What This Means for You:
Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.
In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord ServerBut sometimes being "the guy" means you also have to elevate the play of your teammates on the ice. I'll admit he's been hamstrung by the coaching and personnel decisions, but he also has to shoulder more of the load to make other players better, and his wandering tendencies don't do his D partners many favors.
The absolute opposite direction that the Preds and Blues took at that point in the season illustrated how truly incompetent Trotz is. The Blues decided to get out of neutral and made a coaching move. The Preds, who were absolutely reeling, decided to stand pat. And still are.
I think the other problem I have with Josi is that there really has never been any kind of elevation in the playoffs with him. Granted, we haven't played a lot in the playoffs lately. But it just seemed like he was pretty casual in a few of the series, he got ok-ish points overall, all added up, but without really standing out any time that I can recall?
This is how his coach's mindset is really killing us. If you want to win, you have to be ruthless sometimes. Poile was a good GM, but sometimes too patient or cautious. Trotz is lot less cautious when it comes to players... but certainly overly patient where coaching is concerned; he's going to have to think like the other GMs out there sometimes when it comes to coaches, his own past experiences as a coach notwithstanding. If he can't get over that blind spot, especially given he made a bad hire to begin with, we're going to be in trouble for a long time.
Oh, if he said "Fabbro contributed or was one of the reasons..." I wouldn't have taken that much issue with it, If you haven't noticed, some posters sole purpose on these boards is smearing Josi, diminishing everything good he's ever done for us and blaming him for everything bad that's ever happened since 2018. Not Forsberg though, God forbid.
Hey, I completely agree with you. He's struggled with the physicality and lack of space in the playoffs in several series and he hasn't taken any over. It's a legitimate criticism. The main problem is we've never had anyone better than him and Forsberg. Losing Subban and Ellis at 30yo to injuries set us back badly. That's what made us dangerous. Our forward lineup has always been average at best, let's face it. Even when we were a playoff team and winning series.I think the other problem I have with Josi is that there really has never been any kind of elevation in the playoffs with him. Granted, we haven't played a lot in the playoffs lately. But it just seemed like he was pretty casual in a few of the series, he got ok-ish points overall, all added up, but without really standing out any time that I can recall?
Anyway, again, not to critique him, just I think it helps to illustrate that we never really had a "the guy"... it wasn't really Josi, although he did the best he could to try to, I suppose. Just that as good as he has been, he's not really able to be "the guy". Not his fault.
Another 30+ year old vet added with a 3 or 4 year NMC contract
Maybe he means to keep Josi company in the LTIR wing of the press box...Weber would make sense.
So did 2017 and 2018 suddenly not happen? Real hard to argue you didn't have a real contending team when you made it to the SCF and probably win it if not for key injuries and then follow it up with the President’s Trophy the next season.
Drafting, development, hits ... they all go together in a process. Our process sucks. We draft kids seemingly without a plan for how they fit into the systems we'll be running. (For example, Wood drafted for a coach who wants to play an aggressive, up tempo, pressing system that relies on great skating. WTAF?) We don't integrate (or play) young guys into the lineup as a cost-controlled supply of talent to mix with a veteran core. (This is where Dallas and St. Louis are head and shoulders better than us.) We give young guys the one-and-done yo-yo treatment, effectively paying them to make mistakes and learn and then getting rid of them to use that knowledge and experience to be a better, more matured player somewhere else.
This exactly. Plus on top of that, the cherry picking of successful picks after our guys overlooks that several other names scattered on either side of our picks were failures, they weren't all Jarvises and Lundells.
Honestly, I think the "overmarination" "always through Milwaukee" approach this organization has treasured for so long is primarily applicable to defensemen because they already commonly have a longer development arc. Not so much for forwards.
Evidently we're now to the Premature Depressing Hindsight phase of Bad Season Cope. I also remember hindsight-regretting the Derick Brassard and Jakub Voracek picks a couple years later because Peter Mueller and Logan Couture were obviously doing so much better.
I dunno, I think "rising" and "falling" is a bit of an artificial construct that we as fans following publications probably create for ourselves. I don't think it's a real thing for an NHL team scouting department. Various factors change the perception of a player over time, repeated viewings, interviews, combine measurements etc. So Kemell was measured smaller and that affected some rankings. Or Wood or Svechkov starred in the U18 and that affected some rankings. But at the end of the day, teams are still just making their lists. They aren't picking a guy on draft day because where he was ranked relative to some outside publications had him "rising" or "falling". Maybe some places didn't rank Surin or Molendyk as high as we picked them, etc. And because there are individual teams with their own rankings and player preferences, it almost invariably means some number of players are going to be chosen ahead of published consensus, which therefore means some number of players will go lower than the published consensus. But that doesn't really mean they are "falling". It's just an inherent byproduct of teams doing their own scouting. We aren't picking players because they are "falling". We are picking them because they were the next highest ranked available player on our independently generated scouting list.
