Klassic Kox
Well, the recent hysteria over the Leafs slow start has made some fans feel like we're back in the glory days of Danny Marois, Gary Leeman, and poor old George Armstrong being forced at gunpoint to coach the team. In the past few days, Damien Cox has turned back the clock himself, with some vintage Quinn-bashing.
In his "Leafs have no identity" piece this week, he does a bit of historical whitewashing that would do Orwell proud:
Generally speaking, when the Leafs have had blips of meaningful success over the past 40 years - the 1967 Stanley Cup championship, the 1978 run to the semifinals, the 1993 push to within one victory of a return to the Cup final - it has been with grit, goaltending and defence under coaches like Punch Imlach, Roger Neilson and Pat Burns.
Missing - one red-faced Irishman who took the Leafs to the semifinals twice, racked up 3 100-point seasons when it still meant something, and demolished the Senators in the playoffs like Mickey Mantle tearing into an open bar.
More to the point, his teams had an identity: run and gun hockey, a willingness to mix it up, defence optional, and great goaltending. Sure it was often frustrating to watch, especially at the end of his tenure, but at its best it was exhilarating, passionate hockey, well-recognized enough for people like Reporters member and full-time Habs homer Michael Farber to dub the Leafs "The Most Hated Team In Hockey." The adjective "most hated" usually means you're doing things pretty well - look at the Yankees. Did it win the Cup? Hell no, but Quinn's teams achieved as much or more as Burns' and Neilson, and DC Talk should know better.
No doubt energized by the familiar rush of pure hatred through his veins, TEH COX took another run at Quinn in his weekly Leafs mailbag:
A: First, I want to comment on your Quinn-related remarks. He was most resourceful in his first year of coaching, but after that benefited by having Mats Sundin in his prime, excellent goaltending (particularly in the regular season) from Curtis Joseph and Ed Belfour and the ability to spend and spend to whatever level the team wanted.
Classic. Apparently Pat Quinn's accomplishments are meaningless cause he had a few good players. Quinn woulda had to take a beer league team to the semis to earn Cox's respect. (note: Quinn's firing shattered one of my fondest dreams: reading the Star the day after a Leafs Cup win and seeing how Cox would still manage to bash him. And yes, as a dream this was only slightly more realistic than my childhood ambition of playing SS for the Detroit Tigers) Also, Pat Burns's success had nothing to do with Potvin, Andreychuk, or having the world's best all-around player his first two years in town. It was all about the mustache.
Well, this has been a fun stroll down memory lane, hasn't it? Something about old Paddy really brings out the worst in Cox. Let's hope he gets that Atlanta job.
In his "Leafs have no identity" piece this week, he does a bit of historical whitewashing that would do Orwell proud:
Generally speaking, when the Leafs have had blips of meaningful success over the past 40 years - the 1967 Stanley Cup championship, the 1978 run to the semifinals, the 1993 push to within one victory of a return to the Cup final - it has been with grit, goaltending and defence under coaches like Punch Imlach, Roger Neilson and Pat Burns.
Missing - one red-faced Irishman who took the Leafs to the semifinals twice, racked up 3 100-point seasons when it still meant something, and demolished the Senators in the playoffs like Mickey Mantle tearing into an open bar.
More to the point, his teams had an identity: run and gun hockey, a willingness to mix it up, defence optional, and great goaltending. Sure it was often frustrating to watch, especially at the end of his tenure, but at its best it was exhilarating, passionate hockey, well-recognized enough for people like Reporters member and full-time Habs homer Michael Farber to dub the Leafs "The Most Hated Team In Hockey." The adjective "most hated" usually means you're doing things pretty well - look at the Yankees. Did it win the Cup? Hell no, but Quinn's teams achieved as much or more as Burns' and Neilson, and DC Talk should know better.
No doubt energized by the familiar rush of pure hatred through his veins, TEH COX took another run at Quinn in his weekly Leafs mailbag:
A: First, I want to comment on your Quinn-related remarks. He was most resourceful in his first year of coaching, but after that benefited by having Mats Sundin in his prime, excellent goaltending (particularly in the regular season) from Curtis Joseph and Ed Belfour and the ability to spend and spend to whatever level the team wanted.
Classic. Apparently Pat Quinn's accomplishments are meaningless cause he had a few good players. Quinn woulda had to take a beer league team to the semis to earn Cox's respect. (note: Quinn's firing shattered one of my fondest dreams: reading the Star the day after a Leafs Cup win and seeing how Cox would still manage to bash him. And yes, as a dream this was only slightly more realistic than my childhood ambition of playing SS for the Detroit Tigers) Also, Pat Burns's success had nothing to do with Potvin, Andreychuk, or having the world's best all-around player his first two years in town. It was all about the mustache.
Well, this has been a fun stroll down memory lane, hasn't it? Something about old Paddy really brings out the worst in Cox. Let's hope he gets that Atlanta job.
"...my childhood ambition of playing SS for the Detroit Tigers."
Since when did the Detroit Tigers have any SS men on their team? You fuckin' NAZI. Yer blog sucks.