You're wondering if giving up a bad goal subconsciously broke the "trust" the Borg had built with Ned. I'm saying if it did, they shouldn't be running the team.
Bad goals are given up, players are caught out of position, mistakes happen. Particularly when dealing with young players. That's hockey.
If they're subconsciously losing trust in players every time a mistake is made, they're not fit to run the team
Then I'd wonder where that distrust came from, because that goal was (quite literally) one of the only bad goals I can recall him giving up this year.
And I'd also wonder why they'd focus on that goal instead of literally the rest of his performance this year
It comes down to Ned wanted to be a starter and inexperienced starter money. Management team wasn’t ready to commit to that. If Ned would have taken a show me deal then I think he would have stayed. Between his inconsistent AHL and NHL numbers, the team didn’t feel they could say he was a starter on a championship aspiring team.
i have little doubt it has anything to do with one soft goal but whole body of wirk.
You guys still aren't grasping the point of the original question, lol. I'll try one last time before I drop it.
Consider the definition of the idiom "the straw that broke the Camel's back":
"The straw that broke the camel's back", describes
the minor or routine action that causes an unpredictably large and sudden reaction,
because of the cumulative effect of small actions, alluding to the proverb "it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back".
Or think of testing a material that has a tensile strength of 50 lbs. You add a lb at a time and the material holds up through 50 lbs. Then you add 1 more pound and it breaks. That last lb didn't contribute to the breakage any more than any of the first 50, but if it hadn't been added the material wouldn't have broken.
I'd argue that the Goodrow goal was almost certainly a bigger kick in the psychological cods than your typical soft goal. So my question basically is "if that hadn't happened, is it possible that the 'Ned stress test' might have stayed under 51 lbs?" I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with my original query (note "query" not "assertion"), rather just trying to clarify the question.
For the record, unless we haven't seen the second part of a bigger plan, I think the Borg made a mistake in trading Ned; I'd have liked to have seen him given a shot.