how many times does it have to be explained to you that people realize that hockey teams lose sometimes, but what's happening now goes beyond that?
Seldom right but never in doubt...
I'm one of those that don't understand how a certain group of fans can be as outraged as they are based on reasonable growing pains. I think it has something to do with information cycles and attention spans. Beyond this thought however, is the also oft repeated explanation that says that "what's happening now" is precisely the point of those arguing that as dire as a circumstance or a player can appear from time to time, it's not only normative but should be expected as this team follows the path of contenders that invariably leads through valleys and over peaks to valleys again...and again and again and again.
If you want to talk about "what's happening now goes beyond that", there's an Oilers section at HFBoards that might be worth your while.
Any cursory review of how most contenders are built sees certain periods of detrimental reliance discovered and altered and through it all, the step by step learning of what and who it takes to get from one round to the next.
Take Detroit of the mid-90s for example, who certainly had every reason to believe that Keith Primeau who looked every bit the up and coming prototypical star centre and Paul Coffey the shoe-in Hall of Fame Oilers dynasty number one offensive defenceman would be instrumental to win the Cups that the club seemed poised to win. In fact, the year before Brendan Shanahan was acquired (for Coffey and Primeau), a season in which one would have to argue Coffey and Primeau were instrumental, the Red Wings set a club record of 62 wins with only 13 losses and a .799 winning percentage. There third best winning percentage came the year before with Coffey and Primeau who both outscored Steve Yzerman. In fact in that shortened season Paul Coffey led the Wings in scoring.
This to say, even if by all appearances our club was top of the league (in Auston Matthews
sophomore season no less) in every category, the mid-90's Detroit Red Wings can attest that a record-setting regular season doesn't guarantee a Stanley Cup. The talk that year was how Detroit purposely stepped back from emptying themselves during the regular season and learned how to be a playoffs team heading into the playoffs. It seemed like Detroit had regressed. But those regular season winning habits didn't produce post-season winning results.
Now do you really think that the man who was the principal acquired in that trade and who was described as the lynchpin that moved the Wings into a truly championship team has suddenly forgot what the importance of a team appearing like in the regular season has nothing to do with what they do in the post-season? Should I also note that the second best regular season winning percentage in Detroit's history belongs to our coach? This same coach has been to the Stanley Cup Finals three times...I'm confident in the process Brendan Shanahan, Lou Lamoriello and Mike Babcock believe in, over those people that insist they know that "what's happening now goes beyond" the experience, expertise and filters of synthesis and analysis of these actual champions who understand that championships aren't won in the now and that it takes as long as it takes.