I claimed we'd make the play-offs pretty much regardless and I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one.
I also stand by that, even with this pretty gross start.
I've also said that the top 6 and Letang have been our major problem and I stand by that too. I accept that might be a topic for debate but having your number 1 dman rack up -15 in 17 games has always got to be a fairly major part of a team's problems. Ditto the scoring drought we went through, and I still don't get the argument that you blame a scoring drought more on the bottom 6 than the top 6.
Is the bottom 6 a problem? Sure. Just for a long time, it wasn't the biggest one. Was there always a good chance it was going to be a problem? Sure. We all knew that when Rutherford decided he'd wait into the season to get bottom 6 centres at a price he liked. We also knew there was a chance Reaves might be an awkward style fit in the bottom 6.
And here comes the patience thing - I'm happy for Rutherford to go into the season with an experimental bottom 6 and work out solutions through the season. I will wait and see how it works before judging. In general, I'd rather a GM wait and see what options shakes loose and emerge from the AHL rather than overpaying before the season starts. We knew it might be a problem and said so, but Rutherford's approach seemed reasonable so we decided to see how it worked out.
Honestly, right now, with Letang and Sid looking like they've turned a corner, and Jarry doing decent as a back-up goaltender, the bottom 6 probably is our biggest issue. That sub 70% PK in the last 7 games is super ugly and damaging. McKegg and Reaves are averaging less than 7 minutes a night. Other than whichever of Rust and Sheary counts as a bottom 6 forward this day, Hagelin is the only of them with a point. Okay and Sheahan, but I guess his match-ups and usage just got a lot nicer with Geno out. They've all got ugly +/- fwiw. If they could just play the other guys to a draw like they were doing earlier in the season, we'd be in business. They aren't, so we're not.
It is up to Rutherford and Sully to sort that. Both have given public utterances indicating they believe it should be sorted. Again, I'm choosing to be patient and see how it works out. It helps that both have earned my trust.
Last year, at this time, there was still a lot of gum flapping about how Rutherford failing to move Flower when he could was going to cost us big. End of the season, Flower is an integral part of the repeat and the cost is minor. That taught me a lot about patient judgments. And really, that's not even about trusting Rutherford as much as it is acknowledging we're not fantastic at predicting how the season is gonna go.
The argument for patience - its not about blind trust or a belief that everything's great from the off. Just that's a lot of options and a lot of hockey, and the best time to judge how they went is when its done.
And if people were more interested in understanding an argument than winning it, I probably wouldn't have had to type all that.