Lightning Rod Hyman: the pyrrhic battle continues

[BlueBaron]

One Cup man, in a league where the toughest competition exists he has one Cup. Let’s relax, here there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with what the coach does. Even redwings fans hated some of his decisions. Nobody is saying they’re a better coach than Babcock, some people didn’t like one decision no need to blow so much smoke.

Was it crazy for the “arm chair” GM’s like myself to believe that a rebuild was necessary? Surely I’m an idiot compared to Burke and Nonis right seeing as they have a mountain full of information I could only dream of....

You know Burke was hired because he sold them a mandate that said he could retool on the fly and a rebuild was not necessary, so rebuilding was not really an option for either of them? Were you smarter than the guys who owned the team? Well let's just say you were less motivated by greed.

So that comparison is pretty weak. Coaching is a bit different. If you really feel you can make a better decision than Babcock with a fraction of the information he has all I can tell you is you should get job in the NHL. Is Babcock perfect? Probably not. Still I am inclined to believe he and his staff have valid reasons for what they are doing and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

You know Burke was hired because he sold them a mandate that said he could retool on the fly and a rebuild was not necessary, so rebuilding was not really an option for either of them? Were you smarter than the guys who owned the team? Well let's just say you were less motivated by greed.

So that comparison is pretty weak. Coaching is a bit different. If you really feel you can make a better decision than Babcock with a fraction of the information he has all I can tell you is you should get job in the NHL. Is Babcock perfect? Probably not. Still I am inclined to believe he and his staff have valid reasons for what they are doing and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Uhm you just proved my point. Burke wanted to retool on the fly, I wanted to rebuild. Burke's tenure ended as a huge failure and our rebuild right now is looking wonderful. It has nothing to do with greed. If Burke knew that Toronto would plummet like it did under his tenure he wouldn't have done it/taken the job. At the end of the day, Burke was wrong, those who wanted a rebuild are looking right.

You say If I could make a better decision (singular) than Babcock I should go become an NHL coach. I'm not an NHL coach so are you saying I can't make a better singular decision than Babcock? You then say Babcock is "probably" not perfect which is laughable because 1. nobody is perfect which is something you should have been taught long ago and 2. If by some outer world power Babcock is perfect or as close to it as possible you would think he would have more than 1 Cup to show for it as there are coaches who don't reach Babcock on the perfect scale that have two and even three during the same time period.

Sure, give Babcock the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure you did that when he was throwing out defensive players for 3 on 3 overtime and losing just about every time. But hey clearly he was right to do that as me and the others who didn't agree with that decision should/would be coaching in the NHL if we were right.......

Babcock is a good coach, nobody is denying that BB, but the idea that Babcock makes the right decision's all the time is incorrect and the idea that there is no way in hell that there might be a better option than Hyman on Matthews wing is the same. Regardless, the team is winning and that's all that matters

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Uhm you just proved my point. Burke wanted to retool on the fly, I wanted to rebuild. Burke's tenure ended as a huge failure and our rebuild right now is looking wonderful. It has nothing to do with greed. If Burke knew that Toronto would plummet like it did under his tenure he wouldn't have done it/taken the job. At the end of the day, Burke was wrong, those who wanted a rebuild are looking right.

You say If I could make a better decision (singular) than Babcock I should go become an NHL coach. I'm not an NHL coach so are you saying I can't make a better singular decision than Babcock? You then say Babcock is "probably" not perfect which is laughable because 1. nobody is perfect which is something you should have been taught long ago and 2. If by some outer world power Babcock is perfect or as close to it as possible you would think he would have more than 1 Cup to show for it as there are coaches who don't reach Babcock on the perfect scale that have two and even three during the same time period.

Sure, give Babcock the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure you did that when he was throwing out defensive players for 3 on 3 overtime and losing just about every time. But hey clearly he was right to do that as me and the others who didn't agree with that decision should/would be coaching in the NHL if we were right.......

Babcock is a good coach, nobody is denying that BB, but the idea that Babcock makes the right decision's all the time is incorrect and the idea that there is no way in hell that there might be a better option than Hyman on Matthews wing is the same. Regardless, the team is winning and that's all that matters

No one says that there is no way in hell there is a better option for his position. The issue with the Hyman debate has always been posters that are so vehement about him being there that there is no way in hell they can consider Hyman might actually be the best option for the position.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Sure, give Babcock the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure you did that when he was throwing out defensive players for 3 on 3 overtime and losing just about every time. But hey clearly he was right to do that as me and the others who didn't agree with that decision should/would be coaching in the NHL if we were right.......

And I’m sure you were considering how much time the players played that game that you were resting, how many “heavy minutes” they’ve had in the last few games, the upcoming schedule and the recommendations about how much ice time to distribute from your sports science team when you argue that someone else should be on the ice for that shift.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

No one says that there is no way in hell there is a better option for his position. The issue with the Hyman debate has always been posters that are so vehement about him being there that there is no way in hell they can consider Hyman might actually be the best option for the position.

"If you really feel you can make a better decision than Babcock with a fraction of the information he has all I can tell you is you should get job in the NHL"

What does this quote tell you? It tells me if you're opinion on a situation doesn't fall in line with Babcock's you are wrong otherwise you would/should be in the NHL being a coach. What's the difference between that and "No way in hell"?

And I’m sure you were considering how much time the players played that game that you were resting, how many “heavy minutes” they’ve had in the last few games, the upcoming schedule and the recommendations about how much ice time to distribute from your sports science team when you argue that someone else should be on the ice for that shift.

Lol oh come on, stop that. You're just being silly trying to defend a position almost everyone on this board knows is incorrect. Matthews and Nylander played much fewer minutes when Babcock was throwing out Komarov to start over time. Now that Matthews and Nylander are playing MORE minutes with MORE defensive zone starts and TOUGHER matchups why are they all of a sudden starting all our 3 on 3 overtimes?

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

"If you really feel you can make a better decision than Babcock with a fraction of the information he has all I can tell you is you should get job in the NHL"

What does this quote tell you? It tells me if you're opinion on a situation doesn't fall in line with Babcock's you are wrong otherwise you would/should be in the NHL being a coach. What's the difference between that and "No way in hell"?



Lol oh come on, stop that. You're just being silly trying to defend a position almost everyone on this board knows is incorrect. Matthews and Nylander played much fewer minutes when Babcock was throwing out Komarov to start over time. Now that Matthews and Nylander are playing MORE minutes with MORE defensive zone starts and TOUGHER matchups why are they all of a sudden starting all our 3 on 3 overtimes?

If you disagree with Babcock choice but accept that you could very well be wrong, you are not thinking that you can make a better decision than the one who has the most information at their disposal. So I think you’re getting a little too defensive with that statement.

Regarding 3v3, like I said, you could be right An you could be wrong. But as you know Babcock probably took more into consideration than “offense lol”. Like I said, you could be right, but I would wager that even if you are, it’s probably not even for the reasons you think it is.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

If you disagree with Babcock choice but accept that you could very well be wrong, you are not thinking that you can make a better decision than the one who has the most information at their disposal. So I think you’re getting a little too defensive with that statement.

Regarding 3v3, like I said, you could be right An you could be wrong. But as you know Babcock probably took more into consideration than “offense lol”. Like I said, you could be right, but I would wager that even if you are, it’s probably not even for the reasons you think it is.

What? I've already stated I think Kapanen would be a better choice than Hyman on that line. I 100% think that would be a better option. Maybe it is not, but I definitely think that. Just like I thought it was 100% wrong to play defensive for 3 on 3 which I and others were 100% right about.

You can say "maybe" I'm right but let's be adults here. We both know that the answer I gave is correct. If it wasn't we would have seen Komarov start 3 on 3 recently. The Habs recently made the same mistake Babcock use to make throwing out Plekanec and some other Habs scrub and then proceeded to get destroyed by Nylander and Matthews. If Babcock doesn't start Nylander and Matthews in OT to score goals and win the game early as they are our best offensive weapons, what other reason is he's starting them for

 

[saltming]

What? I've already stated I think Kapanen would be a better choice than Hyman on that line. I 100% think that would be a better option. Maybe it is not, but I definitely think that. Just like I thought it was 100% wrong to play defensive for 3 on 3 which I and others were 100% right about.

You can say "maybe" I'm right but let's be adults here. We both know that the answer I gave is correct. If it wasn't we would have seen Komarov start 3 on 3 recently. The Habs recently made the same mistake Babcock use to make throwing out Plekanec and some other Habs scrub and then proceeded to get destroyed by Nylander and Matthews. If Babcock doesn't start Nylander and Matthews in OT to score goals and win the game early as they are our best offensive weapons, what other reason is he's starting them for

Or maybe last year Willie and Matthews were not ready to play 3on3. I vividly recall the big 3 getting 3on3 ice time at the start of the season and it was always a quick loss.
Now this season Matthews and Nylander have learned and are ready to play 3on3.
Maybe that's it

 

[Nithoniniel]

One Cup man, in a league where the toughest competition exists he has one Cup. Let’s relax, here there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with what the coach does.

Just to chime in, of course there's nothing wrong with disagreement. But a lot of posters would rather entertain the notion that Babcock has a non-hockey related commitment to Hyman and that's the only reason he's playing than consider that perhaps a world class coach might actually know what he is doing, and that his opinion should be taken into account. Not necessarily agreed with, but at least respected.

The sensible thing to do when an expert of the field disagrees with you is to take a long, hard look at what you are saying. You might still end up thinking you are right, for sure, but to dismiss someone like Babcock outright is just folly.

What? I've already stated I think Kapanen would be a better choice than Hyman on that line. I 100% think that would be a better option.

It's the player that I've been most interested to see in that spot, but I'm not sure Kapanen has the strength along the boards to do what Hyman does. And if he doesn't, it means the role alignment on the line will need to change, and you never really know what that will bring.

As of right now, it's the best line in hockey and Hyman fills a role where production should be his weak point, and he's still producing at a rate that would put him top 10 in non-PP production last year.

Just like I thought it was 100% wrong to play defensive for 3 on 3 which I and others were 100% right about.

Final note. While I didn't like seeing Komarov out there on the 3-on-3, you're only ever 100% right about something that has been proven. Some early success is not proof.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

What? I've already stated I think Kapanen would be a better choice than Hyman on that line. I 100% think that would be a better option. Maybe it is not, but I definitely think that. Just like I thought it was 100% wrong to play defensive for 3 on 3 which I and others were 100% right about.

You can say "maybe" I'm right but let's be adults here. We both know that the answer I gave is correct. If it wasn't we would have seen Komarov start 3 on 3 recently. The Habs recently made the same mistake Babcock use to make throwing out Plekanec and some other Habs scrub and then proceeded to get destroyed by Nylander and Matthews. If Babcock doesn't start Nylander and Matthews in OT to score goals and win the game early as they are our best offensive weapons, what other reason is he's starting them for

Starting Komarov against one team and one matchup after one game is not the same as starting him against another team and matchup in another game.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

Or maybe last year Willie and Matthews were not ready to play 3on3. I vividly recall the big 3 getting 3on3 ice time at the start of the season and it was always a quick loss.
Now this season Matthews and Nylander have learned and are ready to play 3on3.
Maybe that's it

Nylander and Matthews have only been scored on twice in Overtime together ever, only once ever in the first 1:30. What are "these" quick losses you speak of? Komarov and Kadri, on the other hand, had quick losses in the first minute and a half twice. Even if you factor in Marner, (who I wasn't talking about at all so for me it's a moot point), I don't even think he's been on the ice for an OT loss let alone in the first minute and a half

Just to chime in, of course there's nothing wrong with disagreement. But a lot of posters would rather entertain the notion that Babcock has a non-hockey related commitment to Hyman and that's the only reason he's playing than consider that perhaps a world class coach might actually know what he is doing, and that his opinion should be taken into account. Not necessarily agreed with, but at least respected.

The sensible thing to do when an expert of the field disagrees with you is to take a long, hard look at what you are saying. You might still end up thinking you are right, for sure, but to dismiss someone like Babcock outright is just folly.

And to accept everything Babcock does as truth as some poster do is also outright folly. I'm glad I'm in the middle where can I agree with most of the things he does, but can also disagree with a few of the other things.

It's the player that I've been most interested to see in that spot, but I'm not sure Kapanen has the strength along the boards to do what Hyman does. And if he doesn't, it means the role alignment on the line will need to change, and you never really know what that will bring.

As of right now, it's the best line in hockey and Hyman fills a role where production should be his weak point, and he's still producing at a rate that would put him top 10 in non-PP production last year.

I personally don't think they need to play this exact way to be effective. Hyman doesn't usually win puck battles. I'd say he loses more than he wins. What he does do is get there first an start to muck it up which he does excellently. I personally think Kapanen can also get to these pucks first as he's the fastest player in our organization. He might not be able to muck it up like Hyman but he brings other things to that line Hyman doesn't.

Regardless like i've said, the line is doing fine so as of now there's really no need to change things so i'm not coming at Babcock with a Pitchfork

Final note. While I didn't like seeing Komarov out there on the 3-on-3, you're only ever 100% right about something that has been proven. Some early success is not proof.

When was the last time Komarov started a 3 on 3 OT. Yeah, I can't remember either. I think that's proof enough that Babcock decided starting a shutdown unit first is a bad idea.

Starting Komarov against one team and one matchup after one game is not the same as starting him against another team and matchup in another game.

Again I'll ask, If Babcock doesn't start Nylander and Matthews in OT to score goals and win the game early as they are our best offensive weapons, what other reason is he's starting them for ?

 

[ShaneFalco]

The Borg is gonna lay out Dion
Resistance is futile

 

[Nithoniniel]

And to accept everything Babcock does as truth as some poster do is also outright folly.

Don't think I've seen anyone do that.

I'm glad I'm in the middle where can I agree with most of the things he does, but can also disagree with a few of the other things.

That wasn't the point though. Even the most obstinate poster, of the type that likes to post "My track record is great, I'm always right about things like these" and stuff like that, would be able to say what you said. That lack of humility was my point, where own opinions are set in stone while the respect for Babcock's depends on how much he happens to agree. A lot of people consider their own impressions as much more reliable than Babcock's, when it should obviously be the other way around.

Just from a personal perspective, if my impressions goes against someone like Babcock, an expert in the given field, I go back and take a long, hard look at my position. I might still end up disagreeing, like I do about Martin, but that's only after exhausting the other options.

To clarify, this wasn't about you personally.

I personally don't think they need to play this exact way to be effective. Hyman doesn't usually win puck battles. I'd say he loses more than he wins. What he does do is get there first an start to muck it up which he does excellently. I personally think Kapanen can also get to these pucks first as he's the fastest player in our organization.

Speed isn't the only thing that makes Hyman so effective at the forecheck though. But yeah, Kapanen is intriguing as an alternative.

When was the last time Komarov started a 3 on 3 OT. Yeah, I can't remember either. I think that's proof enough that Babcock decided starting a shutdown unit first is a bad idea.

No, it's not. No offense, but I have no idea why people on these boards struggle so with words like 'proof' or 'fact'.

 

[RLF]

Don't think I've seen anyone do that.


That wasn't the point though. Even the most obstinate poster, of the type that likes to post "My track record is great, I'm always right about things like these" and stuff like that, would be able to say what you said. That lack of humility was my point, where own opinions are set in stone while the respect for Babcock's depends on how much he happens to agree. A lot of people consider their own impressions as much more reliable than Babcock's, when it should obviously be the other way around.

Just from a personal perspective, if my impressions goes against someone like Babcock, an expert in the given field, I go back and take a long, hard look at my position. I might still end up disagreeing, like I do about Martin, but that's only after exhausting the other options.


Speed isn't the only thing that makes Hyman so effective at the forecheck though. But yeah, Kapanen is intriguing as an alternative.


No, it's not. No offense, but I have no idea why people on these boards struggle so with words like 'proof' or 'fact'.

1. Nope me neither
2. Yes, Great coach when he agrees with me is not the same as being in the middle
3. Smart way to look at it...instead of the other way around
4. Exactly, speed is just one component that allows him to be able to do the other things
5. Proof or fact is sometimes a difficult concept
6. Great post

 

[Gary Nylund]

Just to chime in, of course there's nothing wrong with disagreement. But a lot of posters would rather entertain the notion that Babcock has a non-hockey related commitment to Hyman and that's the only reason he's playing than consider that perhaps a world class coach might actually know what he is doing, and that his opinion should be taken into account. Not necessarily agreed with, but at least respected.

The sensible thing to do when an expert of the field disagrees with you is to take a long, hard look at what you are saying. You might still end up thinking you are right, for sure, but to dismiss someone like Babcock outright is just folly.

It's the player that I've been most interested to see in that spot, but I'm not sure Kapanen has the strength along the boards to do what Hyman does. And if he doesn't, it means the role alignment on the line will need to change, and you never really know what that will bring.

As of right now, it's the best line in hockey and Hyman fills a role where production should be his weak point, and he's still producing at a rate that would put him top 10 in non-PP production last year.

Final note. While I didn't like seeing Komarov out there on the 3-on-3, you're only ever 100% right about something that has been proven. Some early success is not proof.

This is I'm leery of the idea of breaking that line up. I think a point many ignore is that while Nylander and Matthews together leaves the other lines weaker, that's counter balanced by Hyman - Hyman on the top line makes the other lines stronger. We're not lacking for offence so I also don't see that we're desperate to "spread out the offence". I could see Nylander on his own line, eventually. I could also see this line together for many years to come. And when it comes to breaking them up - I fear the unknown. Classic case of if it ain't broke ...

 

[Rogie]

This is I'm leery of the idea of breaking that line up. I think a point many ignore is that while Nylander and Matthews together leaves the other lines weaker, that's counter balanced by Hyman - Hyman on the top line makes the other lines stronger. We're not lacking for offence so I also don't see that we're desperate to "spread out the offence". I could see Nylander on his own line, eventually. I could also see this line together for many years to come. And when it comes to breaking them up - I fear the unknown. Classic case of if it ain't broke ...

This is so important. There is a good argument for another player to make Matty/Willy better but this is still one of the best reasons - because it is about making the team better; it's not about life isn't fair for Brownie or anything else.

 

[hotpaws]

This is I'm leery of the idea of breaking that line up. I think a point many ignore is that while Nylander and Matthews together leaves the other lines weaker, that's counter balanced by Hyman - Hyman on the top line makes the other lines stronger. We're not lacking for offence so I also don't see that we're desperate to "spread out the offence". I could see Nylander on his own line, eventually. I could also see this line together for many years to come. And when it comes to breaking them up - I fear the unknown. Classic case of if it ain't broke ...

so you're saying you want Hyman kept on the top line because he's our weakest forward and you don't want him hurting the other lines ?

how about we remove the player you believe is the weakest forward and give Kap/Levio a chance on the top line? this way we improve the top line while not touching the other 3 lines

 

[Mess]

Leafs are off to a 6-1 start (among the best in the NHL) and the Matthews line is among the best lines in the NHL offensively and with Matthew +10 & Nylander +10 (tied for #1 in NHL) with Hyman 3-2- 5 points and +6 (making them a combined +26 +/-) which is he best defensive (goal differential at 5v5) in the entire NHL.

They reported last game the Matthews line has been on the ice for 1 ES goals against all season. They're the PERFECT balance of offense & defense always scoring and seldom ever getting scored against regardless of QofC of the opposition.

It astonishes me that fans think this needs fixing, when it would be messing with perfection essentially.

If I were Babcock I would be playing this trio even more more each game at the expense of other Leaf lines, because they are sooooo good at both ends of the ice. Something Babs has been doing anyways with Hyman getting > 20 minutes TOI/g last game and the 3 forwards 1-2-3 in ATOI/g among all forwards.

I love when Babs tosses them over the boards and can't wait to see what they do next.

 

[Rogie]

Leafs are off to a 6-1 start (among the best in the NHL) and the Matthews line is among the best lines in the NHL offensively and with Matthew +10 & Nylander +10 (tied for #1 in NHL) with Hyman 3-2- 5 points and +6 (making them a combined +26 +/-) which is he best defensive (goal differential at 5v5) in the entire NHL.

They reported last game the Matthews line has been on the ice for 1 ES goals against all season. They're the PERFECT balance of offense & defense always scoring and seldom ever getting scored against regardless of QofC of the opposition.

It astonishes me that fans think this needs fixing, when it would be messing with perfection essentially.

If I were Babcock I would be playing this trio even more more each game at the expense of other Leaf lines, because they are sooooo good at both ends of the ice. Something Babs has been doing anyways with Hyman getting > 20 minutes TOI/g last game and the 3 forwards 1-2-3 in ATOI/g among all forwards.

I love when Babs tosses them over the boards and can't wait to see what they do next.

I always appreciate your enthusiasm for this team Mess.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

.

Don't think I've seen anyone do that.


That wasn't the point though. Even the most obstinate poster, of the type that likes to post "My track record is great, I'm always right about things like these" and stuff like that, would be able to say what you said. That lack of humility was my point, where own opinions are set in stone while the respect for Babcock's depends on how much he happens to agree. A lot of people consider their own impressions as much more reliable than Babcock's, when it should obviously be the other way around.

Just from a personal perspective, if my impressions goes against someone like Babcock, an expert in the given field, I go back and take a long, hard look at my position. I might still end up disagreeing, like I do about Martin, but that's only after exhausting the other options.

To clarify, this wasn't about you personally.


Speed isn't the only thing that makes Hyman so effective at the forecheck though. But yeah, Kapanen is intriguing as an alternative.


No, it's not. No offense, but I have no idea why people on these boards struggle so with words like 'proof' or 'fact'.

1. A poster just said if I disagree with Babcock I should try to be an NHL coach. I don't think you'll find anyone say "Babcock is always right" Just as you won't find a poster here who will say Babcock is always wrong.

As for the "proof" thing, you're being excessively meticulous. There's no "proof" that a centre is more important than a winger, but people will always say "give me the centre over the winger". It's easy to say I don't understand what proof means in this situation, but much harder to provide another reason as to why Babcock isn't employing our defensive minded group of Kadri and Komarov to start our overtimes anymore. Sure it's not "proof" by definition, but most people can accept that is a big if not the main reason for the switch.

Give me the reason why Babcock doesn't start Kadri and Komarov 3 on 3 anymore if it's not because we want a better offensive unit to start? We can bring our reasonings to the table and see which ones make the most sense.

And while you're at it why don't you prove your statement that The Matthew's line is "the best line in hockey" as I can guarantee you I can find other metrics that would disagree with the absolute statement you just made.

 

[Gary Nylund]

so you're saying you want Hyman kept on the top line because he's our weakest forward and you don't want him hurting the other lines ?

how about we remove the player you believe is the weakest forward and give Kap/Levio a chance on the top line? this way we improve the top line while not touching the other 3 lines

Yeah that's not what I said at all. I didn't say that Hyman is our weakest forward nor did I say that's why I want him kept on the top line. Try again if you like but if you do try again, put some more effort into understanding the post you're responding to. Thank you.

Leafs are off to a 6-1 start (among the best in the NHL) and the Matthews line is among the best lines in the NHL offensively and with Matthew +10 & Nylander +10 (tied for #1 in NHL) with Hyman 3-2- 5 points and +6 (making them a combined +26 +/-) which is he best defensive (goal differential at 5v5) in the entire NHL.

They reported last game the Matthews line has been on the ice for 1 ES goals against all season. They're the PERFECT balance of offense & defense always scoring and seldom ever getting scored against regardless of QofC of the opposition.

It astonishes me that fans think this needs fixing, when it would be messing with perfection essentially.

If I were Babcock I would be playing this trio even more more each game at the expense of other Leaf lines, because they are sooooo good at both ends of the ice. Something Babs has been doing anyways with Hyman getting > 20 minutes TOI/g last game and the 3 forwards 1-2-3 in ATOI/g among all forwards.

I love when Babs tosses them over the boards and can't wait to see what they do next.

That's a good strategy when the time is right which will be about 6 months from now.

 

[Mess]

I always appreciate your enthusiasm for this team Mess.

The Hyman -- Matthews -- Nylander line always makes me think of those Mastercard priceless commercials.

 

[hotpaws]

Yeah that's not what I said at all. I didn't say that Hyman is our weakest forward nor did I say that's why I want him kept on the top line. Try again if you like but if you do try again, put some more effort into understanding the post you're responding to. Thank you.
.

That's exactly what you implied , maybe you should put a little thought into what you're posting so you don't have to try spin your mindless bull shit posts .

 

[BlueBaron]

Uhm you just proved my point. Burke wanted to retool on the fly, I wanted to rebuild. Burke's tenure ended as a huge failure and our rebuild right now is looking wonderful. It has nothing to do with greed. If Burke knew that Toronto would plummet like it did under his tenure he wouldn't have done it/taken the job. At the end of the day, Burke was wrong, those who wanted a rebuild are looking right.

You say If I could make a better decision (singular) than Babcock I should go become an NHL coach. I'm not an NHL coach so are you saying I can't make a better singular decision than Babcock? You then say Babcock is "probably" not perfect which is laughable because 1. nobody is perfect which is something you should have been taught long ago and 2. If by some outer world power Babcock is perfect or as close to it as possible you would think he would have more than 1 Cup to show for it as there are coaches who don't reach Babcock on the perfect scale that have two and even three during the same time period.

Sure, give Babcock the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure you did that when he was throwing out defensive players for 3 on 3 overtime and losing just about every time. But hey clearly he was right to do that as me and the others who didn't agree with that decision should/would be coaching in the NHL if we were right.......

Babcock is a good coach, nobody is denying that BB, but the idea that Babcock makes the right decision's all the time is incorrect and the idea that there is no way in hell that there might be a better option than Hyman on Matthews wing is the same. Regardless, the team is winning and that's all that matters

I didn't really. You are using psychic hindsight. Yes the rebuild worked out well but it was not the only approach that could have worked. If the Burke era was better at drafting and had done things differently we may have a normal team right now, we really cannot know. There were other factors too which you ignore, they really did not know how fans would handle it and worried about tv ratings etc.

Maybe you are right and our lines could be better, would our team be better? You do not know, you are guessing and assuming you are right. One thing I can tell is you over simplify things.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That's exactly what you implied , maybe you should put a little thought into what you're posting so you don't have to try spin your mindless bull **** posts .

Nope, didn't imply that all. You seem angry, I suggest you try to get over it as anger it not a good way to spend your energy. Cheers.