I am not sure I would have renewed his contract personally, but it is what it is, and we're probably stuck with it for a while. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. Are there better options available right now? Maybe, but not many if so. Is he an absolute train wreck that is dooming this franchise? No, and that's what what I'm trying to push back against.
My main argument for Tippett is that he's a known entity. Most of what makes a player a star in this league is on the player himself. There's little a coach can do to get him there. But it's very easy to ruin a player, and that comes more from personal mistreatment than from inconsistent usage. Players love Dave Tippett, and that is a good environment in which to develop players. We all know how the Turris episode went down, but as others have discussed, those wheels were in motion long before Tippett came aboard.
As I've said before, I could not care less about record this season. The focus should be on player development. That's extremely hard to assess over less than half a season, and it's asinine to judge it based on granular details game to game, especially when there are so many players vying for protected usage. Last year, we saw Domi, Duclair, Martinook, Murphy and Stone all raise their games to another level. This year, DeAngelo and Chychrun were bright spots out of the gate, Crouse is improving every night (a trajectory that has me eating crow), and Perlini has looked far better than I expected him to. Dvorak has had some ups and downs, but I was never as high on him as most folks seem to be, and he's coming along nonetheless.
Strome looked overmatched in nearly every appearance, but that appears to have been almost entirely physical, and he's now back in Erie working on his strength and skating. I said a few times this summer that they should have done that from the start, but I can respect that they gave him a shot anyway.
Basically, what I'm saying is: we're privy to so very little of the development process (most of which happens outside of game situations, let alone on the ice at all) that we can only really assess the results, and the results are not problematic. That some of these young guys have had struggles is to be expected, and there will be more to come.
The Eriksson example that everybody brings up is actually pretty illustrative. I have my doubts about how it actually went down given we're basing this account on very little substance, but let's say it happened the way Tippett's detractors describe it, which usually goes something like: Tippett was forcing Eriksson into too defensive a role and not giving him a chance to grow as an offensive player, management twisted his arm and told him to change up his usage, and then Eriksson finally unleashed his offensive ability. (Nevermind that his shooting percentage that year was 50% higher than his career average and almost 4 points higher than any other season in his career, or that it's not remotely uncommon for players to start hitting their offensive peak around age 23, his age at the start of that season.) Tippett saw things one way, management told him to change, and then he did. Isn't that what everyone keeps saying he's incapable of?
If the essence of all the different Tippett criticisms can be rolled into one point, it's that he's too rigid and stuck in his old ways. From what I can see, he's a very adaptive coach and approaches the game differently from how he did when he joined the organization. He certainly has flaws, but how can I take his critics seriously when they're more stuck in the past than he is?
Sloppy reading on my part. Sorry about that.
