Quote:
Originally Posted by Draug
Sweet vindication, no doubt. 
Back then, I was pretty vocal that I felt Gulatzan was a poor choice and I was very unhappy with some decisions he was making. The results were even worse.
Is it possible that Gulatzan is learning to be a better head coach? I mean, Bowman or Babcock weren't instantly great coaches were they? |
Which do you think is more likely:
1) The players had a hard time learning and adapting to a new system that was "a complete 180 to", and far more complex than, the old system (keeping in mind that management has actually stated this multiple times), or
2) Gulutzan duped Treliving into hiring him, and, despite many years or training and experience was a brutal coach, but once hired he kept at it, and
learned how to be a good coach over the coarse of 5 months?
Has Gulutzan had to make adjustments on the job? Of course. But he's a good coach now because he was a good coach 5 months ago. And making adjustments is part of what good coaches do.
People see what they want to see, and will manipulate the facts to fit their personal narrative, but I think it's pretty obvious which of those scenarios more comfortably fits the evidence.