Crankshaft wrote:Why was Bill Belichick a joke as the head coach in Cleveland and now he's a coaching legend in New England?
Because Mo Lewis took out Drew Bledsoe?
Crankshaft wrote:Why was Bill Belichick a joke as the head coach in Cleveland and now he's a coaching legend in New England?
Beveridge wrote:Crankshaft wrote:Why was Bill Belichick a joke as the head coach in Cleveland and now he's a coaching legend in New England?
Because Mo Lewis took out Drew Bledsoe?
taz71 wrote:
One thing Bylsma did well and he is not getting credit for is benching Fleury in favor of Voukon. This was a gutsy coaching decision
offsides wrote:taz71 wrote:
One thing Bylsma did well and he is not getting credit for is benching Fleury in favor of Voukon. This was a gutsy coaching decision
You're right there, and it did surprise me a lot that he made the move and stuck with Vokoun. Problem is no changes were made and he could have the same issue next year.
taz71 wrote:offsides wrote:taz71 wrote:
One thing Bylsma did well and he is not getting credit for is benching Fleury in favor of Voukon. This was a gutsy coaching decision
You're right there, and it did surprise me a lot that he made the move and stuck with Vokoun. Problem is no changes were made and he could have the same issue next year.
Roster decisions are on the GM. MAF is the better goalie in the regular season. Voukie could prove that wrong next year.
Beveridge wrote:
I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.
Scott wrote:Beveridge wrote:
I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.
This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.
Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.
Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.
Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series..![]()
Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.
It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.
So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.
When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.
Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.
Froggy wrote:i don't get it... we were good enough all season and through 2 rounds of the playoffs to win in spite of bylsma, but the main reason we lost to boston was because of him?
DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
penny lane wrote:DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.
Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.
Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the isles
series.
DelPen wrote:penny lane wrote:DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.
Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.
Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the isles
series.
Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.
DelPen wrote:penny lane wrote:DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.
Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.
Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the isles
series.
Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.
DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.
So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.
And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.
DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough
taz71 wrote:Scott wrote:Beveridge wrote:
I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.
This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.
Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.
Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.
Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series..![]()
Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.
It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.
So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.
When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.
Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.
you make no sense whatsoever
Scott wrote:Beveridge wrote:
I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.
This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.
Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.
Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.
Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series..![]()
Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.
It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.
So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.
When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.
Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.
czwalga wrote:DelPen wrote:penny lane wrote:DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.
Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.
Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the isles
series.
Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.
Interesting Delpen. Apparently you suck at being a GM too, only seem to know so much after it happens.DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.
So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.
And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough
DelPen wrote:czwalga wrote:DelPen wrote:penny lane wrote:DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.
Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.
Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.
Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.
Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the isles
series.
Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.
Interesting Delpen. Apparently you suck at being a GM too, only seem to know so much after it happens.DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.
So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.
And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough
There is no conflict with anything I said. Everyone was happy with the trade at the time. But it was a bad move.
Users browsing this forum: Dynasty1970 and 26 guests