Because they had more talent. . . I don't get how that's bad a better team was better than this team.
How does being better than a player not good at the nhl make you nhl ready?
Phillips and Kaiser have both shown that they're capable at the NHL level. They could both be getting NHL time DEVELOPING, but the coach dresses a f***ing pylon every night instead of either of them... what's your reasoning for that?
i mean, that’s not even true. i’ve been over this history on this very board. he was playing top pairing minutes at a very young age, and in the playoffs no less. not that it’s relevant. my post was written specifically to get across my ambivalence towards LR as a coach (coaches are not, in fact, paid to watch games, but for the results he’s getting it might as well be all he’s doing), as well as my frustration with his most virulent detractors’ repetitive drivel. criticizing coaching decisions is fine. just saying “he’s stupid” over and over is lazy and childish in the extreme.
Luke Richardson spent the better part of his career as a bottom pairing D... and some of his prime years as maybe a below average middle pairing guy that provided like zero offense. He had 2000 PIMS in 1400 games. He was a career -119. He had triple digit PIMS almost every season of his career, was regularly a negative player, and only eclipsed 20 points a single time in his 14 years in the NHL. He was... a bottom pairing D that punched faces a lot, and got punched in the face a lot. He had 126 fighting majors in his 14 years in the league. For all intents and purposes, yes, he was a bottom pairing D for the vast majority of his career.
masterwork of statswatching right here, boiling down a 14 year nhl career to six points of data with no context, three of which just signify “he took more penalties than people do today”. hat’s off to you, game recognizes game.
thatsthejokesimpsons.jpeg
i don’t agree with your assessment, but like i said from the start it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is his performance as coach of this team today. maybe you think he got punched in the head a few too many times and that’s why he doesn’t put bedard on the right side, or whatever bug bear you happen want to yell at your tv about. at least if you put it that way there’d be some entertainment value to reading it.
well your specific criticisms weren’t the subject of any of my replies were they?
No, I was simply pointing out that he was, in fact, primarily a bottom pairing D for much of his career.
The old boy's club might keep him in there as a HC somewhere, but he has been pretty damn bad, so it's hard to say if that's enough to do it.
What’s LR done to earn even ambivalence?
well then you are pointing out something which is trivially true and that no one took issue with to begin with. being “primarily a bottom pairing D for much of his career” is not the same as saying his only qualification is being a third pair journeyman hanger-on, nor is it the same as reducing his whole career to being a facepuncher. particularly when richardson was in the league for an entire decade before they kept records of time on ice that i can find on hockey reference.
you seem to think i am saying a whole lot of things i am not saying. this makes me think you are not taking me very seriously and i am deeply wounded by this.
richardson hasn’t earned anything. i am ambivalent because he has not shown anything to indicate that he is more than at best a replacement level warm body holding the seat. i will begin to care when there’s a more viable alternative than substituting him with some other replacement level or below warm body. until then i choose not to worry myself about who gets to captain this ship to the bottom.
Okay, that’s indifference, not ambivalence.
IMO Laggert is as advertised. Bottom 6. The Hawks have lots of them. Nothing jumps out right now but give the kid some time.
Coming from someone named ‘DisgruntledHawkFan’…more like ‘SpoiledHawkFan’…gotta remember this t am from 2003-2008…
