I don't like Tatar and Nyquist on the same line together. They're too similar, in both their strengths and weaknesses. PLUS, it's a total waste of Sheahan's size to put him with two small, fast wingers.
Also, I'd call up AA if we clench before the last game of the season. Because Andersson as a third line center all but ensures that line isn't scoring at 5 on 5. Ever.
Missed the game last night, but looks like putting Dats and Z back together worked fairly well. Also glad to see Weiss get another point. Now if we can get Abby and Cole back, and get those top lines shaken out, there's a chance we might be sitting in a reasonably good position in a week or two.
The "only one Cup" argument is pretty hilarious. Only one?? What a loser! Then there's the small detail of getting two different teams to game 7 of the Cup finals.
If someone were to rate Quenneville's 11-year career in 2008, they likely wouldn't consider him among the best in the league. So did he suddenly become a great coach in 2009? Same goes for Sutter.
It takes the right coach coming to the right team at the right time. Babcock is absolutely among the best in the league. Sutter, Quenneville, Trotz, maybe Tippet also belong in that conversation. You could probably make a case for Alain Vigneault since he got his team to the finals twice, though I can't stand him. I liked Bylsma but then that team became such a defensive trainwreck I wondered what was going on there.
There's really no way to compare which coach is absolutely better given all the variables involved. I can understand thinking it's time for Babs to move on because sometimes you need fresh blood. But thinking he's a bad coach is just silly.
I don't think anybody EVER said Babcock was a bad coach. It's just a straw man argument that guys like you use to defend him whenever he's criticized. Because if we don't think he's the best coach in hockey, then we must automatically think he's bad. Of course.
Look frankgrimes and Dominator2005, Dominator2005 said:
When you wrote that Babs is best coach period, I take that to mean that he is the best coach in the league by a country mile, without a close 2nd. All I'm saying is that maybe he's not. 2 coaches got 2 Stanley Cups in the last 5 years. I said he was a good coach, no doubt but I don't think he is the "best coach period",
You can't use the argument that Sutter got x, y, z and Quennvile got a, b, c therefore, they are not in the discussion of best coach category. I presented to you Bylsma who had the best and got fired. So it's very possible to have a good roster and still flop. So what if I said, Babs won 2 gold medals because he got a roster of the best players in the world so therefore we should discount those 2 achievements in his resume. If you eliminate those 2 gold medals, then Babs hasn't won anything for a long long time ... your logic doesn't make sense. Think about it. Facts don't lie.
Again, let me just say again, Babs is a good coach. He is not the "best coach, period". This statement is what I'm debating.
Dude, you're wasting your time. The only acceptable position to have on the matter is that "Babcock is the best coach eva!" because everybody else coaches superstar teams, and he coaches losers. You have to forget that he only has one Cup, and that the team that won it was full of superstars.