Yeah, I never said more than them combined. And the point stands - for example, by Feb 2 Goldy was sat 7 times, Granlund and Loui zero. That is bad coaching, no matter how it is dressed up.
I'm not so sure Green is wrong in this approach. I'm not sure he's right, either, but I think we have to avoid looking at things simplistically and thinking we know more than we do.
Last season Green sat Ben Hutton. Canucks Army criticized that too, just as they've criticized the handling of Goldobin this season, pointing out that Ben Hutton was a better and more effective defenceman than some defencemen who were playing regularly.
Green didn't just sit Hutton. At the start of the offseason he publically ridiculed his offensive output. He's recently been quoted as saying Goldobin's output over the last 20 games isn't good enough. Their age and experience levels are/were similar. Last season Hutton was a 24 year old 3rd year pro, this season Goldobin is a 23 year old 4th year pro.
Ben Hutton came back after the summer a harder working player. I don't think he's any more skilled, offensively or defensively, but he's worked hard. He plays regularly and has on numerous occasions played first-pairing minutes.
Is it possible that Green is taking the same approach with Goldobin? Goldobin sits. Green has now been quoted that his offensive output the last 20 games isn't good enough. Goldobin has the skill and ability to be better than he is.
Different players sometimes need different approaches. Goldobin may or may not respond positively this summer. I don't know if the tough love approach will work with him over the long term.
My guess is that it will only work in short spurts. Then the question becomes, is Goldobin a good enough player, producing enough, that it makes sense to play him even with his continual defensive lapses.
I wonder about the handling of Goldobin, just as last season I wondered about the handling of Hutton, but don't think it makes sense to compare the handling of young players who have more to give and could be useful in the future with the handling of veterans who are what they are and aren't going to be part of the important parts of the future.
Again, I'm not saying Green's approach is right, but I learned a long time ago that when someone who isn't an idiot tends to make sense seems to be making no sense at all, the most likely thing is that I am missing his or her line of thinking.
I don't pretend to know whether Green is going to be a good NHL coach or not, but am confident that those that think he is an idiot are missing his line of thought. He's not stupid and he's not a moron, despite the opinions on this board to the contrary.