th seed, and unlike Sutter's Kings, the Ducks weren't a Cup favorite that for whatever reason barely squeaked into the playoffs. The Ducks went as team that higher seeds thought of as a stepping stone to get to the next round. Then they swept the defending Cup champion Red Wings team in the first round. Then they beat the top seed in the West, the Dallas Stars 4-2. Then they swept Minnesota in the Conference finals, before finally losing in seven games to New Jersey in the SCF. The next season (and after losing their top-scorer Kariya when he bolted for Colorado in the offseason) they played closer to their skill set and missed the playoffs. And just a side note: the Mighty Ducks team Babcock inherited ended the season in 13th place the year before he took them to the finals. But that's neither here nor there. The real beef I have isn't with how you perceive Babcock. Its how you perceive Quenneville and Sutter. Two guys who I think are somewhere between average and above average, but not cream of the crop.

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I'm on a study break and wanted it to last as long as possible lol

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking three players from a team of 20 players isn't an effective defense of saying one team is better than the other. It also doesn't discredit anything I've said. I think the Wings were the best team in the league in 2008 and 2009 skill-wise. I think since then, its been the Blackhawks. Both teams have experienced success in those periods, as expected they would given their makeup on paper.

Babcock's 2005 squad was a solid team and they underperformed when the got to the playoffs. The same way Quenneville's Chicago teams underperformed when they were eliminated in the first round two years in a row after winning a Cup, and the same way Quenneville's Blues underperformed earlier in his career. I would say its the same way Sutter's team is currently under-performing, but if the reigning Cup champs end up missing the playoffs altogether, I think that's taking it to a new level, and I certainly don't think that is something that would be on the resume of one of the best NHL coaches in the league. We'll have to see what happens on that one.

Also, forgive me if I don't jump up in disbelief of Quenneville's 700 wins. The guy has been coaching playoff caliber teams his whole career dating back to 1996-1997. That's almost 20 years of opportunity to work with. Also your comparison to his time with the Blues and Blackhawks ("He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games") is flat out wrong. 307 wins with St. Louis in 593 games coached =/= 266 wins with Chicago in 454 games coached. That comes out to 51.7% wins vs 59% wins, which isn't a small margin. That amounts to an extra six games won per 82 games, or a 12 point gap in an 82 game season. So while they were both playoff-caliber teams, his time in St. Louis definitely isn't "more of the same". Its quantifiably worse. And the contrast between the two teams in the playoffs is even more apparent. 34 wins, 34 losses in seven playoff appearances with the Blues. 57 wins, 37 losses (and two aforementioned Cups) in six playoff appearances with the Hawks. Definitely not more of the same. But considering those Blues teams only made it past the second round once in seven seasons (eight if you include the year he was fired) it does further support the notion that Quenneville is unable to achieve any level of success with teams that aren't totally stacked and favored to win the Cup. In short, Quenneville's teams don't exceed expectations. They either meet their expectations, or they fall short.

And yes, Babcock has missed the playoffs 50% of his time not with the Wings (n=2, ie one time in his career). Its also worth mentioning the skill level of that squad was marginal at best. The year the Ducks went to the finals they went as a 7th seed, and unlike Sutter's Kings, the Ducks weren't a Cup favorite that for whatever reason barely squeaked into the playoffs. The Ducks went as team that higher seeds thought of as a stepping stone to get to the next round. Then they swept the defending Cup champion Red Wings team in the first round. Then they beat the top seed in the West, the Dallas Stars 4-2. Then they swept Minnesota in the Conference finals, before finally losing in seven games to New Jersey in the SCF. The next season (and after losing their top-scorer Kariya when he bolted for Colorado in the offseason) they played closer to their skill set and missed the playoffs. And just a side note: the Mighty Ducks team Babcock inherited ended the season in 13th place the year before he took them to the finals. But that's neither here nor there. The real beef I have isn't with how you perceive Babcock. Its how you perceive Quenneville and Sutter. Two guys who I think are somewhere between average and above average, but not cream of the crop.

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I'm on a study break and wanted it to last as long as possible lol

Quenneville took over Chicago a year after they finished 10th in the West and 20th in the NHL. Babcock took over the Wings a year after they finished 1st in the West and 1st in the NHL. Quenneville's team wasn't quite as bad as Babcock's Anaheim team, but he's never stepped into a team as good as the one Babs did.

So again, all of your criticisms of Sutter and Quenneville apply just as much to Babcock. If the guy with 700 wins, 2 cups, and 4 good post seasons did it all because of his stacked team, then the guy with 500+ wins, 1 cup, 4 good post seasons also did it on the back of his super skilled team.

And why is it such a sin for Quenneville to win with good teams? You're supposed to. Babs had world class teams and won less often. His win percentage with the Wings is lower than Quenneville's with the Hawks (marganally, I'll admit). Is there some coach out there who did more than Quenneville with a less skilled team? Certainly not Babcock, as you've already admitted, since he only ever won with (your words) the most skilled team in the league (too).

Like you, I don't object so much to your characterization of Babcock. He is a good coach. And he did an exceptionally good job that first year in Anaheim. But I don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss Quenneville. If Babcock (or any other active coach) had 2 Cups, 2 President's Trophies, made it to the conference championships 4 times, made the playoffs 15 times, had 1 Jack Adams Award, and was 3rd all time in wins, nobody would argue that he's the best coach in the league.

But you think he's "average to above average" because he didn't win more Cups with his other teams, and because his players were too good?

I don't know man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quenneville took over Chicago a year after they finished 10th in the West and 20th in the NHL. Babcock took over the Wings a year after they finished 1st in the West and 1st in the NHL. Quenneville's team wasn't quite as bad as Babcock's Anaheim team, but he's never stepped into a team as good as the one Babs did.

So again, all of your criticisms of Sutter and Quenneville apply just as much to Babcock. If the guy with 700 wins, 2 cups, and 4 good post seasons did it all because of his stacked team, then the guy with 500+ wins, 1 cup, 4 good post seasons also did it on the back of his super skilled team.

And why is it such a sin for Quenneville to win with good teams? You're supposed to. Babs had world class teams and won less often. His win percentage with the Wings is lower than Quenneville's with the Hawks (marganally, I'll admit). Is there some coach out there who did more than Quenneville with a less skilled team? Certainly not Babcock, as you've already admitted, since he only ever won with (your words) the most skilled team in the league (too).

Like you, I don't object so much to your characterization of Babcock. He is a good coach. And he did an exceptionally good job that first year in Anaheim. But I don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss Quenneville. If Babcock (or any other active coach) had 2 Cups, 2 President's Trophies, made it to the conference championships 4 times, made the playoffs 15 times, had 1 Jack Adams Award, and was 3rd all time in wins, nobody would argue that he's the best coach in the league.

But you think he's "average to above average" because he didn't win more Cups with his other teams, and because his players were too good?

I don't know man.

I've got nothing against Quenneville, or anyone for that matter, for succeeding when they're put in a position to succeed. At the very least its what's expected of every coach in the NHL. But I don't think that's a good criterion to base whether an NHL coach is among the best in the league at their job. And honestly, I don't have much of an issue with under-performing either, so long as its not a career-defining thing and more of an anomaly, because its something that has and will happen to every coach. I think one of the best ways to define the effectiveness of a coach is to assess how much they can get out of a team, and if a team is performing beyond expectations, I'd say that's a good indicator that the coach is doing a good job and getting a ton out of his roster. Its why I respect Trotz and Hitchcock (although admittedly I want to see how Trotz can handle the Caps before I make any definitive case for or against him). Sutter has had teams go beyond expectations in his career, and I would have him more highly rated if he was able to get the Kings' to play at the very least like they're capable of playing (this goes back to whether you make under-performing a habit, or an occasional thing. Sutter is teetering on that line right now and leaning on the wrong side of it). Babcock has had teams play beyond expectations several times in his career. Tippet has done it as well. Quenneville, I don't see it. His teams either perform exactly how they're expected to when you look at the roster (which again, isn't a knock on him as a coach) or they under-perform. He's had several opportunities in his almost 20 year career to meet expectations when he didn't or to exceed expectations when he didn't, and its those missed opportunities to really show that he can be a difference-maker as a coach that I'm basing my criticism of him. Which is why I think he's an average to above average coach, but not best in the business, despite his accolades. I think there are many coaches who would have had the same success as him if they were given his opportunity. But I don't think many coaches would recreate what Trotz was able to do with a bunch of scrubs in Nashville, or Tippet with some of those Phoenix teams (especially with the ownership s***show show they've had to endure). The question now with those two, particularly Trotz now that the opportunity is there to see him in a different environment with more skill to work with, is are they capable of earning playoff success, and eventually winning a Cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think the team's struggles as of late (alot on defence) have to do with Babcock making a decision to leave next year?

Maybe word has gotten around the locker room that hes gone?

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch since this could probably be the time where he let his decision slip out.

For the team to do a full 180 with brutal turnovers and bad decisions could be a direct relation to not playing as well for a coach you know won't be your boss next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think the team's struggles as of late (alot on defence) have to do with Babcock making a decision to leave next year?

Maybe word has gotten around the locker room that hes gone?

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch since this could probably be the time where he let his decision slip out.

For the team to do a full 180 with brutal turnovers and bad decisions could be a direct relation to not playing as well for a coach you know won't be your boss next year

I don't know about that. I think the coach determines the on ice product in a lot of ways, but I've never believed that a coach's contract status affects the team. I don't see a bunch of ultra competitive athletes being so sad (or vindictive) that they either can't (or won't) listen to a lame duck coach. For one thing, their millions upon millions of dollars of pay depends on their one ice accomplishments. Even if he weren't coming back, winning means you get paid more, and have more job security, etc. No reason for them to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think the team's struggles as of late (alot on defence) have to do with Babcock making a decision to leave next year?

Maybe word has gotten around the locker room that hes gone?

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch since this could probably be the time where he let his decision slip out.

For the team to do a full 180 with brutal turnovers and bad decisions could be a direct relation to not playing as well for a coach you know won't be your boss next year

That's a good thought and could be true but they hardly did a 180° turn, it's just other teams are upping their intensity and physical level and we all know the Wings are easy to play against, especially when other teams are bringing their heavy forecheck.

but if the inconsistent play has anything to do with Babcock's decision the problems are deeper than only the defense, goaltending they would be mental too. Like Kipwinger said, these are professional atheletes they are getting paid a lot of money to perform (I know they aren't robots and everyone can have a bad day) but to relate their performance to a coach ? That would be bad on so many levels even for themselves because it could cost them money and possible jobs on other teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. I think the coach determines the on ice product in a lot of ways, but I've never believed that a coach's contract status affects the team. I don't see a bunch of ultra competitive athletes being so sad (or vindictive) that they either can't (or won't) listen to a lame duck coach. For one thing, their millions upon millions of dollars of pay depends on their one ice accomplishments. Even if he weren't coming back, winning means you get paid more, and have more job security, etc. No reason for them to throw the baby out with the bath water.

To be fair, I think anyone would subconsciously begin slacking off a bit if they know theyre boss will be leaving in a short period of time.

Your point makes sense for the guys who are earning a contract renewal such as Nyquist or Smith, but the rest of the team, why keep working so hard for such a hard-ass coach (boss) who doesn't exactly reward production?

You might think that because these guys are getting paid millions they would give it theyre all at all times, but they really don't....they cant. The season is too long. Look at Helm, that guy used to be hell on wheels every shift. Now hes got his spot in the NHL and he has to pace himself for a full season. Tatar doesnt play as energetic as he did early on either

I'm not saying Babs' decision is the reason, it might not be at all. It might even be one factor out of 100. We'll probably never know but its interesting to think about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I think anyone would subconsciously begin slacking off a bit if they know theyre boss will be leaving in a short period of time.

Your point makes sense for the guys who are earning a contract renewal such as Nyquist or Smith, but the rest of the team, why keep working so hard for such a hard-ass coach (boss) who doesn't exactly reward production?

You might think that because these guys are getting paid millions they would give it theyre all at all times, but they really don't....they cant. The season is too long. Look at Helm, that guy used to be hell on wheels every shift. Now hes got his spot in the NHL and he has to pace himself for a full season. Tatar doesnt play as energetic as he did early on either

I'm not saying Babs' decision is the reason, it might not be at all. It might even be one factor out of 100. We'll probably never know but its interesting to think about

You've just speculated on a reason why guys have slowed down (because Babs is leaving), while at the same time providing a much more plausible explanation (because the season is long and hard).

These guys don't want to lose. Your scenario makes it seem like the primary thing stopping these slackers from slacking is the contract status of their coach. Which seems unrealistic. You don't make it to the pinnacle of your respective career field by being a slacker who is ok with losing.

Don't get me wrong, if I could find a plausible connection between something Babcock did and a drop off in the teams' play, I'd point it out. At this point I honestly feel like it's my mission to be the voice of objectivity when it comes to the near deification of Mike Babcock. But I really, truly, can't find a link between our drop off in play and his contract status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just speculated on a reason why guys have slowed down (because Babs is leaving), while at the same time providing a much more plausible explanation (because the season is long and hard).

These guys don't want to lose. Your scenario makes it seem like the primary thing stopping these slackers from slacking is the contract status of their coach. Which seems unrealistic. You don't make it to the pinnacle of your respective career field by being a slacker who is ok with losing.

Don't get me wrong, if I could find a plausible connection between something Babcock did and a drop off in the teams' play, I'd point it out. At this point I honestly feel like it's my mission to be the voice of objectivity when it comes to the near deification of Mike Babcock. But I really, truly, can't find a link between our drop off in play and his contract status.

I don't know, its obvious that players don't like to play for Babcock throughout the NHL. Players have been quoted as saying such.

I think its entirely possible that some players that have been forced to buy into his system and play theyre butts off in order to get playing time don't have that drive with him potentially being gone in the next work term.

Again, it might not be an issue at all. I just brought it up as a thought and possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, its obvious that players don't like to play for Babcock throughout the NHL. Players have been quoted as saying such.

I think its entirely possible that some players that have been forced to buy into his system and play theyre butts off in order to get playing time don't have that drive with him potentially being gone in the next work term.

Again, it might not be an issue at all. I just brought it up as a thought and possibility

Whose quoted saying that? Mike Commodore???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A poll in which he was rated as the #1 rated coach players don't want to play for...

So i guess not a quote but still

And yes, Commodore too lol

Some players want to be babied, and Babcock isn't the babying type. So that might be one of the reasons players don't want to play for him. He's also unshakingly loyal to his veteran players, which is a fault sometimes. And might lead to some resentment from the younger players. Then again who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I could take him or leave him.

I have a feeling Babcock wants to use his rare situation as a "Free Agent coach that wasn't fired" to gauge different challenges that will be presented to him. I have a feeling he might want to go somewhere where he gets the kind of control that Bowman got here after Bryan Murray was let go. Seems like Ilitch/Holland want to run the team as a band-aided and safe "Old Boys Club", than make significant changes to make the team better (like Bowman did after Murray).

....which leads me to my next point.....

The positive outlook I have for Babcock leaving, is that atleast SOMETHING about this team changes. Since the last lockout, the Red Wings have become the NHL's definition of insanity. The team has the same two goalies and six Dmen that started in the 2013 playoffs and most of the same forwards. There's also the same GM and head coach, of course. We even went into this current season with nearly the same exact team that barely made the playoffs and couldn't handle the Bruins in the first round, minus Alfredsson. "Oh but we'll be healthier, young guys will get better, Jimmy will bounce back, blah blah".

Wings fans act like Babcock leaving would be equivalent to Al Arbour walking away from the Islanders a day after leading them to a 4th consecutive Cup. In reality, Babcock has lead the Wings to win only three playoff series in the last five seasons, and they haven't made it past the second round in that same span. The way they're playing right now, it doesn't look like that is going to change. I know it's not all Babcocks fault, but when will some accountability fall his way? A new message might be refreshing, especially if the (likely) band-aiding continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this