It's a Stanley Cup Finals rematch

by Brandon Worley on May 28, 2009 11:00 AM CDT

After several long and exciting series in the first and second rounds, the NHL saw two teams breeze right through the Conference Finals. Pittsburgh completed their sweep of the Carolina Hurricanes on Tuesday night. Last night the Detroit Red Wings finally did away with those pesky Blackhawks, winning game five in overtime despite a herculean effort from Cristobal Huet.

Last year, the Red Wings beat the young Penguins in the Stanley Cup Finals 4-2. It will be interesting to see how much tougher a series this will be for Detroit, especially with Pittsburgh having another year of experience under their belt and riding an incredible wave of momentum throughout the playoffs.

Speaking of momentum, let's all step back and think about how incredible it is that Pittsburgh has made it this far. Just a few months ago, the Penguins were written off as a team with no direction and and a woefully underperforming group of star players. Yet a mid-season coaching switch completely changed the way the team approached their play and instantly turned around a incredibly disappointing season into second straight Stanley Cup berth.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Coaching change

How much of the Pens’ turnaround was a coaching change and how much was just the fact that a big change was a huge wakeup call? As much as I want to believe that firing coaches that performed well for years is a bad move, it seems to work fairly often with hockey. Why is that?

by jabudi on May 28, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions

That's a good question, but it doesn't apply only to hockey.

It’s also about the talent level inherent on the team. It’s not like Pittsburgh is a team of scrubs that was bad the first half of the year, got a new coach and now is playing over their heads. No, this was a team that should be where they are now, and needed a new coach to pull them out of the post-SC Finals funk they were in to start the year. With them it more about slapping them in the face, changing the atmosphere around the team and getting them back on the right track.

But take a look at what Mike Singletary did with the 49ers last season. He took over, and turned a mediocre team into one that played extremely hard for him game after game. They didn’t always win, but they were certainly more successful after he became head coach. What he did was make the team accountable and change the atmosphere around the team.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on May 28, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions

If I may shed some light..

How much of the Pens’ turnaround was a coaching change and how much was just the fact that a big change was a huge wakeup call? As much as I want to believe that firing coaches that performed well for years is a bad move, it seems to work fairly often with hockey. Why is that?

Times were bad, really bad in the Penguins lockeroom. The players, as a whole, lost faith in Therrien and his strict, tight-checking system.

Install a young coach who preaches an aggressive system designed to high-light the top tier offensive talent the Pens have ~~-mainly Crosby and Malkin two of the best in the world~~- and it’s gone from day to night. Bylsma has instilled responsibility but also the air of “attack, attack, attack”. Forecheck but have the F3 high, get back and grab a turnover and go the other way. Speed, transition and offensive creativity is what he wants.

I guess it’d be like wearing a pair of jeans way too tight with a shorter waist than you have….You can try to cram in it, but even if you do it won’t be comfortable or natural. That’s the Therrien analogy. The Bylsma analogy would be wearing something more fitting but still not so loose you can’t go out and worry about what you have on or what you’re doing. Just gotta do it.

(Not sure if that analogy makes sense but maybe you get the point)

by Hooks Orpik on May 30, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions

Actually

That does make sense. It sounds (and looks) as though Therrien ended up being a good thing for the Pens because it made them appreciate Bylsma. Sounds a little like when Hitch left for Columbus or when The Tuna left the Cowboys.

Which begs the question: Have any GMs purposely gone the Machiavelli route, aka Bad Cop, Good Cop? I mean going so far as to know for a fact that you’re going to likely fire a coach a month into the season but that your team will play better because of it?

by jabudi on May 30, 2009 3:03 PM CDT reply actions