I don't care what "reason" Richards has. There has been nothing grievous enough in the last few games to justify it. Dano has been a huge reason for this teams success and Wennberg played through some bad play and didn't get scratched.
Richards clearly has his pets and players he puts in the dog house. I don't like it.
I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole (Richards) with you like I did with Howson. I take my time judging people in this organization. Dano was simply the last straw. You seem obsessed with defending these guys. You tend to make the mistake of taking the last reason listed and making it seem irrational when if you bothered to look at my posting record you know (I know you do) that this has taken months for me to get to this point and involves far more than our win/loss and a recent decision.
I don't expect you do support or even respect my opinion (I don't think the tendency to support those under attack will allow you to see beyond anything be perceived irrational attacks); but what I do expect is that you don't give me all your stories about why you think I'm being irrational. You should know that I've given that simplistic reason due consideration. This is a pattern with Richards and I don't like it.
If you want to defend Richards based on my other arguments; feel free to give it a shot. I highly doubt you'll come across as anything other than simply apologetic.
Which is all well and good. I'm inclined to believe that the most logical answer is the correct one: something behind the scenes warranted it, whether a directive from above or something else that we'll never know.
I respect you for your intelligence and your consistency. However, not for you defense for those that are in the highest positions in their fields. These guys are and should be judged at a totally different level. The goal is to win championships, not make the playoffs and hope we get lucky with a hot goal tender. If we manage to win a Cup it won't be because Richards out-coached the other teams head coaches. Richards is far inferior to a Babcock, Hitchcock, or even a Trotz.
When Trotz was let go I couldn't have tried and sign him fast enough. I would have dumped Richards in the mid-season had he become available in the midst of a 10 game winning streak. We're going to have problems with him in charge of a team like the Caps.
Just so we're clear, we are talking about:
-
Barry Trotz - No Stanley Cups, no SCF, no conference finals, made it out of the first round twice (and no farther either time). 19-31 playoff record despite having four 100-point teams and one with 99. The team he was fired from has already posted a 15-point improvement and the season isn't over yet.
-
Mike Babcock - One Cup in over a decade in Detroit, one more SCF in a decade in Detroit, one deep run with Anaheim. Horrible at relying too heavily on veteran players who clearly don't have anything left and burying young players in the press box; Tatar and Nyquist would still be in the AHL if a run of injuries hadn't forced them into the NHL lineup, and Dan Cleary would still be getting big minutes. In Detroit, he's made it out of the second round three times, none in the last five seasons.
-
Ken Hitchcock - Has one playoff series win since the 2005 lockout. Has burned out old teams, young teams, and teams in between.
Three coaches, nearly 2,000 coaching wins, and just two Stanley Cups between them and a list a mile long of early playoff exits. How are these guys the model of success that we should be tripping over to acquire?
