• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
kickazz

All purpose Mike Babcock thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Jeez if Babs was still our coach I feel like I'd be more inclined to defend him.

You're right there dickiedunn


You coach and practice and get to know and tweak the same team for months vs. You get a team of unknown players and have weeks to get them to win a tournament against the very best in the world... one loss in the finals and you're out. Not saying it is easy to win the Cup... it is not at all but winning a gold medal let alone 2 back to back... How is that not apparent?

I never said being Canada's coach makes you the best in the world btw. It just so happen's that for now, it is true!

Give me Crosby, Toews, Stamkos, Bergeron, Seguin, Benn, Corey Perry, Tavares, Giroux, Rick Nash, Doughty, Weber, Pk Subban, Duncan Keith on one team and I bet I could win the world cup next year.

I swear I think I could do it.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You coach and practice and get to know and tweak the same team for months vs. You get a team of unknown players and have weeks to get them to win a tournament against the very best in the world... one loss in the finals and you're out. Not saying it is easy to win the Cup... it is not at all but winning a gold medal let alone 2 back to back... How is that not apparent?

I never said being Canada's coach makes you the best in the world btw. It just so happen's that for now, it is true!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheSecret

why are your even arguing with the anti Babcock crowd? It's not worth it let them think whatever they want

The people who are in the know or tasked with building and leading team Canada's all-star roster know it and most normal fans do too, it's Babcock without question.

But hey now that the ABC has their own thread it's going to be fun seeing how emotionally attached they are because others don't share their viewpoint rotfl.

Not agreeing that Babcock is hockey coach jesus does not make someone "anti-Babcock".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Right.

In order to really assess if Babcock is ALL that good. Imo if he coached Team Latvia and won the Gold medal that would be a better indication of how elite he is.

Which brings us back to our original topic of discussion guys.

Babcock coached a stack roster in Detroit when he won the Stanley Cup. He is now coaching a s*** team and by all accounts, the best coach in all of hockey should NOT be phased by this.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Settled, Then from now on we should win by default every year and I am using this opportunity to throw Justin Trudeau's name in for consideration to coach team Canada's 3rd Olympic gold in a row (...that would be pretty bad ass too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colorado Avalance 2013 season record 16-25-7

Patrick Roy hired as rookie head coach and the following year.

Colorado Avalance 2013-2014 season record 52-22-8.

If Babcock is the best coach in all of hockey then he should at the very least be able to better Toronto a tiny bit than last year. If Patrick Roy can do what he did then Babcock has zero excuses imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settled, Then from now on we should win by default every year and I am using this opportunity to throw Justin Trudeau's name in for consideration to coach team Canada's 3rd Olympic gold in a row (...that would be pretty bad ass too)

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.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easier to win a Gold medal then a Stanley Cup is it? Really? Explain how that is. You keep ignoring that the chosen leaders of these useless National teams (normally they are the best players in the NHL for their respective countries of origin) are chosing Babcock again over Quenville.

I'm going to have to jump in here and agree; my statement has nothing to do with the babs/quennevile discussion but,

I'd say its no doubt easier to win a 6 game tournament with team Canada (with 4 other realistic threats) over a 110 game tournament with the Red wings and 29 other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy wins is the point. It shows his ability to coach no matter where. The old "team was stacked" thing.... Every Canadian Olympic team is stacked but they don't always win, why is that? Takes one hell of a coach to manage the room of ego's and in such a short period of time get them organized and working together enough to win against 4 -5 other stacked teams and their coaches. That is an impressive feat of coaching strength. Now let's look at the team's Babcock worked with compared to Quenville and his 25 stanley cups. Chicago had to suck hairy balls for some time to get that team + 2 drops of Bowman blood and Quenville has done a fantastic job with what he was given. Red Wings glory days after the Dead WIng era ended years ago. The last few seasons especially Babcock worked with far less talent then Chicago + a zillion injuries \ alot of young and inexperienced youth = Yet another feat of coaching strength getting a depleted team into the play offs. 2 of those teams had no business even being there yet they were and they were highly competitive losing in 7 games to the evntual stanlet cup champions for that year.

It's true, I am a Babcock slappy... I think he is the best in the world, apparently the powers that be in Canadian hockey believe it so also or they'd choose Quenville and how ever many cups he has to lead (but they don't)

I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that Babcock is bad coach, in fact I think he is a great coach. What I am saying is that I do not think he is the best in the world no questions asked.

Winning the gold medals is an accopplishment, but I dont think it should be in the critera when comparing him to other coaches due to the fact that these other coaches are not being given a shot to do the same thing.

Like Kip said, just because the powers that be on team canada think he is the best, doesnt mean that he is the best, it's just the opinion of a few people.

You said "Every Canadian Olympic team is stacked but they don't always win, why is that?"

Since 2002 Canada has won EVERY gold medal other then 2006. If anything this reinforces my point that its due to the stacked roster, not soley coaching.

2002: Canada won Gold

2004 (World Cup): Canada won Gold

2006: Canada Lost

2010: Canada won Gold

2014: Canada won Gold

Again, Babcock is a good coach, just not the best in the world no questions asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheSecret

why are your even arguing with the anti Babcock crowd? It's not worth it let them think whatever they want

The people who are in the know or tasked with building and leading team Canada's all-star roster know it and most normal fans do too, it's Babcock without question.

But hey now that the ABC has their own thread it's going to be fun seeing how emotionally attached they are because others don't share their viewpoint rotfl.

Your hypocrisy amazes me Frank.

When someone says anything good about Ken Holland, you call them “fanboys”, yet you are the one who spouts off that Babcock is the best coach in the world every single chance you get. I could probably look at your posting history and find 10 posts from the last month alone.

If someone makes a valid point against Babcock, rather than acknowledge or even debate the point, you simply call the people making the point “the anti-Babcock” crowd. You take the argument to the extreme and dismiss/distort what is actually being said.

There have been alot of great points made in this thread. I do believe that if Babcock was the greatest, he should be getting more out of TO then he is. What TO’s performance is telling me, is that while he is good, he is not to the level some people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right though.

Your hypocrisy amazes me Frank.

When someone says anything good about Ken Holland, you call them “fanboys”, yet you are the one who spouts off that Babcock is the best coach in the world every single chance you get. I could probably look at your posting history and find 10 posts from the last month alone.

If someone makes a valid point against Babcock, rather than acknowledge or even debate the point, you simply call the people making the point “the anti-Babcock” crowd. You take the argument to the extreme and dismiss/distort what is actually being said.

There have been alot of great points made in this thread. I do believe that if Babcock was the greatest, he should be getting more out of TO then he is. What TO’s performance is telling me, is that while he is good, he is not to the level some people think.

Excellent ******* post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is he right, because scoring is apparently way down and people want football scores? The games are just fine, he coached/coaching two teams that lets face it they struggle to score. Wings and Leafs. I mean I'm watching Hawks and Blues right now and they're 5-5 with couple minutes left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks Babcock isn't a great coach then they don't know hockey. However complaining about net size and now criticizing officials in the media shows he's losing it already in Toronto. He believes the hype around him, which is unfortunate.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Rewriting history?

You do know Quenneville started coaching before Chicago, right? Without getting into a debate on Hull-Turgeon-MacInnins-Pronger-Fuhr or Kane-Toews-Sharp-Hossa-Kieth vs what Babcock has had, Detroit was a top contender for only four years with Babcock. Another two or three as a second-tier team, and the last three being middle-of-the-pack. Not much different than Quenneville's tenure with Chicago and Colorado. True, he's had more playoff success in Chicago, but he also had a lot of failures in St.Louis. He went to Chicago with 11 years of NHL coaching experience, including several very good teams in St.Louis, plus a couple as an assistant with the Avs first Cup team. Babcock had two years. Maybe if Babcock had had more experience when he took over with the Wings, we would have had more success. Maybe not.

But really, picking a best coach is pretty much impossible. It's too hard to quantify the coach's impact. It's practically impossible to pick a best player, even with a boatload of individual stats to help. There are no individual stats for coaches. Only team results. No two coaches are ever in the same situation, so you can't even make direct comparisons. Best you can do is look at a guys general success level and say "he's one of the best". That's all most people actually say about Babcock, and also what most people say about Quenneville. That one or two people here may hold the opinion that Babs is the best is no different than you believing that Queneville is. It's an opinion and nothing more.

Both are great. Both have missed the playoffs only once (so far). Q had a bubble team the year he was fired in StL, but they did end up making it even though they didn't really improve any after he left. Both have made the finals 3 times. Similar winning% both regular season and playoffs. Both have had a PT winner lose in the first round. Both usually have only been beaten by better teams in the playoffs, with several losses to eventual Cup winners between them. Basically the only difference is Q has won a couple big games where Babs has lost a couple, and Babs succeeded in a couple big opportunities than Q was never given. Whether the results would have been any different if the roles were reversed is something we can only guess at. Your guess is no more valid than anyone else's. Personally, I think guessing at all is silly. A team would be lucky to have either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rewriting history?

You do know Quenneville started coaching before Chicago, right? Without getting into a debate on Hull-Turgeon-MacInnins-Pronger-Fuhr or Kane-Toews-Sharp-Hossa-Kieth vs what Babcock has had, Detroit was a top contender for only four years with Babcock. Another two or three as a second-tier team, and the last three being middle-of-the-pack. Not much different than Quenneville's tenure with Chicago and Colorado. True, he's had more playoff success in Chicago, but he also had a lot of failures in St.Louis. He went to Chicago with 11 years of NHL coaching experience, including several very good teams in St.Louis, plus a couple as an assistant with the Avs first Cup team. Babcock had two years. Maybe if Babcock had had more experience when he took over with the Wings, we would have had more success. Maybe not.

But really, picking a best coach is pretty much impossible. It's too hard to quantify the coach's impact. It's practically impossible to pick a best player, even with a boatload of individual stats to help. There are no individual stats for coaches. Only team results. No two coaches are ever in the same situation, so you can't even make direct comparisons. Best you can do is look at a guys general success level and say "he's one of the best". That's all most people actually say about Babcock, and also what most people say about Quenneville. That one or two people here may hold the opinion that Babs is the best is no different than you believing that Queneville is. It's an opinion and nothing more.

Both are great. Both have missed the playoffs only once (so far). Q had a bubble team the year he was fired in StL, but they did end up making it even though they didn't really improve any after he left. Both have made the finals 3 times. Similar winning% both regular season and playoffs. Both have had a PT winner lose in the first round. Both usually have only been beaten by better teams in the playoffs, with several losses to eventual Cup winners between them. Basically the only difference is Q has won a couple big games where Babs has lost a couple, and Babs succeeded in a couple big opportunities than Q was never given. Whether the results would have been any different if the roles were reversed is something we can only guess at. Your guess is no more valid than anyone else's. Personally, I think guessing at all is silly. A team would be lucky to have either of them.

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.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 mef****** 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.

Q has a stacked team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q has a stacked team

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.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the question is, if you had swapped Quenville for Babcock, would the results have been the same? I don't know how to answer that but even pointing out that they both had stacked teams doesn't truly do the argument justice as there are plenty other factors that weigh in the outcome of a Stanley cup victory. So many in fact I would say it's very difficult to conclude who is better in a purely scientific fashion, instead we can only rely on the somewhat crude data of wins. So short of exhaustive analysis and likely impossible empirical testing, Quenville is the better coach, and given their respective situations I don't believe that judgment will sway in favor of Babcock anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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