When reading your posts it seems like you're just out to vilify him.
Or I'm just acknowledging his entire career and not cherry picking data points. He does not have a rosy past and he has not exactly said great things (over there.)
I know you didn't ask me but a bad coach is one who doesn't know the X's and O's, subtilties (finer points) of the game, or is unable convey them to his team, can't control his players, motivate them, keep the team on task, set up proper training, build them up, win games, and have care, concern and personally build relationships. Stuff like that.
I don't think I've seen any players come out and go 'yeah, Green really helped my career' or been complimentary about him. And if he's great at the subtleties (thanks for clarifying what your typo meant), we really haven't seen that with the non-existent systems play, bench minors, etc. that were part and parcel.
As MS mentioned, he was anything but a team player as a player and it seems to have continued on in his coaching career. But we can't mention him doing things that would indicate that because we don't know the context. C'mon.
The funny thing that I see when these criticisms come up is these are all things you can't see through your TV screen. You have absolutely no idea what he's teaching them, what his "pillars" are, how their training is set-up, what he's asking them individually, the finer points on instruction, and whether the players are responding appropriately or not on a losing team. In short it's very difficult to judge coaching through your TV. So whenever people start piling on like this it's usually just a bias or collective frustration they've formed, which appears to very prevalent with Green for Vancouver fans.
So now we've moved on from people praising the 'intangibles' of players to the intangibles of coaches.
If you can't articulate
why Green is a good coach, is it possible he isn't?
Just like any other coaching situation it would be fairer to start judging his results moving forward, not his first kick at the can with a horrible hockey team, or a mercy finish on an already floundering team.
Or his stint with Team Canada. Or the entirety of his season with the Devils, not just his tenure as interim coach.
I can remember all the people calling RT garbage because of his previous record and "apparent" coaching ability too. Recall the same with Torts here and then he won the Jack Adams the next year with Columbus. You can gain hockey knowledge by watching ... coaching not so much.
Tocchet and Torts were both respected by players and are character guys. That specific situation with Torts is a weird one to bring up given that he full on admitted he was checked out during his time in Vancouver.
Even though he was divisive ("Goalies and Brads HATE this one weird coach!"), you had guys like the Sedins saying they liked to play for him, or Martin St. Louis saying he changed his career.
I was impressed by how he became a student of the game during his later years and really bought into being a team player, helping young players, and learning from his coaches. Surely people can mature.
If he's a student of the game, his GPA must be atrocious.