First off Duckie, I think you have to be really cautious about how much of last season's late success might have been due to Bob. The whole team got a shot of adrenaline when RC was dismissed - the "chains were off" so to speak, and they could play. Yes, the move to a zone defense was a thing and other coaching decisions also helped I'm sure. But I think there were two major factors at work that weren't directly Murray: 1) the whole team could relish in the role of "spoiler," and they took to it with gusto; 2) they kids were brought up and allowed to play with virtually no downside for their mistakes - you could see how free and easy they were on the ice. Contrast that with this season, when Jones, Steel and Terry ALL looked tentative and indecisive, even though they were playing for a coach they knew and LIKED. The difference was there was real downside for them this year. They're getting it figured out, and anyone who looks at them honestly and doesn't just count points can see it.
Leadership is a big catch-all term that encompasses a whole lotta stuff. There's a really good (I think) article in the Athletic by Stephens about Backes, that talks a lot about leadership, and has some good quotes in it from Adam Henrique. Rico talks about how as a young player he came onto a veteran team in NJ, and then came to a veteran team here; he talked about how much he learned from watching those guys in practice, how they trained, how they prepared, how they handled themselves off the ice. This is the type of influence that Murray (and I) are hoping that Backes can have on the kids. Stephens wondered aloud in that piece if there were too many people who'd become complacent after we'd lost the "hate to lose" guys like Kesler, Cogs and Perry. I and others have openly wondered about whether Rakell is just mailing it in now; but I've noticed other players, including Kase, who seem to want to do it all themselves. That's not teamwork, and it doesn't lead to wins.
You realize when Bob took over it was a struggle, which included a 5 game losing streak. There wasn't a shot of adrenaline. Which also prompted trading away Monty after only playing 6 games under Bob.
Your opinion is your opinion, but your opinion doesn't match with the facts. Case in point, you said it was a shot of adrenaline. Wrong, it took some time to train playing zone and having the team play 200ft, or try to.
The Ducks were 3-6 in Bob's first 9 games as head coach. In the final 17 games, the Ducks went 11-5-1.
Terry has been with the team before Bob took over. Terry was 0.50 ppg under Bob. Jones was also playing before Bob took over. Jones was 0.19 ppg under Bob. Steel only played 9 games under Bob. Steel was 0.89 ppg under Bob for that short span. Your narrative that the kids were playing easy is false and was the driving force appears to be false.
Also note, Kase didn't play one game under Bob.
It's shameful to disregard the huge impact of switching game play philosophy, which took some time to get the kinks out.
Coaching Stats 2018-19
RC Stats: GF/G = 2.21 (31st), GA/G = 3.20 (22nd)
Bob Stats: GF/G = 2.77 (21st), GA/G = 2.65 (5th)
As you can tell by the facts, it was the defensive play that boosted the Ducks play and the forwards also playing defensively. Everyone bought in, for the most part.
We've struggled all season with some highs, but more lows. It's essentially the same team we ended with in 2018-19 going forward into 2019-20. Since Bob actually did coach and seen the players up close as well as seen the turn around, he can easily identify what is going on.
We rag on Rakell often. We cringe every time Getz throws a blind pass. Lindholm has been sloppy of late. The only veteran core player that's been consistent is Silf. Bob now knows that his veteran core players were a problem under RC and have become a problem again under Eakins. They're paid well and are supposed to be leaders of this club, but they're not executing it well enough.
Backes doesn't need to be here for his leadership, but the fact he's citing this is a shot at our leadership core. With the infusion of four new forwards for the past two games (one of them being Sherwood), they're not tainted under bad leadership. In fact, a couple of articles are stating the new guys and Sherwood have injected life back into the veterans. That's now how it's supposed to be!
But hey, you can stick to your narrative history and I'll stick to the facts, which supports what actually happened.
