Given that the argument was made by a number of ex-NHL players/coaches turned analyists a call to someone's familiarity with elite level hockey coaching & tactics doesn't help your case.
In your opinion... But perhaps you misunderstood my comment.
In referencing familiarity, I include the understanding that not all professional assessments are as accurate. Being familiar with something includes understanding it's limitations... Your response suggests a lack of that kind of familiarity.
If you feel that the roster and performance of that playoff run deserves more praise and less critique, power to you. I disagree with that assessment for the reasons I outlined, if deferral to 'some' elements of authority is your main argument, I'd say that's a poorly grounded.
And if we were knocked out by the leafs then a lot of posters would've put the blame on Price since posters always blame the goalie even when they do well. So again not sure how that helps your argument.
It frames the limitation of your critique... As does the example you use with price.
Further, I don't agree that "posters always blame the goalie". In this recent first round exit I don't recall much if any blame being directed on Monty or Dobes. Regardless, to be relevant to the example I offered, we'd have to wait a few years to see if the same posters "blaming" the goalies would have then revised their opinions... So your point here seems flawed in multiple ways.
Now it's true the #1 best defence is controlling the puck in the opponents zone, however you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And given the reality that even very very good teams do spend significant time in their own zone it is worth looking at what's best when in your zone defending, which is clearing the net and keeping the shots to the outside.
Nice strawman. And no, I disagree. "What's best" is regaining possession, and then all other options descend from there.
What I think you mean to suggest, is that what is most effective based on the assets available, is whatever approach reduces the quality of scoring chance. Which is exactly what I tried to outline... In the case of the roster we had, which was a poorly built cap limit roster, the approach used was quite likely the only one that had a chance of success... And it required HOF caliber goaltending to succeed, by design.
You don't design that as a strategy when you have a roster that is competitive with the opponents. Which we didn't. We played well over our heads, which is nothing to criticize or complain about in terms of what the players & ciachrs achieved with the group they had... The GMs years of poor decisions led to the roster limitations they had to work with.
no need or value, imo, to create a false narrative suggesting that it is a good model to follow. A better built roster with the talent to compete and win in a variety of ways, is a far superior approach.
We're watching that unfold as we speak. But, as with all elite sports, upsets and hot runs do occur. Once you're in "win or go home" situations, it doesn't matter what your roster looks like, all that matters is winning.
Are the Oilers vindicated in losing Holloway & Broberg so that they could pay Jeff Skinner to sit in the stands and Henrique can play 14min/night? Were they wise to keep relying on S.Skinner & Pickard as their goalie tandem through prime McDrai years?
Not in my opinion, but here they are on the cusp of another finals appearance.
Just win baby isn't a particularly good way to assess the quality of a roster or of a roster building process. Luck & timing inevitably play a role in every success story, and, some approaches are demonstrably better than others. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
And I would point out this argument of looking at shots to prove we were being dominated doesn't actually hold much weight. Overall the shot differential was less then 2 shots per game and in the cup finals it was under a single shot per game. There were times we were dominated and there were times we dominated, there were times where shot totals reflected that domination and many of the shots were high quality ones and there were times that there were lots of shots but not a lot of dangerous ones. The eye test for me said we were outplayed by Toronto, we outplayed Winipeg by a lot and Vegas by a little, and everything came crashing down against Tampa.
agree to disagree.
The full season sample size doesn't seem to agree with your observations either.
