If tactics matter so much why do fired coaches keep getting jobs?
No one can ever answer this question for me. No one ever responds to me when I say fired coaches win cups.
Most fanbases say the same stuff when their teams aren't playing well.
The great thing about having Ruff here for so long is we got to see Ruff evolve from a good coach to a bad coach and back to a good coach and back to a bad coach. We got to see him develop young players and and also ruin young players.
Fans were all over the place with praise and criticism of Ruff over the years.
People really want me to believe coaches somehow forget how to be successful? No. The quality of the players change.
Bylsma and Ruff are similar IMO. Both coaches walked into winning teams. Both coaches won immediately with those teams. Bylsma continued to win because the team continued to be talented. Ruff had down stretches because the talent changed constantly. I don't know how many captains Ruff had.
So part of my thinking that coaches have much less impact on the game then GM's/players is because of the Ruff era. Also I look around the league and there are fired coaches everywhere winning and having success.
It may be a flawed argument but I don't think I will ever change my position.
Sorry for the wall of text
Coaches aren't fired JUST because of tactics. They are fired for a collection of things. The coach could be fired because he doesn't fit with the players, he has serious issues personally/professionally with the players, the GM might not like him and his handling of players in development situations. They may get fired for a multitude of issues that are behind closed doors. But with all those issues, teams may feel that they might have the right combination of factors that might make that coach workable for their team.
We're not calling Bylsma's firing for JUST tactics. We're calling for his firing because of a collection of things. His tactics/system is a big part of it, and if he actually changed it up and learned from his own system, then there would be a smaller amount of people calling for his head on that basis.
His inability or refusal to change spreads through so many issues wrong with this team. From his refusal to tweak or accept the fact that the player personnel he has to work with doesn't mesh with his system, to the idea that pairs are the way to go, and constantly leads to circumstances that may not be best for the players/team. For example, Bylsma's thinking Reinhart needs to be with Eichel or ROR, is limiting the combinations and not allowing him to use Reinhart as a center, because Reinhart is a top 6 talent(which I think he is, but doesn't mean he needs to be used exclusively in the top 6). Only time Reinhart is allowed to play center, seems to be when there are injuries, and even then he there are times he uses players who shouldn't be used as centers(E-Rod, Ennis) as centers. Those type of decisions are decisions that affect the development of the players(see: What he was brought in here to accomplish) and a big reason why so many people are down on Bylsma.
Both Ruff and Byslma walked into Stanley Cup contending rosters. What the difference was with Ruff and Bylsma was that one had a GM who was fiercely loyal to Ruff and even at the times of bad times, Ruff had the trust of the GM who believed Ruff would be able to mentor our team in the rebuilding/re-tooling years(2001-2003) and what made Ruff and the post-lockout teams of 2005-2007 so effective was Ruff's ability to adapt to the roster Darcy was able to put together regardless of the year. Ruff played a more wide open style that allowed the players to use their skill and natural ability. Yes it helped he had talented players, but he was able to adapt to bring more out of his team. He learned year to year. For example he used Roy in a shutdown role in 2005-2006, and used him more in an offensive role the next year when he was with Vanek and Afinogenov.
Ruff was fired because he lost the locker room. Darcy felt he brought the most out of the players that he could and after 17 years needed a new boss behind the bench. Coaches usually don't last that long.
People are able to break down the system and see the ineffectiveness of the system regardless of the talent level of the players. For Bylsma, at the point where Crosby and co were in their development they were already Stanley Cup Contenders so they had some experience to their resume, and were afforded much more freedom when they were able to get off track from his system. When their talented was able to shine through that's when they were at their best. But when the playoffs come around and there's a more reliance on tighter defense play and coaching decisions, Bylsma failed for the majority of the time and was quickly found out after the Stanley Cup.
Now the reason why Bylsma, a Stanley Cup winner who was fired, was hired by the Buffalo Sabres, and he went on record about this, was because he took the year off and he was able to learn more about the game. Day 1, he implements a system that was criticized by those in hockey communities, and Day 656 We're looking at the same system. Why we are expecting different results with the same experiment is insanity.
