They were. Then they got to experience other coaches, and now their tune has changed. Chances are the same would happen here if we, for example, fired him today.
I'm not the fan that I once was though. While I still appreciate him as a person and leader, he leaves me wanting tactically. A large part of that is that Babcock is reverting more and more towards the opposite end of my preference from an ideological standpoint. And that bothers me because every tendency in that direction seem to cost us on the ice. We've played our best hockey when we play to our strengths, and we look lost when we try to reign those in so that we can cover our weaknesses.
I dislike that part of his coaching. The part that makes him neuter the offensive creativity of the third line with Lindholm and Brown so that Kadri as a two-way threat disappears, only because he doesn't quite like the risks involved with some of the better talents.
I dislike how he pursues line matching even when we should win every such battle by sheer quality depth. Disrupting rhythm just to make sure one of Matthews, Tavares, or Kadri isn't matched up wrong seem counter-intuitive to me. Those matchups should be what the opposing team worries about.
Breakouts are another thing that confounds me. The quick break is good because it allows you to create a rush game by puck movement, which can be very valuable if you have a slow team. If you have a slow team. We're fast, we're hyper skilled, we can dance through opposition. But we don't, because we take high risk stretch passes to bypass areas of strength. It's insane.
When Babcock was brought on board, he was a big proponent of the center outlet, he wanted us to make skilled plays to beat pressure. He wanted us to carry, and to use unrelenting pressure and pinching. But we're doing less and less of that for each season that goes by, which I assume is because Babs worry over the weaknesses it presents. But the shift sure seem to hurt our strengths more than it helps cover our weaknesses.
Then you have the OT usage, and the special teams distribution. Neither of which I have been a fan of. Actually, the whole personnel usage seem questionable. A lot of players get leaned on because they are consistent in what they offer, even if they don't offer very much. But guys who have tons to offer can see minutes disappear as soon as they have a shaky period. Another thing that seems counter-intuitive to me. If the game is deadlocked and you need to break it open, sending Brown out there over and over just means you get the same kind of shifts over and over. The potential for change is larger with someone who has much more to get out of their game. Give me a struggling Kapanen over Brown, because he actually has the ability to break open structure and do something in a bogged down game.
Personnel choices has grown into an area of contention for me. I value a lot of what Babcock values, I believe in the same kind of roster structure, with a vertical top six, managed ice time, and utilizing depth. However, Babcock really seem to fall into the same trap of somehow preferring a player who consistently works hard to produce mediocre results over someone who achieves good results mainly through his skill. Brown and Leivo, respectively.
Now, I'm sure people will have objections. I have taken into account how we played to begin the season. I can address that, but the post is long enough so ask for it in that case.
With all this said, I do think people are (as usual) a bit over the top with the criticism. He isn't a moron. He isn't ruining our team. Saying things like that just shows you are emotionally invested in your stance enough to turn things personal. And you can't in one post give him no credit for the Detroit teams because those were stacked, and then give him all the blame for things wrong now. Coaches can assert influence over any roster, but the roster is still the backbone.
I would also empathize what I said to begin with. A lot of this is based on ideology. I dislike how he priorities weaknesses over strengths. I find it quite hilarious that he did that even on the most stacked team in many years, the Canadian Olympics team. However, it's also not lost on me that he created an absolute juggernaut with that team. Just because I don't like how he does things doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.
I have tried to take stock of his coaching in pretty much every area I can think of, much more than just the little I wrote about above, and I don't see coaching that deserves to be called some of the best there is. He's a good coach. But it's also possible that he is the wrong coach for us.
That brings us to the final point though. What else is out there? Looking through the options, I don't see a name that we would view differently. Bruce Boudreau would be perfect for us. Quenneville would be nice to, if only for one of his greatest qualities. He likes to just step out of the way of his best players, and let them do their thing. But those guys are not available. What is available is a heap of mediocrity, with a few promising names like Keefe. However, that's far from a certain thing.
So we're stuck with Babcock for now. For good and bad.
