Kessel was on the second line with Malkin lighting up opposition. Kadri's immaturity ended up forcing him out of town. Your comparison of those two doesn't make much sense.
I can't get a read on what you actually think Babs did for the core. Can you help me understand how you think he progressed them in a way other coaches wouldn't have?
I'm also curious, what was our 3on3 record with the rookies on the ice in that first playoff season?
I actually don't think Babs did anything for them that another coach couldn't do nor am I negating the way Keefe has helped them too.
I think Babcock showed them how to play on a script and not go freelance. Imo that's the difference between playing pros and Jr's. In Jr hockey these guys can make their own rules because they are dominant forces of nature, whereas in the NHL that affect is not quite so profound and learning to play within a system is the key to team success. Again I'm not saying another coach could not have done this.
I used Kadri and Kessel as example of what I was trying to explain now, what I mean by structure in the player. Both were one dimensional players in the start. Kessel remained that way while Kadri under Carlyle became a respectable 2 way centre. His temper and on ice antics were a sign of maturity or lack there of and as I said before it was a horrible decision by the NHL. Of note I'm one that supported getting rid of Kadri for the reasons you have stated.
As for the 3on3 record I never broached that. I remember them really making questionable decisions like long shifts and forcing plays and I do remember bad play without the puck. As fr what Thier personal record was, I don't know how to access that information and really doesn't pertain to my point.
No, I just call it like it is.
You said, and I quote, "I guess you slipped the 3 on 3 because they were abysmal then". Matthews and Marner were the most played forwards in OT. They were not bad, and judging team structure off of 3 on 3 play is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.
No it wasn't. It was to describe players he liked for arbitrary reasons. There is zero evidence that these players were not "pros".
It is largely that, but you're the one attributing stuff to Babcock with no evidence, so it's important to note that more growth has occurred in the year Keefe has been here, than the 3 years they had with Babcock.
No he didn't. You seem to be talking mostly of defensive responsibility, but the team was bad defensively the entire time under Babcock, so not sure where you came up with the idea he was instilling good defensive habits in them.
These players have played within team systems their entire lives. There's no evidence that they were "lone wolves", whatever you think that means.
Actually to be fair you call it like you see it just like I call it like I see it. That is the way of perception.
They were bad 3on3 and just because it's the most unstructured part of the game its actually a great time to evaluate them. Of note they are really really good 3on3 now, does that not count?
It's not arbitrary when he stated the criteria of what he considered a good pro.
While I agree that they have grown more in the past 2 years, what are you defining that growth by? I assign the growth under Babcock to Babcock because he was their coach then, no other reason.
They were rookies learning to be pros, hence the title rookie
The team being bad defensively has many factors primarily the defensive system was questionable coupled with the personal who were to employ the system. I'm not talking about defensive only, it's both. As I've said the player structure I'm talking about is playing within a system and yes they've played in systems their whole lives, but mostly the system was built around them and as I said above, they could, at will, go off on their own accord because they were dominant at the Jr level.
Players can roam as opposed to following a well defined role on the ice, that's what I call a lone wolf and that's what they were doing as rookies, as many rookies do.
