Ah, so we're getting to a little more nuance now. You started off dismissing the regular season, and claiming that "contenders" are only determined by the playoffs, and now after getting caught in a contradiction, your position has suddenly changed again. So exactly how much weight does the mighty Dreakmur allow us to put on each?
I’ve always tried to explain to you that there’s a difference between regular season hockey and playoff hockey. You seem to be the only one confused.
We finally have you acknowledging sample sizes! Another one off the list! I wonder which sample size would be more representative of a team's quality... the outcome and underlying results of 82 games against 31 different opponents over a 7 month period, or just the end outcome of 4-7 games against one team over a 1-2 week period with no context. Exactly how big of a sample size do we need? Because you seem to be trying to simultaneously dismiss outcomes in a sample size of 4 series, while making contradictory declarations based on the outcome of 1 series.
Sample sizes have always been important, but only when measuring the same statistic. Regular season games are not the same as playoff games. While their sample size it greater, it doesn’t tell you anything accurate.
The issue is that you correctly identified something that he was good at, instead of pretending that he caused climate change. And yet even as you reminisce about the one compliment you ever gave him, you can't help but simultaneously make inaccurate criticisms.
That wasn’t reminiscent - that was exactly what I said at the time. It was accurate then and it’s accurate now. Dubas doesn’t understand the importance of roles on a team.
And people in the middle, like me. Getting into disagreements with everybody doesn't make you in the middle, or right.
The only thing you’re in the middle of is Dubas’ anus.
No, you just accuse people of "blaming luck" when they consider any of the context that you suddenly started considering once the GM changed to Treliving.
You have never blamed anything except bad luck. Posters who understood what was happening on the ice tried to explain to you what was actually happening, and why it seemed like luck, but you had your Dubas blinders strapped on tight.
So have we finally reached acknowledgement that Treliving chose to sign Samsonov, and then chose to go into the playoffs with no goalie changes? It seems like now that the GM is different, you're eager to consider context like the options actually available to a GM, and the fact that decisions that are "good at the time" don't always turn out well, but I think the first step is admitting what he did.
Cool.... so we've established the best choice at the time was still a bad option. Perhaps we should discuss why Tre walked into such a bad situation?
You sure have come a long way from bragging that Samsonov was brought in by Dubas....
We didn't even have a good record in the limited games we played with Jones, so I'm not sure how he "saved our season". He came up and filled in nicely for a stretch, before going back to struggling. Which is perfectly fine for a third stringer, and it turned into a good acquisition by Treliving for that role, but I'm not sure what the goalie that Treliving chose for his third stringer has to do with the playoffs.
So which available goalie should we have added? And what assets were we going to move?
We had a ton of cap space and assets. Every option was available to him. I think it's just that people are finally realizing that acquiring dominant goaltending is easier said than done.
We had some cap space, but the roster was in shambles after we went all-in with a pile of UFA rentals.
We had some assets, but our pool of picks and prospects has been diminished by years of trading them for UFA rentals.
