The Buck Stops WHERE? With WHOM?

[kickazz 5,459]

8 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Because when he was coaching GR they used creativity and he allowed his offensive players to play that way while teaching them how to defend as well.   Now he wants defend, defend, defend, and benches them for a defensive mistake.  Meanwhile zero goal Sheahan is still playing every night and even getting some PP time because he "does good things."  Never mind that one of those things isn't scoring this year.

AHL =/= NHL. Harder to play against the defenders in the NHL. Dump and chase is a defense mechanism teams are prone to in the NHL. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Just now, kickazz said:

AHL =/= NHL. Harder to play against the defenders in the NHL. Dump and chase is a defense mechanism teams are prone to in the NHL. 

OK, my point was he coached differently.  You appear to agree.  His methods in GR brought in positive results, his NHL style negative results.  To me, that says he shouldn't have changed, at least not that much.

[kickazz 5,459]

4 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

OK, my point was he coached differently.  You appear to agree.  His methods in GR brought in positive results, his NHL style negative results.  To me, that says he shouldn't have changed, at least not that much.

I'm also saying that it doesn't seem like he has much of a choice with our player personell going up against the type of defenders in the NHL. 

Jurco is being captain obvious in a way. Of COURSE Chicago can be creative. Has anyone seen their roster?! 

With our s***ty defensive core, plethora of small mid-tier forwards, being safe is probably all what Babs and Blash can think of. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

They lack a #1 center. That doesn't mean he needs to play Sheahan, Glendening, Abdelkader, et. al. as much as he does, or bench AA and Mantha for things he ignores from vets, or tell some of his players to completely change their games.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kickazz 5,459]

11 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

They lack a #1 center. That doesn't mean he needs to play Sheahan, Glendening, Abdelkader, et. al. as much as he does, or bench AA and Mantha for things he ignores from vets, or tell some of his players to completely change their games.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Agree with the first part but the bolded part shouldn't be an issue and in a way is a "right" that coaches have over their players. That's a grey area to argue. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

A goos coach takes what his players do well and makes use of it. A bad coach has a rigid idea of what they need to do and expects them to conform, and it usually doesn't work.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kickazz 5,459]

57 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

A goos coach takes what his players do well and makes use of it. A bad coach has a rigid idea of what they need to do and expects them to conform, and it usually doesn't work.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

By your standards Scotty Bowman was a bad coach for forcing Yzerman to start playing defense, putting Fedorov actually on defense. And Babcock is a bad coach for telling D and Z to play 200 foot game rather than light up opposition 100+ points a year in mid 2000s. Mind you Datsyuk didn't start killing penalties until the 2005 or 06 season when Babcock got him to focus on defensive side of the game. 

A coach can do as he pleases in his player usage. Whether it works out or not is another story. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Playing 2 way hockey isn't the same as what Blashill is doing, Datsyuk was always defensively responsible, and comparing Blashill and Bowman is 100% ridiculous. Bowman put Fedorov on d to play mind games and motivate him. Blashill thinks AA should be like Helm and Larkin should be a power forward because he's an imbecile.

Did you watch GR when Blashill was there vs how he coaches now? It's night and day different.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

What was it they said about Bowman? As a player you hated him everyday of the year, except the day you won the cup?

Folks this is what happens when you give players the coach they want. Poor performance. 

[kickazz 5,459]

8 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Playing 2 way hockey isn't the same as what Blashill is doing, Datsyuk was always defensively responsible, and comparing Blashill and Bowman is 100% ridiculous. Bowman put Fedorov on d to play mind games and motivate him. Blashill thinks AA should be like Helm and Larkin should be a power forward because he's an imbecile.

Did you watch GR when Blashill was there vs how he coaches now? It's night and day different.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Changes made by Babcock/Bowman.

1. Fedorov switched to defense.

2. Dandenault switched between forward and defenseman.

3. Zetterberg groomed and switched from Left Wing to Center

4. Ericsson drafted as a forward switched to defense.

5. Franzen switched from Center to Winger, switched from corner winger to net front presence. 

6. Abdelkader switched from bottom 6 grinder to top 3 scoring power forward. 

7. Glendening groomed from Winger to Center, switched from 4th line grinder to top 6 powerforward. 

8. Yzerman asked to put focus on defense even though his entire career all he did was offense and SUCKED defensively. 

9. Brenden Shanahan forced by Bowman to change from a chery picking Winger to a defensively responsible PENALTY KILLER. 

You think Yzerman and Shanny knew how to play defense of cared for it at all? They didn't Bowman forced them. It was never part of their game. It's no different than asking a guy to play bigger and using his size. 

You're acting like coaches don't change a players game, I'm not sure where you've been the last 25 years because it's been happening, very famously. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

Just because a coach tries to mold a player into something he's not, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, or be beneficial to the player or team. Of the nine changes you mentioned, I think only three really benefited the player / team, and they are Zetterberg converting to center, Franzen converting to wing and Yzerman learning to play a 200 foot game. Converting your biggest offensive threat to defense is dumb. Switching any player between forward and defense is dumb. I think Ericsson could have potentially been a better forward than defenseman, although, who knows, he could have just been another Aubry that amounted to nothing. Abdelkader should be a bottom 6 (arguably 4th line) forward. Glendening is a borderline NHLer, and shouldn't ever see above 4th line duties. A big power forward, sniper like Shanahan should never be converted to a defensive / penalty killing role. Bowman and Babcock are great coaches, but that doesn't mean they don't make some dumba** decisions. Blashill just seems to make a lot more. Playing defensive hockey is losing hockey, and that's exactly what Blashill tries to implement (in the NHL)...

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Just because a coach tries to mold a player into something he's not, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work, or be beneficial to the player or team. Of the nine changes you mentioned, I think only three really benefited the player / team, and they are Zetterberg converting to center, Franzen converting to wing and Yzerman learning to play a 200 foot game. Converting your biggest offensive threat to defense is dumb. Switching any player between forward and defense is dumb. I think Ericsson could have potentially been a better forward than defenseman, although, who knows, he could have just been another Aubry that amounted to nothing. Abdelkader should be a bottom 6 (arguably 4th line) forward. Glendening is a borderline NHLer, and shouldn't ever see above 4th line duties. A big power forward, sniper like Shanahan should never be converted to a defensive / penalty killing role. Bowman and Babcock are great coaches, but that doesn't mean they don't make some dumba** decisions. Blashill just seems to make a lot more. Playing defensive hockey is losing hockey, and that's exactly what Blashill tries to implement (in the NHL)...

Well what Bowman and Babcock did led to 4 stanley cups. So I'll take their word on defensive hockey instead of LGW computer GMs lol. 

The last 7 Stanley cup winners are Boston, Chicago and LA and Pittsburg.

How funny that 3 cup winning teams also happened to have Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar and Patrice Bergeron, all of whom the franchise defensive forwards as 1Cs 

Datsyuk and Zetterberg btw became better defensive centers under Babcock. That's WIDELY known. He's doing the same with Nazem Kadri right now in Toronto.  

And 3 out of 9 things working still led to Staney cups. If you don't tell Yzerman to play defense, you don't win the 97/98 cup, if you don't put Franzen on the wing, he doesn't score like he did in the playoffs, if you don't put Zetterberg on Center, we don't have a 1-2 punch in the playoffs against teams. Just because "only" 3 of the 9 things made a significant impact doesn't mean coaches were wrong to make changes. They change things over and over until something results in success. That's the nature of life in sports and literally everything. 

12 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

A goos coach takes what his players do well and makes use of it. A bad coach has a rigid idea of what they need to do and expects them to conform, and it usually doesn't work.

This was Dickie's quote. That good coaches take  what players do well in and make use of it. He's factually wrong. Two GOOD coaches have made plenty of changes in their players and team and SUCCEEDED with it. Unless Dickie is sticking to his guns and implying Babcock/Bowman are bad coaches because they too made changes. Which I know wouldn't bode well for his quote. 

Ya'll want to ***** about Blashill over something Babcock and Bowman did and succeeded in; isn't helping your argument.

But Blashill, Babcock and Bowman did what coaches league wide do. Make Adjustments. It just happens that we're losing and no longer a playoff contender so it's easy to point fingers. But when Bowman did it not a peep out of fans. 

And everyone knows I'm no fan of Blashill. But making generalizing statements such as the one I quoted.. I just get an itch when I see that type of stuff that's clearly untrue. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

I doubt Blashill is as terrible as some would lead you to believe, but he's certainly no Babs or Bowman.

[kickazz 5,459]

9 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I doubt Blashill is as terrible as some would lead you to believe, but he's certainly no Babs or Bowman.

He's not good no.

I'm ranting because he's being put out as a guy that's doing all these "terrible" things, when clearly other coaches do the same thing. It just happened that those coaches were successful so nobody ******* about it. Blashill's got a crappier team to work with and on top of that he's not nearly as experienced. 

For the record I'm no fan of pure defensive hockey either. I prefer a mix, we obviously had good offense along with good defense when we won those cups. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

AA definitely needed to develop his defensive game and you can see that he's getting better at that now.

Mantha does need work on his compete level. 

The idea that you should just let a rookie play their game is something new to me. Pretty much every player from Datsyuk to Yzerman has had to change or develop their game coming into the league. I don't necessarily think Blash needed to bench these guys since many others have similar problems, but there is reason in thinking that you should treat rookies differently. Especially when they're rookies that your team needs to develop into significant players.

13 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

They lack a #1 center. That doesn't mean he needs to play Sheahan, Glendening, Abdelkader, et. al. as much as he does, or bench AA and Mantha for things he ignores from vets, or tell some of his players to completely change their games.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Glendening is 25th on the team with ATOI. The only regulars that have less are Miller and Ott. Sheahan is 23rd. These players are not putting up big minutes even despite the fact that the get a lot of PK time.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2017.html

Athanasiou's usage is concerning to me since he's 24th. He should get more. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

Changes made by Babcock/Bowman.

1. Fedorov switched to defense.

2. Dandenault switched between forward and defenseman.

3. Zetterberg groomed and switched from Left Wing to Center

4. Ericsson drafted as a forward switched to defense.

5. Franzen switched from Center to Winger, switched from corner winger to net front presence. 

6. Abdelkader switched from bottom 6 grinder to top 3 scoring power forward. 

7. Glendening groomed from Winger to Center, switched from 4th line grinder to top 6 powerforward. 

8. Yzerman asked to put focus on defense even though his entire career all he did was offense and SUCKED defensively. 

9. Brenden Shanahan forced by Bowman to change from a chery picking Winger to a defensively responsible PENALTY KILLER. 

You think Yzerman and Shanny knew how to play defense of cared for it at all? They didn't Bowman forced them. It was never part of their game. It's no different than asking a guy to play bigger and using his size. 

You're acting like coaches don't change a players game, I'm not sure where you've been the last 25 years because it's been happening, very famously. 

Fedorov didn't "switch to defense."  He was used there for a few games because of injuries and because Bowman liked to screw with him.

They thought Dandenault would be more effective as a defenseman because of his speed, and Bowman wanted a d-man with wheels.  they didn't tell him to move to defense and then play like Bob Rouse, they moved him to defense and told him to rush the puck and be involved.

Lot's of players switch from center to wing, and players with the ability can go from wing to center.  That's not changing how they play.

Ericsson was drafted to play defense after Andersson saw him used there in a game because his team was short some D.

Abdelkader is a piss poor top 6 forward.  he's a complimentary player just like McCarty, Lapointe, and Brown were.

Glendening asked to start playing center while in GR because he knew that was his best chance at making the Wings.  Calling hims a top 6 power forward is like calling a Honda Civic a sports car.

Asking a player to focus more on defense isn't the same as telling him to focus ONLY on defense.  Asking a player to use his size isn't the same as telling Larkin that he needs to be a power forward and bulk up.  

Finally, a point you didn't address, Bowman won.  A lot. He also got the most out of his players more often than not. Blashill loses, a lot, and his players play worse for him than they have for other coaches most of the time.

[kipwinger 8,524]

52 minutes ago, kickazz said:

He's not good no.

I'm ranting because he's being put out as a guy that's doing all these "terrible" things, when clearly other coaches do the same thing. It just happened that those coaches were successful so nobody ******* about it. Blashill's got a crappier team to work with and on top of that he's not nearly as experienced. 

For the record I'm no fan of pure defensive hockey either. I prefer a mix, we obviously had good offense along with good defense when we won those cups. 

 

To play the devil's advocate here, I don't think that people are necessarily upset that Blashill is trying to "change" guys as a concept, but rather about how he's applying it.  It would be like if Holland made a bad trade and someone defended him by saying "well ALL GMs make trades".  Of course they do, trading wasn't the problem.  Bad trading was. 

Perhaps what irritates people about Blashill is that he'll bench guys for not being defensive enough, but his whole team isn't offensive enough and nobody gets benched for that.  He'll bench guys for being careless with the puck, but only SOME guys, because veterans apparently are immune from turnovers. He'll bench guys for not being "assertive enough" (Sproul) but guys like Marchenko and Ouellet get lots of time despite being unnoticeable. 

I think Blashill, like Babcock before him, came up with lots of post hoc justifications to rationalize the preferences they already had.  In Blashill's case I think it's pretty clear that his preference is for defense-first hockey players, and that he doesn't mind if you're one dimensional as long as that dimension is defense.  Which is well and good, but then it's pretty hard to take him seriously when he's benching guys ostensibly to "round out their game" or whatever.  He pretty clearly doesn't care about a well rounded game or Miller, Glendening, Sheahan, Ouellet, Ericsson, Kronwall (at this point in his career), etc. wouldn't all be playing hockey on the same team at the same time.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Asking a player to improve in an area where you're weak is one thing.  Asking them to go against everything that they've ever done and change their game is another.  I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that Mantha needs to play hard every shift to maximize his impact, or that AA needs to be defensively responsible.  Blashill's taking those concepts and putting them to the extreme, though.  Everyone has an off shift or a bad period.  When AA or Mantha have one, Blashill benches them.  When Nyquist or Tatar, or Sheahan, or someone else has one, he ignores it.  He praises zero goal Sheahan for doing "good things" and gives him PP time, and the most AA gets is a back handed compliment peppered with criticism.  Larkin's best asset is his speed, Blashill wants him to sacrifice that in order to get bigger and become something he's not.  And it's not working.  At all.  Who has met or exceeded expectations this year?  Zetterberg, Vanek, Nielsen, Howard and Green. Five guys who have been around long enough where Blashill more or less leaves them alone. Everyone else is playing below their ability.  

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

1. Asking a player to focus more on defense isn't the same as telling him to focus ONLY on defense.  Asking a player to use his size isn't the same as telling Larkin that he needs to be a power forward and bulk up.  

2. Finally, a point you didn't address, Bowman won.  A lot. He also got the most out of his players more often than not. Blashill loses, a lot, and his players play worse for him than they have for other coaches most of the time.

1. Show me proof that Blashill has told his players to focus "ONLY on defense" and specifically asked Larkin that he needs to be a powerforward. Exactly words please. You're acting as though he doesn't want Larkin, Mantha to score or something. It's not that black and white. 

2. I'm not arguing about who won and who didn't. I'm pointing out that your statement is incorrect that " good coach takes what his players do well and makes use of it. A bad coach has a rigid idea of what they need to do and expects them to conform, and it usually doesn't work." And I'm pointing out to you that good coaches contradict your statement. Specifically Bowman. Case and point - Yzerman was never known to be defensive. He learned to play defense under Bowman. 

Blashill isn't a bad coach because he has a certain idea on how to approach a game that you happen to disagree with, he's not a bad coach for making changes and expecting his players to play a style of game and expecting them to have a certain ceiling. What makes him a "bad" coach is his inability to get the most out of his players and his poor PP set up and continual use of Sheahan on it. What makes him a "bad" coach is his inconsistency in his decisions, what makes him a "bad" coach is his inability to scratch the players he should be scratching (Glendening, Miller, Sheahan).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting Mantha to be better defensively, and there's nothing wrong with expecting Larkin to gain weight for his own good. Players bulk up all the time. Mantha gained weight this summer on his own accord. On the other hand Jurco lost weight this summer to gain speed on his own accord. You don't always lose speed by gaining weight btw. There's an algorithm where you can gain a certain amount of weight just fine without losing your speed. 

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

34 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Asking a player to improve in an area where you're weak is one thing.  Asking them to go against everything that they've ever done and change their game is another.  I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that Mantha needs to play hard every shift to maximize his impact, or that AA needs to be defensively responsible.  Blashill's taking those concepts and putting them to the extreme, though.  Everyone has an off shift or a bad period.  When AA or Mantha have one, Blashill benches them.  When Nyquist or Tatar, or Sheahan, or someone else has one, he ignores it.  He praises zero goal Sheahan for doing "good things" and gives him PP time, and the most AA gets is a back handed compliment peppered with criticism.  Larkin's best asset is his speed, Blashill wants him to sacrifice that in order to get bigger and become something he's not.  And it's not working.  At all.  Who has met or exceeded expectations this year?  Zetterberg, Vanek, Nielsen, Howard and Green. Five guys who have been around long enough where Blashill more or less leaves them alone. Everyone else is playing below their ability.  

As I said, say that to Yzerman and Bowman in the early 90s. 

You do realize this is a team sport right? Coaches can't exactly have players go out there and play free-for-all just because "WELL THAT'S HOW I GREW UP PLAYING HEHE" Coaching entails having players work as a unit and play strategically. In Blashill's case his strategy is failing and all the other stuff we both seem to agree on (inconsistency in his decision making with certain players). That's the difference. 

For instance look at Quenneville with Chicago. In Jurco's interview he says that Chicago's style is all about creativity and making plays first rather than dump and chase. Well what if Player X never played with creativity in juniors? What if Player X has always preferred to play "safe hockey"? Does that make Quennville a bad coach for forcing Player X to break off from his safe style of play and start being more creative? No it doesn't.  Oh but Quenneville wins so he gets a free pass.. no judging Joel. 

My overall point is you're taking an extreme argument on Blashill. He's bad, but not terrible. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 hours ago, kickazz said:

Well what Bowman and Babcock did led to 4 stanley cups. So I'll take their word on defensive hockey instead of LGW computer GMs lol. 

The last 7 Stanley cup winners are Boston, Chicago and LA and Pittsburg.

How funny that 3 cup winning teams also happened to have Jonathan Toews, Anze Kopitar and Patrice Bergeron, all of whom the franchise defensive forwards as 1Cs 

Datsyuk and Zetterberg btw became better defensive centers under Babcock. That's WIDELY known. He's doing the same with Nazem Kadri right now in Toronto.  

And 3 out of 9 things working still led to Staney cups. If you don't tell Yzerman to play defense, you don't win the 97/98 cup, if you don't put Franzen on the wing, he doesn't score like he did in the playoffs, if you don't put Zetterberg on Center, we don't have a 1-2 punch in the playoffs against teams. Just because "only" 3 of the 9 things made a significant impact doesn't mean coaches were wrong to make changes. They change things over and over until something results in success. That's the nature of life in sports and literally everything. 

You really think anyone is claiming to be a better coach or GM than Blashill or Holland? I'm certainly not. That doesn't mean we can't see flaws in the way they operate. What's your point about making Zetterberg and now Kadri better centers? Who are arguing with here? That's exactly what I was saying in my previous post... You listed nine changes that previous coaches made, and my only point was that, just because they changed the way nine different players played, doesn't mean it was better for the player or team. In my opinion, a lot of those changes were dumb. Blashill is making a lot of dumb decision too. This organization (GM / coach) need to put fosus on developing the kids, that means giving them a little more rope, let them make their mistakes and learn from it. There are better ways to get your point across then healthy scratching one of your best players back to back games...

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

Asking a player to improve in an area where you're weak is one thing.  Asking them to go against everything that they've ever done and change their game is another.  I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that Mantha needs to play hard every shift to maximize his impact, or that AA needs to be defensively responsible.  Blashill's taking those concepts and putting them to the extreme, though.  Everyone has an off shift or a bad period.  When AA or Mantha have one, Blashill benches them.  When Nyquist or Tatar, or Sheahan, or someone else has one, he ignores it.  He praises zero goal Sheahan for doing "good things" and gives him PP time, and the most AA gets is a back handed compliment peppered with criticism.  Larkin's best asset is his speed, Blashill wants him to sacrifice that in order to get bigger and become something he's not.  And it's not working.  At all.  Who has met or exceeded expectations this year?  Zetterberg, Vanek, Nielsen, Howard and Green. Five guys who have been around long enough where Blashill more or less leaves them alone. Everyone else is playing below their ability.  

This, so much...

[kickazz 5,459]

58 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You really think anyone is claiming to be a better coach or GM than Blashill or Holland? I'm certainly not. That doesn't mean we can't see flaws in the way they operate. What's your point about making Zetterberg and now Kadri better centers? Who are arguing with here? That's exactly what I was saying in my previous post... You listed nine changes that previous coaches made, and my only point was that, just because they changed the way nine different players played, doesn't mean it was better for the player or team. In my opinion, a lot of those changes were dumb. Blashill is making a lot of dumb decision too. This organization (GM / coach) need to put fosus on developing the kids, that means giving them a little more rope, let them make their mistakes and learn from it. There are better ways to get your point across then healthy scratching one of your best players back to back games...

This, so much...

Lol. I can't believe I have to repeat myself for the 9 millionth time. This time I'm just going to be blunt as hell and use classical deductive reasoning to make things simple. 

 

Dickiedunn quote:

" A good coach takes what his players do well and makes use of it. A bad coach has a rigid idea of what they need to do and expects them to conform, and it usually doesn't work."

Yet Bowman did not "take what his players do well and make use of it", he happened to change the entire style of players such as Steve Yzerman. Scotty Bowman had a rigid idea of expecting Steve Yzerman to conform to defensive hockey.  

By deductive reasoning either Scotty Bowman is not a good coach, OR Dickiedunn's quote is incorrect. 
 

The problem is as soon as I started pointing this fallacy people started back tracking and saying "the problem isn't improving on weakness, the problem is he wants Larkin to be a powerforward" < --- when the  hell did Blashill say that btw? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Or making excuses for Bowman because "he won". Hell no the principal is still the same. Blashill can expect AA to be defensive and be a 200 foot player as he pleases. Bowman did it, Babcock did it and Blashill is allowed to as well. Doesn't make him a bad coach. Didn't make his predecessors bad coaches either, in fact his predecessors we're considered greatest of all times. 

What makes Blashill bad are issues of inconsistency and not scratching players who should be scratched and issues with fixing his special teams etc (PP). Not changing players style of playing, that's done plenty of times in hockey. 

Well what do you know I did paragraphs anyways. O well. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Bowman didn't tell Yzerman to be a checking line center. He told him to be defensively responsible. Everytime AA makes a coverage error he gets benched. Jurco talked about how in Chicago players are told to make plays and in Detroit they're told to play safe. Hell, just watch a Wings game and you can see them pass up chances in order to make the simple play.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[krsmith17 7,191]

What does that have to do with anything I've said / am saying though? My point is that Bowman and Babcock have made their fair share of bone headed decisions in regards to player usage. They won despite some of those, not because of it. Blashill makes similar bone headed decisions and he shouldn't be called out by us fans for it? Because we're armchair coaches / GM's? Some fans do go overboard for sure, but Blashill does deserve a fair amount of blame for the state of this team...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

This is the most frustrating thread to read lol Dickie jus stahp