Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[True Blue]

Lol It looks like you already have your hands full with the rest of the board so I'll just ride off into the sunset

Ciao. I don't have my hands full with anyone.

 

[NYR]

Delete

 

[True Blue]

Hey being that Quinn scratched him for a quarter of last season maybe we can say this is technically his first "full" season. If we move the goalposts enough we might be able to make him a rookie. First player ever to play 180 NHL games and be in his 5th year of pro hockey but still be a rookie.

If last year was not his first full year, then when was it? If we move the goalposts enough, he can be a grizzled 5 year vet.

Yes I believe 2 rookies and zero sophomores is less than 3 rookies and 1 sophomore.

Rookies are rookies. DeAngelo is DeAngelo. Staal is Staal. None of this strengthens your argument at all. But that is just my view. You can be you.

Our season basically breaks down to one full seasons rookie who is awesome and a one full season from a bunch of other rookies who range from bad to good.

Its illogical that people without bad stats are responsible for bad stats. The Skjei and Trouba pairing has the worst stats on the team and when they are on... those other players are on the bench. They have nothing to do with their stats. Its not really complicated.

With blinders on, no one is debating their stats. What people are telling you is that if you beat your chest regarding the stats of Fox or DeAngelo, that is obfuscation as if they had to play Trouba's minutes, their stats would be much more abysmal. Not really sure of what the complication of understanding here is.

That is the argument.

"We have bad D stats."
"The stats are bad because the D is young"
"The top pair is veterans and they have the worse stats."
"Yes, because the D is young."
"How can the young D make the veteran top pair have bad stats?"
"Because they are young."

Again, just a bit of obfuscation here. The argument is that the D is bad and the inexperience of those involved does not help it. Nor does having Staal play. You keep on trying to ignore that. The argument is that if the other defensemen on the bench had to play Trouba's minutes, their stats would be even worse.

Its also changing. The Trouba-Fox D zone split has gone from 91-66 the first three quarters of the season to 26-24 the last quarter, which shockingly coincides with the teams stats being significantly better. I'm shocked.

So as of now, by sighting that, you believe that Fox is better defensively than Trouba and can handle Trouba's assignments? This is a pretty black and white, yes or no question.

25th in the league, after all is said and done, was probably on the low side of most peoples expectation range. Pessimistic but not unreasonable.

25th in the league before we sold off Kreider & co. and with Panarin having a Hart Trophy year is... probably not something most people would consider overachieving.

But to each his own.

25 in the league is only on the low side for those who had unrealistic expectations. Everyone expected Panarin to be great. For those to had realistic expectations, this team is either on par or overachieving.

But to each his own.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Just like McDonagh!

Hey being that Quinn scratched him for a quarter of last season maybe we can say this is technically his first "full" season. If we move the goalposts enough we might be able to make him a rookie. First player ever to play 180 NHL games and be in his 5th year of pro hockey but still be a rookie.



Yes I believe 2 rookies and zero sophomores is less than 3 rookies and 1 sophomore.

Our season basically breaks down to one full seasons rookie who is awesome and a one full season from a bunch of other rookies who range from bad to good.




Its illogical that people without bad stats are responsible for bad stats. The Skjei and Trouba pairing has the worst stats on the team and when they are on... those other players are on the bench. They have nothing to do with their stats. Its not really complicated.




That is the argument.

"We have bad D stats."
"The stats are bad because the D is young"
"The top pair is veterans and they have the worse stats."
"Yes, because the D is young."
"How can the young D make the veteran top pair have bad stats?"
"Because they are young."




Er well, I mean yes they do take the majority of the D zone starts. Trouba has taken 40% and Fox and Deangelo have taken around 30% each. The split just looking at Trouba and Fox is about 56% to 44%, respectively. Trouba and Deangelo is 57% to 43%. And yes they do play against the oppositions top lines even if Quinn tries to avoid it, that is just how hockey works. Like I said, the whole sheltered thing is overblown.

Its also changing. The Trouba-Fox D zone split has gone from 91-66 the first three quarters of the season to 26-24 the last quarter, which shockingly coincides with the teams stats being significantly better. I'm shocked.



25th in the league, after all is said and done, was probably on the low side of most peoples expectation range. Pessimistic but not unreasonable.

25th in the league before we sold off Kreider & co. and with Panarin having a Hart Trophy year is... probably not something most people would consider overachieving.

But to each his own.

 

[JHS]

It's irrelevant.. Unfortunately, he's here.
You want to say he gave up his so called "dream" for money?
OK lol

Man if only the Rangers took a hint!

 

[JHS]

Just like McDonagh!

Hey being that Quinn scratched him for a quarter of last season maybe we can say this is technically his first "full" season. If we move the goalposts enough we might be able to make him a rookie. First player ever to play 180 NHL games and be in his 5th year of pro hockey but still be a rookie.



Yes I believe 2 rookies and zero sophomores is less than 3 rookies and 1 sophomore.

Our season basically breaks down to one full seasons rookie who is awesome and a one full season from a bunch of other rookies who range from bad to good.




Its illogical that people without bad stats are responsible for bad stats. The Skjei and Trouba pairing has the worst stats on the team and when they are on... those other players are on the bench. They have nothing to do with their stats. Its not really complicated.




That is the argument.

"We have bad D stats."
"The stats are bad because the D is young"
"The top pair is veterans and they have the worse stats."
"Yes, because the D is young."
"How can the young D make the veteran top pair have bad stats?"
"Because they are young."




Er well, I mean yes they do take the majority of the D zone starts. Trouba has taken 40% and Fox and Deangelo have taken around 30% each. The split just looking at Trouba and Fox is about 56% to 44%, respectively. Trouba and Deangelo is 57% to 43%. And yes they do play against the oppositions top lines even if Quinn tries to avoid it, that is just how hockey works. Like I said, the whole sheltered thing is overblown.

Its also changing. The Trouba-Fox D zone split has gone from 91-66 the first three quarters of the season to 26-24 the last quarter, which shockingly coincides with the teams stats being significantly better. I'm shocked.



25th in the league, after all is said and done, was probably on the low side of most peoples expectation range. Pessimistic but not unreasonable.

25th in the league before we sold off Kreider & co. and with Panarin having a Hart Trophy year is... probably not something most people would consider overachieving.

But to each his own.

Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight but this thread is a lot better with the guy you are arguing with on the ignore list like I’ve done. That leaves only reasonable and non-circular logic based replies.

Your point is not lost on me and one I agree with. Even if we want to give the entire defense a pass for being “young” it’s still on the coach to institute a system where his players can be successful!!! And, as has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people, his system does not even place his young defensive core in a position to succeed!

He requires his third forward on the forecheck to make decisions on whether to attack the puck at the offensive blue line or fall back and try and contain the rush through the neutral zone. That’s a non-sensical system when you have rookies all over the ice including at the forward position. Have a more passive forecheck system so as to make sure you have four guys between the puck and your net through the neutral zone. It’s very simple.

Second major issue is the decisions with the puck in close games. They highlight a trend of making risky plays. To me this is insightful to what these guys are being coached to do. While we here all the time the coaching focuses on “keep it simple” from Maloney’s intermission reports, to me that’s not what is being executed and the reason it is not is because it takes constant reinforcement with a young group. It must be ingrained in them and required of them each and every game. What I see is the direct opposite of this. He places defensemen in situations where they have to make log outlet passes through multiple players, he allows his forwards to not dump the puck in or play chip and chase, he allows his forwards to make turnovers at the offensive blue line repeatedly. How do I know he allows this— because the same guys who have made these mistakes all the time during his tenure( Buch, and Howden immediately jump to mind) have not progressed one minut inch in this area. They still make the same mistakes! That’s bad coaching!

This is the thing— the eye test does not lie, you just have to be able to see what’s in front of you. Now I will give Quinn some credit, recently he has limited both these guys ice time late in games and this has coincided with a more recent uptick in defensive metrics—but this is 120 something games into his coaching run. I would not nearly be as critical of him if he did these same things earlier in his tenure.

 

[Tawnos]

There is a matter of approach at question here. Do you mold your system around the fact that you’ve got young players, giving them a low risk brand of hockey to play? Or do you put everyone in the system you want them to be playing at the end of the development curve and allow them to grow into it?

I don’t actually think one is better than the other. I wouldn’t criticize a coach for going either route. During the part of my career where I was responsible for personnel development (which I’m not anymore) I often found that, long-term, there was no difference between slowly bringing someone along or just throwing them into the fire. My personal style is to ease people in, but unfortunately that wasn’t always possible. The short term growing pains are certainly harsher when I’d throw them into the fire, but ultimately I would get the same result.

This discussion of what kind of system you should have kids in is analogous to that. I think either way works.

 

[JHS]

There is a matter of approach at question here. Do you mold your system around the fact that you’ve got young players, giving them a low risk brand of hockey to play? Or do you put everyone in the system you want them to be playing at the end of the development curve and allow them to grow into it?

I don’t actually think one is better than the other. I wouldn’t criticize a coach for going either route. During the part of my career where I was responsible for personnel development (which I’m not anymore) I often found that, long-term, there was no difference between slowly bringing someone along or just throwing them into the fire. My personal style is to ease people in, but unfortunately that wasn’t always possible. The short term growing pains are certainly harsher when I’d throw them into the fire, but ultimately I would get the same result.

This discussion of what kind of system you should have kids in is analogous to that. I think either way works.

This is interesting. I'd suggest though, that with athletes confidence plays a key factor to their development in the sense that if they are successful they may develop quicker than if they feel like they are unsuccessful. I think Lias is an example of someone who thought they were successful but actually were not in the eyes of the coaches and we can see that as an extreme example of how athletes react when they perceive those in authoritative positions don't value their contributions on the scale they think they are owed. So I'm more of the mindset of "success breeds success" in sports.

Plus, defensive minded hockey has been the foundation for most Stanley Cup winning teams. Far fewer cup winning teams play wide open systems that does not prioritize defensive responsibility. So in the context of the point you are bringing up( developing within a system or establishing a system to develop in) I'd rather establish a system that will produce results further down the line now rather than try and change the system later on in the players development.

 

[Tawnos]

This is interesting. I'd suggest though, that with athletes confidence plays a key factor to their development in the sense that if they are successful they may develop quicker than if they feel like they are unsuccessful. I think Lias is an example of someone who thought they were successful but actually were not in the eyes of the coaches and we can see that as an extreme example of how athletes react when they perceive those in authoritative positions don't value their contributions on the scale they think they are owed. So I'm more of the mindset of "success breeds success" in sports.

Plus, defensive minded hockey has been the foundation for most Stanley Cup winning teams. Far fewer cup winning teams play wide open systems that does not prioritize defensive responsibility. So in the context of the point you are bringing up( developing within a system or establishing a system to develop in) I'd rather establish a system that will produce results further down the line now rather than try and change the system later on in the players development.

Confidence isn't any more important to athletes than it is to anyone else in a professional setting. Success breeds success is true everywhere.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

For anyone that cares about the coaches player deployment this year



I'd like to see an uptick in guys like Fox and Chytil as we had into the back half of the year

 

[Athor]

For anyone that cares about the coaches player deployment this year



I'd like to see an uptick in guys like Fox and Chytil as we had into the back half of the year

It kinda helps when your young players are MacKinnon, Makar, Girard, & Rantanen while also not having much depth behind them.

 

[JHS]

Confidence isn't any more important to athletes than it is to anyone else in a professional setting. Success breeds success is true everywhere.

Except an athlete who loses confidence begins to doubt their on ice decisions which leads to further mistakes which leads to compounded errors which leads to further confidence erosion...etc...etc...etc.... An accountant who loses their confidence has some other accountant check their work. Come on here- that claim that confidence isn't any more important to athletes than it is anyone else in a professional setting is ludicrous. I'm a teacher in my professional life-- if my confidence is rattled I can still be an effective teacher and regain my confidence quicker because I'm not being compared to other teachers and I don't have media and fans and coaches breathing down my neck. That's true for virtually every profession--except professional athletes.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

It kinda helps when your young players are MacKinnon, Makar, Girard, & Rantanen while also not having much depth behind them.

To be honest the Colorado tweet is completely irrelevant to this haha

The Rangers graph is just a reply to Colorado's, that's the only reason it's there

 

[Athor]

To be honest the Colorado tweet is completely irrelevant to this haha

The Rangers graph is just a reply to Colorado's, that's the only reason it's there

Yeah I know, was more a response to his comments around both teams. Does he want us to just sit Zibanejad, Panarin, & Kreider in favor of the young guys or something? Most of them should see a jump after the deadline. I also hate the way he classifies "important minutes"

 

[McRanger]

If last year was not his first full year, then when was it? If we move the goalposts enough, he can be a grizzled 5 year vet.

Well this should be his first full season, his "full season rookie season" if you will, assuming he plays a full season. Otherwise next year. Or some time in the future. Maybe never?

"Full seasons" might be my favorite new HF thing. "A rookie? He's been around for a bunch of seasons!" "Ah yes... but how many full seasons? We all know experience only accumulates in full seasons and is otherwise lost... like unused sick days."

If nothing else comes from this argument, at least I learned about full seasons.

Rookies are rookies. DeAngelo is DeAngelo. Staal is Staal. None of this strengthens your argument at all. But that is just my view. You can be you.

You dont need to strengthen an argument after you've won it. You misrepresented how young the D was, I pointed out that you were wrong and you've responded with half "No I am correct! Deangelo is a sophomore, a full season sophomore!" and half "Well, reality is reality and I am obviously not correct, but the D is still really young!"

With blinders on, no one is debating their stats. What people are telling you is that if you beat your chest regarding the stats of Fox or DeAngelo, that is obfuscation as if they had to play Trouba's minutes, their stats would be much more abysmal. Not really sure of what the complication of understanding here is.

Again, just a bit of obfuscation here. The argument is that the D is bad and the inexperience of those involved does not help it. Nor does having Staal play. You keep on trying to ignore that. The argument is that if the other defensemen on the bench had to play Trouba's minutes, their stats would be even worse.

This argument is.. something. So Trouba is bad at his job, the job we specifically brought him here to do, because he is doing the job we brought him here to do, instead of a different, easier job? Right.

Try using that argument in another scenario and see how absurd it sounds. "Our starting goaltender has terrible stats!" "Of course he does, he has a young backup and gets all the hard starts. If he wasn't our starting goaltender he would be doing much better!".

So as of now, by sighting that, you believe that Fox is better defensively than Trouba and can handle Trouba's assignments? This is a pretty black and white, yes or no question.

I believe or Quinn believes? I have no idea what Quinn believes. Me, I believe Fox will be a significantly better defensive player than Trouba soon if he isn't already.

But I also believe that he shouldn't have to be, at all, because our 8m first pair right D should not have defensive stats that would make Jason Strudwick blush and we should probably fix that instead of blaming the people that are doing their jobs.

25 in the league is only on the low side for those who had unrealistic expectations. Everyone expected Panarin to be great. For those to had realistic expectations, this team is either on par or overachieving.

But to each his own.

Unrealistic? That's funny. The same people (well, some of them anyway) defending Quinn are the people that defended Staal (except when its convenient, like this thread) defended Glass, defended Girardi (until we literally paid him to go away) and thought the team should rebuild in the middle of the season we went to the cup final.

I am not sure "realistic" is a word I would use to describe the great pessimistic Rangers masses.

 

[Athor]

Try using that argument in another scenario and see how absurd it sounds. "Our starting goaltender has terrible stats!" "Of course he does, he has a young backup and gets all the hard starts. If he wasn't our starting goaltender he would be doing much better!".

It's more like saying the goaltender has bad stats because he's playing for Detroit, and he's young.

 

[True Blue]

Well this should be his first full season, his "full season rookie season" if you will, assuming he plays a full season. Otherwise next year. Or some time in the future. Maybe never?

Is this his second full season? And is that not usually associated with someone being called a sophomore?

If nothing else comes from this argument, at least I learned about full seasons.

Always great to drop knowledge.

You dont need to strengthen an argument after you've won it. You misrepresented how young the D was, I pointed out that you were wrong and you've responded with half "No I am correct! Deangelo is a sophomore, a full season sophomore!" and half "Well, reality is reality and I am obviously not correct, but the D is still really young!"

I am not sure of how anything is misrepresented if I stated that the D is extremely young. Is it the whole 3 rookies & sophomore vs. 2 rookies, Staal & whatever definition of DeAngelo fits into your box? That is what you are beating your chest about winning? Ok. Congrats. Way to see the the first pine cone, but miss the entire forest behind it.

This argument is.. something. So Trouba is bad at his job, the job we specifically brought him here to do, because he is doing the job we brought him here to do, instead of a different, easier job? Right.

This rebuttal is also....something. Trouba is exactly who he has always been and is playing the way that he always has. The only difference is that he is THE top defenseman now of a weak overall defense and has a pretty crappy supporting cast throughout. So no, to me his performance is pretty much the way that I though it would be when thrust into a role that he was not in before. As the supporting cast and the defense improves, I would expect his fancy stats to improve. If you were expecting a performance from him that would be heads and shoulders better than he was in Winnipeg, I would say that was an erroneous assumption on your part. But it is far easier to miss those subtle points when trying to promote a narrative.

I believe or Quinn believes? I have no idea what Quinn believes. Me, I believe Fox will be a significantly better defensive player than Trouba soon if he isn't already.

I specifically said you. And if you believe that Fox is a better defenseman than Trouba, there is nothing really for us to discuss this point.

But I also believe that he shouldn't have to be, at all, because our 8m first pair right D should not have defensive stats that would make Jason Strudwick blush and we should probably fix that instead of blaming the people that are doing their jobs.

See above points If Fox had was used the way Trouba was, his fancy stats would be so much further in the crapper that the fancy stat lovers would have marched to have him demoted.

Unrealistic? That's funny. The same people (well, some of them anyway) defending Quinn are the people that defended Staal (except when its convenient, like this thread) defended Glass, defended Girardi (until we literally paid him to go away) and thought the team should rebuild in the middle of the season we went to the cup final.

I am not sure "realistic" is a word I would use to describe the great pessimistic Rangers masses.

Unrealistic is unrealistic. As in the expectation that this team would be much better than last year. What that has to do with Staal or Glass or Girardi, I have no idea.

 

[Machinehead]

To be honest the Colorado tweet is completely irrelevant to this haha

The Rangers graph is just a reply to Colorado's, that's the only reason it's there

QUINn is a dEvEloPMent cOACH He's HEre to TeACH

 

[NYR]

QUINn is a dEvEloPMent cOACH He's HEre to TeACH

Of course he is

 

[NYR]

Geez..Don't you people work?
If so, you're all f***ing fired! Lol

 

[McRanger]

Is this his second full season? And is that not usually associated with someone being called a sophomore?

Always great to drop knowledge.

I am not sure of how anything is misrepresented if I stated that the D is extremely young. Is it the whole 3 rookies & sophomore vs. 2 rookies, Staal & whatever definition of DeAngelo fits into your box? That is what you are beating your chest about winning? Ok. Congrats. Way to see the the first pine cone, but miss the entire forest behind it.

This is what you wrote:

Again, go back 25 years and find another team whose top 6 consisted of 3 rookies and a sophomore.

You wanted our D to be historically young so that it would explain our historically bad shots against stats so you misrepresented how young our D is and then demanded @Machinehead go find proof of your incorrect statement. Since then you've alternated between defending something that isn't true and switching to "extremely young."

If I beat my chest every time I won this argument I would have caved in my lungs by now.

This rebuttal is also....something. Trouba is exactly who he has always been and is playing the way that he always has. The only difference is that he is THE top defenseman now of a weak overall defense and has a pretty crappy supporting cast throughout. So no, to me his performance is pretty much the way that I though it would be when thrust into a role that he was not in before. As the supporting cast and the defense improves, I would expect his fancy stats to improve. If you were expecting a performance from him that would be heads and shoulders better than he was in Winnipeg, I would say that was an erroneous assumption on your part. But it is far easier to miss those subtle points when trying to promote a narrative.

I specifically said you. And if you believe that Fox is a better defenseman than Trouba, there is nothing really for us to discuss this point.

See above points If Fox had was used the way Trouba was, his fancy stats would be so much further in the crapper that the fancy stat lovers would have marched to have him demoted.

Uh... ok.

1) Trouba was THE top defenseman last year for the Jets. He's playing the exact same role he played last year (most TOI, most defensive zone starts, etc.) on a Jets team that obviously is not very good defensively since they have gone off a cliff without him: last year they were mediocre and this year they are awful. Meanwhile his stats went from being meh to being horrid.

2) Fox's stats, fancy or otherwise, aren't "in the crapper" at all. They are best on the team and he's in the top half (usually the top quarter or top third) league wide in pretty much every stat, fancy or otherwise, that can be calculated. He has these stats while playing on the 2nd pair, as a rookie.

So it's pretty clear that you simply don't know what you are talking about. At all. The idea that a guy is bad at his job, the job he has done before and was brought here to do, because other people behind him have easier jobs is idiotic beyond all description.

Unrealistic is unrealistic. As in the expectation that this team would be much better than last year. What that has to do with Staal or Glass or Girardi, I have no idea.

Pessimism isn't realism. Its just a crutch people use to try and cope with the inevitability of disappointment. And it only seems to disappear when we are talking about some crappy "character" player. "This '13-'14 team is going nowhere! At least we have Dan Girardi to build around!"

 

[True Blue]

You wanted our D to be historically young so that it would explain our historically bad shots against stats so you misrepresented how young our D is and then demanded @Machinehead go find proof of your incorrect statement. Since then you've alternated between defending something that isn't true and switching to "extremely young."

If I beat my chest every time I won this argument I would have caved in my lungs by now.

I used have used the term for a while. And then Hajek got hurt. So you will still have a hard time finding for whatever amount of games, 3 rookies being in the lineup of a defense at the same time. 18 games is not a meaningless number. Especially when you look at the period of time this year it covered. Obviously, when Hajek got hurt and Staal went back in that number compressed. But it is hardly meaningless. But again, feel free to turn arument into whatever it is you wish to see.

One cannot point out who bad the first half of the season the stats of the defense was and NOT take into account your 18 games when it iced 3 rookies. Or are you going to deny that the to-date numbers that were being quoted to state that the team has been historically bad on defense includes a meaningful amount in which the team did in fact ice 3 rookies? Or 2 rookies, a defensively deficient player who is playing his 2nd full season and a Stall that no longer is capable of sustained decent play?

Keep on bating

So it's pretty clear that you simply don't know what you are talking about. At all. The idea that a guy is bad at his job, the job he has done before and was brought here to do, because other people behind him have easier jobs is idiotic beyond all description.

Or you don't. Or watched a different Trouba on a different Jets team. He was hardly THE man there.

Pessimism isn't realism. Its just a crutch people use to try and cope with the inevitability of disappointment. And it only seems to disappear when we are talking about some crappy "character" player. "This '13-'14 team is going nowhere! At least we have Dan Girardi to build around!"

Blue shaded optimism is not reality either. As you are incapable of understanding where the other side is coming from, you decide to equate much more realistic views to being a "crutch". Basically sour grapes for your view not being realistic. So now, naturally, it is all coaching and management's fault that they have not met your standard. Couldn't at all be that your assumptions were faulty, right?

 

[McRanger]

I used have used the term for a while. And then Hajek got hurt. So you will still have a hard time finding for whatever amount of games, 3 rookies being in the lineup of a defense at the same time. 18 games is not a meaningless number. Especially when you look at the period of time this year it covered. Obviously, when Hajek got hurt and Staal went back in that number compressed. But it is hardly meaningless. But again, feel free to turn arument into whatever it is you wish to see.

One cannot point out who bad the first half of the season the stats of the defense was and NOT take into account your 18 games when it iced 3 rookies. Or are you going to deny that the to-date numbers that were being quoted to state that the team has been historically bad on defense includes a meaningful amount in which the team did in fact ice 3 rookies? Or 2 rookies, a defensively deficient player who is playing his 2nd full season and a Stall that no longer is capable of sustained decent play?

Hajek and Staal are, or were, problems. Which is probably why neither has played the whole season.

Fox and Deangelo are not, or have not been, problems. Which is probably why they have played the whole season.

You can't just lump everyone together as "Youth" and then later "Youth and Staal". Most of the youth isn't the problem. Which is why the "we're historically bad at giving up shots because we're historically young" doesn't make any sense, even if we were historically young which we are not.

And of course our pair that has played the most minutes together, Skjei-Trouba aren't any of those players so how their struggles can be blamed on our new folk quartet sensation "Youth and Staal" is beyond me. You know, being that they aren't on the ice at the same time.

Keep on bating

Ok. I will keep doing what ever that is.

Or you don't. Or watched a different Trouba on a different Jets team. He was hardly THE man there.

Well we could look at the numbers which say he was pretty clearly the main defensive RD who led the team in ice time and took most of the defensive draws, both 5-on-5 and when protected a lead. Or we can go with your opinion which I am guessing is based on intuition or something.

Blue shaded optimism is not reality either. As you are incapable of understanding where the other side is coming from, you decide to equate much more realistic views to being a "crutch". Basically sour grapes for your view not being realistic. So now, naturally, it is all coaching and management's fault that they have not met your standard. Couldn't at all be that your assumptions were faulty, right?

Thinking the team is always going to be awful is not being realistic. Its just being repetitive.

 

[True Blue]

Hajek and Staal are, or were, problems. Which is probably why neither has played the whole season.

Fox and Deangelo are not, or have not been, problems. Which is probably why they have played the whole season.

You can't just lump everyone together as "Youth" and then later "Youth and Staal". Most of the youth isn't the problem. Which is why the "we're historically bad at giving up shots because we're historically young" doesn't make any sense, even if we were historically young which we are not.

And of course our pair that has played the most minutes together, Skjei-Trouba aren't any of those players so how their struggles can be blamed on our new folk quartet sensation "Youth and Staal" is beyond me. You know, being that they aren't on the ice at the same time.

Let's try it this way. The point that this team is historically bad defensively has been harped on for a while. Do you deny that for a significant chunk of that time, the defense was armed by exactly the personnel that I describe? If the personnel consisted of who I say it did, then is that not a logical contributing factor as to why it would be so poor for a long time?

And, as more experience is obtained, have there not been signs of improvement?

Our pair that played most of the minutes has one defenseman on it that has no business being on a top pairing. He was on the top pairing because the other defensemen are exactly as I describe them to be. Would that not be a contributing factor?

Ok. I will keep doing what ever that is.

Go you.

Well we could look at the numbers which say he was pretty clearly the main defensive RD who led the team in ice time and took most of the defensive draws, both 5-on-5 and when protected a lead. Or we can go with your opinion which I am guessing is based on intuition or something.

All of the concerned that were expressed in the debates here about him stepping up and taking a role that he was not in before, never happened? Most thought of Byf & Morrisey as their top defensemen. Myers was no slouch either. Here, Trouba does not have that type of supporting cast. Here, he has to largely carry the defensive play. That is a very big difference, whether or not you want to admit it or not.

Thinking the team is always going to be awful is not being realistic. Its just being repetitive.

Thinking that this team was going to be a contender for the playoffs instead of a lottery team this year was not realistic, it was very simple wish casting.

 

[NYR]

Pshh.. What a f***ing tool..