SoupNazi
Serenity now. Insanity later.
- Feb 6, 2010
- 26,460
- 14,788
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
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
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 could coach Team Canada. Just gotta remember to fill up the water bottles and bring the pucks for practice and scowl a lot.
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"?
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.
Coaching a ton of talent is much more difficult than coaching teams with no talent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whether you, personally care about it or not is irrelevant to the performance.
.