OT: Winter Olympics Part II

Brandel*

Guest
You can't put all of canada's success on babcock, keep in mind they do have some of the best players in the world.
And I'm sure he's not too bothered by people thinking he's a bad coach what with him being the only coach in the triple gold club, and all. And I'm sure the players he's coached don't have many complaints either.

Canada just has a great balance of a good coach and incredible talent. It's not just one or the other.

I'm not. I'm saying how ridiculous it is to say this team is so unstoppable they don't even need a coach. As if games were only based off pure individual talent and the gap between Canada and everyone else is just too large. Like why do they even bother having the Olympics? Canada is so much better than everyone else why bother? This team beat Norway 3-1...

The only people after Babcock are bias Montreal fans who still think Subban should be in the top 6 regardless of what has and will happen. If Canada wins gold Babcock will get even more praise than he already has. I can see the articles now, "Babcock's controversial lineup decisions may have been the right ones"

If Canada wins tomorrow:

Quesition desicions =/= Loss of reputation
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vladdy84

L-O-Y-A-L-T-Y
Dec 1, 2011
10,675
12
Farmington
I could coach Team Canada. Just gotta remember to fill up the water bottles and bring the pucks for practice and scowl a lot.
 

The Zermanator

In Yzerman We Trust
Jan 21, 2013
3,380
1,182
I'm not. I'm saying how ridiculous it is to say this team is so unstoppable they don't even need a coach. As if games were only based off pure individual talent and the gap between Canada and everyone else is just too large. Like why do they even bother having the Olympics? Canada is so much better than everyone else why bother? This team beat Norway 3-1...

The only people after Babcock are bias Montreal fans who still think Subban should be in the top 6 regardless of what has and will happen. If Canada wins gold Babcock will get even more praise than he already has. I can see the articles now, "Babcock's controversial lineup decisions may have been the right ones"

If Canada wins tomorrow:

Quesition desicions =/= Loss of reputation

Line changes, match ups, increased ice time for performing players and decreased for under performing players,etc. It would be a mess without a coach. And Babcock is very good at all those things (Cleary notwithstanding). As much as we whine about Babcock's decisions sometimes, he's an excellent on-ice/in-game coach.

Looking at the USA's final 2 games should tell you how important a coach is. Their roster is very good yet they had 2 very sub-par games when they needed the opposite once competition ramped up..
 

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
I'm not. I'm saying how ridiculous it is to say this team is so unstoppable they don't even need a coach. As if games were only based off pure individual talent and the gap between Canada and everyone else is just too large. Like why do they even bother having the Olympics? Canada is so much better than everyone else why bother? This team beat Norway 3-1...

The only people after Babcock are bias Montreal fans who still think Subban should be in the top 6 regardless of what has and will happen. If Canada wins gold Babcock will get even more praise than he already has. I can see the articles now, "Babcock's controversial lineup decisions may have been the right ones"

If Canada wins tomorrow:

Quesition desicions =/= Loss of reputation

If Canada wins gold it will simply have been meeting expectations. They were the favorites going in and nothing in the tournament changed that. They had the strongest lineup before the tournament even started and everyone knew it. I'm not saying it was a foregone conclusion, but it is certainly the expectation of every Canadian to be in that gold medal game and to win it.

Moreover, a great deal of the criticism has nothing to do with Subban but with Kunitz. Kunitz is a guy that if he didn't have chemistry with Crosby, probably never sniffs Olympic ice. Not with guys like Giroux not even making the squad, and St. Louis only being called up because of injury. And then Kunitz gets played on a line apart from Crosby? What sense does that make?

If Babcock wins tomorrow, it will be "Good, you didn't screw up. Congratulations."

Looking at the USA's final 2 games should tell you how important a coach is. Their roster is very good yet they had 2 very sub-par games when they needed the opposite once competition ramped up..

I think the same thing that happened to the Russians after the USA game happened to the US team after the Canada game. They were spent. A tough, grinding, grueling game with high expectations and emotions, only to be let down. Then what, you show up the next game and what do you have left? Russians went from a fantastic performance against the US team (barring Radulov's hilarious penalty parade) to a meltdown against the Finns. The US went from a hard fought match against the Canadians to getting embarrassed by the Finns.

I don't think that's a coincidence. The Finns are a good team, but both teams also completely exhausted themselves in the previous game.
 

Brandel*

Guest
Lots of people questioned whether Price should have started vs Finland too after Luongo played a perfect game, nobody is holding that against him. People questioning decisions means absolutely nothing upon a positive conclusion.

Ok, and if you continue to succeed (or "not mess up") you gain reputation... The highest odds of Canada winning that I saw pre-Olympics were 2/1 (the majority were less). That means they had a 50% chance compared to everyone else in the tournament. You're trying to tell me that pulling that off multiple times isn't "good job", it's just "good, you didn't screw up"?
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
I could coach Team Canada. Just gotta remember to fill up the water bottles and bring the pucks for practice and scowl a lot.

Canada has had arguably the best talent in the world for decades, why haven't they won gold in every international tournament then? Coaching a ton of talent is much more difficult than coaching teams with no talent. That same line of thinking could be said for virtually all of Scotty Bowman's cup winning teams.
 

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
Lots of people questioned whether Price should have started vs Finland too after Luongo played a perfect game, nobody is holding that against him. People questioning decisions means absolutely nothing upon a positive conclusion.

Ok, and if you continue to succeed (or "not mess up") you gain reputation... The highest odds of Canada winning that I saw pre-Olympics were 2/1 (the majority were less). That means they had a 50% chance compared to everyone else in the tournament. You're trying to tell me that pulling that off multiple times isn't "good job", it's just "good, you didn't screw up"?

So one team have 50% chance, and all the other teams having to share the remaining 50%, and that doesn't tell you anything about how much stronger their team is compared to everyone else's?

Again, no one is saying it's a sure thing. Especially in a one and done elimination tournament. But they unquestionably have the strongest team and the expectations were always to get the gold.

Canada has had arguably the best talent in the world for decades, why haven't they won gold in every international tournament then? Coaching a ton of talent is much more difficult than coaching teams with no talent. That same line of thinking could be said for virtually all of Scotty Bowman's cup winning teams.

In the Olympics, being not a best of seven, luck plays a bigger role, and "who's hot" plays a bigger role. But I'm not sure how much of that is on a coach.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,198
14,681
Coaching a ton of talent is much more difficult than coaching teams with no talent.

Absolutely not.

It presents it's own set of challenges, absolutely. But more difficult than not having talent at all? There's no way.
 

Brandel*

Guest
So one team have 50% chance, and all the other teams having to share the remaining 50%, and that doesn't tell you anything about how much stronger their team is compared to everyone else's?

Again, no one is saying it's a sure thing. Especially in a one and done elimination tournament. But they unquestionably have the strongest team and the expectations were always to get the gold.



In the Olympics, being not a best of seven, luck plays a bigger role, and "who's hot" plays a bigger role. But I'm not sure how much of that is on a coach.

I'm not denying Canada is the #1 team in the tournament. Doesn't negate anything I had to say in regards to canadians position on Babcock's performance(s) and reputation. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. That Babcock will gain a maximum of 0 reputation from winning gold since it was expected?
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Absolutely not.

It presents it's own set of challenges, absolutely. But more difficult than not having talent at all? There's no way.

No talent is subjective, but it's much easier to coach a team with limited skill, you just focus completely on defense and not worry about anything else. It's exactly why the Senators were able to focus last year, you lose Karlsson and Spezza and whoever else, you bring up the kids, and not worry about offense.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,198
14,681
No talent is subjective, but it's much easier to coach a team with limited skill, you just focus completely on defense and not worry about anything else. It's exactly why the Senators were able to focus last year, you lose Karlsson and Spezza and whoever else, you bring up the kids, and not worry about offense.

That's an incredibly over-simplified way to look at it. If it were that easy, teams would never drop from playoff contention when injuries hit.

It's more about having the guys to pull off that defense-oriented system, to try and suffocate teams, and then have each guy buying into their role to make that system work.

But if you have talented guys then you have the freedom to play different kinds of hockey and still be successful. If Babcock didn't coach Canada to a 1-0 victory, I'm sure other coaches would have lead them to a 4-2 win, just with a different system and methodology.

When you have that much more talent than your opponent, it absolutely makes your job significantly easier. No questions asked.
 
Last edited:

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,753
4,569
Cleveland
canada's failed to medal twice since the NHL started participating, so it's not all about just having the most talent. I think there is a lot of lockerroom management, keeping egos in check, and getting guys to buy into roles they aren't accustomed to.
 

sarcastro

Registered User
Jul 28, 2005
13,059
1
Boy did I ever nail it on the US mailing it in and saying to hell with the bronze.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
That's an incredibly over-simplified way to look at it. If it were that easy, teams would never drop from playoff contention when injuries hit.

It's more about having the guys to pull off that defense-oriented system, to try and suffocate teams, and then have each guy buying into their role to make that system work.

But if you have talented guys then you have the freedom to play different kinds of hockey and still be successful. If Babcock didn't coach Canada to a 1-0 victory, I'm sure other coaches would have lead them to a 4-2 win, just with a different system and methodology.

When you have that much more talent than your opponent, it absolutely makes your job significantly easier. No questions asked.

Which other coaches though? And if that's the case, couldn't you say the same thing for virtually every Stanley Cup winner? The coach matters, which is why it's so important to have a good one. I don't care how much talent you have, if you don't have structure, it doesn't matter.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,198
14,681
Which other coaches though? And if that's the case, couldn't you say the same thing for virtually every Stanley Cup winner? The coach matters, which is why it's so important to have a good one. I don't care how much talent you have, if you don't have structure, it doesn't matter.

Well, I agree with that. But I think we are getting away from my original point a bit.

Which is simply that... I disagree that it is easier to coach a team with a ton of talent, than one that is lacking it.

Last year when Babcock got the Wings to overachieve and knock out the Ducks and take the Hawks to 7 games, when we were out-matched both times, now THAT is coaching.

But what Babcock does in the Olympics, with a roster that is head and shoulders just easily deeper and better than anyone else's.... Big whoop-dee ****ing doo.
 

sarcastro

Registered User
Jul 28, 2005
13,059
1
Not gonna lie, I love seeing Dan Bylsma get blamed for stuff...although I wish we could blame Randy Carlyle for something...
 

probertrules24

Registered User
Jul 10, 2007
2,901
1
Canada
Pssh, whatever. Don't even really care about a bronze medal, just a consolation prize.

I don't have any issues with Bylsma. If Bylsma was coaching Canada in the CAN-USA game, I'm sure the outcome would have been the same.

Imagine if somehow Babcock had Quincey like Bylsma had Orpick. It would be Canadian fans pissed right now.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Well, I agree with that. But I think we are getting away from my original point a bit.

Which is simply that... I disagree that it is easier to coach a team with a ton of talent, than one that is lacking it.

Last year when Babcock got the Wings to overachieve and knock out the Ducks and take the Hawks to 7 games, when we were out-matched both times, now THAT is coaching.

But what Babcock does in the Olympics, with a roster that is head and shoulders just easily deeper and better than anyone else's.... Big whoop-dee ****ing doo.

Fair enough, but if that is truly the case, he should receive zero blame in losing, if it happens.
 

Brandel*

Guest
Pssh, whatever. Don't even really care about a bronze medal, just a consolation prize.

I don't have any issues with Bylsma. If Bylsma was coaching Canada in the CAN-USA game, I'm sure the outcome would have been the same.

That's a pretty bold comment. Bylsma couldn't even hold the team together for the bronze medal and they got absolutely embarrassed. Whether you, personally care about it or not is irrelevant to the performance.

On a different yet related note, if Pittsburgh doesn't win the cup this spring I'm willing to wager Bylsma will not be coaching the team in 2014-2015.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,198
14,681
That's a pretty bold comment. Bylsma couldn't even hold the team together for the bronze medal and they got absolutely embarrassed. Whether you, personally care about it or not is irrelevant to the performance.

On the flip side, the fact that he coached his team to a 1-0 contest against a team where they were clearly outmatched is pretty good. After that the tournament was over, and the guys were spent.

If Babcock was coaching USA, and Bylsma was coaching Canada, I'd bet a substantial amount of money that the result would have been the same. Maybe not same score, but same team would win.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->