Babcock

[Claypool]

Do people actually think Babcock guarantees any championships? Doesn't matter who the coach is if you don't have the players to win a cup.

I've seen posts on here that suggest Mike Babcock is the best free agent coach in the history of the league. It's getting kind of ridiculous.

 

[The Zermanator]

Do people actually think Babcock guarantees any championships? Doesn't matter who the coach is if you don't have the players to win a cup.

I think it's basically that the better your coach is, the less good your team has to be to win a Cup.

I'm not going to get into where Babcock fits in the all-time coach rankings, but he's a damn good coach. He stepped into an advantageous situation in Detroit regarding roster quality his first 5 or so seasons but his last few years have been more impressive in my opinion. He's had to deal with a serious skill drain, injuries (sometimes long term to 13 and 40), and a ton of rookies. And he's managed to preserve the postseason streak through it all.

GMs have to be thinking to themselves, if Vancouver had Babcock as a coach against Boston do they win it? Rangers/Devils against Kings? etc.

 

[dtones520]

I think it's basically that the better your coach is, the less good your team has to be to win a Cup.

I'm not going to get into where Babcock fits in the all-time coach rankings, but he's a damn good coach. He stepped into an advantageous situation in Detroit regarding roster quality his first 5 or so seasons but his last few years have been more impressive in my opinion. He's had to deal with a serious skill drain, injuries (sometimes long term to 13 and 40), and a ton of rookies. And he's managed to preserve the postseason streak through it all.

GMs have to be thinking to themselves, if Vancouver had Babcock as a coach against Boston do they win it? Rangers/Devils against Kings? etc.

This is exactly right. A good coach can be the difference between a first round exit and a third or taking a team over the hump into a champion who is really close or taking a borderline playoff team into a playoff team. Mike Babcock isn't going to turn Buffalo, Edmonton, Toronto, etc into a cup winner next year, but he will make them better and he will help their young talent grow. and I think Babcock is smart enough to realize that, so when he is being courted by these teams they are going to need to lay out a legit plan for him as to where they expect to be in 3-5 years and what they are doing to get there.

That thought process, IMO, is exactly what has him questioning staying in Detroit, because 3-5 years from now in Detroit is questionable with losing Datsyuk and Zetterberg and there has yet to be a couple standout prospects in the system to replace them. Dylan Larkin may be the guy, but that is yet to be seen at a professional level. Because everything else that he seemingly wants is there in Detroit, good owners, a good relationship with management, a culture of winning, an owner willing to spend, his family enjoys it there, etc.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Interesting. Just thinking logically, it would make sense that they've at least extended interest, but who knows I guess.

I'd imagine they have as well but I can't say for certain. We're literally in the dark right now in regards to our coaching search.

 

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

Do people actually think Babcock guarantees any championships? Doesn't matter who the coach is if you don't have the players to win a cup.

I think for the bottom feeder teams - Buffalo, Toronto, Edmonton - it's more about just making the playoffs. If Babcock were to get the Leafs to the playoffs and have 3 home games, that would probably almost cover his entire salary for the year.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I think it's basically that the better your coach is, the less good your team has to be to win a Cup.

I'm not going to get into where Babcock fits in the all-time coach rankings, but he's a damn good coach. He stepped into an advantageous situation in Detroit regarding roster quality his first 5 or so seasons but his last few years have been more impressive in my opinion. He's had to deal with a serious skill drain, injuries (sometimes long term to 13 and 40), and a ton of rookies. And he's managed to preserve the postseason streak through it all.

GMs have to be thinking to themselves, if Vancouver had Babcock as a coach against Boston do they win it? Rangers/Devils against Kings? etc.

This is exactly right. A good coach can be the difference between a first round exit and a third or taking a team over the hump into a champion who is really close or taking a borderline playoff team into a playoff team. Mike Babcock isn't going to turn Buffalo, Edmonton, Toronto, etc into a cup winner next year, but he will make them better and he will help their young talent grow. and I think Babcock is smart enough to realize that, so when he is being courted by these teams they are going to need to lay out a legit plan for him as to where they expect to be in 3-5 years and what they are doing to get there.

That thought process, IMO, is exactly what has him questioning staying in Detroit, because 3-5 years from now in Detroit is questionable with losing Datsyuk and Zetterberg and there has yet to be a couple standout prospects in the system to replace them. Dylan Larkin may be the guy, but that is yet to be seen at a professional level. Because everything else that he seemingly wants is there in Detroit, good owners, a good relationship with management, a culture of winning, an owner willing to spend, his family enjoys it there, etc.

Just curious how does this fit in terms of narrative with a guy that has blown two 3-2 series leads and a 3-1 series lead over the last 6 years? Is 2-4 in his last 6 game 7's. Only coach to lose two game 7's in Stanley Cup Finals history if I remember right. Had his doors blown off from a coaching standpoint by McLellan twice and Trotz once during that time period.

I mean Babcock is a good coach, but if he was the difference maker some are talking about here lately his resume would look even better.

He had home ice for some of those, he had even outcoached his opposition in some of those series and found a way to come up short and lose the adjustments later in series. He had better players in some of those series and in others he was at a disadvantage. Blame the players all you like, Babs hasn't exactly been living up to the hype he has attached to him in terms of yeah he would push that over the finish line. In fact quite the opposite, lately he has had a problem with stumbling at the finish line.

Two years ago or last year depending on how you want to phrase it with teams still playing was really the only time I thought he went well beyond expectations delivering a team that probably should have missed the post-season to the playoffs for a short stint and huge drubbing. But it was still impressive that he delivered them there, even if he made no adjustments whatsoever during their brief playoff stint. But honestly has he really overachieved big time outside of that season? When he had the best team in hockey in my opinion for three years he delivered one cup, the President's Trophy winner clicks at about a 33% rate so that should be similar to the expectation. When he had that chance to maybe overachieve in a lot of peoples eyes against Tampa this year or the Hawks a little bit ago he along with the team gagged the series away. He is not a bad coach by any means. He is one of the very best. However, that does not mean he is superman, in fact his history with the Wings is he delivers right around expectations by in large, simple as that really.

We will see what happens, but there are scenarios where he is more than likely a poor fit even being a terrific coach. It really isn't as simple as if Babcock comes on board you're a championship contender, the guy doesn't walk on water....

 

[spiny norman]

Over 1000 posts.

Please continue the discussion in the Part II thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1895945