Robert Cleave and Cosh suggest in the comments of an older post that the Oilers "bizarre home-road split is pretty damning" with respect to Mac-T's coaching abilities.

The assumption here, if I have read them correctly, is that because home coaches have the last change, they are more able to influence the outcome of the game than when they are on the road and don't have the opportunity to match lines. In other words, coaches at home do more coaching than coaches on the road.

Balderdash! I don't buy for one minute the argument that road coaches are simply passive puppets reacting to the whims of the home coach. If anything, road coaches have to be more active and savvy with respect to switching line combos in order to get favourable mismatches -- something the Oilers have apparently been successful at as evidenced by their favourable road record. Or are we really suggesting that the Oilers are winning on the road because . . . what, all those other coaches turn even stupider than Mac-T when the Oilers happen to come to town?

Obviously the last change is an advantage -- especially in certain circumstances late in the game when there is a faceoff and you really want a certain matchup -- but I don't think it is nearly the advantage some seem to think it is.

Cleave doesn't like the pressure-cooker theory either, noting that fans in all Canadian cities are demanding. Fair enough. But to my eye, Mac-T's line-combo blender has been pretty much the same on the road as at home, but the players have played tighter at home than on the road.

Tight play isn't generally a function of line-combos, it's a function of pressure and confidence.

Of course, we can argue about whether a coach in the NHL needs to be a "motivator" in addition to an x's and o's guy, but frankly if the players can't get it up for a big game without a rehashed Bear Bryant pregame speech, that isn't the coach's fault.