Lol say bad take again.
The whole genesis of my post was a response to the assertion that Ehlers and Samberg’s absence was a main driver of the Jets poor play over the past group of games.
While I agree that losing Samberg has hurt us for a number of reasons, such as missing his excellent defensive play, his impact on Pionk, forcing less capable players into roles they shouldn't be in, and increasing ice time of Pionk and Morrissey when everyone's already exhausted, I was staying that I don't think that Ehlers loss is in that tier of significance for the reasons I stated.
I didn't think Ehlers was playing particularly well before he got hurt, I don't consider Ehlers to be a main success driver for the team, and I've yet to see him rise up and match the intensity level needed when games get tough, such as playoffs, hard physical contests, or, when the team is in a slump.
I did not say it didn't matter that Ehlers was hurt. I did not say that he's not an excellent hockey player.
I made my point about why I didn't think Ehlers loss has had a huge impact in our struggles. I made a well constructed argument using empirical evidence.
So say bad take a much as you'd like, I stick by what I said and why I said it.
Good day, sir.