I believe I wrote "a number of times". Probably 20 or so during 97 and 98. These visits in no way make me qualified to coach the team or any team. I would never even imply such a ridiculous notion.
Blashill wouldn't be the first coach to lose a team so I don't get why you don't see the possibility. These guys have been here many years. You don't gain their admiration by coming in a and changing everything they love about the place they work along with everything that has brought them great success. It is why players demand trades and coaches get fired. You just haven't seen it here because we have had great coaches.
Losing breeds contempt. If his decisions work out he can have a long and great career here. If they don't he will be gone in 2 seasons because the players won't believe in him.
And? Yeah, there is a possibility that Blashill doesn't work out. There is also a possibility that a meteor will strike me on my way to work in the morning.
You're not giving him a chance. You are definitively saying "Blashill WILL lose the room", not that there is a chance, but that it is certain to happen.
Also... Everyone and their mother has been clamoring for Ericsson off Kronwall's pairing and Blashill does it and all of a sudden, he's a bad guy? Guys like Kronwall and Z are total professionals who know the end is closer than the beginning. They're not going to get pouty about Ericsson being moved down the lineup when his play dictates he ought to be moved down the lineup.
I don't care how many times you've been "in the room", you haven't been in it now. You have no idea what is going on "in the room" with Blashill and his guys.
The be-all, end-all is that no matter how many "oh, if it works out, he could be here a long time caveats" you put, every single argument you're posting immediately deems that as something that cannot happen. That he is destined to lose the room because they're 3-3 and are having trouble getting shots on net. Everything is tinted with the "Blashill sucks and shouldn't be an NHL coach" brush.