I don't argue a bit with the idea that a declining program would and probably should consider a change, but it is interesting to watch the mental gyrations that are necessary to give any and all credit for Maine's accomplishments to Walsh and the players, while placing all the blame for losses and missed opportunities on Whitehead.
When Whitehead teams win, it's because of Walsh players like Howard. When Whitehead teams lose-- with or without Walsh players-- it's his fault.
When Whitehead teams win with his players-- like the two frozen four appearances with Ben Bishop-- it's an "easy road", so again, Whitehead gets no credit. When Whitehead teams lose-- it's his fault.
When the current team wins, it's evidence of how talented the kids are-- despite and in direct opposition to the assertion that Walsh and Grant were better recruiters than Whitehead-- and of how Whitehead fails to develop players, use them appropriately, or motivate them to improve. When the current team loses, it's not because the players aren't talented enough, or because they don't apply their talents appropriately, it's because Whitehead is playing the wrong players, or giving the right players wrong instructions, or telling his assistant coaches to not do sensible things or to shut up.
Sure, the buck stops with the head coach-- always. While true, that's a necessarily arbitrary distinction-- it's because somebody has to take responsibility, not because the coach actually does everything. I just have difficulty swallowing the two diametrically opposed ideas, that there's a big talent gap between Walsh recruits and Whitehead recruits that allows for the reassigning of credit for the first few years from Whitehead to Walsh, and then simultaneously Whitehead's teams underachieve, because they are "just as talented" as certain past Maine squads, some under Walsh, but haven't reaped the same results. Shouldn't it be one or the other-- not both-- even if it's agreed that the program needs a change?
