I look though the first few pages of the PGT last night and I see some posts of people giving pluses to about 10 players or whatever and at the bottom is a minus for Bylsma. Haha..baffles me. So what they're implying is the players decided not to listen to Bylsma and did it their own way. Ignored him all game. Is saying that an exaggeration if all of those guys get a good grade yet somehow it was in spite of the head coach? Yet on another issue, whenever our stars lose their cool and go full meltdown it's on bylsma for allowing it. That's cool. Amazes me how some people here actually believe the things they post.
I disagree with so much of your post, but I'll focus on just the quoted part above.
I really can't follow the logic, where you say that if someone gives players a "plus," but the coach a minus, that it makes no sense.
Let's try a different analogy. Take a lawn mowing company. The boss has ten yards to mow, by lunchtime -- an unusual number, as his 5-man crews usually can mow 8 yards before lunchtime. Thus, they need to work FAST and EFFICIENT. He has a pool of 10 workers to choose from; 8 of the workers are good, young, hard-working guys in good shape; 2 of them are older, can't quite keep up anymore, and probably should have been let go -- but the boss, for whatever reasons, keeps them employed. Now, the boss needs to choose a 5-man crew for the day, to cut these ten yards, and instead of choosing 5 of the young, hard-working guys, he chooses only three of them, and then includes the two older, can't-keep-up guys, to round out the 5-man crew.
In this scenario, there will be two outcomes -- either they will NOT get the yards finished by lunchtime, OR they
will, but it will be DESPITE the boss's decision to include the 2 over-the-hill guys...in other words, if they get the yards finished, it will have meant that the other 3 guys picked up the slack, worked extra hard, and managed to get the job done despite having the handicap of having the two less-capable guys on the crew.
NOW, if you were asked to evaluate at the end of the day, are you telling me it would make no sense to give a "plus" to the three young guys, and a "minus" to the boss, who made the decision to include the 2 over-the-hill guys as part of the 5-man crew, thus handicapping the crew (as compared to if he had sent out a crew of 5 of his best young guys?) Would it not make sense that even if they get the yards finished, that they were fortunate, and managed the task IN SPITE OF the boss's decision? Further, is it not reasonable to assume that IF those 10 yards had been just a bit larger, or if they had to make a quick trip to pick up some extra gas, or if one of the weed-eaters decided to crap out, or any other minor bit of adversity, that the crew may then NOT have finished the yards (due to the fact that the crew was NOT made up of the 5 best guys)?
This is not that hard to understand, IMO. You have arguably the two best players IN THE WORLD on this team; that alone says that you will win alot of hockey games DESPITE a coach making many poor decisions. TALENT ALONE will win the Pens a large number of regular season games. BUT -- at some point, poor coaching decisions and a sub-standard lineup will catch up with you...usually when you face top competition in the post season. And, not coincidentally, this is EXACTLY what the Penguins have experienced, for the past four post seasons.
I'm not sure why this point, as I've laid it out (which is pretty much the point of those who are griping about DB on this board) seems to be contradictory to you, or difficult to understand, or whatever -- such that it drove you to say "amazes me how some people here actually believe the things they post."
