The more that you point to analyst and model predictions that identified the Jet`s with their sub-standard D as a bubble team at best and certainly not as a contender, as a means to defend Maurice`s coaching performance this past year (heh, team performed as might reasonably be expected), the more that you implicitly throw the spotjight on Chevy and /or other decision makers in the org. If the team indeed had no reasonable chance at modest playoff success, or even making the playoffs, what possible explanation is there for not shifting to a" developmental bias" with all decision -making? Would the year not be better utilized to further the individual development of players on the cusp of making the team, or just as importantly, to further the orgs understanding of the future potential of some players, for trade decisions or especially protection decisions in the Expansion draft ? Wouldn`t Chevy have taken a different approach to potential roster improvement at the TDL ?
I agree. I viewed this season as a developmental season, because the D wasn't good enough.
Clearly, Chevy knew that. Clearly, he and the hockey department decided to develop Samberg in the AHL this season, and keep Heinola from burning his ELC, if possible. My guess is that Chevy hoped to acquire a top D with some term at the trade deadline, especially with the Jets in a solid playoff position. But they weren't willing to sacrifice a top prospect to do that.
So, I agree with the assessment by Chevy that this was not a contender.
I still think it might have been better to play Heinola and Samberg at the NHL level this season, but time will tell.
But I think the heavy criticism of Maurice does take the spotlight off Chevy who made decisions that resulted in Maurice working with a terrible D this season. That seems unbalanced, to me.