BOOYAH !!!! NOT !!!!
Eliyahu Simchah
Someone needs to make sure the light is on so they don't get afraid of
the dark down there........ I wonder waht miracle trade PL will pull out
of his ass to make things better ???
--
-------------
Shalom
Eliyahu Simchah
Positively Godberg
<eli...@rainbowphamily.com> wrote:
>Well, I am sure by now the Avs know the way to the basement.........
>Someone needs to make sure the light is on so they don't get afraid of
>the dark down there........ I wonder waht miracle trade PL will pull out
>of his ass to make things better ???
The only way I'd consider it a miracle was if PL was Santa Claus and
I'd ask for a new coach for Christmas. Actually Christmas is too far
away, the way they're playing, the Avs could be eliminated by then.
Doug Norris
>The only way I'd consider it a miracle was if PL was Santa Claus and
>I'd ask for a new coach for Christmas. Actually Christmas is too far
>away, the way they're playing, the Avs could be eliminated by then.
Funny how a coach who's never been eliminated before Game Seven of the
Western Conference Finals in his career is, all of a sudden, the one reason
we're not playing well.
Doug
Positively Godberg
Norris) wrote:
Then again, maybe he's never been eliminated sooner because of all the
talent he had on the team.
Doug Norris
>On 9 Nov 02 20:55:22 GMT, norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Doug
>Norris) wrote:
>>Positively Godberg <ladd...@screwspamhotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>The only way I'd consider it a miracle was if PL was Santa Claus and
>>>I'd ask for a new coach for Christmas. Actually Christmas is too far
>>>away, the way they're playing, the Avs could be eliminated by then.
>>
>>Funny how a coach who's never been eliminated before Game Seven of the
>>Western Conference Finals in his career is, all of a sudden, the one reason
>>we're not playing well.
>Then again, maybe he's never been eliminated sooner because of all the
>talent he had on the team.
Well, it's a chicken-and-egg thing, innit? Tell the Rangers or the Flyers;
I'm sure that they'd love to argue the point.
Doug
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
> Positively Godberg <ladd...@screwspamhotmail.com> writes:
> >Then again, maybe he's never been eliminated sooner because of all the
> >talent he had on the team.
>
> Well, it's a chicken-and-egg thing, innit?
Not really.
The Avs won a Cup, lost in the WCFs, and then lost in Round 1 the three years
prior to Hartley coming into town. Obviously, the talent preceded Hartley.
Granted, the Avs have gone on to perform very well under him since then, but
this specific discussion is certainly not a 'what came first' debate.
E.
Doug Norris
>The Avs won a Cup, lost in the WCFs, and then lost in Round 1 the three years
>prior to Hartley coming into town. Obviously, the talent preceded Hartley.
>Granted, the Avs have gone on to perform very well under him since then, but
>this specific discussion is certainly not a 'what came first' debate.
I wasn't using the chicken-egg comparison in a temporal fashion; instead,
I was pointing out the possibility that the "good talent" plays to its
level because of Hartley. Hence my Rangers/Flyers comments.
Doug
Positively Godberg
Norris) wrote:
Still, they need a change and it's easier to change the coach than to
replace the players, especially when all but Roy, Forsberg and Sakic
are playing like minor leaguers. Seems more likely to me that there's
a lack of game plan, or lack of ability to impose a game plan, than 17
players playing with the flu.
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
>
> >The Avs won a Cup, lost in the WCFs, and then lost in Round 1 the three years
> >prior to Hartley coming into town. Obviously, the talent preceded Hartley.
> >Granted, the Avs have gone on to perform very well under him since then, but
> >this specific discussion is certainly not a 'what came first' debate.
>
> I wasn't using the chicken-egg comparison in a temporal fashion;
Ah. Well, since the appropriate usage of the 'chicken-egg' debate is 'What came
first, the chicken or the egg', there is a clear temporal implication.
> instead,
> I was pointing out the possibility that the "good talent" plays to its
> level because of Hartley. Hence my Rangers/Flyers comments.
Well, then the information I posted is just as applicable. It's not like the
Avs were an underachieving team before Hartley showed up and then BAM... they
are in the WCFs every year. It's not like Hartley has coached Sakic, Roy,
Bourque, Blake and Forsberg to the levels they play at. They were good and
great players before Hartley got in town. I think the best thing you can say
about Hartley is that he hasn't gotten in the way of his team, and he's let his
immensely talented players win.
E.
Chris
>> instead,
>> I was pointing out the possibility that the "good talent" plays to its
>> level because of Hartley. Hence my Rangers/Flyers comments.
>
>Well, then the information I posted is just as applicable. It's not like the
>Avs were an underachieving team before Hartley showed up and then BAM... they
>are in the WCFs every year. It's not like Hartley has coached Sakic, Roy,
>Bourque, Blake and Forsberg to the levels they play at. They were good and
>great players before Hartley got in town. I think the best thing you can say
>about Hartley is that he hasn't gotten in the way of his team, and he's let his
>immensely talented players win.
That is partially true, but Hartley also deserves credit for getting
the team(s) to the WCFs consistently with young players and rather
massive roster turnover. Hartley was hired after the '98 season, and
the only players still on the team that were on that '98 team are
Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, Roy (granted, pretty important ones) and Eric
Messier. He's had to play rookies each and every year, and he's done
so.
This season seems to be his biggest challenge. He again has a team
with immense talent. He again has a team with very young players out
there. But this time, whatever he's doing isn't working. It'll be
interesting to see how he handles it.
Chris
Doug Norris
>Still, they need a change and it's easier to change the coach than to
>replace the players, especially when all but Roy, Forsberg and Sakic
>are playing like minor leaguers. Seems more likely to me that there's
>a lack of game plan, or lack of ability to impose a game plan, than 17
>players playing with the flu.
I'll agree to a point - it's a lot easier to fire one coach than it is
to trade twenty players.
Doug
edl
"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:3dcf9ec...@news-server.optonline.net...
>
> >> instead,
> >> I was pointing out the possibility that the "good talent" plays to its
> >> level because of Hartley. Hence my Rangers/Flyers comments.
> >
> >Well, then the information I posted is just as applicable. It's not like the
> >Avs were an underachieving team before Hartley showed up and then BAM... they
> >are in the WCFs every year. It's not like Hartley has coached Sakic, Roy,
> >Bourque, Blake and Forsberg to the levels they play at. They were good and
> >great players before Hartley got in town. I think the best thing you can say
> >about Hartley is that he hasn't gotten in the way of his team, and he's let
his
> >immensely talented players win.
>
> That is partially true, but Hartley also deserves credit for getting
> the team(s) to the WCFs consistently with young players and rather
> massive roster turnover.
Ballocks. He's had arguably the best goalie in the game (Roy, who is certainly
the best sans Hasek), two of the best five forwards (Sakic and Forsberg) and one
of the best defensive defensemen in the game (Foote) nearly universally. He's
had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also. And other
than 1996, you can hardly ever make a case for the Avs being a team that relied
on depth more than they have relied on key contributions from their best
players. Under Hartley the Avs have never had a fourth line worth anything but
the most cursory mention, and it's not nearly as difficult to use young players
when they are Milan Hejduk's, Chris Drury's and Alex Tanguay's and you have Joe
Sakic's and Peter Forsberg's to center them.
Don't get me wrong, it can be pretty tough to not want to tinker with something
that works, but let's all take a moment and prevent ourselves from
overly-estimating the level of coaching you're getting out of Hartley.
> Hartley was hired after the '98 season, and
> the only players still on the team that were on that '98 team are
> Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, Roy (granted, pretty important ones) and Eric
> Messier. He's had to play rookies each and every year, and he's done
> so.
A large part of the reason for that turnover is that by and large the guys
Colorado have had on their depth lines have been eminently and easily
replaceable.
E.
Chris
>> That is partially true, but Hartley also deserves credit for getting
>> the team(s) to the WCFs consistently with young players and rather
>> massive roster turnover.
>
>Ballocks. He's had arguably the best goalie in the game (Roy, who is certainly
>the best sans Hasek), two of the best five forwards (Sakic and Forsberg) and one
>of the best defensive defensemen in the game (Foote) nearly universally.
But having two great forwards and a great goalie doesn't make a WCF
team. The Pens had Lemieux and Jagr together for several years with a
very good goalie (Barasso) and got to the WCFs once from 93-97. I'm
not saying Hartley hasn't had great talent all along - he has - but
he's had to bring a bevy of young players along, too.
>He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
Scotty Bowman had Nick Lidstrom for his entire tenure in Detroit.
Should we minimize his accomplishments because of that?
>And other
>than 1996, you can hardly ever make a case for the Avs being a team that relied
>on depth more than they have relied on key contributions from their best
>players. Under Hartley the Avs have never had a fourth line worth anything but
>the most cursory mention, and it's not nearly as difficult to use young players
>when they are Milan Hejduk's, Chris Drury's and Alex Tanguay's and you have Joe
>Sakic's and Peter Forsberg's to center them.
But don't discount the fact that Hejduk, Drury and Tanguay were
coached by Hartley when they came into the NHL. And they've all had
some stuff to overcome also. Drury was woefully out of shape in his
first camp. Tanguay's been in and out of Hartley's doghouse for
years. Hejduk came into the NHL as a 170 lb relative unknown. They
were brought along, coached and put in situations where they can
succeed. Take a quick look at Manny Malhotra and Jamie Lundmark -
'earn your stripes on the 4th line, kid' - to see how a young,
talented player can be ruined by coaching.
He also taught/forced an offensive-minded, defensively-deficient, team
to play good team defense. He has been a good, though certainly not
great, coach.
>Don't get me wrong, it can be pretty tough to not want to tinker with something
>that works, but let's all take a moment and prevent ourselves from
>overly-estimating the level of coaching you're getting out of Hartley.
I don't think I am. He's had great players. So did Bowman in
Detroit. He's had success with them. He's coached well. Not the
best ever, but well.
>> Hartley was hired after the '98 season, and
>> the only players still on the team that were on that '98 team are
>> Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, Roy (granted, pretty important ones) and Eric
>> Messier. He's had to play rookies each and every year, and he's done
>> so.
>
>A large part of the reason for that turnover is that by and large the guys
>Colorado have had on their depth lines have been eminently and easily
>replaceable.
If we take the 3rd and 4th lines to be depth lines, and the 3rd
defensive line to be a depth line, then you have 10 skaters as your
primary players - 6 forwards, 4 defensemen. If you look at the team
that lost in round 1 in '98, and the team today, there are 2 forwards
of those 6, and 1 defenseman of those 4 still with the team. They
have turned over 7 of the 10 skaters in Hartley's tenure. 7 of 10,
Eric. That is not the depth lines. Not even close.
And if you do consider the depth lines (6 forwards, 2 defensemen, 1
backup goalie), they've turned over 8 of the 9 players. So, including
Roy, they've turned over 15 of the 20 players on the roster in
Hartley's tenure, and that's not including the positions they've
turned over twice.
Chris
Chris
>>He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
>
>Scotty Bowman had Nick Lidstrom for his entire tenure in Detroit.
>Should we minimize his accomplishments because of that?
Actually, Bowman had Lidstrom *and* Konstantinov/Chelios for every
season but one in Detroit. Should we minimize his accomplishments
because of that?
Chris
Doug Norris
>He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
No, he hasn't.
Doug
broonzy
<game_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, then the information I posted is just as applicable. It's not like the
> Avs were an underachieving team before Hartley showed up and then BAM... they
> are in the WCFs every year. It's not like Hartley has coached Sakic, Roy,
> Bourque, Blake and Forsberg to the levels they play at. They were good and
> great players before Hartley got in town. I think the best thing you can say
> about Hartley is that he hasn't gotten in the way of his team, and he's let his
> immensely talented players win.
Actually, Hartley's impact on the team has been momentous since he has
completely changed its philosophy. He inherited a team very deep at
forward, only good at defense, and without a tight defensive system.
Going back to 1972, the franchise had always had an offense-first
approach. After losing to Dallas in 1999, Hartley transformed the
Avalanche into a trapping team and he changed the team's player balance
from offense to defense. Colorado has not made a move to improve its
offense since the Fleury trade of 1999 while, in the meantime, it gave
up offense to acquire significant defensemen. So Hartley up-ended the
team he got in 1998 into one with a defense-first mentality (who talked
about Sakic's defensive skills until Hartley came along?) that's thin
at forward, without a good offensive system, but very deep at defense
and with a tight defensive system (at least until a month ago).
Trapping teams don't have a great margin for victory because they are
not explosive. Instead, they owe their success to keeping the score
low, to great special teams, to paying greater attention to details
than their opponent, to relying on a couple of stars to make decisive
plays time and again, and on sheer luck (like facing Turek in the
playoffs). Things can come together one year, but it's very hard for
those teams to remain highly successful over several years because,
notably, it's very hard to play with playoff intensity all season long.
Hartley has yet to get a full commitment from his players which can be
a sign that he's losing his grip on them.
edl
>
> >> That is partially true, but Hartley also deserves credit for getting
> >> the team(s) to the WCFs consistently with young players and rather
> >> massive roster turnover.
> >
> >Ballocks. He's had arguably the best goalie in the game (Roy, who is
certainly
> >the best sans Hasek), two of the best five forwards (Sakic and Forsberg) and
one
> >of the best defensive defensemen in the game (Foote) nearly universally.
>
> But having two great forwards and a great goalie doesn't make a WCF
> team. The Pens had Lemieux and Jagr together for several years with a
> very good goalie (Barasso) and got to the WCFs once from 93-97.
... after winning TWO CONSECUTIVE CUPS, of course. And let's not forget that
Lemieux only played 22 games in 1993-1994, didn't play at all in 1994-1995
(Barrasso hardly played in that postseason, too), and that Barrasso was out for
all of 1996-1997. Easy on cherrypicking time frames, and then neglecting to
notice that the key contributors missed huge stretches of time within the
cherrypicked time frame, Chris. ;)
But ok, let's compare Lemieux/Jagr/Barrasso to Sakic/Forsberg/Roy. Ignoring the
rest of the Avs' players, which group of three would you take? After
one-onemillionth of a second to make my decision and four seconds to type it
out, I'd take the Avs' 3.
> I'm
> not saying Hartley hasn't had great talent all along - he has - but
> he's had to bring a bevy of young players along, too.
>
> >He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
>
> Scotty Bowman had Nick Lidstrom for his entire tenure in Detroit.
> Should we minimize his accomplishments because of that?
Ask yourself a question: Did Detroit get to (or win) a Stanley Cup Final before
Bowman came to town?
Within that answer lies my response.
> >And other
> >than 1996, you can hardly ever make a case for the Avs being a team that
relied
> >on depth more than they have relied on key contributions from their best
> >players. Under Hartley the Avs have never had a fourth line worth anything
but
> >the most cursory mention, and it's not nearly as difficult to use young
players
> >when they are Milan Hejduk's, Chris Drury's and Alex Tanguay's and you have
Joe
> >Sakic's and Peter Forsberg's to center them.
>
> But don't discount the fact that Hejduk, Drury and Tanguay were
> coached by Hartley when they came into the NHL.
Oh, good grief. Look, you're going to have a hard time (read: completely no
chance) of convincing me that an NHL coach has that much impact on 'inflating'
the ability of players on their team.
> And they've all had
> some stuff to overcome also. Drury was woefully out of shape in his
> first camp. Tanguay's been in and out of Hartley's doghouse for
> years. Hejduk came into the NHL as a 170 lb relative unknown. They
> were brought along, coached and put in situations where they can
> succeed.
Yeah. Along side guys like Sakic and Forsberg. What a coincidence.
> Take a quick look at Manny Malhotra and Jamie Lundmark -
> 'earn your stripes on the 4th line, kid' - to see how a young,
> talented player can be ruined by coaching.
Or how being 'talented' may not be enough to make it in the NHL. See Alexandre
Daigle.
> He also taught/forced an offensive-minded, defensively-deficient, team
> to play good team defense. He has been a good, though certainly not
> great, coach.
I'd agree with the good coach estimation.
> And if you do consider the depth lines (6 forwards, 2 defensemen, 1
> backup goalie), they've turned over 8 of the 9 players. So, including
> Roy, they've turned over 15 of the 20 players on the roster in
> Hartley's tenure, and that's not including the positions they've
> turned over twice.
Right... because these positions have mostly been filled by mediocre, middle of
the road type players. Colorado has kept their best players and cycled through
a bunch of other guys on their last two and a half to three lines at forward,
and a similar amount of turnover on defense. I'm not impressed by handling
turnover when you are upgrading the overall talent level of the team by adding
youthful skill (Hejduk, Drury, et al) while keeping your best players under
contract.
Now, if Sakic, or Forsberg, or Foote, or Blake, or Roy, one of the real
difference makers on the Avs, left during Hartley's tenure and he had to
scramble around and figure something out, now you're talking about a meaningful
accomplishment. Just rolling over a bunch of journeyman-class forwards until
some young players develop ain't it in my book.
E.
edl
edl
1988-1989: Lost in Round 1.
1989-1990: Missed Playoffs.
1990-1991: Lost in Round 1.
1991-1992: Lost in Round 2.
1992-1993: Lost in Round 1.
---Enter Scotty Bowman---
1993-1994: Lost in Round 1.
1994-1995: Lost in Finals.
1995-1996: Lost in Round 3.
1996-1997: Won Stanley Cup.
1997-1998: Won Stanley Cup.
Five years before Bowman arrived = 1 playoff round victory.
Five years after Bowman arrived = 13 playoff round victories.
Now, you tell me Chris... should what Bowman did in Detroit be in any way
marginalized?
E.
broonzy
<game_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ballocks. He's had arguably the best goalie in the game (Roy, who is
> certainly
> the best sans Hasek), two of the best five forwards (Sakic and Forsberg) and
> one
> of the best defensive defensemen in the game (Foote) nearly universally. He's
> had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also. And other
> than 1996, you can hardly ever make a case for the Avs being a team that
> relied
> on depth more than they have relied on key contributions from their best
> players. Under Hartley the Avs have never had a fourth line worth anything
> but
> the most cursory mention, and it's not nearly as difficult to use young
> players
> when they are Milan Hejduk's, Chris Drury's and Alex Tanguay's and you have
> Joe
> Sakic's and Peter Forsberg's to center them.
Yelle was a fourth liner until Hartley's second season and his numbers
during his first four seasons in Colorado, all spent as a fourth-liner,
were similar to Maltby and Draper's. Colorado's situation at the
forward position and its general approach changed radically after it
lost an entire scoring line (Lemieux, Kamensky, and Fleury) in 1999.
The third and fourth liners of Hartley's first season as head coach all
graduated at least one notch and, in the name of his defense-first
philosophy, Hartley reduced his expections of his third line. It was
also under Hartley that Colorado ceased to be a scoring threat when
killing penalties.
Chris
wrote:
Of course not. He's a great coach. But don't change the subject.
You indicated that one reason Hartley's success isn't earth shattering
is because he had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his
tenure. I just asked if Bowman would be treated similarly since he
had elite defensemen his entire Wings tenure also.
Chris
Chris
>But ok, let's compare Lemieux/Jagr/Barrasso to Sakic/Forsberg/Roy. Ignoring the
>rest of the Avs' players, which group of three would you take? After
>one-onemillionth of a second to make my decision and four seconds to type it
>out, I'd take the Avs' 3.
So would I, but you brought up the 2 forwards, 1 defenseman, and 1
goalie thing, not me.
>> I'm
>> not saying Hartley hasn't had great talent all along - he has - but
>> he's had to bring a bevy of young players along, too.
>>
>> >He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
>>
>> Scotty Bowman had Nick Lidstrom for his entire tenure in Detroit.
>> Should we minimize his accomplishments because of that?
>
>Ask yourself a question: Did Detroit get to (or win) a Stanley Cup Final before
>Bowman came to town?
That isn't the point I was responding to and you know it. Stop
squirming. You said - a few lines right above where you are now
currently reading - 'Ballocks........and He's had either Blake or
Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.' Please do not dodge
away from this point, because this is the point of my response: How
is Hartley having Blake/Bourque any different than Bowman (who we all
agree is a great coach) having Lidstrom/Konstantinov or
Lidstrom/Chelios. Fuck, I'd take Lidstrom/Konstantinov circa 1997
over Blake/Bourque any day.
You also said Hartley had Sakic and Forsberg his whole tenure. Well,
Bowman had Yzerman and Fedorov for his whole tenure. Both coaches
walked onto teams that had great centers and defensemen. No
difference whatsoever. The difference between the two is that Hartley
brought along many more young players than Bowman did, and Hartley had
Roy, where Bowman never had a goalie anywhere near that good until his
last season.
>Within that answer lies my response.
That's well and good, but it didn't address either my point, or the
one you originally made.
>> But don't discount the fact that Hejduk, Drury and Tanguay were
>> coached by Hartley when they came into the NHL.
>
>Oh, good grief. Look, you're going to have a hard time (read: completely no
>chance) of convincing me that an NHL coach has that much impact on 'inflating'
>the ability of players on their team.
18 year old players? You've got to be kidding me.
>> And they've all had
>> some stuff to overcome also. Drury was woefully out of shape in his
>> first camp. Tanguay's been in and out of Hartley's doghouse for
>> years. Hejduk came into the NHL as a 170 lb relative unknown. They
>> were brought along, coached and put in situations where they can
>> succeed.
>
>Yeah. Along side guys like Sakic and Forsberg. What a coincidence.
Eric, be serious. Last season, Bowman found this Datsyuk kid. Good
poise. Great stickhandler. He could very well have stuck him between
Maltby and McCarty and said 'Go for it rook'. But he was smart. He
put the kid with one of the greatest goal scorers in history, and
Datsyuk responded. If you were Hartley, would you have put Chris
Drury next to Warren fucking Rychel?
>> Take a quick look at Manny Malhotra and Jamie Lundmark -
>> 'earn your stripes on the 4th line, kid' - to see how a young,
>> talented player can be ruined by coaching.
>
>Or how being 'talented' may not be enough to make it in the NHL. See Alexandre
>Daigle.
What is this? Dodge Night? What in the name of snot does that have
to do with what I'm talking about? My point is that coaches can ruin
young, talented players with relative ease. Malhotra had (has
perhaps) talent. Maybe not as much as originally thought. But the
Rangers played him in a shitty system as their 4th line center 7
minutes a night. And 3 years later, guess what they ended up with?
Voila! A 4th line player.
Hartley could have easily fucked up Drury, Hejduk, et al the exact
same way. But he didn't. Have those young players been better off
playing next to Sakic? Of course they have. Good coaches do this.
Bowman did it last year with Datsyuk. Hitchcock did it a few years
ago when he put Morrow on Modano's wing. Any good coach would do
this, as long as the team isn't getting hurt.
>> He also taught/forced an offensive-minded, defensively-deficient, team
>> to play good team defense. He has been a good, though certainly not
>> great, coach.
>
>I'd agree with the good coach estimation.
>
>> And if you do consider the depth lines (6 forwards, 2 defensemen, 1
>> backup goalie), they've turned over 8 of the 9 players. So, including
>> Roy, they've turned over 15 of the 20 players on the roster in
>> Hartley's tenure, and that's not including the positions they've
>> turned over twice.
>
>Right... because these positions have mostly been filled by mediocre, middle of
>the road type players. Colorado has kept their best players and cycled through
>a bunch of other guys on their last two and a half to three lines at forward,
>and a similar amount of turnover on defense.
I see you skipped my expanation of how the majority of the Avs'
non-depth players have been turned over. Shall I consider that an
oversight?
>I'm not impressed by handling
>turnover when you are upgrading the overall talent level of the team by adding
>youthful skill (Hejduk, Drury, et al) while keeping your best players under
>contract.
Why in hell not? Young skillful players are complete unknowns,
especially during playoff time. Hartley has coached his teams into
the WCFs each of his seasons with multiple rookies in the lineup each
and every time.
>Now, if Sakic, or Forsberg, or Foote, or Blake, or Roy, one of the real
>difference makers on the Avs, left during Hartley's tenure and he had to
>scramble around and figure something out, now you're talking about a meaningful
>accomplishment. Just rolling over a bunch of journeyman-class forwards until
>some young players develop ain't it in my book.
One of the real difference makers? Sheesh. They lost Ozolinsh,
Bourque, Miller, Klemm and Gusarov defensively. They lost Fleury,
Deadmarsh, Lemieux offensively. All 1st/2nd line players at one time
or another during Hartley's tenure. All (except for Gusarov) played
the #1/#2 lines on the teams they went to after leaving the Avs.
Still made the WCFs each and every season after they all left.
That means nothing? Give me a break.
Chris
broonzy
Positively Godberg
success with this team. However, at this point in time, it seems to me
that he's "arguably" lost his magic touch with this team. That is
something that happens regularly. Very few coaches can lead a team to
success for more than 4 or 5 years. After that, the team needs new
blood. Now is the time.
edl
Indeed, that is one reason... borne out by the reality of the Avalanche's
success prior to Hartley's arrival. Say whatever you like about Detroit's
talent or depth prior to Bowman arriving... but they didn't win a fricking
thing. Hartley inherited an immensely talented club that had already won a Cup
and been to the WCFs before getting upset in the first round... making them
tremendously hungry during his first year, I'm sure.
> I just asked if Bowman would be treated similarly since he
> had elite defensemen his entire Wings tenure also.
Oh? Chelios is an 'elite defenseman' now in your estimation? When did this
happen? In July of 2001 you were suggesting that Fischer should play as a #2
and Chelios as a #4. ;)
E.
edl
>
> >But ok, let's compare Lemieux/Jagr/Barrasso to Sakic/Forsberg/Roy. Ignoring
the
> >rest of the Avs' players, which group of three would you take? After
> >one-onemillionth of a second to make my decision and four seconds to type it
> >out, I'd take the Avs' 3.
>
> So would I, but you brought up the 2 forwards, 1 defenseman, and 1
> goalie thing, not me.
Ok. Add any defenseman you want off the Pens roster, and I'll add Foote to the
Avs roster. Does this change your vote? Me either.
> >> I'm
> >> not saying Hartley hasn't had great talent all along - he has - but
> >> he's had to bring a bevy of young players along, too.
> >>
> >> >He's had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.
> >>
> >> Scotty Bowman had Nick Lidstrom for his entire tenure in Detroit.
> >> Should we minimize his accomplishments because of that?
> >
> >Ask yourself a question: Did Detroit get to (or win) a Stanley Cup Final
before
> >Bowman came to town?
>
> That isn't the point I was responding to and you know it. Stop
> squirming. You said - a few lines right above where you are now
> currently reading - 'Ballocks........and He's had either Blake or
> Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also.' Please do not dodge
> away from this point, because this is the point of my response: How
> is Hartley having Blake/Bourque any different than Bowman (who we all
> agree is a great coach) having Lidstrom/Konstantinov or
> Lidstrom/Chelios.
I listed off a litany of players that Hartley inherited. To select a couple
defensemen out of that whole hodgepodge and attempt to refocus the debate on
just those players is, once again, cherry picking.
> Fuck, I'd take Lidstrom/Konstantinov circa 1997
> over Blake/Bourque any day.
You're paring down my statement and missing the essence of my point, Chris.
Hartley inherited Sakic, Forsberg, Blake/Bourque, Foote, Roy, Hejduk, Drury,
Tanguay and a core of players that had already won a Cup in Denver. Bowman
inherited Lidstrom, Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, and Vernon/Osgood, along with a
good depth checking line on a team that hadn't won dick. Yes, he had
Konstantinov for two years in there... before losing him forever. And he has
had Chelios in there for a few, although I've heard certain people proclaim that
Chelios isn't as good as Foote. But it's not like he inhereited a roster that
was Cup ready from the get-go.
> You also said Hartley had Sakic and Forsberg his whole tenure. Well,
> Bowman had Yzerman and Fedorov for his whole tenure.
Okay, fine. Who would you take, Sakic/Forsberg or Yzerman/Fedorov? I'd take
Sakic/Forsberg in a second.
> Both coaches
> walked onto teams that had great centers and defensemen. No
> difference whatsoever.
If you believe that Sakic/Forsberg are equivalent to Yzerman/Fedorov, and that
Foote/Blake/Bourque is equivalent to Chelios/Lidstrom/Konstantiov.
> The difference between the two is that Hartley
> brought along many more young players than Bowman did, and Hartley had
> Roy, where Bowman never had a goalie anywhere near that good until his
> last season.
Yeah, goaltending. That's not a difference-maker or anything.
> >Within that answer lies my response.
>
> That's well and good, but it didn't address either my point, or the
> one you originally made.
Or the one that your attempted to pretend I made, precisely.
> >> But don't discount the fact that Hejduk, Drury and Tanguay were
> >> coached by Hartley when they came into the NHL.
> >
> >Oh, good grief. Look, you're going to have a hard time (read: completely no
> >chance) of convincing me that an NHL coach has that much impact on
'inflating'
> >the ability of players on their team.
>
> 18 year old players? You've got to be kidding me.
Which 18 year old players are you talking about? Hejduk was 21 in his first
year. Drury was 21 in his first year. Nedorost is 20 now. Vrbata was 20 his
first year. In fact, the ONLY 18 year old Hartley has ever coached in Colorado
that I can see is Alex Tanguay... and how thrilled are you with -his-
development? The only 19 year old Hartley coached in Colorado (aside from
Tanguay in year 2) was Martin Skoula. Again, has he knocked your socks off with
consistent development?
> >> And they've all had
> >> some stuff to overcome also. Drury was woefully out of shape in his
> >> first camp. Tanguay's been in and out of Hartley's doghouse for
> >> years. Hejduk came into the NHL as a 170 lb relative unknown. They
> >> were brought along, coached and put in situations where they can
> >> succeed.
> >
> >Yeah. Along side guys like Sakic and Forsberg. What a coincidence.
>
> Eric, be serious. Last season, Bowman found this Datsyuk kid. Good
> poise. Great stickhandler. He could very well have stuck him between
> Maltby and McCarty and said 'Go for it rook'.
I think you've already forgotten where he spent the whole first half of last
year, Chris. He played with Dandenault and Deveraux for a stretch, and mostly
just got 10 minutes or less of IT a night until he caught on with Hull and
Deveraux nearly at the All-star break.
> But he was smart. He
> put the kid with one of the greatest goal scorers in history, and
> Datsyuk responded. If you were Hartley, would you have put Chris
> Drury next to Warren fucking Rychel?
Ah. So then Hartley's coaching technique consisted of something you appear to
be presenting as common sense.
> >> Take a quick look at Manny Malhotra and Jamie Lundmark -
> >> 'earn your stripes on the 4th line, kid' - to see how a young,
> >> talented player can be ruined by coaching.
> >
> >Or how being 'talented' may not be enough to make it in the NHL. See
Alexandre
> >Daigle.
>
> What is this? Dodge Night? What in the name of snot does that have
> to do with what I'm talking about? My point is that coaches can ruin
> young, talented players with relative ease.
And my point is that young, talented players ruin themselves all the time.
> Hartley could have easily fucked up Drury, Hejduk, et al the exact
> same way. But he didn't.
Ah. So then Hartley should be applauded for not being overtly moronic? As you
yourself said, Chris, "If you were Hartley, would you have put Chris Drury next
to Warren fucking Rychel?" Let's not pretend that some mad scientist/genius
coach came up with the wild notion of putting young, skilled offensive players
next to his best two centermen... especially when the alternatives were "Warren
fucking Rychel".
> >> He also taught/forced an offensive-minded, defensively-deficient, team
> >> to play good team defense. He has been a good, though certainly not
> >> great, coach.
> >
> >I'd agree with the good coach estimation.
> >
> >> And if you do consider the depth lines (6 forwards, 2 defensemen, 1
> >> backup goalie), they've turned over 8 of the 9 players. So, including
> >> Roy, they've turned over 15 of the 20 players on the roster in
> >> Hartley's tenure, and that's not including the positions they've
> >> turned over twice.
> >
> >Right... because these positions have mostly been filled by mediocre, middle
of
> >the road type players. Colorado has kept their best players and cycled
through
> >a bunch of other guys on their last two and a half to three lines at forward,
> >and a similar amount of turnover on defense.
>
> I see you skipped my expanation of how the majority of the Avs'
> non-depth players have been turned over. Shall I consider that an
> oversight?
No, consider it a total lack of concern. Hartley has and had Sakic, Forsberg,
and Roy, all in the prime of their careers. That in and of itself is a huge
boon. Then add in having Foote. Now, add in having Bourque. And then Blake
(never mind that Hartley had ALL THREE one year). And then having a bunch of
very talented forwards come up in Drury, Hejduk, and Tanguay.
Pardon me while I don't commiserate with having to turn over a roster.
> >I'm not impressed by handling
> >turnover when you are upgrading the overall talent level of the team by
adding
> >youthful skill (Hejduk, Drury, et al) while keeping your best players under
> >contract.
>
> Why in hell not?
Because it's not a big deal, IMO. It's not like Hartley had to MacGyver a line
up every night out of tiddlywinks and old Gordie Howe posters. He had hugely
talented players at every position on the ice he could (and did) rely on.
> Young skillful players are complete unknowns,
> especially during playoff time. Hartley has coached his teams into
> the WCFs each of his seasons with multiple rookies in the lineup each
> and every time.
Yes, I especially liked the way Hartley was able to get Sakic, Forsberg and Roy
to shake off the shackles of being average hockey players and suddenly emerge
into the limelight. What skill.
> >Now, if Sakic, or Forsberg, or Foote, or Blake, or Roy, one of the real
> >difference makers on the Avs, left during Hartley's tenure and he had to
> >scramble around and figure something out, now you're talking about a
meaningful
> >accomplishment. Just rolling over a bunch of journeyman-class forwards until
> >some young players develop ain't it in my book.
>
> One of the real difference makers? Sheesh. They lost Ozolinsh,
Ozolinsh. Addition by subtraction.
> Bourque,
Who wasn't lost until -after- Blake was signed.
> Miller
Who Blake was traded for.
> Klemm and Gusarov defensively.
Klemm and Gusarov. Be still my beating heart.
> They lost Fleury,
Oh, how ever do teams survive such evisceration?
> Deadmarsh, Lemieux offensively. All 1st/2nd line players at one time
> or another during Hartley's tenure. All (except for Gusarov) played
> the #1/#2 lines on the teams they went to after leaving the Avs.
> Still made the WCFs each and every season after they all left.
>
> That means nothing? Give me a break.
Yes, Chris, it means nothing, or at most exceedingly little. Tell you what, why
don't you do me a favor and point out the -least- talented roster that Hartley
has had while he's been in Colorado... and then try and convince me that that
roster wasn't one of the three best in the West. Hell, try and convince me that
it wasn't one of the TWO best in the West, while you're at it.
You see, that's my point. It's not like Hartley has had to lose a Bourque and
have to replace him with a Skoula... he's been able to replace him with Rob
Blake. It's not like Hartley has had to lose a Fleury and have to replace him
with a Podein... he's been able to promote a Milan Hejduk. Turnover is only
something that becomes a hurdle, IMO, when the players being 'added' are poorer
than their replacements. I mean, should we all laud Bowman for doing such a
great job handling 'turnover' when he adds Hull, Hasek, Robitaille, Olausson,
Datsyuk and Avery for Lapointe, Osgood, Kozlov, Murphy, Ward, Brown and
Verbeek... an upgrade in every single case?
I'll take "Questions that are answered by the word 'no' for $300, Alex."
E.
Chris
>> >Five years before Bowman arrived = 1 playoff round victory.
>> >Five years after Bowman arrived = 13 playoff round victories.
>> >
>> >Now, you tell me Chris... should what Bowman did in Detroit be in any way
>> >marginalized?
>>
>> Of course not. He's a great coach. But don't change the subject.
>> You indicated that one reason Hartley's success isn't earth shattering
>> is because he had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his
>> tenure.
>
>Indeed, that is one reason... borne out by the reality of the Avalanche's
>success prior to Hartley's arrival. Say whatever you like about Detroit's
>talent or depth prior to Bowman arriving... but they didn't win a fricking
>thing. Hartley inherited an immensely talented club that had already won a Cup
>and been to the WCFs before getting upset in the first round... making them
>tremendously hungry during his first year, I'm sure.
>
>> I just asked if Bowman would be treated similarly since he
>> had elite defensemen his entire Wings tenure also.
>
>Oh? Chelios is an 'elite defenseman' now in your estimation? When did this
>happen? In July of 2001 you were suggesting that Fischer should play as a #2
>and Chelios as a #4. ;)
Jesus. Are you a yoga instructor, or do you just do lots of
stretching exercises each day? The way you dodge and squirm and
change the subject in these discussions, you must be an exceedingly
flexible, nimble fellow.
Bottom line: If Hartley's accomplishments are to be diminished due to
him having star players from the start, so must Bowman's
accomplishments be diminished for the exact same reason(s).
Chris
Chris
>than their replacements. I mean, should we all laud Bowman for doing such a
>great job handling 'turnover' when he adds Hull, Hasek, Robitaille, Olausson,
>Datsyuk and Avery for Lapointe, Osgood, Kozlov, Murphy, Ward, Brown and
>Verbeek... an upgrade in every single case?
No. As long as you keep the criteria the same for both, I'm fine.
That's the first time in this discussion you've done so.
Chris
Chris
It may very well be. Hitchcock was dumped 2 short years after 2 trips
to the Finals. Coaches that demand defense wear out their welcome
sometimes.
Chris
georgeh
missing Trottier? I always respected him as a player --- IMO the
best player of the 80s, and he seems to have a sharp mind --- NYR
not withstanding. Was his role primarily strategy over there
(ala Barry Smith in Det?).
edl
> >Oh? Chelios is an 'elite defenseman' now in your estimation? When did this
> >happen? In July of 2001 you were suggesting that Fischer should play as a #2
> >and Chelios as a #4. ;)
>
> Jesus. Are you a yoga instructor, or do you just do lots of
> stretching exercises each day? The way you dodge and squirm and
> change the subject in these discussions, you must be an exceedingly
> flexible, nimble fellow.
Ah. So then when talking about the types and level of talents coaches inherit,
it's suddenly not relevant to examine what your esitmations of said talent were?
Pity.
> Bottom line: If Hartley's accomplishments are to be diminished due to
> him having star players from the start, so must Bowman's
> accomplishments be diminished for the exact same reason(s).
Except, of course, for two fairly significant differences:
1. The players Hartley inheritied were better than the ones Bowman inherited.
2. The players Hartley inherited had ALREADY gone as far as Hartley ever took
them.
E.
edl
Hardly, Chris. For some reason you don't seem to be able to grasp the notion
that there can be degrees in the level of talent on teams new coaches get... and
that inheriting a team which has already won is rather a different beast than
inheriting one which hadn't done crap. I mean, every coach gets a team with at
least -one- pretty good player on it, right? In a world where we can't draw any
distinctions between amount of talent, I guess that means every new coach
inherits 'talented' teams. In a world where the recent history of the clubs
isn't relevant, I guess every coach should be expected to compete for the Cup
every year. Or none of them should.
Or something equally bizarre and non-sensical.
E.
Elz
"edl" <game_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E7SdnZ5shvO...@comcast.com...
Don't forget #3.
The one team Bowman coached with mediocre talent only (Barfallo) never made
it out of the
first round with him as coach.
Erin(Boulder)
> missing Trottier? I always respected him as a player --- IMO the
> best player of the 80s, and he seems to have a sharp mind --- NYR
> not withstanding. Was his role primarily strategy over there
> (ala Barry Smith in Det?).
Unsurprisingly, his primary role was special teams, which has certainly been
running through my mind every game when I have to look at that awful PP and
abysmal excuse for a kill. It amazes me that people are so mystified about
the failure of the special teams this year when the reason seems so obvious
to me, though of course it's only opinion. I think the kill loses far more
with the loss of Trottier than it does from the loss of Yelle, and as for
the PP...well, what can I say.
--
__________________________
Erin
**************************
"I was not very funny and humorous today, was I? Well, I save it for the
next time."
- Jaromir Jagr who, despite his talent, is cuckoo for cocoa puffs
__________________________
SUPERSTAR ROCKSTAR KUNG-FU ALLSTAR!
"georgeh" <geo...@gjhsun.cl.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:aqtq0v$2fkn$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
edl
"Elz" <delan...@rogers.ca> wrote in message
news:FJDA9.1837$PC4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> The one team Bowman coached with mediocre talent only (Barfallo) never made
> it out of the
> first round with him as coach.
Bowman coached Buffalo from 1979-1980 through 1986-87... although he didn't
finish that season.
Buffalo lost in round 3 in 1979-1980.
Buffalo lost in round 2 in 1980-1981.
Buffalo lost in round 2 in 1982-1983.
Six full seasons (not including his partial year of 1986-87, but including his
partial year of 1981-1982) and he got out of the first round 3 times. Don't
feel bad, Cleo... you were only half wrong. For you, that's a marked
improvement.
E.
ruutu37
Chris
>Except, of course, for two fairly significant differences:
>
>1. The players Hartley inheritied were better than the ones Bowman inherited.
>2. The players Hartley inherited had ALREADY gone as far as Hartley ever took
>them.
Well now that's an interesting theory. I suppose since the Wings won
the Cup in '97, Bowman doesn't deserve any credit whatsoever in 98,
99, 00, 01, or 02 since the players that were there in 97 had ALREADY
gone as far as Bowman later took them.
Chris
Chris
>> > Bottom line: If Hartley's accomplishments are to be diminished due to
>> > him having star players from the start, so must Bowman's
>> > accomplishments be diminished for the exact same reason(s).
>>
>> Except, of course, for two fairly significant differences:
>>
>> 1. The players Hartley inheritied were better than the ones Bowman
>inherited.
>> 2. The players Hartley inherited had ALREADY gone as far as Hartley ever
>took
>> them.
>
>Don't forget #3.
>
>The one team Bowman coached with mediocre talent only (Barfallo) never made
>it out of the
>first round with him as coach.
That isn't true at all. Bowman took over a Buffalo team that put up
over 100 points in 4 of the 5 years before his arrival and had on it
such players as Perrault, Gare, Martin and several good defensemen.
Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good - with very
good players - before he got there (with the exception of the '67-ish
Blues, over 30 years ago).
Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, neither did Hartley.
And I don't think you're round 1 theory is correct, either. I'm
pretty sure some of those Buffalo teams got past round 1.
Chris
>
>
Chris
>And I don't think you're round 1 theory is correct, either.
Your. You're. Your. You're. Your...
It's been a long week...
Chris
edl
<Buzzer>
Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and been
in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin that
however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in the
NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached his
first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about Hartley
is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and has
allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
E.
edl
> Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good - with very
> good players - before he got there (with the exception of the '67-ish
> Blues, over 30 years ago).
Yeah, being in the Finals for the first three years a franchise exists. What a
rube.
E.
M. Zaiem Beg
-><Buzzer>
->
->Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and been
->in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin that
->however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in the
->NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached his
->first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about Hartley
->is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and has
->allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach? Because if it's the former,
that's a big freaking duh. If it's the latter, it's hard to say because we
don't know what Hartley would do with inferior talent since it's never
happened. If Vince Lombardi's only coaching stint was with the 1992-1995
Dallas Cowboys, he'd still be a good coach even though a trained monkey
could coach those teams to multiple championships (see: Switzer, Barry).
Similarly, if Bowman's only coaching stint was with the Red Wings of
recent, it would be hard to judge just how good he is. However, he's done
a hell of a lot with inferior teams (the most impressive is what he did as
coach of the Blues, in my opinion...no championships, but Christ...they
were a freaking expansion team and he got them to the finals their first
year! And second. And third.)
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
"If we could shoot, we'd be dangerous."
-Denver Nuggets coach Jeff Bzedlik
Chris
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, edl wrote:
>
>-><Buzzer>
>->
>->Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and been
>->in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin that
>->however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in the
>->NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached his
>->first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about Hartley
>->is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and has
>->allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
>
>Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
>Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach?
Thank you. I've been trying to argue the latter, but someone keeps
changing the subject. Actually, I'm simply trying to get Eric to
apply consistent criteria.
What started the whole thing is when Eric diminished Hartley's
accomplishments because he had Blake and Bourque for most of his
tenure. I then said that if that's the case, Bowman's Detroit
accomplishments must be diminished because he had Lidstrom and
Konstantinov for most of his first 5 years with the Wings. I said
nothing about Bowman being better or worse than Hartley, just that if
Hartley is diminished because of this, then so is Bowman.
>Because if it's the former,
>that's a big freaking duh.
Of course it is. On every single Cup-winning team, the coach deserves
credit. And since Bowman has won 193 of the damn things, he deserves
the most. Clearly and without question. He has also been more
successful in his stint with the Wings than Hartley has with the Avs.
>If it's the latter, it's hard to say because we
>don't know what Hartley would do with inferior talent since it's never
>happened.
Again, there is no question this is true.
>If Vince Lombardi's only coaching stint was with the 1992-1995
>Dallas Cowboys, he'd still be a good coach even though a trained monkey
>could coach those teams to multiple championships (see: Switzer, Barry).
>Similarly, if Bowman's only coaching stint was with the Red Wings of
>recent, it would be hard to judge just how good he is. However, he's done
>a hell of a lot with inferior teams
And what inferior teams would those be? The Blues of 1967? Sure. No
question whatsoever.
Montreal? Well, if we're to apply Eric's criteria (which I think only
applies to anything Colorado, so we'll have to wait and see), Montreal
won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. So anything he did in
subsequent years (5 championships) is rendered moot since he inherited
a Cup team and simply didn't 'go out of his way to do anything
tremendously inept, and has allowed his elite, HOF players to win
games for the Canadiens'. Care to apply consistent criteria here
Eric? Or shall I put on my new dancing shoes to get ready for some
spin doctoring?
Buffalo? He inherited a team that had amassed over 100 points 4 of
the 5 years before he got there. He had some success certainly, but
he inherited a team that had some great players and one that was
perenially over 100 points. So, it's not like he made waves with
crummy teams. When his team got bad at the end of his tenure, they
were out of the playoffs.
Pittsburgh? He took over a team that had - once again - won a
Championship the very year before. Again, applying Eric's criteria,
all Bowman did was 'not go out of his way to do anything tremendously
inept, and has allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the
Penguins', and doesn't really deserve much credit for that Cup,
either.
Then we get to Detroit, where he inherited a 100+ point team, with
players that included Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Yzerman, Fedorov, Coffey
and a still very effective Ray Sheppard (though how Boman put up with
his defense, I'll never know). Not to mention good young players like
Drake, Sillinger and Primeau. He also had Ciccarelli, who scored 41
goals the year before, but he was clearly declining.
If we're to ignore the spin and apply the same criteria for everyone
(tough for certain Wings' fans when discussion Colorado), this isn't
too tough. Bowman had good/great teams all the time and he got the
most out of them. That is hardly 'not getting in the way of the
HOFers'. It's a huge accomplishment that deserves an enormous amount
of credit. I simply want Eric to apply the same criteria to Hartley.
He had good/great players and has won with them, while having a lot of
both turnover and injuries. No one is saying Hartley is better or has
done better than Bowman. That's just how Eric is spinning it every
time I try to get him to apply consistent criteria.
But to your point, where are all of these crummy teams Bowman had
success with?
Chris
Chris
>Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and been
>in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin that
>however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in the
>NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached his
>first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about Hartley
>is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and has
>allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
OK, fine. Let's go with that (albeit silly) set of criteria. In that
case, Bowman did nothing special with the Canadiens, Sabres or
Penguins and his only 'real' coaching accomplishment was with the Red
Wings. In Montreal and Pittsburgh, those teams won the Cup THE YEAR
BEFORE HE GOT THERE. Both teams also had HOFers all over the place.
So, is the 'best thing' we can say about Bowman (pre-Detroit) that 'he
didn't go out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and
allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the
Canadiens/Penguins'? That's patently stupid.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
Once again, spin. I believe if you look a mere 5-6 lines above this
one, you'll see where I wrote "with the exception of the '67-ish
Blues...". Of course, he didn't win any Cups with them. But for the
rest of his career, he inherited either great (Montreal/Pittsburgh),
very good (Detroit, Buffalo) teams.
Eric, please note (because you are apparently having trouble grasping
this):
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THIS IN ANY WAY
DIMINISHES BOWMAN'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
I'm just saying that other coaches shouldn't be diminished either -
when those other coaches have had successes in similar situations.
Chris
edl
"M. Zaiem Beg" <zb...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0211160328430.22272-100000@shell1...
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, edl wrote:
>
> -><Buzzer>
> ->
> ->Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and
been
> ->in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin
that
> ->however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in
the
> ->NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached
his
> ->first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
Hartley
> ->is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and
has
> ->allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
>
> Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
> Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach?
There actually isn't any argument here, Zaiem. I'm merely engaging in a little
preventative maintenence with Chris, so that weeks later I don't have to read
snide, misrepresentative shots at what we talked about in this thread. ;)
E.
edl
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:34:06 -0500, "M. Zaiem Beg" <zb...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, edl wrote:
> >
> >-><Buzzer>
> >->
> >->Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and
been
> >->in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin
that
> >->however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in
the
> >->NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached
his
> >->first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
Hartley
> >->is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept,
and has
> >->allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
> >
> >Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
> >Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach?
>
> Thank you. I've been trying to argue the latter, but someone keeps
> changing the subject. Actually, I'm simply trying to get Eric to
> apply consistent criteria.
Whoops, too late. Obviously, Chris has already forgotten that applying
consistent criteria doesn't mean that there cannot be any evidence of degrees
within said criteria. Two coaches can inherit talent on clubs, but one coach
can inherit rather more talent, as well as inheriting talent that already knows
it can (by virtue of actually winning) win a Cup.
> What started the whole thing is when Eric diminished Hartley's
> accomplishments because he had Blake and Bourque for most of his
> tenure.
Whoops, Chris has misrepresented me again. Perhaps what I actually said would
refresh his memory:
"Ballocks. He's had arguably the best goalie in the game (Roy, who is certainly
the best sans Hasek), two of the best five forwards (Sakic and Forsberg) and one
of the best defensive defensemen in the game (Foote) nearly universally. He's
had either Blake or Bourque for the entirety of his tenure, also."
Roy. Sakic. Forsberg. Foote. Blake. Bourque. Not JUST Blake or Bourque,
but an entire list of players. Why Chris chose to fixate on just Blake and
Bourque and ignore the rest of what I said is a mystery.
> I said
> nothing about Bowman being better or worse than Hartley, just that if
> Hartley is diminished because of this, then so is Bowman.
Obviously, applying 'consistent criteria' is a poor shield for misrepresenting
my actual statement.
> And what inferior teams would those be? The Blues of 1967? Sure. No
> question whatsoever.
>
> Montreal? Well, if we're to apply Eric's criteria (which I think only
> applies to anything Colorado, so we'll have to wait and see),
Chris, seriously... stuff it. It's bad enough that you have to outright
misrepresent my comment, cherry pick less than half of the words in it and then
try and erect some type of point, but sarcasm in the face of your own dishonesty
is just a little too much, don't you think?
> Montreal
> won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. So anything he did in
> subsequent years (5 championships) is rendered moot since he inherited
> a Cup team and simply didn't 'go out of his way to do anything
> tremendously inept, and has allowed his elite, HOF players to win
> games for the Canadiens'. Care to apply consistent criteria here
> Eric? Or shall I put on my new dancing shoes to get ready for some
> spin doctoring?
Chris, you're rapidly progressing beyond misrepresentation into patent
foolishness and stupidity. Hartley inherited a hugely talented team. He's a
good coach. He hasn't screwed the Avs up. But please, stop your whining
already... Hartley's coaching a team that had already won, and one of the three
or four best in the NHL without question. If Bowman's only coaching stop in
history was Montreal, you -might- be able to make the same case (although with 5
Cups in 8 years I don't believe it's possible to find a more successful 8 year
span in Montreal's history with another coach)... but regardless, stop it.
> If we're to ignore the spin and apply the same criteria for everyone
> (tough for certain Wings' fans when discussion Colorado), this isn't
> too tough.
<sigh>
I get the feeling you're never going to look at this debate honestly, are you?
I mean, you're never going to admit to yourself that Hartley inherited a hugely
talented club that had already won... and that there is a huge difference
between doing that and inheriting, for instance, a team like Detroit that had
fairly well demonstrated it's postseason incompetence prior to Bowman's arrival.
Inheriting good players is one thing. Inheriting BETTER players is something
else. Inheriting BETTER PLAYERS WHO HAVE ALREADY WON A CUP is something else
yet again.
Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten your dander up to the point where it's
interfered with your minds ability to grasp any of these truths.
E.
edl
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 03:26:26 -0500, "edl" <game_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dd5a466...@news-server.optonline.net...
> >
> >> Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good - with very
> >> good players - before he got there (with the exception of the '67-ish
> >> Blues, over 30 years ago).
> >
> >Yeah, being in the Finals for the first three years a franchise exists. What
a
> >rube.
>
> Once again, spin.
Awww, what's the matter, Chris? Don't like being served your own receipe?
Maybe if I did something like this:
You said, "Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good... before he
got there."
And then went on a week long rampage about how inconsistent and idiotic you were
being you'd be more comfortable with things? Stop whining.
> I'm just saying that other coaches shouldn't be diminished either -
> when those other coaches have had successes in similar situations.
Similar situations, Chris. Not identical. Apparently, you're incapable of
noting any differentiation between possible levels of ability and talent on
clubs... which is fine. Hey, nobody's perfect. But please, stop with the
freaking whining whenever someone else points out that the entirety of the
Hockey Universe isn't as black and white as you hope it is. ALL coaches inherit
'talent', to some degree or another, when they step into a new job. Gee shucks,
I guess if we use your 'standards' no coach should ever be held to any level of
expectation.
E.
Sli...@keyboard.com
wrote:
I think we could categorize the stick measurement call as
"tremendously inept". He was pretty much telling his team that he
didn't think they were good enough to score 5 on 4. Was a desperation
call that hurt his team in more ways than just losing the powerplay
advantage.
Slider
Chris
Ok, let's expand on this silly theory. Montreal won the Cup the year
before Bowman got there. Then Bowman won it in his 2nd year with
essentially the same HOF-laden team. He deserves exactly what credit
for that Cup win?
Pittsburgh won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. Then Bowman
won it the next year with essentially the same HOF-laden team. He
deserves exactly what credit for that Cup win?
IMO, he deserves enormous credit for every Cup he's won, regardless of
the team, because coaching a team to the Cup isn't easy no matter what
the personnel. No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
all have impact on the outcome.
Chris
Chris
>> Once again, spin.
>
>Awww, what's the matter, Chris? Don't like being served your own receipe?
>Maybe if I did something like this:
>
>You said, "Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good... before he
>got there."
You disagree?
Remember, I gave the exception example of the 67 Blues.
Give me an example of a crummy team he took over.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
Why don't you answer his question? Given your posts, it's an entirely
pertinent question.
Chris
M. Zaiem Beg
->> Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
->> Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach?
->
->There actually isn't any argument here, Zaiem. I'm merely engaging in a little
->preventative maintenence with Chris, so that weeks later I don't have to read
->snide, misrepresentative shots at what we talked about in this thread. ;)
Heh. :) That does seem to happen a lot around here, doesn't it? It's a
breath of fresh air though. I'll take the endless debate that goes on for
dozens of posts over this new breed of moron we have in here -- any day of
the week.
God, what the hell has happened to this place? Sheesh.
M. Zaiem Beg
->>If Vince Lombardi's only coaching stint was with the 1992-1995
->>Dallas Cowboys, he'd still be a good coach even though a trained monkey
->>could coach those teams to multiple championships (see: Switzer, Barry).
->>Similarly, if Bowman's only coaching stint was with the Red Wings of
->>recent, it would be hard to judge just how good he is. However, he's done
->>a hell of a lot with inferior teams
->
->And what inferior teams would those be? The Blues of 1967? Sure. No
->question whatsoever.
Yeah, I was thinking specifically of the job he did with the Blues, which
I find to be nothing short of astounding.
->But to your point, where are all of these crummy teams Bowman had
->success with?
67-69 Blues. But I'm ducking out of this. :) I just wanted to be clear who
was arguing what and inadvertently typed more than I should have (it was
an accident, I swear. I just slipped and miraculously all those letters
came out. One-in-a-trillion chance.)
Duckingly yours,
Chris
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, edl wrote:
>
>->> Wait, what's the argument here? That Hartley isn't as good a coach as
>->> Bowman was, or that Hartley is a good coach?
>->
>->There actually isn't any argument here, Zaiem. I'm merely engaging in a little
>->preventative maintenence with Chris, so that weeks later I don't have to read
>->snide, misrepresentative shots at what we talked about in this thread. ;)
>
>Heh. :) That does seem to happen a lot around here, doesn't it? It's a
>breath of fresh air though. I'll take the endless debate that goes on for
>dozens of posts over this new breed of moron we have in here -- any day of
>the week.
So will I. This place is little more than a troll den these days.
And even though the discussions can get heated once in awhile, Eric's
still my favorite guy to debate with in here. No one else seems to
want to debate too many differing points of view anymore. Bummer...
OK, enough of that nice stuff.
Eric, you ignorant slut... :-)
Chris
Doug Norris
>Yeah, being in the Finals for the first three years a franchise exists.
>What a rube.
While that's certainly an impressive accomplishment, it's not like he took
the Florida Panthers to the Finals for the first three years of their
existence. The NHL *designed* the Stanley Cup playoffs so that one of the
new teams *had* to be in the Finals for the first few years post-expansion.
For more information, look at the teams Bowman's Blues had to beat to get
to those Finals.
Doug
broonzy
Beg <zb...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, edl wrote:
>
> -><Buzzer>
> ->
> ->Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and
> been
> ->in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin
> that
> ->however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in
> the
> ->NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached
> his
> ->first game. As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
> Hartley
> ->is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept,
> and has
> ->allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
>
However, he's done
> a hell of a lot with inferior teams (the most impressive is what he did as
> coach of the Blues, in my opinion...no championships, but Christ...they
> were a freaking expansion team and he got them to the finals their first
> year! And second. And third.)
Let's not exaggerate Bowman's accomplishments at St Louis. The Blues
were only the best of the rest. In those years, the league was divided
in two divisions: one for the Original Six teams and the other for the
6 expansion teams, and the two divisions intermingled in the playoffs
only to play in the Stanley Cup finals. Except for St Louis, none of
the expansion teams played for .500 during any of those three seasons.
So St Louis faced the weakest teams possible in the first two playoff
rounds before losing the finals in 4 games every year.
broonzy
<game_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> news:3dd5a3eb...@news-server.optonline.net...
> >
> > >Except, of course, for two fairly significant differences:
> > >
> > >1. The players Hartley inheritied were better than the ones Bowman
> inherited.
> > >2. The players Hartley inherited had ALREADY gone as far as Hartley ever
> took
> > >them.
> >
> > Well now that's an interesting theory. I suppose since the Wings won
> > the Cup in '97, Bowman doesn't deserve any credit whatsoever in 98,
> > 99, 00, 01, or 02 since the players that were there in 97 had ALREADY
> > gone as far as Bowman later took them.
>
> <Buzzer>
>
> Reading is fundamental, Chris. Prior to Hartley, the Avs had won a Cup and
> been
> in the WCFs. Prior to Bowman, the Wings hadn't done dick. Try and spin that
> however you want, but once Bowman came to town the Wings became a force in the
> NHL. The Avs were an elite Cup-contending team before Hartley ever coached
> his
> first game.
Bowman inherited a 100-point team which had underachieved in the
playoffs, and the same thing happened to him in his first season.
> As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
> Hartley
> is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and
> has
> allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
That's a perfectly stupid statement because as I demonstrated earlier
last week, Hartley completely changed, for better or worse, the
franchise's approach to the game.
broonzy
<no...@goaway.com> wrote:
> >If Vince Lombardi's only coaching stint was with the 1992-1995
> >Dallas Cowboys, he'd still be a good coach even though a trained monkey
> >could coach those teams to multiple championships (see: Switzer, Barry).
> >Similarly, if Bowman's only coaching stint was with the Red Wings of
> >recent, it would be hard to judge just how good he is. However, he's done
> >a hell of a lot with inferior teams
>
> And what inferior teams would those be? The Blues of 1967? Sure. No
> question whatsoever.
But remember that the NHL worked it out between 1967 and 1970 so that
the Stanley Cup finals could only involve an expansion team against an
Original Six team. St. Louis reached the finals by facing the weakest
opposition possible, i.e. other expansion teams, in the first two
rounds, and it lost 12 straigth games in the finals. That regime was so
unfair, and the finals were such a foregone conclusion, that the league
reworked its divisions and intermingled them earlier in the playoffs.
> Buffalo? He inherited a team that had amassed over 100 points 4 of
> the 5 years before he got there. He had some success certainly, but
> he inherited a team that had some great players and one that was
> perenially over 100 points. So, it's not like he made waves with
> crummy teams. When his team got bad at the end of his tenure, they
> were out of the playoffs.
Another point that needs to be made about his days in Buffalo is that
Bowman left Montreal first and foremost to become the Sabres' GM (he
passed over in Montreal to replace Pollock) which is why he didn't
coach all the time. Bowman reached his Peter Principle as a GM.
Although it might prove that Bowman and Hartley are both better coaches
that Bryan Murray, this comparison totally fails to support EDL's main
point about Hartley, i.e. that the best thing to say about him is
probably that he didn't get in the way of his star players, as if
Hartley wasn't much more than glorified usher. In fact, no coach has
had a deeper impact on the franchise as he managed to completely change
its hockey philosophy within half a season.
edl
> Ok, let's expand on this silly theory.
Like I said, you're never going to be able to look at this issue honestly, it
seems.
> Montreal won the Cup the year
> before Bowman got there.
And missed the playoffs entirely the year before that.
> Then Bowman won it in his 2nd year with
> essentially the same HOF-laden team. He deserves exactly what credit
> for that Cup win?
Hard to say. I mean, Bowman had to deal with the horrific difficulties of
'turnover', with something like 13 skaters and the starting goaltender changing
between 1970-1971 and his first year... so I guess according to you Bowman must
have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
applying 'consistent criteria'.
> Pittsburgh won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. Then Bowman
> won it the next year with essentially the same HOF-laden team. He
> deserves exactly what credit for that Cup win?
Of all of his coaching stops, this was the one where I think Bowman deserves the
least credit for the teams' success.
> IMO, he deserves enormous credit for every Cup he's won, regardless of
> the team, because coaching a team to the Cup isn't easy no matter what
> the personnel.
But it can be much harder, depending on the personnel. Just like making to the
WCFs every year can be very hard if your team is only as talented as the
Columbus Blue Jackets... and not as talented as the Colorado Avalanche.
> No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
> of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
> all have impact on the outcome.
Heh. Okay. You tell me, then: Exactly what were the three most critical
playoff-time decisions Bob Hartley has ever made which were beneficial to the
Colorado Avalanche? Try and avoid, 'He started Patrick Roy.'
E.
edl
> God, what the hell has happened to this place? Sheesh.
Actually, that's an interesting question. Well, not -really- interesting, but
worth at least me blowing a minute mentioning it. Why in the hell are all these
idiots in your group? Not that I'm complaining, but don't the morons usually
congregate in the Cup Champs NG?
E.
edl
>
> >> Once again, spin.
> >
> >Awww, what's the matter, Chris? Don't like being served your own receipe?
> >Maybe if I did something like this:
> >
> >You said, "Bowman has never taken over a team that wasn't very good... before
he
> >got there."
>
> You disagree?
You've obviously missed the point of my quote. See, according to my 'quote' you
never actually mentioned the Blues specifically. That was the point.
E.
edl
> Why don't you answer his question?
Because I've already answered it.
E.
edl
> Eric, you ignorant slut... :-)
I am NOT ignorant.
E.
edl
"broonzy" <bro...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:171120020052483953%bro...@videotron.ca...
> Bowman inherited a 100-point team which had underachieved in the
> playoffs, and the same thing happened to him in his first season.
His first season. Man, I wonder if he was ever able to change that?
> > As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
> > Hartley
> > is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and
> > has
> > allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
>
> That's a perfectly stupid statement because as I demonstrated earlier
> last week, Hartley completely changed, for better or worse, the
> franchise's approach to the game.
Heh. BMag, I don't care what a coach does or says... he can't make players like
Sakic, Forsberg and Roy mediocre. He can play a trap, the Torpedo, or the
freaking Flying V, and with those three guys alone he'd have a competitive team.
Now toss in the roughly half dozen other really good players he's had.
E.
edl
> In fact, no coach has
> had a deeper impact on the franchise as he managed to completely change
> its hockey philosophy within half a season.
Whew. 86 years of hockey, and Hartley's had the most impact on his team, eh?
E.
Chris
wrote:
But I did mention the Blues specifically. In this thread, at least
twice.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
I think he was referring to the Quebec/Colorado franchise in
particular, as he said 'the' franchise, not 'a' franchise.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
Only during the playoffs. I think the 7-0 drubbing you gave us in
game 7 kept the trolls in the opposing ng longer than necessary.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
>
>"broonzy" <bro...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:171120020052483953%bro...@videotron.ca...
>
>> Bowman inherited a 100-point team which had underachieved in the
>> playoffs, and the same thing happened to him in his first season.
>
>His first season. Man, I wonder if he was ever able to change that?
>
>> > As I said before, perhaps the best thing you can say about
>> > Hartley
>> > is that he hasn't gone out of his way to do anything tremendously inept, and
>> > has
>> > allowed his elite, HOF players to win games for the Avalanche.
>>
>> That's a perfectly stupid statement because as I demonstrated earlier
>> last week, Hartley completely changed, for better or worse, the
>> franchise's approach to the game.
>
>Heh. BMag, I don't care what a coach does or says... he can't make players like
>Sakic, Forsberg and Roy mediocre.
Perhaps not, but he can make a *team* with players like that mediocre,
Eric. It happens all the time. That is the point.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
>
>"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
>news:3dd68420...@news-server.optonline.net...
>
>> Ok, let's expand on this silly theory.
>
>Like I said, you're never going to be able to look at this issue honestly, it
>seems.
>
>> Montreal won the Cup the year
>> before Bowman got there.
>
>And missed the playoffs entirely the year before that.
What relevance does that have? With comments like that, you have a
problem with me suggesting you dodge issues?
>> Then Bowman won it in his 2nd year with
>> essentially the same HOF-laden team. He deserves exactly what credit
>> for that Cup win?
>
>Hard to say. I mean, Bowman had to deal with the horrific difficulties of
>'turnover', with something like 13 skaters and the starting goaltender changing
>between 1970-1971 and his first year...
Oh, for Goodness sake. Have you no shame?
On the 70-71 Cup team, the top 10 scorers were:
Beliveau
Cornoyer
Mahovlich
Tremblay
Mahovlich
Lemaire
Tardif
Richard
Lapointe
Ferguson
The next year, the top 10 scorers were *EXACTLY* the same, except
Beliveau was replaced with Guy Lafleur. Whoopie. Claude Larose also
managed to sneak into the second year's top 10, and he was also on the
team the year before.
You are unreal. You claim that Hartley incorporating rookies like
Drury, Hejduk and Tanguay doesn't mean jack, but Bowman somehow having
to replace his #11-15 scorers of a Cup-winning team does?
This is the most inconsistent argument I've ever seen you participate
in.
>so I guess according to you Bowman must
>have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
>applying 'consistent criteria'.
Anal? To someone like you who applies different criteria whenever it
suits you, I'd expect you'd see it that way. You haven't once applied
fair, equal criteria in this discussion.
And FWIW, *I* think he did do a great job with each and every Cup he
won.
>> Pittsburgh won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. Then Bowman
>> won it the next year with essentially the same HOF-laden team. He
>> deserves exactly what credit for that Cup win?
>
>Of all of his coaching stops, this was the one where I think Bowman deserves the
>least credit for the teams' success.
Why?
>> IMO, he deserves enormous credit for every Cup he's won, regardless of
>> the team, because coaching a team to the Cup isn't easy no matter what
>> the personnel.
>
>But it can be much harder, depending on the personnel.
Of course it can. No one - certainly not me - is claiming anything
otherwise.
>Just like making to the
>WCFs every year can be very hard if your team is only as talented as the
>Columbus Blue Jackets... and not as talented as the Colorado Avalanche.
Of course.
Eric, look at this analogy: Both Bowman and Hartley take a math test
and Bowman scores a 100, Hartley a 90. But, they both used a
cheatsheet (this being analagous to a very good roster). You are
saying that Hartley should get a lesser score because he cheated, but
Bowman shouldn't get a lesser score (note that I'm not saying that
Hartley shouldn't be demerited more...) because his test was harder.
That is unmitigated bullshit.
Now, you might make the claim that Hartley should be demerited 10
points and Bowman 8 points due to the difficulty of the test, but you
won't even do that.
>> No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
>> of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
>> all have impact on the outcome.
>
>Heh. Okay. You tell me, then: Exactly what were the three most critical
>playoff-time decisions Bob Hartley has ever made which were beneficial to the
>Colorado Avalanche? Try and avoid, 'He started Patrick Roy.'
Please. They lost their best player (or second best, if you count
Roy) and won the thing. You honestly believe that is possible without
any meaningful intervention from a coach?!?
Chris
Chris
>> Then Bowman won it in his 2nd year with
>> essentially the same HOF-laden team. He deserves exactly what credit
>> for that Cup win?
>
>Hard to say. I mean, Bowman had to deal with the horrific difficulties of
>'turnover', with something like 13 skaters and the starting goaltender changing
>between 1970-1971 and his first year... so I guess according to you Bowman must
>have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
>applying 'consistent criteria'.
Actually, I forgot to give a serious answer to this part of your point
in my last response. The answer is yes - big time - Bowman deserves
credit. Why? Even ignoring the number of Cups he won with Montreal,
he took over a great team in 1971. If you then look at the 1976 Cup
team - 5 years later - you'll see a very different team. Of the top
15 scorers on the 1971 team, there were but 4 who were still with the
team in 1976. That, to me, is amazing, even though some of the
players who came in to replace those on the 1971 Cup team included Guy
Lafleur, Steve Shutt, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson and Bob Gainey.
Oh, and a goalie named Ken Dryden.
Now, if we look at the 1996 Avs Cup team and their top 15 scorers and
the team Hartley won with 5 years later, would you like to guess how
many of those 15 scorers were still there? A whopping grand total of
3 - Sakic, Forsberg and Yelle. We can make it 4 if we count Roy.
Sound familiar?
Now, you said that Hartley still doesn't deserve all of the credit
because he got young players like Drury, Hejduk and Tanguay to fill
the holes of the departed Cup-winning veterans. Bowman filled the
holes with Lafleur, Robinson, Shutt and Dryden, but he *does* deserve
the credit?
In short, they *both* deserve credit for taking already good teams
that had won in the past, overhauling the roster(s), then winning
again. Does Bowman deserve more credit? Sure. But my most basic
point is that if you demerit one, you've got to demerit the other, at
least to some extent.
Chris
edl
Yes. Just like I mentioned more players than just Blake or Bourque. Once
again, that was the point of my 'quote.'
E.
broonzy
<game_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You still can't distinguish between the definite articles "the" and
"a"? Who are you kidding? Whew is right.
edl
> >> Montreal won the Cup the year
> >> before Bowman got there.
> >
> >And missed the playoffs entirely the year before that.
>
> What relevance does that have? With comments like that, you have a
> problem with me suggesting you dodge issues?
Chris, I have never said that would imply the only relevance in looking at a
club can be found by looking solely at what they did the year before a coaching
change was made. In fact, I went back a series of years in my initial
statements regarding Hartley. Now, all of a sudden, you've decided to limit the
scope of the discussion to the single season prior to a coaching change?
With comments like that, you have a problem with me suggesting you aren't
examining the topic honestly?
> >> Then Bowman won it in his 2nd year with
> >> essentially the same HOF-laden team. He deserves exactly what credit
> >> for that Cup win?
> >
> >Hard to say. I mean, Bowman had to deal with the horrific difficulties of
> >'turnover', with something like 13 skaters and the starting goaltender
changing
> >between 1970-1971 and his first year...
> You are unreal. You claim that Hartley incorporating rookies like
> Drury, Hejduk and Tanguay doesn't mean jack, but Bowman somehow having
> to replace his #11-15 scorers of a Cup-winning team does?
No, Chris. I was making light (albeit sarcastically) of your earlier comments
regarding Hartley having to weather the firestorm of suffering incumbent in
turning over your depth lines in the course of three seasons. Bowman had nearly
half of the roster and his goaltender change from one year to the next, and
that's far more turnover than Hartley has ever had to deal with in a single
season.
> >so I guess according to you Bowman must
> >have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
> >applying 'consistent criteria'.
>
> Anal? To someone like you who applies different criteria whenever it
> suits you, I'd expect you'd see it that way. You haven't once applied
> fair, equal criteria in this discussion.
Heh. Yeah, right. In your world, 'fair, equal criteria' are ones which are
entirely blind to detail and circumstance. In that case, yes... I'll probably
never apply 'fair, equal criteria.'
> And FWIW, *I* think he did do a great job with each and every Cup he
> won.
Of course you do.
> >> Pittsburgh won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. Then Bowman
> >> won it the next year with essentially the same HOF-laden team. He
> >> deserves exactly what credit for that Cup win?
> >
> >Of all of his coaching stops, this was the one where I think Bowman deserves
the
> >least credit for the teams' success.
>
> Why?
The roster was nearly unchanged from the one that won a Cup the year before.
> >> IMO, he deserves enormous credit for every Cup he's won, regardless of
> >> the team, because coaching a team to the Cup isn't easy no matter what
> >> the personnel.
> >
> >But it can be much harder, depending on the personnel.
>
> Of course it can. No one - certainly not me - is claiming anything
> otherwise.
No. You're only whining that whenever someone -does- claim it, they aren't
using 'fair' cirteria.
> >Just like making to the
> >WCFs every year can be very hard if your team is only as talented as the
> >Columbus Blue Jackets... and not as talented as the Colorado Avalanche.
>
> Of course.
>
> Eric, look at this analogy: Both Bowman and Hartley take a math test
> and Bowman scores a 100, Hartley a 90. But, they both used a
> cheatsheet (this being analagous to a very good roster). You are
> saying that Hartley should get a lesser score because he cheated, but
> Bowman shouldn't get a lesser score (note that I'm not saying that
> Hartley shouldn't be demerited more...) because his test was harder.
> That is unmitigated bullshit.
Yes, it is. Of course, a large part of the reason it is bullshit is that your
analogy is highly flawed. Let me assist you in creating one more apropos to the
discussion at hand.
Both coaches are taking the same 'test'.
Both coaches are using 'cheatsheets'.
One coach is using a cheetsheet that was prepared by someone who had already
'passed' the test (Hartley in Colorado).
Another coach is using a cheatsheet prepared by someone who had not already
'passed' the test (Bowman in Detroit).
Hartley passes the test with this better cheatsheet. Bowman passes the test
with the lesser cheatsheet.
In this more relevant analogy, Hartley's 'advantage' is more suited to
successfully completing task at hand than was Bowman's (obvious, based on the
recent history of both clubs prior to Hartley and Bowman coming to town).
> Now, you might make the claim that Hartley should be demerited 10
> points and Bowman 8 points due to the difficulty of the test, but you
> won't even do that.
Right, because the skeleton rationale of your analogy isn't able to correspond
with the realities of the situation because it doesn't address the central issue
at hand, namely Hartley entering a situation more conducive to immediate success
than Bowman did.
> >> No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
> >> of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
> >> all have impact on the outcome.
> >
> >Heh. Okay. You tell me, then: Exactly what were the three most critical
> >playoff-time decisions Bob Hartley has ever made which were beneficial to the
> >Colorado Avalanche? Try and avoid, 'He started Patrick Roy.'
>
> Please. They lost their best player (or second best, if you count
> Roy)
Or third best, if you count Joe Sakic. Or fourth best, depending on where you
slot Rob Blake in as far as valuable to the team.
> and won the thing. You honestly believe that is possible without
> any meaningful intervention from a coach?!?
When you have Patrick Roy? Uh, yeah. Hell, Buffalo nearly won a Cup with Hasek
and a woefully inferior team to that Avs club. Washington got to the Finals
with a hot goalie and little else. Detroit won a Cup last year with Yzerman a
bare shadow of himself in the last two rounds.
E.
edl
I hope so.
E.
edl
Are those even 'our' trolls... or just some wandering band of idiots? I've
never read many (perhaps any) of their posts, so I don't know if they are
pro-Wing idiots, or just regular idiots.
E.
edl
All the time, eh. Nifty. You know what is coming next, right? Name a time
when a team with two top 5 forwards and a top 3 goaltender was made mediocre by
a coach. I mean, since it happens 'all the time', it shouldn't be all that
tough to rattle off five or ten instances, much less one.
E.
edl
> In short, they *both* deserve credit for taking already good teams
> that had won in the past, overhauling the roster(s), then winning
> again.
Yes, they both deserve credit, Chris. Of course, you're willing to laud Hartley
with more than just 'credit', while I tend to think the best thing he's done is
to get out of the way of his elite players. Some coaches can't even do that...
although I think Hartley may have begun to start falling victim to that foible
in the last year.
> Does Bowman deserve more credit? Sure. But my most basic
> point is that if you demerit one, you've got to demerit the other, at
> least to some extent.
It depends on what specific situation you are looking at. If it's Hartley in
Colorado v. Bowman in Montreal or Pittsburgh, sure. If it's Hartley in Colorado
v. Bowman in Detroit or Buffalo, no freaking way.
E.
edl
Hey, BMag... we can't -all- be mindreaders.
E.
Doug Norris
>I hope so.
That's it? C'mon, dude. You blew this one - admit it.
Doug
Doug Norris
>All the time, eh. Nifty. You know what is coming next, right? Name a time
>when a team with two top 5 forwards and a top 3 goaltender was made mediocre
>by a coach. I mean, since it happens 'all the time', it shouldn't be all that
>tough to rattle off five or ten instances, much less one.
Ahem. Fallacy of multiple endpoints.
Doug
Doug Norris
But we all *can* read plain english. Well, most of us can.
You see, it's times like this when you made an easily-verified mistake,
and try to make us all forget it, that takes away from your credibility.
Doug
Chris
wrote:
>
>"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
>news:3dd80012...@news-server.optonline.net...
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:05:13 -0500, "edl" <game_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >> Montreal won the Cup the year
>> >> before Bowman got there.
>> >
>> >And missed the playoffs entirely the year before that.
>>
>> What relevance does that have? With comments like that, you have a
>> problem with me suggesting you dodge issues?
>
>Chris, I have never said that would imply the only relevance in looking at a
>club can be found by looking solely at what they did the year before a coaching
>change was made. In fact, I went back a series of years in my initial
>statements regarding Hartley. Now, all of a sudden, you've decided to limit the
>scope of the discussion to the single season prior to a coaching change?
Not limit it to that, no. Just to focus you on a particular instance
which completely refutes your theory, or your diminishment (if that's
actually a word) of Hartley's performance.
>> >Hard to say. I mean, Bowman had to deal with the horrific difficulties of
>> >'turnover', with something like 13 skaters and the starting goaltender
>changing
>> >between 1970-1971 and his first year...
>
>> You are unreal. You claim that Hartley incorporating rookies like
>> Drury, Hejduk and Tanguay doesn't mean jack, but Bowman somehow having
>> to replace his #11-15 scorers of a Cup-winning team does?
>
>No, Chris. I was making light (albeit sarcastically) of your earlier comments
>regarding Hartley having to weather the firestorm of suffering incumbent in
>turning over your depth lines in the course of three seasons. Bowman had nearly
>half of the roster and his goaltender change from one year to the next, and
>that's far more turnover than Hartley has ever had to deal with in a single
>season.
That may be true (I'm not going to look it up because it's not really
relevant to our discussion), but the point that I made is that
coaching successful teams through turnover -whether that be Bowman in
Montreal in the early 70s, or Hartley in Colorado in the late 90s - is
a hard thing to do, and whoever does it deserves credit for it.
>> >so I guess according to you Bowman must
>> >have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
>> >applying 'consistent criteria'.
>>
>> Anal? To someone like you who applies different criteria whenever it
>> suits you, I'd expect you'd see it that way. You haven't once applied
>> fair, equal criteria in this discussion.
>
>Heh. Yeah, right. In your world, 'fair, equal criteria' are ones which are
>entirely blind to detail and circumstance.
...and reality.
>> And FWIW, *I* think he did do a great job with each and every Cup he
>> won.
>
>Of course you do.
What is that supposed to mean?
>> >> Pittsburgh won the Cup the year before Bowman got there. Then Bowman
>> >> won it the next year with essentially the same HOF-laden team. He
>> >> deserves exactly what credit for that Cup win?
>> >
>> >Of all of his coaching stops, this was the one where I think Bowman deserves
>the
>> >least credit for the teams' success.
>>
>> Why?
>
>The roster was nearly unchanged from the one that won a Cup the year before.
I see. So, the changing of the roster is, in fact, a criteria in
terms of a coach deserving credit for a Cup win? Like Hartley having
15 of 20 players different on the 2001 team than the Avs had on the
1996 team?
>> >Just like making to the
>> >WCFs every year can be very hard if your team is only as talented as the
>> >Columbus Blue Jackets... and not as talented as the Colorado Avalanche.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Eric, look at this analogy: Both Bowman and Hartley take a math test
>> and Bowman scores a 100, Hartley a 90. But, they both used a
>> cheatsheet (this being analagous to a very good roster). You are
>> saying that Hartley should get a lesser score because he cheated, but
>> Bowman shouldn't get a lesser score (note that I'm not saying that
>> Hartley shouldn't be demerited more...) because his test was harder.
>> That is unmitigated bullshit.
>
>Yes, it is. Of course, a large part of the reason it is bullshit is that your
>analogy is highly flawed. Let me assist you in creating one more apropos to the
>discussion at hand.
>
>Both coaches are taking the same 'test'.
>Both coaches are using 'cheatsheets'.
>One coach is using a cheetsheet that was prepared by someone who had already
>'passed' the test (Hartley in Colorado).
>Another coach is using a cheatsheet prepared by someone who had not already
>'passed' the test (Bowman in Detroit).
WTF? Are you saying that a coach's success should be dictated by the
coach before him?
The bottom line is that you refuse to demerit Bowman whatsoever, while
giving Hartley demerits when they both had very good players when they
took over their respective teams.
Homerism.
>Hartley passes the test with this better cheatsheet. Bowman passes the test
>with the lesser cheatsheet.
If this is true, Bowman still had a cheatsheet, and you won't lower
his grade.
>> Now, you might make the claim that Hartley should be demerited 10
>> points and Bowman 8 points due to the difficulty of the test, but you
>> won't even do that.
>
>Right, because the skeleton rationale of your analogy isn't able to correspond
>with the realities of the situation because it doesn't address the central issue
>at hand, namely Hartley entering a situation more conducive to immediate success
>than Bowman did.
No.
The central issue at hand is that they both had very good rosters when
they took over, yet you refuse to apply the 'Hartley rule' to Bowman.
Even with a lesser weight.
>> >> No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
>> >> of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
>> >> all have impact on the outcome.
>> >
>> >Heh. Okay. You tell me, then: Exactly what were the three most critical
>> >playoff-time decisions Bob Hartley has ever made which were beneficial to the
>> >Colorado Avalanche? Try and avoid, 'He started Patrick Roy.'
>>
>> Please. They lost their best player (or second best, if you count
>> Roy)
>
>Or third best, if you count Joe Sakic. Or fourth best, depending on where you
>slot Rob Blake in as far as valuable to the team.
Well, if Forsberg isn't that valuable to the team, should we count him
amongst the 'great, HOF players' Hartley inherited?
Gods, you want every part of every argument both ways.
>> and won the thing. You honestly believe that is possible without
>> any meaningful intervention from a coach?!?
>
>When you have Patrick Roy? Uh, yeah.
So that had nothing to do with Hartley?...
>Hell, Buffalo nearly won a Cup with Hasek
>and a woefully inferior team to that Avs club.
So that had nothing to do with Ruff?...
>Washington got to the Finals
>with a hot goalie and little else.
So that had nothing to do with Wilson?...
>Detroit won a Cup last year with Yzerman a
>bare shadow of himself in the last two rounds.
Homer. I guess you just "forgot" to mention that Hasek (you remember
- that same guy you mentioned above with Buffalo?) played a pretty
damn good postseason also.
So, I guess Bowman deserves no credit for last year's Cup then?
Be frickin serious...
Chris
Chris
wrote:
>
>"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
>news:3dd80930...@news-server.optonline.net...
>
>> In short, they *both* deserve credit for taking already good teams
>> that had won in the past, overhauling the roster(s), then winning
>> again.
>
>Yes, they both deserve credit, Chris. Of course, you're willing to laud Hartley
>with more than just 'credit', while I tend to think the best thing he's done is
>to get out of the way of his elite players.
Bullshit. He completely changed the way the team plays.
>Some coaches can't even do that...
>although I think Hartley may have begun to start falling victim to that foible
>in the last year.
Now *that* might be an interesting discussion.
>> Does Bowman deserve more credit? Sure. But my most basic
>> point is that if you demerit one, you've got to demerit the other, at
>> least to some extent.
>
>It depends on what specific situation you are looking at. If it's Hartley in
>Colorado v. Bowman in Montreal or Pittsburgh, sure. If it's Hartley in Colorado
>v. Bowman in Detroit or Buffalo, no freaking way.
Homerism. Complete and simple homerism.
Hartley inherited Sakic, Forsberg, Foote and Roy and won Cup with
them. Bowman inherited Yzerman (completely comparable in 1994 to
Sakic in 1999), Fedorov (a great player, though probably lesser than
Forsberg), Lidstrom (hell and motherfucking gone better than Ozolinsh)
and Konstantinov (who I'd rate better than Foote) and won with them.
You are pointing out two girls on the street. They both weight 180
lbs. You are telling me one is fat, and the other isn't because she's
your sister.
You simply won't demerit Bowman with the same criteria you use to
demerit Hartley.
Chris
Chris
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure it matters all that much, but I suspect most of
them are Wings' fans.
Chris
broonzy
<game_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is your third reply, but it's the first time that you offer a
semblance of counter-argument. The first time, you actually reproduced
my post in its entirety without adding even one comma of your own.
Unfortunately, this time, your blanket statement isn't much more
intelligent than your initially blank response.
Of course, a coach's decisions can have, for better or worse, a direct
incidence on the performance of his players, irrespective of their
talent. Sports history is replete with athletes who only became stars
after meeting this or that coach or before circumstances gave them a
chance to play. John LeClair was only a mediocre third-liner until he
went to Philadelphia where he became a superstar as soon as his very
first game with the Flyers. Until he met Ftorek last year, Rolston's
career had been a huge disappointment. Two years ago, Burns publicly
called him a lazy coward devoid of leadership skills, but, last year,
he was about the most versatile player in te league. On the other hand,
until this season, Tortorella had a deleterious effect on Lecavalier's
performance.
And there are even more stars who changed their style under particular
coaches like Hull and Modano under Hitchcock, Yzerman under Bowman, and
Sakic under Hartley. None of those players were good two-way players
until they met those coaches respectively. As for a coach being unable
to make all-stars play mediocre, Hartley achieved just that during the
2000 Conference finals when he used Andreychuck on the first line in
place of Tanguay, Yelle on the second line in place of Drury, the
latter on the third line, and Tanguay on the fourth line, all in
accordance with his defense-first philosophy. In effect, Hartley
reduced his scoring lines to duos as Andreychuck and Yelle were
instructed to stay a few steps behind the play. Not surprinsingly,
Colorado lost that series due to a lack of offense as they only scored
13 goals over 7 games, and not once more than 2 in a game.
When discussing the history of the Avalanche, you keep repeating the
mistake of interpreting the past in terms of the present. For instance,
last year, when comparing Khabibulin and Roy, you assumed that since
the Avalanche was a top defensive team, Roy had benefitted from a far
better defense than Khabibulin did in Phoenix between 1996 and 1999.
Yet, you never explained how, if it was so superior defensively,
Colorado managed to allow a similarly high number of shots per game
during that time.
Another example of your presentism, as historians call it, is how you
assume that Colorado has never had depth at the forward position
because that is their current situation. So you take for granted that
the Avalanche has always relied more on its superstars than a currently
deeper team at forward like the Red Wings. The fact is that the
Avalanche only lost its exceptional depth at the forward position after
Hartley's first season, and this led him to completely overhaul the
team's approach. This is no small feat, but you have been too obtuse to
notice it. Instead, you suggest that Hartley didn't have to do anything
markedly different than his predecessor. So while Bowman was a master
puppeteer who accomplished the great feat of transforming a 100-point
team into a Stanley Cup winner, Hartley hasn't had much more to do,
supposedly, than to open and close the bench door. Yet Hartley never
lost earlier than the 7th game of the Conference finals, and he won the
Stanley Cup without Forsberg. On the other hand, numerous commentators
ascribed the Red Wings' complete debacle against Colorado in 1999 to
Osgood's injury, nor did Detroit manage to get past the first round
without Yzerman and Shanahan in 2001.
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
> >I hope so.
>
> That's it? C'mon, dude. You blew this one - admit it.
I blew what one?
E.
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
Okay, fine. Name -one- instance, then.
E.
edl
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:25:10 -0500, "edl" <game_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris" <no...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dd80930...@news-server.optonline.net...
> >
> >> In short, they *both* deserve credit for taking already good teams
> >> that had won in the past, overhauling the roster(s), then winning
> >> again.
> >
> >Yes, they both deserve credit, Chris. Of course, you're willing to laud
Hartley
> >with more than just 'credit', while I tend to think the best thing he's done
is
> >to get out of the way of his elite players.
>
> Bullshit. He completely changed the way the team plays.
Indeed. Patrick Roy was such a different player before Hartley started coaching
him.
Ditto Joe Sakic. Ditto Peter Forsberg. Ditto Rob Blake. Ditto Adam Foote.
Ditto Ray Bourque. Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum.
> >> Does Bowman deserve more credit? Sure. But my most basic
> >> point is that if you demerit one, you've got to demerit the other, at
> >> least to some extent.
> >
> >It depends on what specific situation you are looking at. If it's Hartley in
> >Colorado v. Bowman in Montreal or Pittsburgh, sure. If it's Hartley in
Colorado
> >v. Bowman in Detroit or Buffalo, no freaking way.
>
> Homerism. Complete and simple homerism.
Yes, I'd agree with your self-assessment.
> Hartley inherited Sakic, Forsberg, Foote and Roy
and Blake... and Bourque... and Hejduk... and Drury...
> and won Cup with
> them. Bowman inherited Yzerman (completely comparable in 1994 to
> Sakic in 1999), Fedorov (a great player, though probably lesser than
> Forsberg), Lidstrom (hell and motherfucking gone better than Ozolinsh)
> and Konstantinov (who I'd rate better than Foote) and won with them.
> You are pointing out two girls on the street. They both weight 180
> lbs. You are telling me one is fat, and the other isn't because she's
> your sister.
And you are pointing out two girls on the street... and only looking at two
thirds of one girl and all of the other. If you are going to compare the teams'
talent, Chris, at least do it honestly.
> You simply won't demerit Bowman with the same criteria you use to
> demerit Hartley.
Right... because they were coaching in different situations. Why this simple
point continues to evade you is a mystery to me. Hartley won with guys who HAD
ALREADY WON. Bowman (in Detroit) won with guys who hadn't done dick, on top of
being a group of guys with less raw talent, IMO. Now, if you'd care to claim
that the Wings team Bowman inherited, changed and subsequently won a couple Cups
with was -better- talent-wise than the club Hartley inherited, by all means do
so. I'd be fascinated to see that comparison take shape. Until then, stop
whining about me not applying criteria to your satisfaction while you attempt to
obfuscate or ignore perhaps the central point to the discussion.
And in either event, winning with a team that has already demonstrated it was
Cup caliber is not as difficult as winning with a team that hasn't demonstrated
that level of potential.
E.
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
Oh, stop it Doug. It's times like this when people like you obsess over an
entirely tangential misinterpretation, and try to make it the topic du jour,
that takes away from your credibility.
E.
Doug Norris
That's not the multiple endpoints you're begging. What's the significance
of "top 5" forwards, or "top 3" goaltenders? Why not "top 10" forwards, or
"top 5" goaltenders (for instance)?
Doug
edl
> Not limit it to that, no. Just to focus you on a particular instance
> which completely refutes your theory, or your diminishment (if that's
> actually a word) of Hartley's performance.
How would making an arbitrary selection of range in one specific instance do
anything of the sort? I mean, have I ever said that Bowman deserves scads of
credit for winning Cups in Montreal or Pittsburgh? No.
> That may be true (I'm not going to look it up because it's not really
> relevant to our discussion), but the point that I made is that
> coaching successful teams through turnover -whether that be Bowman in
> Montreal in the early 70s, or Hartley in Colorado in the late 90s - is
> a hard thing to do, and whoever does it deserves credit for it.
And the point -I- made was that turning over a roster while still keeping your
top players, especially when one of them is a top 5 all time goaltender, isn't
half the problem or situation you think it is.
> >> >so I guess according to you Bowman must
> >> >have done a tremendous job, right? Since you're so amazingly anal about
> >> >applying 'consistent criteria'.
> >>
> >> Anal? To someone like you who applies different criteria whenever it
> >> suits you, I'd expect you'd see it that way. You haven't once applied
> >> fair, equal criteria in this discussion.
> >
> >Heh. Yeah, right. In your world, 'fair, equal criteria' are ones which are
> >entirely blind to detail and circumstance.
>
> ...and reality.
Yes, that too. :)
> >> And FWIW, *I* think he did do a great job with each and every Cup he
> >> won.
> >
> >Of course you do.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
That I'm sure you think exactly that.
> >The roster was nearly unchanged from the one that won a Cup the year before.
>
> I see. So, the changing of the roster is, in fact, a criteria in
> terms of a coach deserving credit for a Cup win?
Sure. Who said it wasn't? If you'd care to recall, the point of contention
here is where you think turnover is always a tremendous hurdle, while I think
turnover isn't that big of a deal at all... as long as the 'new' players don't
suck. I, for instance, think dealing with the turnover from 1996-1997 to
1997-1998 for Detroit and Bowman was much more significant and difficult than
dealing with the turnover from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002... even though I believe
more players changed in the second instance. I'd have to check to be sure,
though.
> >> >Just like making to the
> >> >WCFs every year can be very hard if your team is only as talented as the
> >> >Columbus Blue Jackets... and not as talented as the Colorado Avalanche.
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >> Eric, look at this analogy: Both Bowman and Hartley take a math test
> >> and Bowman scores a 100, Hartley a 90. But, they both used a
> >> cheatsheet (this being analagous to a very good roster). You are
> >> saying that Hartley should get a lesser score because he cheated, but
> >> Bowman shouldn't get a lesser score (note that I'm not saying that
> >> Hartley shouldn't be demerited more...) because his test was harder.
> >> That is unmitigated bullshit.
> >
> >Yes, it is. Of course, a large part of the reason it is bullshit is that
your
> >analogy is highly flawed. Let me assist you in creating one more apropos to
the
> >discussion at hand.
> >
> >Both coaches are taking the same 'test'.
> >Both coaches are using 'cheatsheets'.
> >One coach is using a cheetsheet that was prepared by someone who had already
> >'passed' the test (Hartley in Colorado).
> >Another coach is using a cheatsheet prepared by someone who had not already
> >'passed' the test (Bowman in Detroit).
>
> WTF? Are you saying that a coach's success should be dictated by the
> coach before him?
No, Chris. In my analogy, the relative performance of the team in question is
represented by the 'cheatsheet.' Hartley had a team that had already won.
Bowman, obviously, did not (in Detroit).
> The bottom line is that you refuse to demerit Bowman whatsoever, while
> giving Hartley demerits when they both had very good players when they
> took over their respective teams.
Incorrect. You continue to ignore the relevance of 1) Colorado's Cup win and 2)
Colorado's overall better talent level in this discussion. Of -course- you
don't think I'm applying criteria 'fairly', because you aren't acknowledging the
possibility that there could be situations in which these 'criteria' aren't the
be all and end all comparators of situation.
> Homerism.
Don't feel bad, Chris. I'm sure yours will pass soon.
> >Hartley passes the test with this better cheatsheet. Bowman passes the test
> >with the lesser cheatsheet.
>
> If this is true, Bowman still had a cheatsheet, and you won't lower
> his grade.
Not as much as I'd 'lower' Hartley's, and for the reasons I've given. Now, if
you'd care to take issue with either of those reasons (Colorado already winning
and Colorado having more talent), go right ahead. Until you're able to
substantively disagree with either, you're simply chasing your own tail when you
moan about 'criteria' and 'fairness.'
> >> Now, you might make the claim that Hartley should be demerited 10
> >> points and Bowman 8 points due to the difficulty of the test, but you
> >> won't even do that.
> >
> >Right, because the skeleton rationale of your analogy isn't able to
correspond
> >with the realities of the situation because it doesn't address the central
issue
> >at hand, namely Hartley entering a situation more conducive to immediate
success
> >than Bowman did.
>
> No.
>
> The central issue at hand is that they both had very good rosters when
> they took over, yet you refuse to apply the 'Hartley rule' to Bowman.
Because the SITUATIONS WERE DIFFERENT. They did not both have IDENTICALLY good
rosters, Chris. Hartley had a better team when he came to town. That in and of
itself immediately renders your complaints void, because in order for your
concerns to be viable you need to show that in identical situations I am
applying my standards inconsistently. Bowman and Hartley did NOT start their
most recent positions at the same zero sum starting point. Hartley inherited a
team that had already won a Cup. Bowman did not. Hartley inherited a team that
had also been to the WCFs. Bowman did not. Hartley inherited the better team.
Bowman did not.
> >> >> No team wins the Cup without the coach making hundreds
> >> >> of in-game decisions, personnel decisions, etc. during a season that
> >> >> all have impact on the outcome.
> >> >
> >> >Heh. Okay. You tell me, then: Exactly what were the three most critical
> >> >playoff-time decisions Bob Hartley has ever made which were beneficial to
the
> >> >Colorado Avalanche? Try and avoid, 'He started Patrick Roy.'
> >>
> >> Please. They lost their best player (or second best, if you count
> >> Roy)
> >
> >Or third best, if you count Joe Sakic. Or fourth best, depending on where
you
> >slot Rob Blake in as far as valuable to the team.
>
> Well, if Forsberg isn't that valuable to the team, should we count him
> amongst the 'great, HOF players' Hartley inherited?
> Gods, you want every part of every argument both ways.
I'm merely asking the question, Chris. Please, don't whine because I'm not
allowing you to summarily dismiss relevant players from your thoughts like you
attempted to in your 'Bourque or Blake' routine. If you're asking me, I think
Forsberg is behind both Roy and Sakic (in that order) with regards to importance
to the team. Now, maybe some people might be able to say that you could put
another player or perhaps two ahead of Forsberg, but that's for them to say.
> >> and won the thing. You honestly believe that is possible without
> >> any meaningful intervention from a coach?!?
> >
> >When you have Patrick Roy? Uh, yeah.
>
> So that had nothing to do with Hartley?...
Heh. Okay then. Tell me, how did Bob Hartley influence Patrick Roy's play?
> >Hell, Buffalo nearly won a Cup with Hasek
> >and a woefully inferior team to that Avs club.
>
> So that had nothing to do with Ruff?...
Same question.
> >Washington got to the Finals
> >with a hot goalie and little else.
>
> So that had nothing to do with Wilson?...
Same question, although of the three, I think Wilson made the most with the
least. Actually, I'd have to go back and revist that season to be sure.
> >Detroit won a Cup last year with Yzerman a
> >bare shadow of himself in the last two rounds.
>
> Homer.
Marge.
> I guess you just "forgot" to mention that Hasek (you remember
> - that same guy you mentioned above with Buffalo?) played a pretty
> damn good postseason also.
Indeed. You can fairly well survive the loss of a top two forward on the club
when you have excellent goaltending. Thanks awfully for walking into that one,
Chris.
> So, I guess Bowman deserves no credit for last year's Cup then?
You're exaggerating my position regarding the amount of 'credit' a coach
deserves in various situations. That's okay, though... if you didn't get the
gist of it the first time around I doubt you'd be any more on the mark with
another shot.
> Be frickin serious...
Be frickin accurate, and maybe I'll try.
E.
edl
> In article <3vOcnWBnr9r...@comcast.com>, edl
> This is your third reply, but it's the first time that you offer a
> semblance of counter-argument. The first time, you actually reproduced
> my post in its entirety without adding even one comma of your own.
Sometimes, you just have to let the idiots serve as their own advertisement.
> Unfortunately, this time, your blanket statement isn't much more
> intelligent than your initially blank response.
Heh. Coming from you, that's highly amusing.
> Of course, a coach's decisions can have, for better or worse, a direct
> incidence on the performance of his players, irrespective of their
> talent.
And of course, I never made a statement anything like that, BMag. You might do
better to try and restrain yourself to discussing the points I've made, rather
than summarily constructing something wholecloth and trying to pass that off as
my opinion. Then again, you haven't shown much willingness to avoid chicanery
like that before.
> Sports history is replete with athletes who only became stars
> after meeting this or that coach or before circumstances gave them a
> chance to play. John LeClair was only a mediocre third-liner until he
> went to Philadelphia where he became a superstar as soon as his very
> first game with the Flyers. Until he met Ftorek last year, Rolston's
> career had been a huge disappointment. Two years ago, Burns publicly
> called him a lazy coward devoid of leadership skills, but, last year,
> he was about the most versatile player in te league. On the other hand,
> until this season, Tortorella had a deleterious effect on Lecavalier's
> performance.
Any time you want to mention a coach that made a player in the class of a Sakic,
Forsberg or Roy mediocre I'm ready to listen to it. Talking about a bunch of
mid level players whose subsequent success may have had as much to do with their
teammates or linemates as their coach isn't it.
> And there are even more stars who changed their style under particular
> coaches like Hull and Modano under Hitchcock, Yzerman under Bowman, and
> Sakic under Hartley. None of those players were good two-way players
> until they met those coaches respectively.
And again, this doesn't at all address the point of my comment. You have yet to
mention an elite player that was made 'not elite' by his coach.
> As for a coach being unable
> to make all-stars play mediocre, Hartley achieved just that during the
> 2000 Conference finals when he used Andreychuck on the first line in
> place of Tanguay, Yelle on the second line in place of Drury, the
> latter on the third line, and Tanguay on the fourth line, all in
> accordance with his defense-first philosophy.
Wrong, BMag. He didn't make the -players- mediocre... he made the -team-
mediocre. That Sakic or Forsberg weren't able to single-handedly carry crappy
linemates to the Conn Smythe doesn't mean that the key players themselves
somehow started playing poorly. Once again, you seem to be struggling to make a
comment that is on point, rather than off topic.
> Another example of your presentism, as historians call it, is how you
> assume that Colorado has never had depth at the forward position
> because that is their current situation.
BMag, you are incorrectly representing my opinion. What you need to do now is
provide the quote which you are 'extrapoling' that perception of yours from.
> So while Bowman was a master
> puppeteer who accomplished the great feat of transforming a 100-point
> team into a Stanley Cup winner, Hartley hasn't had much more to do,
> supposedly, than to open and close the bench door.
Once again, BMag, you are misrepresenting my opinion on this matter.
> Yet Hartley never
> lost earlier than the 7th game of the Conference finals, and he won the
> Stanley Cup without Forsberg. On the other hand, numerous commentators
> ascribed the Red Wings' complete debacle against Colorado in 1999 to
> Osgood's injury,
Yeah. Losing the strting goaltender wouldn't have made any impact on Colorado.
> nor did Detroit manage to get past the first round
> without Yzerman and Shanahan in 2001.
And would Colorado have gotten past the first round with two of their top three
forwards out and their #2 defenseman (Chelios in Detroit) injured and hobbled?
Never mind the difference between Osgood and Roy.
Heh.
E.
Chris
>> >Yes, they both deserve credit, Chris. Of course, you're willing to laud
>Hartley
>> >with more than just 'credit', while I tend to think the best thing he's done
>is
>> >to get out of the way of his elite players.
>>
>> Bullshit. He completely changed the way the team plays.
>
>Indeed. Patrick Roy was such a different player before Hartley started coaching
>him.
>
>Ditto Joe Sakic. Ditto Peter Forsberg. Ditto Rob Blake. Ditto Adam Foote.
>Ditto Ray Bourque. Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum.
Eric, it is common knowledge that the 1999 team Hartley inherited was
one that played a wide open style. His 2001/2002 versions were every
bit a trapping team (and every bit as boring, IMO) as the '99 and '00
Dallas teams. Sakic himself stated that in most of his NHL years,
there was no system - they just skated. In the past five years, there
is a strict defensive system in Colorado. I suspect you don't visit
the Denver Post webpage often, but there have been numerous articles
about how some of the players - notably Forsberg - had some trouble
adapting to Hartley's defensive style. He even got demoted a few
times. Joe Sakic was never considered a very good defensive player
before a half decade or so ago. Though he is now.
Roy and Foote generally play the same type of game they've always
played, but that's because they were(are) defensive specialists to
start with.
>> >> Does Bowman deserve more credit? Sure. But my most basic
>> >> point is that if you demerit one, you've got to demerit the other, at
>> >> least to some extent.
>> >
>> >It depends on what specific situation you are looking at. If it's Hartley in
>> >Colorado v. Bowman in Montreal or Pittsburgh, sure. If it's Hartley in
>Colorado
>> >v. Bowman in Detroit or Buffalo, no freaking way.
>>
>> Homerism. Complete and simple homerism.
>
>Yes, I'd agree with your self-assessment.
And you wonder why I think you dodge issues...
I have said over and over that Bowman deserves credit for each and
every Cup, and that he is and was a better coach than Hartley.
>> Hartley inherited Sakic, Forsberg, Foote and Roy
>
>and Blake... and Bourque... and Hejduk... and Drury...
Not one of these players was on the roster that finished the 1998
season right before Hartley got there.
>> You simply won't demerit Bowman with the same criteria you use to
>> demerit Hartley.
>
>Right... because they were coaching in different situations. Why this simple
>point continues to evade you is a mystery to me. Hartley won with guys who HAD
>ALREADY WON.
>Bowman (in Detroit) won with guys who hadn't done dick, on top of
>being a group of guys with less raw talent, IMO. Now, if you'd care to claim
>that the Wings team Bowman inherited, changed and subsequently won a couple Cups
>with was -better- talent-wise than the club Hartley inherited, by all means do
>so. I'd be fascinated to see that comparison take shape. Until then, stop
>whining about me not applying criteria to your satisfaction while you attempt to
>obfuscate or ignore perhaps the central point to the discussion.
>
>And in either event, winning with a team that has already demonstrated it was
>Cup caliber is not as difficult as winning with a team that hasn't demonstrated
>that level of potential.
No one is saying it's not as difficult.
You brought up two basic points here: 1) that a coach's
accomplishments get diminished if he had a team that won a Cup before
he won a Cup with them, and 2) that a coach's accomplishments get
diminished if he coached a team that didn't have too much turnover
(your reference to Bowman in Pittsburgh).
Bowman has exactly ONE Cup win that doesn't fit these criteria. 1997.
Great criteria there, Eric. I'm sure the HOF folks will take into
account your criteria when they deny Scotty a place in their hall.
LOL.
Chris
Doug Norris
>Oh, stop it Doug. It's times like this when people like you obsess over an
>entirely tangential misinterpretation, and try to make it the topic du jour,
>that takes away from your credibility.
I believe the proper response involves something about rubber and glue,
or used rubbers, or something to that effect.
Doug
Chris
>> Not limit it to that, no. Just to focus you on a particular instance
>> which completely refutes your theory, or your diminishment (if that's
>> actually a word) of Hartley's performance.
>
>How would making an arbitrary selection of range in one specific instance do
>anything of the sort? I mean, have I ever said that Bowman deserves scads of
>credit for winning Cups in Montreal or Pittsburgh? No.
Oh. Ok...
*chuckle*
>> >Hartley passes the test with this better cheatsheet. Bowman passes the test
>> >with the lesser cheatsheet.
>>
>> If this is true, Bowman still had a cheatsheet, and you won't lower
>> his grade.
>
>Not as much as I'd 'lower' Hartley's, and for the reasons I've given.
Argh. 'Not as much'? So, you *would* then lower Bowman's grade
somewhat? This is all I'm asking. Feel free to lower Bowman's grade
less than Hartley's (as would I), but if the critieria is 'inheriting
a good, talented team = diminishing the accomplishment', then both
need to be diminished, not just one. If you just said this up front,
we could have saved some serious disk space here.
If you want an example of someone who *wouldn't* be diminished for
this reason, look no further than Al Arbour.
Chris
edl
Because I don't think top 10 or top 5 are properly representative of
Sakic/Forsberg and Roy, respectively. Clearly they are both of those things...
just like you could accurately say that Roy is one of the best 50 goalies in the
NHL right now. In order to properly frame the question it seems more
appropriate to use the most restrictive yet still applicable descriptive. In
this case, top 5 forwards and top 3 goaltender.
You see, the essence of the point I was trying to express was that players of
that caliber who are all on the same team aren't made mediocre by the coach 'all
the time'. In fact, I don't believe there have been all that many instances
when so much talent was on one team, if it's ever happened outside of the
Avalanche.
E.
edl
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
Our mountains and molehills.
E.
Doug Norris
>Because I don't think top 10 or top 5 are properly representative of
>Sakic/Forsberg and Roy, respectively. Clearly they are both of those
>things...just like you could accurately say that Roy is one of the best 50
>goalies in the NHL right now. In order to properly frame the question it
>seems more appropriate to use the most restrictive yet still applicable
>descriptive. In this case, top 5 forwards and top 3 goaltender.
And *that's* the fallacy of multiple endpoints. It's like people saying
that Devon White (facetious example) belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame,
and then listing all of the Hall of Famers that Devon White exceeds in
statistical categories. And they always end up showing things like "Devon
White has more stolen bases than Babe Ruth, who is in the Hall of Fame."
For more, see Bill James' article on Ken Keltner.
Doug