Without being biased, Sutter is the best pick as he as done more in a lot more games. Without some great coaching, the Devils would be on the outside lookin in. Bylsma may change this if his winning ways continue. Other than that, I just don’t see anyone else accomplishing anything more than expected and a few teams with great players have acctually underachieved.
Should the coach of the year have to accomplish something not expected, though? In other words, any coach with a history of winning automatically should not be considered.
I disagree with this.
The coach of the year should be the best coach. Period. If he wins all the time, great. If he’s done something miraculous in one season, great. But eliminating certain coaches because they are expected to win just doesn’t make much sense to me.
will
Mar 19, 11:35 AM
Gotta go with McClellan in San Jose. I don’t know how far they’ll go in the Playoff’s but he really has made a good team a great team.
will
Mar 19, 11:36 AM
Gotta go with McClellan in San Jose. I don’t know how far they’ll go far in the Playoff’s but he really has made a good team a great team.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 12:04 PM
Matt, I get your point and somewhat agree. On the other hand just because a coach is winning doesn’t make him the best coach, especially when he has some of the best players in the game on his team. Should Julien be consider just because his team sits on top of the east. The answer should be no and thus so should Mike with Detroit. His team is winning but you also have to consider who he is doing it with and how that team is playing the game. I’m not saying Mike isn’t a great coach but is he the main reason Detroit is where they are. If the answer is yes, then you have a coach of the year canidate. If it is no or somewhat, then you have a good coach with a good team but not coach of the year.
I too, get your point, Surge, and I also somewhat agree. But I’ll throw this out there. Superstar players don’t always make a good team. Just look at the Rangers of the 90s and early 2000s. Also, look at the Penguins from 2/3 of this season. I’m not saying Babcock should win. I just think he shouldn’t automatically be excluded because he is supposed to win or because he has good players. He has to keep those players honed in and focused on the task — something he has been able to do for years, hence their unbelievable stretch of seasons atop the league. Regardless of skill level, that is extremely impressive and has to reflect significantly on the coach, and not just the players.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 01:26 PM
True Matt. But it also reflects how great of a job the GM is doing. He is keeping good quality players in the system. As for the Pens from 2/3 of the season, you definetly have to understand that Therein was a big part of that collapse and it wasn’t the stars that where the problem. It was the role players and dislike of the negative atmoshpere that most likely caused that issue. Mike is definetly a better coach than Therein, no doubt there. Its just hard to say a guy with a superstar team, chemistry from guys playing together for a few years and a reliable goalie is the coach of the year. What do you look at as the most direct result of the coach? Is it wins? Is goals against? Is it team unity? Is it overcoming obstacles? That is what you need to decide. My measurment is a combination of wins, unity and overcoming obstacles. Sutter is the easiest option to use here. He had the winningest goalie in NHL history go down. A guy who plays the majority of the season. No fear, he altered his attack and won as if Brodeur had never missed a single game. Bylsma steps in and picks up a team that has fallen from the top of the pack and didn’t look like they would stop till they hit bottom. He changed the teams attack, gave them a pat on the back and said go get em. His team is now mid pack in the playoff race and climbing. McCllelan stepped into a team that had some great players and good chemistry. He shook things up immediately and changed their style. They no longer where worried about winning one goal games but instead lets attack them all night long. His team has sat in the leader spot the majority of the season. He also saw his #1 goalie go down but because of his new game style, you would never know they were playing with a backup. Babcock hasn’t had a problem. He is winning and that is something to look at but his team hasn’t had a major issue all season. Their #1 goalie was never that strong and their backup proved last year he was capable of being the #1 guy. So besides winning and at a similar pace to a few others, what makes Babcock coach of the year material?
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 01:29 PM
Forgot to mention the Rangers. They never had any chemistry because they bought a new team every year. Detroit has superstars but unlike NYR they have developed them not purchased them. A few exceptions do apply but the majority is what I’m referring to.
bag o' pucks
Mar 19, 01:39 PM
I think coach of the year should be the guy who did the most with what he had. That’s completely subjective, I know, but must such awards (Selke, Bing, etc) are. Like it or not, expectation is a big part of the equation. Detroit won the President’s Trophy last year (and added Marian Hossa). So, is winning the PT again this year with that roster a great accomplishment or the status quo? Unfortunately for Babcock, it’s a bit of both.
Why isn’t Joel Quenneville on that list? The Hawks were out of the playoffs last year and this year are in a position to have home-ice for the first round. Yes, everyone saw a good team on the verge last year and Chicago are the darlings of this season, like Pittsburgh was in 06-07. Nonetheless, current struggles aside, Quenneville has done a good job considering he didn’t get to run their camp and was put in place at a somewhat questionable time by management.
My three candidates: Sutter, Quenneville, Julien. The pick: Quenneville. The final few weeks of the season could certainly change this, however.
toaster
Mar 19, 05:25 PM
why is Bylsma even on this list? He doesnt belong there.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 09:12 PM
@Toaster, simply because what he has done in 15 games is impressive and with 10 games remaining, he has a chance to be extremely impressive. Its more based on speculation than achievment at this point.
DaBich
Mar 20, 05:44 AM
My choice was a choice between Babcock and Sutter. I’d LOVE to have Babcock coach the Pens. It will never happen tho. I also have to hand it to Julien for bringing the Devils this far without Brodeur, AND...and this is the clincher for why I voted Sutter…he changed their style so they don’t ruin the game as bad as they used to.
Gabe McCall
Mar 20, 09:16 AM
if i had a vote, i would ask myself the question ‘how would this team have done with a different coach?’ so even though i think babcock is one of the top 5 coaches in the league, he wouldnt be my pick bc almost every coach in the league now could lead detroit to win their division.
now if babcock leaves the wings and takes over someone like the islanders or thrashers, i would definitely expect him to be at least a finalist in the first 1-2 seasons
i would also look at teams that have improved significantly from last year or teams that have had to fight through adversity with injuries, etc.
i’m not exactly sure who i’d pick but my top 4 would be: sutter, hitchcock, julien, & joel quenn-stache
It's always fun to make the big game a little more interesting, so
head over to the web's leading
sports betting website, Sportsbetting3.com. Additionally, check out
Sportsbetting3.com's
SuperBowl
betting page, which has some of the best sportsbook resources on the
net. If you like the thrill of casino games, check out Jaxcasinos.com, a
fun and informative online casinos
website featuring over 20 casino reviews and articles.
Comments
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 10:58 AM
Without being biased, Sutter is the best pick as he as done more in a lot more games. Without some great coaching, the Devils would be on the outside lookin in. Bylsma may change this if his winning ways continue. Other than that, I just don’t see anyone else accomplishing anything more than expected and a few teams with great players have acctually underachieved.
Matt Bodenschatz
Mar 19, 11:16 AM
Should the coach of the year have to accomplish something not expected, though? In other words, any coach with a history of winning automatically should not be considered.
I disagree with this.
The coach of the year should be the best coach. Period. If he wins all the time, great. If he’s done something miraculous in one season, great. But eliminating certain coaches because they are expected to win just doesn’t make much sense to me.
will
Mar 19, 11:35 AM
Gotta go with McClellan in San Jose. I don’t know how far they’ll go in the Playoff’s but he really has made a good team a great team.
will
Mar 19, 11:36 AM
Gotta go with McClellan in San Jose. I don’t know how far they’ll go far in the Playoff’s but he really has made a good team a great team.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 12:04 PM
Matt, I get your point and somewhat agree. On the other hand just because a coach is winning doesn’t make him the best coach, especially when he has some of the best players in the game on his team. Should Julien be consider just because his team sits on top of the east. The answer should be no and thus so should Mike with Detroit. His team is winning but you also have to consider who he is doing it with and how that team is playing the game. I’m not saying Mike isn’t a great coach but is he the main reason Detroit is where they are. If the answer is yes, then you have a coach of the year canidate. If it is no or somewhat, then you have a good coach with a good team but not coach of the year.
Matt Bodenschatz
Mar 19, 12:24 PM
I too, get your point, Surge, and I also somewhat agree. But I’ll throw this out there. Superstar players don’t always make a good team. Just look at the Rangers of the 90s and early 2000s. Also, look at the Penguins from 2/3 of this season. I’m not saying Babcock should win. I just think he shouldn’t automatically be excluded because he is supposed to win or because he has good players. He has to keep those players honed in and focused on the task — something he has been able to do for years, hence their unbelievable stretch of seasons atop the league. Regardless of skill level, that is extremely impressive and has to reflect significantly on the coach, and not just the players.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 01:26 PM
True Matt. But it also reflects how great of a job the GM is doing. He is keeping good quality players in the system. As for the Pens from 2/3 of the season, you definetly have to understand that Therein was a big part of that collapse and it wasn’t the stars that where the problem. It was the role players and dislike of the negative atmoshpere that most likely caused that issue. Mike is definetly a better coach than Therein, no doubt there. Its just hard to say a guy with a superstar team, chemistry from guys playing together for a few years and a reliable goalie is the coach of the year. What do you look at as the most direct result of the coach? Is it wins? Is goals against? Is it team unity? Is it overcoming obstacles? That is what you need to decide. My measurment is a combination of wins, unity and overcoming obstacles. Sutter is the easiest option to use here. He had the winningest goalie in NHL history go down. A guy who plays the majority of the season. No fear, he altered his attack and won as if Brodeur had never missed a single game. Bylsma steps in and picks up a team that has fallen from the top of the pack and didn’t look like they would stop till they hit bottom. He changed the teams attack, gave them a pat on the back and said go get em. His team is now mid pack in the playoff race and climbing. McCllelan stepped into a team that had some great players and good chemistry. He shook things up immediately and changed their style. They no longer where worried about winning one goal games but instead lets attack them all night long. His team has sat in the leader spot the majority of the season. He also saw his #1 goalie go down but because of his new game style, you would never know they were playing with a backup. Babcock hasn’t had a problem. He is winning and that is something to look at but his team hasn’t had a major issue all season. Their #1 goalie was never that strong and their backup proved last year he was capable of being the #1 guy. So besides winning and at a similar pace to a few others, what makes Babcock coach of the year material?
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 01:29 PM
Forgot to mention the Rangers. They never had any chemistry because they bought a new team every year. Detroit has superstars but unlike NYR they have developed them not purchased them. A few exceptions do apply but the majority is what I’m referring to.
bag o' pucks
Mar 19, 01:39 PM
I think coach of the year should be the guy who did the most with what he had. That’s completely subjective, I know, but must such awards (Selke, Bing, etc) are. Like it or not, expectation is a big part of the equation. Detroit won the President’s Trophy last year (and added Marian Hossa). So, is winning the PT again this year with that roster a great accomplishment or the status quo? Unfortunately for Babcock, it’s a bit of both.
Why isn’t Joel Quenneville on that list? The Hawks were out of the playoffs last year and this year are in a position to have home-ice for the first round. Yes, everyone saw a good team on the verge last year and Chicago are the darlings of this season, like Pittsburgh was in 06-07. Nonetheless, current struggles aside, Quenneville has done a good job considering he didn’t get to run their camp and was put in place at a somewhat questionable time by management.
My three candidates: Sutter, Quenneville, Julien. The pick: Quenneville. The final few weeks of the season could certainly change this, however.
toaster
Mar 19, 05:25 PM
why is Bylsma even on this list? He doesnt belong there.
TheOneAndOnlySurge
Mar 19, 09:12 PM
@Toaster, simply because what he has done in 15 games is impressive and with 10 games remaining, he has a chance to be extremely impressive. Its more based on speculation than achievment at this point.
DaBich
Mar 20, 05:44 AM
My choice was a choice between Babcock and Sutter. I’d LOVE to have Babcock coach the Pens. It will never happen tho. I also have to hand it to Julien for bringing the Devils this far without Brodeur, AND...and this is the clincher for why I voted Sutter…he changed their style so they don’t ruin the game as bad as they used to.
Gabe McCall
Mar 20, 09:16 AM
if i had a vote, i would ask myself the question ‘how would this team have done with a different coach?’ so even though i think babcock is one of the top 5 coaches in the league, he wouldnt be my pick bc almost every coach in the league now could lead detroit to win their division.
now if babcock leaves the wings and takes over someone like the islanders or thrashers, i would definitely expect him to be at least a finalist in the first 1-2 seasons
i would also look at teams that have improved significantly from last year or teams that have had to fight through adversity with injuries, etc.
i’m not exactly sure who i’d pick but my top 4 would be: sutter, hitchcock, julien, & joel quenn-stache
Commenting is closed for this article.