Discussion in 'Detroit Red Wings' started by Henkka, Nov 18, 2019.
McCarty just came out and said Babcock cost them the cup in 09.
Ooooh, a 4th line grinder who didn't play a game for the Wings in 2009 is weighing in on why they lost the Cup?
Keep moving the goalposts.
Keep grasping at any irrelevant straw that paints Babcock in a negative light. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm saying it's not the point.
At the time you know who most Wings fans blamed the 2009 loss on (if they were going to blame someone and didn't think it was because the Wings were tired and injured and beat by a good team)? Bettman. For not suspending Malkin. And for the ridiculous playoff schedule. But now that the tides have turned against him, people are going back 10 years to attribute it to Babcock, along with all the other "injustices" he perpetrated.
People are piling on because the outrage lynch mob has formed, but Babcock already got fired from Toronto for his performance. His coaching performance in terms of wins and losses is not the issue. It's his behavior in how he treated players and people in general. And all this piling on about every other thing Wings fans are still bitter about muddies that.
That's right. They were the better team, starting with the head coach.
Mike Babcock had the same roster as the year before, plus stealing Marian Hossa from the Pens, and Danny Bylsma took over the reigns from Michelle and the rest is history.
Dan Bylsma outcoached Mike Babcock in 2009.
Sorry you don't like being called out for your factual errors.
But you said Commo was the ONLY ONE to criticize his coaching. And I'm just pointing out that McCarty criticized his coaching too.
And check the Toronto boards.
And Detroit boards.
Babcock had plenty of critics.
Cmon man. I never said Commie was the ONLY ONE to criticize his coaching.
I said "to a man (minus Commie) all the players being referenced still admit Babcock was a good coach." Do you not see the distinction?
Here's part of McCarty's comments regarding Babcock:
Darren McCarty: Mike Babcock cost Detroit Red Wings the Stanley Cup in 2009
They also had a better more mature Crosby, Malkin and Letang and Fluery. They had a better 3rd line center and they were clutch when it mattered most.
Whereas Lidstrom was nearing the end and it was showing. There's no back/white reason why Penguins were the Superior team to Detroit in 2009. They won the cup and were the best team in the world that year... and they deserved it.
You're overlooking that the Wings didn't have Datsyuk for the first 4 games of the series due to a foot injury and for the last 3 he was still struggling with it. And Lidstrom had surgery on his testicle right before the Finals started, so he wasn't exactly 100% either. Rafalski had a herniated disc, Cleary and Draper groin injuries.
And to make it worse the NHL scheduled the 7 games in 10 days. The Wings were the older, more banged up team. You can't just compare rosters. The game isn't played on paper.
Obviously coaching is part of the equation, but your reasoning is grossly oversimplified.
And yet, they still had a 3-2 series lead, a seemingly demoralizing 5-1 pounding of the Pens in Game 5, and Game 7 on home ice.
all so true . and i shall keep standing on my opinion that there isnt no way now how that all of the ilitches - yzerman - shanny - team **** canada all hired a mad man ! ya babs is this crazed monster that both 19 and 14 played for and knew over a decade but still hired him to run team canada then the leafs ???????????? that thought is laughable to me because there isnt any way these two very bright individuals didnt know exactly who babs was when they gave him their ok to run a club .
I still have bad memoeris of that, how gassed they were at Game6 and Game7. It would have been totally different story to get extra 6 days rest, like STL-BOS got this year. There wasn't any need to hurry the schedule. Exept Pens favoring.
it says it right in his name Bab-cock-
'Kicking someone when they are down' is an expression best used in defense of someone who is actually down. Babcock is very wealthy, living large and is probably doing just fine with a plate of lion steaks and a bloody black rhino horn at his side.
The guy is not living in a cardboard box slowly dying of a drug habit, the guy is hardly down. He is getting lots of attention now, not because he is down, but because he chose to sign a groundbreaking multi million head coaching contract in the center of the hockey universe. Of course the focus is on him, I doubt he had any illusions about beginning or ending his tenure in Toronto with any sort of anonymity or indifference from the media or the hockey world in general.
As for McCarty's opinion,I'm more of the belief that injuries and shit schedule was just enough of a factor to lose us the cup in a very, very close series.
Same thing we keep hearing. He sort of contradicts his earlier claim from the article that Babcock cost the Wings the 2009 cup when he says this, but it's still more evidence to support the continued conversation.
there's a difference between having an impact or being able to ruin a player though. Talking about Jurco as if a few months on the 4th line completely made him forget how to play a skilled game is not reasonable. Especially when he's still able to be that guy in the AHL, all the evidence point towards the problem being with Jurco himself. Babcock just chose to use Jurco in a role he could handle instead of one he couldn't (and the evidence that he couldn't be a top 6/PP player was obvious from his many chances there that he did nothing with).
Kindl wasn't even a very good AHLer so I see no evidence that coaching had a major impact on his NHL career. Smith was also always a low-IQ player. Babcock's coaching is likely one of few reasons these two were even functional NHLers for as long as they were.
I'm getting kinda tired of players like Jurco/Smith/Kindl/XO/etc. being used as ammunition against everyone and everything in the franchise. It's the GMs fault. It's the scouts' fault. It's the development pipeline's fault. It's the coach's fault.
Sometimes players just aren't good enough. It doesn't have to be the fault of anything.
Things like that are so easy to say. "We won in spite of him"... well, you won. Now you want to retroactively remove credit from the coach? LOL.
Extremely few teams repeat as cup winners and blaming Babcock is easy. If Lidstrom was (in a crazy alternate reality) accused of being a jerk, are you gonna say he's the reason you didn't win? Or did Babcock make him miss that final shot on goal? Was Datsyuk injured because of Babcock? Did Hossa underperform because of Babcock or because of injury that made him have surgery following that season?
This whole thing is proving that old mantra: when a team is good it's because of the players, when a team is bad it's because of the coach.
Did mccarty's poor play have any effect?
Yzerman - former DRWs captain and currently GM of DRWs
Shanahan - president and alternate governor for the Toronto Maple Leafs
These three guys played for Mike Babcock. The first two are Ambassadors in the National Hockey League.
Yet first two have something in common, and the other is... well? Last I remember went bankrupt and into drugs. Might be clean now since rehab., I don't know.
Yzerman and Shanahan, both Ambassadors of the NHL, (both played more games under Babock than McCarty) went on to willingly hire Mike Babcock; Steve Yzerman 2010 and 14 Olympics and Shanahan made him the highest paid hockey coach in history.
Do we trust the bankrupt guy that may or may not be using at this time, or do we trust 2 Ambassadors of the league?
Did Yzerman and Shanahan come out and make public comments on this current Babcock situation?
If not, what is there to trust? Because they hired him?
They hired him before this all came spilling out in the media and the Leafs just FIRED him. Shanahan is president of the Leafs right? So Shanahan fired Babcock.
The Redwings are on a historic pace for this season. Our coach is putrid and Babcock is available. Our GM is Yzerman, who hired Babcock for Canada, right? Why has he not gone out and got Babcock yet? hmmmm.
I think it’s pretty ridiculous to say that Babcock cost the Wings the 09 cup. Injuries cost the Wings the cup.
Dubas is the GM and he and Shanny had a discussion -- So it wasn't Shanny that directly fired him. Shanahan was the one who flew on the plane to tell Babock personally out of respect to him because he was the one who hired him. The video of Shanny talking about this is online.
Yzerman, from all accounts I've read online is completely happy with Blashill. If he's happy with Blashill, why would he fire him?
How do you know what the conversation was about? How do you know Shanny wasn't completely on board with firing Babcock? Because he flew out to personally fire a guy he paid 50M? Seems like a good PR thing to do to me. If I signed some guy to that kind of money and it was a failure I'd be looking for all the good PR I could get, to save face.
If Yzerman is happy with Blashill, like you claim based on what you've read online, it's reasonable to say Blashill will at minimum finish his contract. Time will tell on this one, not that you'd admit you were wrong at a later date.
But I contest that if Blashill is fired during the season or the offseason and Babcock is not at least offered the coaching position in Detroit, then your assessment of "trusting Ambassadors of the League" is a garbage narrative.
Because if Yzerman likes Babcock, and Blashill is fired then it stands to reason that Yzerman would offer Babcock a job.
And I will admit if I am wrong at a later date.
We only know what was personally said. If you have more information that was posted online, I'd be happy to read it.
There's too much smoke around Babcock right now. I doubt anyone is going to offer him a job right now with all this heat. Personally, I'd take him back.
Babcock is, and always has been, an entirely unimpressive hockey coach, hockey mind, and person to me.
Has been that way since 2006. I've tried to muster an understanding and respect for him in the past. I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore.
I understand that some people see demagoguery as an important facet of leadership. I think it always indicates deflection and deception.
I will always remember Babcock for his own lack of personal accountability.
Some advisor role, yeah. Not behind the bench.