but according to your Babcock can't do wrong logic
I said that he shares the blame in the very post you quoted. If you don't even bother reading, why are you on a forum?
And maybe if Babcock had the logic to ice his BEST lineup at all times
He does. In his opinion.
Also hilarious you get mad at people using hyperbole, but you do the same.
I'm not mad. I haven't said anything about hyperbole. And it's very arguable that I didn't use it myself either.
Calling the lineup "dreadful" is a vast overstatement, the game was tied 1-1 halfway through the first game, we were dominating the 1st game and even almost tied it up despite Komarov's awful penalty.
We were not dominating. We had maybe the upper hand in a tie game at one point in the first half of the game, and then fell apart completely in the second.
At no point in that game did we have a lead in zone time, or an edge in scoring chances.
guys that are objectively awful like Komarov being given free reign to be awful without consequence.
You mean like getting placed on the fourth line? Babs was too slow to react though, that I can agree with.
Please don't tell me you are not getting the argument, you do realize that you can succeed IN SPITE of what you do right? You also realize that regular season/=playoffs where 50% of the league is really bad? The PP is awful and maybe if Babcock had the common sense to double shift
I find it hilarious that you call the PP that had up to that point been the by far best in the league awful, and then talk about common sense. And no, I didn't attribute the success to Komarov. I said that you are not an idiot because you are not changing a unit that has been extremely successful.
Maybe you should learn what it means, although it's obvious you can't argue with what I'm saying so you're doing gotcha arguments "HURR DURR, YOU DIDN'T USE THE WORD ELEMENTARY IN THE WAY I WANTED IT USED, I'M GONNA PRETEND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID."
What on earth? Elementary means that the absolute basics. That's the definition. It's not about how I want to use it, that's what it means. You can't just take words and change their meaning.
And yeah, I get what you were saying. You were talking about subjective evaluations that you don't agree with in a way that makes it seem like there's an objective truth that Babcock was ignoring. I do share your disagreement with his choices though.
Where have I exonerated the team? Again hyperbolic nonsense claims, the team has been bad and Babcock has put them in an awful position to succeed.
You quoted a post I made where I said that not everything should be put on one guy to argue against me, saying that I was ignoring all these horrible things that Babcock has done. If you agree that everybody shares blame to some degree, why did you argue against me saying exactly that?
Here are your arguments:
Ignorance of Babcock's awful moves (demoting Hyman, promoting Komarov, playing Komarov at all, not pushing Kap or Andre up top, not double shifting our best players)
Completely misusing data citing SEASON statistics as if they should 100% translate in the playoffs
Not understanding basic logic in that you can succeed DESPITE what you do sometimes and not because of it (i.e our PP and Komarov)
Word games which is hilarious that you're trying to give native English speakers English lessons when you know exactly what I meant
Strawmanning of me excusing the team when I merely PRIORITIZE blame, i.e I'm not going to say "hurr durr, it's all the same, all mistakes are the same, bla bla egalitarian approach" no there are less and more severe mistakes and I can actually trace back to Babcock's mistakes DIRECTLY costing us
Those doesn't sound like my arguments. I'm quite sure that none of my arguments were that I don't understand basic logic.
I have also not ignored anything. I'm just separating what Babcock has done wrong with the performance of our players. Everybody is responsible for their own performance.
I don't really care if you are a native speaker. You used it wrong. It's not a big deal. Accept it and move on.
As for prioritizing blame, you force a narrative that assigns him an unreasonable portion of the blame, in my opinion.
which underscores and abdicates a STANLEY CUP/GOLD MEDAL WINNING coaches responsibility
I have not done this at all. My point from the start has been that he's not the only one to blame. That people feel the need to jump down my throat because they can't separate that stance from one where he is not to blame at all is not my fault.