Sorry Chuck - well off base. But at least you have scoreboard all in a tizzy...
My first point in this thread was clear in saying Gildon by shouldnt be stifled, that his gifts were transparent and that experience (this can include coaching), practice (this includes coaching) and working (this includes coaching) on HIS game would get him where he needs to be. I never said a word about him being above coaching or about the staff letting him play without any advisement.
Neither did I. I did point out that Gildon has now repeated some catastrophic mistakes, which I (and some others) considered unnecessarily high risk moves in those situations. I think it was - and still is - a fair question as to why? Your take is you don't want to break the lad's spirit, and you're willing to suffer through a few more of these things on balance. I just want to tighten up the learning curve. We disagree. Simple, no?
You responded to that post directly afterwards by completely misrepresenting (page one in the Chuck play book) my post as a free pass for Gildon and an argument that the coaches shouldn't say boo to the FR. You knew that was a BS take and you made it anyway because you are a disingenuous debater. You argued that Gildon was not Bobby Orr and if he made future errors he should get reamed out, have his minutes cut or be bench
Those were a range of potential options. You argued that other HE coaches would have already set him straight
(some coaches, probably yes). Now you want to claim that all along you never argued he should be reigned in and coached to be safe - but just that he could be a bit better...
Go read the posts again ... now who's moving the goalposts?
Give me a break. You are so transparent - I knew your initial take on the coaches was how the team came to play
Yes. But when Greg responded about Gildon, you just couldn't say so and leave it at that. You had to concoct this whole scenario where Gildon wasn't being coached and twist my post into some garbage statement about him being above coaching to try to pump your own tires? Create an argument? Just be contrarian?
Or just to explore a potential developing situation with a kid I've described as a "godsend"?
On top of that you've proven once again that when you can't hang on a topic, you'll dive into semantics or nit-picking word choice. In coaching, if you harp on a kids negative play they're going to be focused on avoiding negative results. And you're not going to get the best out of them. If you touch on it, coach them up and work with them to improve you will get good results. You can joke about my initial word choice of nervous and you may consider yourself a real old school mans man - but you know that is a fundamental point of coaching and a natural human reaction by the player.
If you choose to continue to nit-pick my word choice or deny that fact rather than discuss it in good faith them I'll assume you're still being disingenuous or that yes, you are in fact a coach with a lot of learning to do (And it's not me questioning it - it's you showing it). Another place you can start is by accepting you might glean things from practices and warm-ups. That's another one of your regular jokes you think embarrasses me. But trust me, if any coaches are reading - they're laughing at you - because most are always learning (warm-up hint - especially about opponents) by paying attention in those situations...
While on the subject of nit-picking word choices ... you might want to <s>grab your dictionary</s> pull up Google 
and explore the words "rein" and "reign". It's admittedly of no importance on here, 'cuz (1) I know your intent, and (2) this is a college hockey message board, and you're among friends ... but it may save your bacon someday when you're interacting with someone in a more important setting. This is what friends do to help their friends. 
I noticed you completely avoided my example within your sport probably because it makes a point you don't want to admit. You wouldn't ream your kids out or harp on them to not make physical mistakes would you and you know it. You'd get bad results. You'd coach them on their skills so they are more efficient at what they do best - which, again, was my point in the first post I made in the topic. The one you're now trying to make. But don't admit that make another quip about 'nervous' instead...
Your "example" in my sport was embarrassingly off target, so don't flatter yourself. Leave it to you that when someone gives you a free pass, you want to spike the football. If you want to chat further on our personal experiences in coaching, let's go off the board (again) as I'm pretty sure no one else on here cares.
I listed the Cefalu point as the most recent example of a phenomenon that happens here often and in the sports world all the time. Perhaps imperfectly if that wasn't those posters intent. In sports today, everyone wants to replace the imperfect star with the role guy when the star is playing at 90% without considering that the star at 90% is still that much better. I didn't even have Ref in mind when I posted - it was not remotely directed at her and I'm sorry she was offended.
It seems to me that snively was being sarcastic towards your take that the coaches weren't working with Gildon or the defense because he disagreed with you. Not to support me. That was a bad take by you. Own it. I quoted his post because it was a good one and what I wrote was once again aimed at your baseless, dodging and ever changing take on the situation. I'm sorry if he was offended.
I'm not sure what cross-checked Greg even means. As usual, Greg makes good points backed up by solid reasoning. We seemingly found the common ground of working with Max while also allowing him continued freedom as the right way to mange him (while debating the nature of the mistakes) long before you decided that was going to be your most recent take on the subject. I'm sorry if I offended him at all.
The only thing that died this week was my patience for your constant moving of the goalposts or flip-flopping within your arguments, misrepresenting other posters, inventing opposing arguments to suit yourself or your semantic nit-picking so you can pat yourself on the back and claim some sort of victory no matter where a conversation ends up. The next time we have a genuine debate where you don't try to manipulate the discussion will be the first...
...
But as I said at the outset, we all should be fans the way we want to, and if that's your way, then good for you. 
The biggest dilemma I had as a coach was finding the perfect fit. I'd move one, but it disrupted something else, etc. This is the issue maybe they have. Still think ChKell is/ could be that playmaker? I mean, what do they have to lose? 