WeWentBlues
Registered User
- May 3, 2017
- 2,165
- 1,906
Oldie, but a goodie
I would take the current Blues coaches in a street fight over any other staff.
Seems as if those types of coaches are dying out. Their mindset on how the game is and should be played is just outdated. I think with teams giving these newer coaches the reigns is the new go-to. Sort of similar to the goalie situations this year and how teams are giving these rookie goalies more games than normal, only to find out they're not as bad as they thought.Interesting that a lot of Leafs fans seem to be pretty unhappy with Mike Babcock. He was also voted 3rd when asked “which coach would you least like to play for?” in this year’s player poll. (Hitchcock was 2nd)
I remember a lot here wanted him. And I understand why. But he’s not worth that money. I would say Quenneville might be but even that is questionable.
Seems as if those types of coaches are dying out. Their mindset on how the game is and should be played is just outdated. I think with teams giving these newer coaches the reigns is the new go-to. Sort of similar to the goalie situations this year and how teams are giving these rookie goalies more games than normal, only to find out they're not as bad as they thought.
Am I reading this correctly? You'd take Berube over Q based on Q's inability to coach a garbage team to a winning record over the course of a month? I don't care if a coach has 10 cups or 0 cups, you can't expect that bad of a team to play winning hockey. Without Kane they are competing for last in the league.Yes, Q won Stanley Cups in Chicago, but I cannot get over the terribly boring hockey that he coached when he was here and lack of playoff success (yes, still can't forget that terrible loss to the Sharks after winning the Presidents Trophy). I remember hating him as the Blues coach during that time. His experience winning cups could not stop the Hawks recent spiral so I will cast my vote for Berube over Q at this time. Berube has played in SCF so I think he still has some credibility w/r to what it takes to get there and the respect of the players.
Am I reading this correctly? You'd take Berube over Q based on Q's inability to coach a garbage team to a winning record over the course of a month? I don't care if a coach has 10 cups or 0 cups, you can't expect that bad of a team to play winning hockey. Without Kane they are competing for last in the league.
Am I reading this correctly? You'd take Berube over Q based on Q's inability to coach a garbage team to a winning record over the course of a month? I don't care if a coach has 10 cups or 0 cups, you can't expect that bad of a team to play winning hockey. Without Kane they are competing for last in the league.
Yes, Q won Stanley Cups in Chicago, but I cannot get over the terribly boring hockey that he coached when he was here and lack of playoff success (yes, still can't forget that terrible loss to the Sharks after winning the Presidents Trophy). I remember hating him as the Blues coach during that time. His experience winning cups could not stop the Hawks recent spiral so I will cast my vote for Berube over Q at this time. Berube has played in SCF so I think he still has some credibility w/r to what it takes to get there and the respect of the players.