At what point do people stop complaining about a coach? I mean this team has won with a mediocre coach like Bob Hartley because they had a good roster, but couldn't win anything with coach Q because they simply didn't have the roster to win.
What a f***ing dumb cherry pick of a thing to say. Bob Hartley had Patrick Roy in net and a peak Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Foote, etc. Q had no goaltending and an aging roster. What the f*** are you doing comparing both of them to Bednar, those two are actual proven NHL coaches.
Why are you arguing about stupid shit like the coach is just there to guide the roster. This isn't the 80s. There are thin margins between teams. Coaching is the biggest way to overcome those margins? You think the Leafs are doing as well as they are or even make the playoffs last year without Babcock? Or the Pens suddenly win the cup after playing like shit without Sullivan? Or the Blues start playing elite hockey without Yeo? Or the Kings have a sudden bounceback despite the same roster without a coaching change?
I'm not saying that our team is good to begin with but we don't have a 48 point season if we have a decent coach and we probably do better than we are doing now without Bednar. Ironically, Bob Hartley would have been a better hire.
I can't believe how dumb some people are if they don't see the value in having the best coaching possible in the salary cap era. There's no cap on coaches, if the guy isn't doing well or looks like he's lost the team or never did well to begin with then hire a new one till you get the results.