The comments on this site seem to put everything on the coaching. I disagree, I don't have enough information to know if Jody is an excellent coach or a poor coach or somewhere in between but I have not missed a home game this year and it is clear to me that the team is not good enough and as well has been decimated by injuries. The coaches dont choose the players that task falls on the scouts and ultimately the G.M. The Petes looked good in October and I believe that they were not as good as everybody thought and now they are not as bad as some fans feel that they are. The Petes management made a big deal about acquiring Chris Paquette a year ago and what has he done this year, (Minus 18) and he didn't look good in the playoffs last year. Matt Timms (Minus 19) although good with the puck is too small to play defence in this league. Let's also not forget that our most consistent defenceman (Chisholm) is injured. My thoughts are if they can stay away from a slew of injuries they will be a .500 hockey team the rest of the year because that is what they should be with the talent that they have. Is there a reason Barrett Hayton is not a Pete? It is unfortunate that they couldn't keep Kurtis Foster but hindsight is 50-50.
It is definitely too easy to lay all the blame in one direction, but I do feel the bulk has to land on Hull. Especially since Oke went ahead and made a couple of big trades to improve the team last year, which previous GM's haven't been willing to do, for the most part.
How often does the team come out with no energy? Whether you're watching the game, or reading about it in the paper, how often do you hear the same things from the coaches? "We had no jump" or "we came out flat". I would say, without exaggeration, that on average every 3rd game the coaches are saying this. There's no doubt teams will have lulls in a 68 game season, especially when they frequently play 3 games in 4 (or less) days, but the Petes are pretty much constantly like this. Even if they've had a week off. Or it's a home game against a big team. Players have changed over the years and it still happens all the time. I think it's fair to say that has to fall on the coach.
As was mentioned by another poster, there is no accountability for players. I get that injuries have hurt in that regard, but how often do you see Ang out there for a minute plus, get tired and lazy and take a dumb penalty? He was among the leaders in PIM's a few weeks ago for the whole league. But he still gets his ice time. You'd think maybe some of his bad habits would have been changed by now, but they're still there and he really hasn't developed much since early last season. There had to be reasons he was cut right away by Team Canada. Also, if he gets traded to a better team, say London, Owen Sound, Kitchener or another western team, I bet he improves immensely.
And then there's Timms. What can you say? How often does he end up stuck behind the other team's net and can't get back? Every game, just about. How often does he do his little drop pass at the blue line to nobody? He is a great passer, but a terrible defence man, yet he's out there all the time. Granted, defence has been hit hard by injuries and suspensions too, but there is no accountability for veterans. They make the same mistakes over and over and keep getting the ice time while the younger kids sit on the bench or the press box, never getting a chance. Can't imagine that's great for their morale. If the team was great and really rolling it would be more understandable, but if you see your "leaders" making dumb plays and taking lazy penalties and still getting all the ice time, it has to be frustrating.
Being the coach is the tough position because you'll never get credit for wins, but always take the blame for losses. It's the way it is if you coach. But when you look at the past few seasons for the Petes, the players have changed but the same problems on the ice are still there, and I think it all comes back to the head coach. All the evidence points towards Hull being a significant part of the problem.