Whileee
Registered User
- May 29, 2010
- 46,445
- 34,547
This is odd, especially the last paragraph.
How well he scores is how well he scores. The fact that he takes lots of bad and good shots is part of the reason why he scores well. Other players do it differently. Kane isn't the only one. Kane's shot distributions are similar to Nash and Hornqvist. Not everyone is Tanguay or Perreault and only shoots at the perfect moment.
There is a saying: there is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because it isn't your preferred method doesn't mean that the end results are different than what they were.
Kane did score goals at a first line pace.
Kane's linemates did pick up more points on average with him than without.
Those are facts.
What you are discussing is Kane's playstyle. If you want, you could argue that Kane would be MORE effective if he took your advice. Even that is debatable, as quantity is more controllable than quality in the NHL level. That doesn't change how effective he was.
^^^^... all of this, plus...
The Jets were a better team with Kane. We had a decent to good 3rd line when he played there, however you measure it. Without him, it's a mediocre to bad 3rd line.
I'm not sure we should be surprised that the Jets have taken a step backward since Kane went down, and then was traded. Stafford isn't as good a player as Kane, particularly in the Jets style of play. Losing Perreault has compounded the situation since he was arguably our 4th best forward. We lost 2 of our top 6 forwards, so it's not a surprise that our top-9 doesn't look that great.
The reality is that Chevy went for futures rather than equivalent quality in the trade for Kane. I think that was the right move all things considered, but I also accept the fact that it made the Jets a worse team for the remainder of this season. If the futures (Armia, Lemieux, 2015 1st) don't amount to much, this trade is going to look quite bad for the Jets in a few years from now.