Whileee
Registered User
- May 29, 2010
- 46,483
- 34,718
...just the facts, Ma'am.At least you're not fanning the flames of this debate![]()
![Face with monocle :face_with_monocle: š§](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@14.0.2/assets/72x72/1f9d0.png)
...just the facts, Ma'am.At least you're not fanning the flames of this debate![]()
If I've learned one thing in life, it is the importance of making time for shit disturbing.What a massive amount of arguing three games into the season and here im too busy to really stoke the flames. Tough times.
Omfg we are bring Toby Enstrom debate back from the dead now too. Stop the insanity!!!Wasn't there someone who brought up wins/losses with Toby in the line up vs Toby out of the line up and it was agreed upon that you can't look at things like that?
Since you used a 15 game sample size of him being injured, the Jets were 11-4 in the 15 games leading up to his injury. In other words, the team as a whole had a great 30 game stretch that spanned him both being in and being out of the lineup
Can probably be at least in part explained by the Jets' propensity for outscoring teams with Scheifele on the ice and Connor off it.The debate will never end but I would point out that the Jets' win-loss record was much better with Ehlers playing with Scheifele than when Connor played with him last season.
Last season the Jets had by far the best record in the NHL while Connor was out (13-2-2), while outscoring opponents by a remarkable 58 to 29 during that stretch. Points % without Connor was 0.824 versus 0.630 with Connor.
So they obviously were able to win with Ehlers on the top line with Scheifele, if that's how you prefer to measure success.
Point is that they certainly haven't suffered without Ehlers playing Scheifele in terms of wins-losses, if that's the criterion.Wasn't there someone who brought up wins/losses with Toby in the line up vs Toby out of the line up and it was agreed upon that you can't look at things like that?
Since you used a 15 game sample size of him being injured, the Jets were 11-4 in the 15 games leading up to his injury. In other words, the team as a whole had a great 30 game stretch that spanned him both being in and being out of the lineup
Wins and losses, GF vs Against nahhh that's to fancy and advancedThe debate will never end but I would point out that the Jets' win-loss record was much better with Ehlers playing with Scheifele than when Connor played with him last season.
Last season the Jets had by far the best record in the NHL while Connor was out (13-2-2), while outscoring opponents by a remarkable 58 to 29 during that stretch. Points % without Connor was 0.824 versus 0.630 with Connor.
So they obviously were able to win with Ehlers on the top line with Scheifele, if that's how you prefer to measure success.
Well there was not much of a debate when Ladd was the top LW, and Perreault became #2. Maybe we need to go back to simpler times, when the building was full and making the playoffs was a success.Omfg we are bring Toby Enstrom debate back from the dead now too. Stop the insanity!!!
Would you replace our current coaches who practice with these guys, and work with them every day with a spreadsheet?Can probably be at least in part explained by the Jets' propensity for outscoring teams with Scheifele on the ice and Connor off it.
Who knows.
I'm sure the Jets have an analytics team.Would you replace our current coaches who practice with these guys, and work with them every day with a spreadsheet?
Have you checked our record lately?I'm sure the Jets have an analytics team.
I also don't really understand why this is such a contentious topic. If the Jets rolled out Comrie to play 65 games this season, and only put Hellebuyck on the ice when injury demands it, would it be controversial to point out that the lineup decisions the coaches make isn't supported by any tangential results?
I'm not basing this on 3 games. I'm basing it on the results of the Scheifele/Connor duo since Wheeler started regressing in 2019.Have you checked our record lately?
CS_ will never be an above average 1st line at 5v5, and I can't think of a single poster here that has said that it will beI'm not basing this on 3 games. I'm basing it on the results of the Scheifele/Connor duo since Wheeler started regressing in 2019.
Just like I wouldn't be pushing for Comrie to start over Hellebuyck even if we managed to win 3 games in a row with him in net.
But hey, maybe the 5 year experiment will pay off, and Connor-Scheifele-____ will be an above average 1st line in the 2024/25 season.
I mean, the team can definitely be successful despite not optimizing its forward lines. We have Hellebuyck in net (until we start rolling out Comrie as the starter instead of Hellebuyck).CS_ will never be an above average 1st line at 5v5, and I can't think of a single poster here that has said that it will be
I think the flaw in your logic (as well as all the other posters banging thr same drum as you are) is thinking that it has to be in order for this team to be successful
Our record doesn't matter - we're in the middle of a 4 day lay over and it's time to rehash those topics that have been discussed during all lay overs.Have you checked our record lately?
So which nhl team has purposefully went with a below average top line in their respective cup winning or highly successful PO season? IE: csw was V good in 17-18 no one is going to dispute the team for using that.CS_ will never be an above average 1st line at 5v5, and I can't think of a single poster here that has said that it will be
I think the flaw in your logic (as well as all the other posters banging thr same drum as you are) is thinking that it has to be in order for this team to be successful
The challenge is that they have to be... if we want playoff success. Every other top line elevates their game... ours did too for our playoff run but scheif has changed his game since then to focus on staying healthyCS_ will never be an above average 1st line at 5v5, and I can't think of a single poster here that has said that it will be
I think the flaw in your logic (as well as all the other posters banging thr same drum as you are) is thinking that it has to be in order for this team to be successful
So which nhl team has purposefully went with a below average top line in their respective cup winning or highly successful PO season? IE: csw was V good in 17-18 no one is going to dispute the team for using that.
You post and talk as if it's inconceivable for others to think this may not be the right path, drop a few teams then that have done similarly.
You guys need zoom out a bitI mean, the team can definitely be successful despite not optimizing its forward lines. We have Hellebuyck in net (until we start rolling out Comrie as the starter instead of Hellebuyck).
Why is that something we would try to do? Do we need the extra challenge?
As for below average top lines on teams that have won, obviously there aren't any. But that said, even the best teams deploy a forward lineup that is suboptimalSo which nhl team has purposefully went with a below average top line in their respective cup winning or highly successful PO season? IE: csw was V good in 17-18 no one is going to dispute the team for using that.
You post and talk as if it's inconceivable for others to think this may not be the right path, drop a few teams then that have done similarly.
I would say these 3 games Connor has driven that line more than schief.As for below average top lines on teams that have won, obviously there aren't any. But that said, even the best teams deploy a forward lineup that is suboptimal
For example, edmonton's best line by far would be McDrai - yet that isn't a permanent fixture. Pit separated sid and geno when they won cups, and Chicago had Kane and toews on seperate lines at 5v5
Every team in the league could stack their top line and make it better, yet they go for depth. Ehlers and Schief are our two best line drivers, it makes sense to have them each driving their own lines
As I've said before, the problem we have is a lack of super top end forwards - so I think the Jets have opted to maximize what they have through depth whereas what you're suggesting would hurt the depth of the forward group