Do the Flyers make the Playoffs in 2017-18?

[Curufinwe]

If getting a team with a suspect defense in to the playoffs as a low seed and getting beat in 6 games by the Capitals is an achievement, then it's one Hakstol shares Babcock.

7 different teams have won the cup since 2005 lockout including 8 different coaches. Babcock is one of them

So is Bylsma, and he's available. If winning a cup recently was that important, you should be begging Hextall to hire him.

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Indeed, Lidstrom was another huge element of Babcock's career success. Just look at the team he took over in 2005: Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Yzerman, Holmstrom, Lang, Schneider, etc. Then they picked up Hasek. I could have coached that team to the Cup finals.

You are forgetting most important name though, Dan Cleary. One way or another Babcock had most talented team of a post lockout decade and he managed to win the cup so good on him.

However these last couple of years really made me appreciate Bylsma's true talents. What a coach.

 

[Guy Gadowsky]

50/50 imo

Depends if we get St. Louis Brian Elliot or non-St. Louis Brian Elliot

 

[Striiker]

Hahahahaha crediting Babcock with the Leafs making it to the playoffs??????

Their division was horrible and look at the young guys who joined their roster last year. Was Babcock puppeteering Matthews from the rafters? Was he the one who scored 40 goals?

This is the typical mindless hockey ******** I expect from the media, please don't bring it on this board too.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Babcock is a good coach even if overhyped but the real difference there was adding Matthews, Marner, Andersen, & a full year of Nylander to the mix.

 

[x DeCruze]

Babcock is a good coach even if overhyped but the real difference there was adding Matthews, Marner, Andersen, & a full year of Nylander to the mix.

I think we are discrediting coaching a little too much. It can play a big factor. Just look at how the penguins changed from Johnston to Sullivan. Babcock is a great motivator, and has good influence on players to play a certain way systematically that works. I feel like coaching can also influence the development of a young player positively or negatively. Babcock is one of those coaches that is able to get the best out of all his players.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I think we are discrediting coaching a little too much. It can play a big factor. Just look at how the penguins changed from Johnston to Sullivan. Babcock is a great motivator, and has good influence on players to play a certain way systematically that works. I feel like coaching can also influence the development of a young player positively or negatively. Babcock is one of those coaches that is able to get the best out of all his players.

Not really just saying the talent on the ice makes more of a difference than coaching. Even with Sullivan who I think is a good coach too the overall talent level of that team changed. They added Kessel as another high end player while adding more key depth players in Bonino, Hagelin, Cullen, etc.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Babcock is a good coach, but what has he really done lately to cement being "great?"

It's not like he made winning much easier for Detroit towards the end. The Cleary obsession was blinding and detrimental. Certainly he is an upgrade to whatever it is Toronto had been doing, though.

 

[x DeCruze]

Not really just saying the talent on the ice makes more of a difference than coaching. Even with Sullivan who I think is a good coach too the overall talent level of that team changed. They added Kessel as another high end player while adding more key depth players in Bonino, Hagelin, Cullen, etc.

They did add more depth players in Bonino and Cullen. But under Johnston they had Kessel as well and Perron who was later swapped for Hagelin. With the addition of Kessel, they were still struggling and near the bottom. Everything all turned around, the moment Johnston was fired. Talent plays a major part too but coaching goes hand in hand with that talent as a guidance. Look at Edmonton with all those talented firsts but had Krueger who started Yakupov's career good but ultimately was fired and then ended up with a terrible coach in Dallas Eakins. It's great to have talent, but with good coaching I agree with what someone said earlier in that it can lessen the learning curve along with being able to get the best out of everyone on the roster. Hak and Berube both have struggled to get the best of our players.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Yakupov lacks hockey sense that's his biggest issue. There's been plenty of guys to come in with good toolsets but bad hockey sense show good returns early on only to falter as time goes on. It was a shortened lockout season too which we saw a lot of statiscal oddities with other players &/or teams as well.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What I find impressive about Sullivan is the way he coaches around team weaknesses (like injury) while catering to his roster's strengths.

And he is very good at attacking opposing team's weaknesses, especially in the playoffs. Last year and this year they played each team exactly as they needed to. There was no "we have our rigid system and we will rigidly bash it against your system and see who prevails" stuff. They've been very flexible under him.

 

[Striiker]

What I find impressive about Sullivan is the way he coaches around team weaknesses (like injury) while catering to his roster's strengths.

And he is very good at attacking opposing team's weaknesses, especially in the playoffs. Last year and this year they played each team exactly as they needed to. There was no "we have our rigid system and we will rigidly bash it against your system and see who prevails" stuff. They've been very flexible under him.

See, if this is someone's argument, then great. You point out specific things that he does that impress you and make you believe he's a good coach. No issue with that at all.

It's when people just point to the fact that a player or coach has won a cup that's a joke. As if it's an individual accomplishment that's completely thanks to the person in question.

 

[Tripod]

What I find impressive about Sullivan is the way he coaches around team weaknesses (like injury) while catering to his roster's strengths.

And he is very good at attacking opposing team's weaknesses, especially in the playoffs. Last year and this year they played each team exactly as they needed to. There was no "we have our rigid system and we will rigidly bash it against your system and see who prevails" stuff. They've been very flexible under him.

Agreed.

I hate when coaches say "we will just play our game". Well what happens if that doesn't work? You need to be able to adapt to situations, matchups etc...

Sort of like how we were "built" to beat Pittsburgh, but could do nothing against the Rangers or Devils.

 

[Domino666]

See, if this is someone's argument, then great. You point out specific things that he does that impress you and make you believe he's a good coach. No issue with that at all.

It's when people just point to the fact that a player or coach has won a cup that's a joke. As if it's an individual accomplishment that's completely thanks to the person in question.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, just because you've won a cup doesn't determine if you are a good player/coach, it's a stigma in all sports, I always say well Trent Dilfer has a Superbowl ring, guys not a good QB but has a ring, winning a championship doesn't automatically make you good