hmmm interesting. So only people who wanted Quinn can now say they don't want Quinn? That's an interesting test of logic. So because I foresaw all the issues that have come to play with hiring an unproven NHL coach to run a rebuild, my opinion now is somehow invalid? I'm really eager to read this explanation.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that your pre-conceived notions of him are influencing your opinions today.
I'm not saying Quinn has been perfect, but 90% of this teams problems comes from the quality and inexperience of the lineup. You see a lack of structure. I see a forward group that has 2 solid defensive players among 13. 4 of those 11 who aren't solid defensively are still learning and might be solid defensively in the future. I see a group of D with 2 rookies, one young player who is lacking in the D zone, and 1 older player who we all know has had the game pass him by. People do this all the time though... mistake poor quality play for poor coaching.
What Quinn was brought here to do, in the near-term, was develop young players. Not win hockey games, as you seem to think. As has been pointed out, the majority of our young players who have gotten a lot of games in the NHL taken significant steps forward after being coached by him. Not unbrokenly, because that's not how development works, but steps forward. Kids with steps forward: Chytil, Lemieux, Georgiev, Fox, Lindgren, DeAngelo. Young players who regressed: Andersson. Young players who took two steps forward and two steps back: Buchnevich. Young players who haven't progressed or regressed: Howden, Hajek. Players who haven't had enough time or are still too young to judge: Gettinger.
If this was a W/L record, he'd be 6W-1L-4T, with plenty of time for those 4 ties to become wins (or losses).
Is he the right guy for when this team is competitive? I don't know the answer to that. It's going to take us having a competitive roster for me to start to form an opinion. For what he's supposed to be doing right now, he's doing a good job.