But we never do it. This is the point I've tried to hammer home for years now: if you never try anything new, you're never going to optimise what you have. It hasn't worked for us in the past, and we're again seeing that it isn't working now. This year was different in that a lot of stuff worked in the regular season, but the second things start going sideways, we are in massive trouble. It isn't just about some pushback, it's about not finding multiple ways of winning hockey games.
Be it lineups, prospects, or staff in the front office, we never optimise. For years, we have chosen some way to do it, and stuck with it until the (often bitter) end. I thought it couldn't have become much worse after Maurice, but Bowness, good grief.
For those still playing catch-up, here's an example of this: suppose we were to assemble ESV once again for Game 4. The #1 question then become, what do we do with Connor, a player who often needs support from his linemates to excel? Well, let's go to Moneypuck and see which lines he did well on during the regular season...
... and then we find out that the only good Connor line that was together for more than a handful minutes had Ehlers on it. We don't know what to do with him, because we never cared to find out any other options than stapling him to 55 and hoping that it works. We also find out that out of the lines with 100+ minutes spent together, Connor-Scheifele-Vilardi was by far the worst combination we had in terms of xGF%. And then we wonder why we're having problems in this series.