That pretty much sums it up and I said it warrant a knock on Therrien, that said I also praised his system that relies on defensive responsibility more than putting pressure to score goals, wich in the end, hinders individual stats for the team profit.
Therrien should've acted to spark Eller / Bourque out of their funk, but IMO putting Markov with Emelin and Subban with Bouillon (when Gorges got hurt) was the right thing to do to maintain balanced and defensively capable pairings on the ice for 80-90% of the time, although we all know that Subban was carrying Bouillon, and that reflects in Bouillon avg ice-time.
I think MT has flaws but his system did work, despite players underperforming. Like you said though, his system is mostly sucessful due to our key players dominating in a big way. And in the end it's always like that, coaches are always dependant on how their key players perform for them. What I like about Therrien is that he is a barking son of a *****, he makes the players work harder and is not complacent. And that's the way a good hockey coach should be, makes players accountable and more responsible. See, coaches like Dan Bylsma are IMO never a good thing, they become their player's best buddies and it creates a comfortable atmosphere, and you kind of always want your players to compete internally, drive them to get better. BTW I loved his approach with Subban, tough love, and Subban might dislike it but in the end that'll make him a better player (always IMO anyways). Take it for what it is, I experienced both types of coaching during my brief career and the hardest ones, the ones you'd hate in your dreams (got me riled up pretty good occasionnaly in practices) were the ones garnering more satisfying end results (winning tournies, championships).
. I don't why people don't look at the process involved that led to the results rather than just the results. They most likely thought we were a great team during our last playoff run too, even though we out-shot, out-chanced 2-1. 
