I don't even know what to say about your Stone comment, Stone is clearly an elite player and that is evidenced by his actual production this season. You can claim he isn't elite or top tier but that is not really founded in evidence.
As for Boucher. Given the fact that you are a Boucher supporter what merits do you see in him as a coach? Why is he a good or worthwhile coach in your perspective?
What I got from your last message was that when teams are successful it is directly due to Boucher and that when the team performs poorly it has nothing to do with Boucher. Basically Boucher deserves praise for success because the team couldn't do it without him and that when the team fails it is not his fault at all and others or circumstances are to blame. This is a pretty idealistic way of looking at anything let alone a coach. Do you not think Boucher has faults, flaws and limitations? Is Boucher not capable of making mistakes or of making poor choices?
As for, Tampa Bay couldn't it be argued that Boucher had little do with the success in his first season? That they simply had a high quality roster that nearly any coach could have made succesful. Then in year 2 when the team performed poorly with the injuries the team simply wasn't as good in year 2. If you give justification for poor performance in his second season in Tampa why did he perform poorly in year 3 when he got fired? Was he free from fault there?
Last season were the Sens succesful because of Boucher or because of the roster? This season we didn't have any of the injuries that you mentioned Tampa faced so why the same result? Was it really everyone else's fault that the team performed poorly? Did Boucher play no role in the poor performance? Is Boucher just some perfect coach who never makes mistakes and just has the bad luck of running into injuries to his roster, GM's that don't build competitive enough teams and players that just randomly start performing poorly? Is it never Boucher's fault? Can he do no wrong?
It's pointless to keep going back and forth. We are never going to convince each other to change our viewpoints. You are anti Boucher and I am pro Boucher. That will not change.
I explained what happened in Tampa. Losing Hedman/Lecavalier/Malone to injury for extended periods is comparable to this team losing Karlsson/Duchene/Pageau for an extended period. How badly would that set us back?
The loss of Mattias Ohlund is similar to us losing Methot. He was their rock and top shutdown D-man. Losing Bergenheim is comparable to losing MacArthur - great two way role player.
But the main issue was the goaltending was abhorrent in the two seasons following their ECF run. Dwayne Roloson cratered and was forced into retirement. His save percentage went from .914 to .886. The following season, Yzerman brought in Anders Lindback, Pekka Rinne's overhyped backup, via trade to "address" the goaltending. He was pretty much just as bad as Roloson. Clearly not a starting goaltender in the NHL. Similar to the drop off from Anderson this year and the fact that Condon doesn't belong in the NHL. It is impossible to overcome that poor of a level of goaltending, especially when your team is predicated on a defensive style.
I have never stated Boucher is infallible. It is my opinion that personnel has played more of a role in his demise than his "system" or "style." His system, style, and coaching have proven on two separate occasions that it can produce success and take you deep in the playoffs. We were an underdog in every playoff series we played in last year according to Las Vegas. That wasn't because of the coach. That was because of the roster and the advanced metrics they use showing that this team was most likely playing above its talent level. What is typically the cause of a team with middling talent overachieving and playing above its talent level? Good coaching.
As it pertains to Sutter, yes his teams are typically more physical than Boucher's. But is that what we should want? With the league trending towards more speed and skill every year, we should want a coach that is going to preach playing heavy and physical like the Kings and Ducks, who were both just swept by teams with more speed and skill in the first round?
Despite their two Cups, Kings fans were at their wits end with Sutter. They felt he was too old school, too loyal to veterans, too focused on sitting back and playing defense. They were screaming for the offense to be opened up more and to let their skill players create more offense. Sounds like a lot of the complaints from Ottawa fans about Boucher.
Give Boucher that LA Kings roster from their Stanley Cup runs through this year, and I'm confident Boucher has a similar level of success as Sutter. Those rosters were stacked. Kopitar, Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, and Jarrett Stoll down the middle. Great two way wingers like Dustin Brown and Justin Williams. A skilled veteran winger like Gaborik mixed in with some young blossoming wingers like Toffoli and Pearson. A game changing offensive defenseman like Drew Doughty who also commits to defending at a high level. Mobile puck moving defenseman like Martinez and Voynov. Stay at home shutdown studs like Scuderi and Willie Mitchell. And of course one of the best goalies on the planet and maybe the best big game goalie in the league in Jonathan Quick.
Those Kings rosters are stacked compared to what Ottawa has been the last two years. Much better goaltending. A vastly better and deeper D corps. Much more depth/skill down the middle. Good depth on the wings and great role players in the bottom six.
