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.
So last year when Zetterberg put the team on his severely injured back and willed them into the playoffs, that was proving his lack of leadership and skill?
Good story. Too bad it isn't even remotely true. Zetterberg didn't "put this team on his back and will them into the playoffs last year. He didn't play a single game between February 8th and our first round playoff series on April 24th.
Nyquist put the team on his back a year ago, scoring 13 goals and 8 assists in March and April. Not Zetterberg, who only played 45 games last year, none of which were in the second half of the season when we were fighting to make the playoffs.
Nevertheless, I agree with your larger point. Which is that there's nothing wrong with the team leadership.
I had this sentence half-written, but then I considered Zidlicky. Sure, he's dropped off now. His production wasn't sustainable, but I thought he looked fantastic off the bat.
If anything, I find it weird how well he fit in right off the bat - he looked "on" right away. I think he's fallen off as time's gone on - shown his knack for bad penalties, lack of foot speed, getting too fancy in the offensive zone. I think Cole plays a simpler game that's going to translate well in the post-season. I'm optimistic that's he's got a couple "big goals" in him.
Totally agree. Zidlicky was excellent right off the bat, and that was a big plus for us. But even if he'd only been half as good I'd have considered it a successful trade. Cole has played fine so far, and will continue to do so going forward. Same with Zidlicky. They've both been excellent additions and have done EXACTLY what Ken Holland was hoping they'd do.
People bitching about Cole are the same ones who lament Stephen Weiss too. It drives me crazy.
I assume he's looked "off" because he is coming to a new team, with new teammates, and a new system, and a different coach. AND he still produced points regularly...which is what good veteran players do.
Unless a guy is coming from an absolute dumpster fire of a team (e.g. Stafford and Buffalo), they're usually not going to produce more after they leave a situation they're comfortable with for a new team. And even Cole's points per game went down after coming to Detroit. But if you expected any differently, you were probably in error to begin with.
I'm confused, is 6 points in 11 games bad? Did you guys think we were getting Max Pacioretty? We got a 40 point winger, who came to Detroit and played...ready for this...EXACTLY like a 40 point winger.
Or were you guys suggesting that Holland should have known Cole would get hurt in advance, and thus not made the trade?
Isn't it obvious what he's there for anyway? Hell, it's obvious what he's in the NHL for. The solution to "it's obvious he's dangerous from the right side" shouldn't be "so lets move him someplace else". Unless he's some kind of multi-threat offensive weapon and I've just had my eyes closed.