Speculation: 2020-21 Stars Roster Speculation and Discussion Part II

[Kcb12345]

 

[eartotheground]

8yrs of mediocrity and people still rush to defend Nill and co.
Cant even do something like make the playoffs consistently.
That guy doesn't deserve to be shit on, because of all the goodwill he's built up from all his years of successful... what exactly?

how many teams have had 8 years of excellence? by your standard, 95% of the league deserves to be shit on.

 

[kabidjan18]

If injuries are part of the game, then why chalk them up as the sole reason Dallas missed the playoffs? That's not directed at you specifically. But the point is that people aren't complaining just to complain. Colorado is an elite team who struggled when they got hit with multiple injuries to a crucial position. Dallas caught lightning in a bottle for one season, and have been largely inconsistent except at not scoring enough over the last four seasons. Has that actually changed? Dallas doesn't need to blow anything up. They're gonna be good next season. But if the bar is set at 'win a Cup' instead of 'happy just to have a ticket' then they're gonna need to adopt a stronger system in the offensive zone. Bourque, Damiani, Harley - that's where the team is trending anyhow.

Again, you keep obsessing over counterfactuals/hypotheticals. I'm not interested in speculating on hypotheticals. I'm not asserting that given certain alternative set of facts some outcome happens. I'm asserting that you can't judge the front office when such a significant proportion of their planned assets were immobilized due to reasons outside of their control. That's not a speculative statement on what would have happened counterfactually if that wasn't the case. It's simply clear that many people, perhaps yourself included though I'm not certain, would gladly judge this front office when face with the same or even arguably far more drastic unanticipated and uncontrollable hits to planned assets when you would withhold judgment on others. You assert that Colorado is an elite team that struggled when they were hit with multiple injuries. Well, Dallas is, by team performances, just as successful in the past few years. Their front offices shouldn't be judged with different standards.

The assertion that Dallas caught "lightning in a bottle" is also requires a lot of speculation on counterfactual events. Dallas plays a very similar style to many if not most playoff teams and teams that make playoff runs and they had good players and made a good run. Every run requires a certain amount of "luck" given the volatility of not just the game, but life as a whole. And Dallas certainly was not remotely untouched by "unlucky" events such as injuries. So to single out Dallas specifically as lucky and all others as deserving takes a certain animus against Dallas.

"Strong system in the offensive zone", could mean really anything. All it means facially is "do better in the offensive zone", and there are numerous ways to achieve that. Perhaps what you have in mind is one way, but there are other ways. And there's also no blueprint for a championship team. They've come in all different shapes and sizes. The application of the phrase on setting the bar to the Dallas Stars is also weird. If a team consistently only makes the playoffs and never progresses in the playoffs like say the Toronto Maple Leafs, maybe you can say "they need to set the bar at winning a cup, and not just being happy to have a ticket", when you have a team that has been progressing in the playoffs and even made the Stanley Cup Final, considerations about focusing on contending for the cup, instead of just squeaking into the playoffs, don't seem relevant. Clearly they're already contending for the cup, that's how they already did contend for the cup.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

The thing I don't really understand, is there's a contingent of people here who think a lot of us are overly negative. That's fine, but I don't really see what they're arguing for. What is your stance? That you were utterly unsurprised the Stars made a cup run because you think that the team is a top 5 team in the league and a contender every single year? Top 10?

All I really want is a front office that is not satisfied with mediocrity. When Nill got here, he acquired Spezza and Seguin using the spare parts we had lying around. We built this offensive juggernaut that was lacking in defense. We got beat by St. Louis and overreacted and became overly defensive. It's basically the same problem in a different direction. It has been 8 years since Nill became our GM. We've made the playoffs 50% of the time. We've had 4 coaches.

Our first round picks have been Nichushkin, Dickinson, Honka, Gurianov, Tufte, Heiskanen, Oettinger, Dellandrea, Harley, and Borque. Hintz and Robertson are probably the best picks we've made during that time. Heiskanen is basically a gimme. We have drafted zero impact players after the first two rounds. If we assume Oettinger continues on his current trajectory and if we don't absolutely ruin Gurianov, along with Heiskanen, maybe we get to three. I'll hold judgement on Dellandrea, Harley, and Borque for now. It's fair to say we can be optimistic about Harley, and Borque is definitely headed in the right direction, I wouldn't bet money on Dellandrea turning into a top 6 forward, but I think that will depend on how well the Stars can develop him.

Our big free agent signings have been good, but we've had to make up for our crap drafting by signing a lot of bottom 6 players to semi-expensive contracts. The Oleksiak trade (2019) was very good for the value, before that you have to go back to 2017 for the Bishop and Patrick Eaves (for a 1st from Anaheim), and 2015 for the Patrick Sharp and Stephen Johns trade. It's been a really long time since Nill actually made a big, positive move like he did in our early days.

We could probably sit here and dissect his free agent signings and trades some more. But what I see is a team that won't pick a direction and stick with it, that hasn't drafted well enough that they're cap strapped because they have to trade for guys like Cogliano and sign Comeau. More importantly, the results are that after 8 years and spending to the cap, this team still can't consistently make it to the playoffs. That's a pretty low bar, to be honest. I think 8 years is plenty enough time to evaluate what kind of GM Jim Nill is, and that it's probably not one good enough to win us a cup. On a subjective note, I generally dislike what he values in a player. He cares more about 'character' and 'grit', and McDonell has been obsessed with size in the draft. Colorado and Tampa care about skill and hockey IQ. So does Chicago. So did Detroit, even during the dead puck era. Good teams are made of players that are good at hockey.

Yes, I'm guilty of crapping all over a few of you who are trending negative.

I doubt the front office is satisfied with mediocrity.

If you look harder at cap, which we used up in those early trades, other UFA, and retaining star players, it's harder for Nill to make a major splash now.

There aren't all that many true hockey trades any more, and I expect less with a flat cap, across the league, not just the Stars.

Although a few have mentioned a more detailed take on their drafting. It's below 30% on the hit rate lately, but about in the top 40% of the league. We can crap on many individual picks, and the overall record could be better. Colorado has had the following first round picks by order since Nill got here:

1, 23, 10, 10, 4, 16, 4, 25- Average spot about 12, with three top picks at 1, 4, and 4 to get those prime players (MacKinnon, Makar, and Bowen Bryum)

Nill has had

10, 14, 12, 25, 3, 13, 18, 30 - Average spot about 16,

Yes, the Avs are the Haves. TB is still largety living on their 2011 and 2012 drafts, which hit on 6 impact players in each, with about 3 per year after that, still a bit better than average.

But, that doesn't answer your question. Basically, I find that when I look back and around, other teams' players ARENT'T more consistent, other GM's DON"T hit on every draft pick, and teams DON'T make the playoffs every year. Statistically, only one team wins the Cup every year. Statistically, only half make the playoffs, only 25% of the league wins even one playoff series each year, 12% win two, etc. Our selective memories as fans just get skewed. Or, in short , every team is fighting the reversion to the mean with their results, in part, because the salary cap is designed to make it so. And, only a few each year are winning that battle.

So, we give those hockey guys a break. Unlike some, I am pretty sure they are motivated, and know more than I do.


Cheers.

 

[Spotty 2 Hotty]

I fall somewhere between irrational and rational (probably more so just an emotional) fan, so I agree and disagree with both sides of half of the arguments made about this team for the last little while, but I hate the gatekeeping bullshit of putting "fan" in quotations or insinuating that if someone disagrees with your takes they're not a real fan.

 

[ZeHockeyFan]

I think you are over thinking it a little bit . Stars had a good thing going . They were in the playoffs the last 3 years straight and doing better each year .

Which 3 straight years would that be? I only see 2019 and 2020.

This season was a write off from the beginning . They will be back in the playoffs and contending next year .

That's convenient. Write off according to whom? Management?

 

[Captain Awesome]

how many teams have had 8 years of excellence? by your standard, 95% of the league deserves to be shit on.

A team came into the NHL a few years ago and got to pick what other teams deemed their 7th best forward, 5th best defenseman, and 2nd best goalie. Even worse, those other teams could just not sign some UFAs until after the expansion draft, and a lot of their very young talents were exempt. So it's probably more like your best 4th liner, 6th or 7th d-man, etc. Even worse, 3 teams won the draft lottery from outside the top 3, so they got to pick 6th instead of the 3rd they were supposed to. Despite all that, the rest of the NHL blundered so badly that that team instantly made the playoffs and made it all the way to the cup finals with the rest of the NHL's castoffs. They haven't missed the playoffs since.

I know you were being hyperbolic here, but like, yes, a lot of the NHL probably SHOULD be shit on.

 

[Troy McClure]

The Stars are what they are because they made a big trade for Seguin years ago and signed Benn and Seguin to monster contracts hoping they'd be Dallas's Kane and Toews.

Unfortunately for the Stars, when those two were playing their best hockey, the team was undone by suspect defense, terrible goaltending, and Seguin getting hurt. Then after getting their mega contracts, their play has declined and Seguin still has injury problems.

It's a mix of bad luck, bad timing, and maybe the wrong two guys to build a team around with mega contracts. The Stars took their shot by going after talent and throwing all kinds of money at this thing with free agents to fill holes hoping to help those guys win.

 

[eartotheground]

A team came into the NHL a few years ago and got to pick what other teams deemed their 7th best forward, 5th best defenseman, and 2nd best goalie. Even worse, those other teams could just not sign some UFAs until after the expansion draft, and a lot of their very young talents were exempt. So it's probably more like your best 4th liner, 6th or 7th d-man, etc. Even worse, 3 teams won the draft lottery from outside the top 3, so they got to pick 6th instead of the 3rd they were supposed to. Despite all that, the rest of the NHL blundered so badly that that team instantly made the playoffs and made it all the way to the cup finals with the rest of the NHL's castoffs. They haven't missed the playoffs since.

I know you were being hyperbolic here, but like, yes, a lot of the NHL probably SHOULD be shit on.

interesting approach. not sure i totally agree though. every player they could choose from wasn't simply that bad, it could be contract related, teams overly strong in a give area, etc. also, they had perfect visibility into what skills the players had- not like the crap shoot that is drafting. also, they were the only team given the opportunity to do that.. the other GMs might have been equally successful putting together a team had they been given the same chances.. not really a way to compare.

i do agree that it's an indictment of the lack of depth of many teams.. they go all in on upper level talent and the bottom of the roster is dreadful. having a balanced team can expose the weak areas of an unbalanced opponent. personally i think there are very few superstars worth breaking the bank for. i'd rather have a bunch of really good players than a couple stars and the rest plugs.

 

[Troy McClure]

interesting approach. not sure i totally agree though. every player they could choose from wasn't simply that bad, it could be contract related, teams overly strong in a give area, etc. also, they had perfect visibility into what skills the players had- not like the crap shoot that is drafting. also, they were the only team given the opportunity to do that.. the other GMs might have been equally successful putting together a team had they been given the same chances.. not really a way to compare.

i do agree that it's an indictment of the lack of depth of many teams.. they go all in on upper level talent and the bottom of the roster is dreadful. having a balanced team can expose the weak areas of an unbalanced opponent. personally i think there are very few superstars worth breaking the bank for. i'd rather have a bunch of really good players than a couple stars and the rest plugs.

I don't think there's a way to do this in the world of a salary cap and guys wanting new contracts. Every team is always going to be top heavy salary wise because your good players want to be paid like good players. Going all in on big contracts is just life in the NHL. The only thing you can hope is the guys you go all in on live up to their contracts and that you are able to augment them with quality depth.

 

[David Castillo]

Again, you keep obsessing over counterfactuals/hypotheticals. I'm not interested in speculating on hypotheticals. I'm not asserting that given certain alternative set of facts some outcome happens. I'm asserting that you can't judge the front office when such a significant proportion of their planned assets were immobilized due to reasons outside of their control. That's not a speculative statement on what would have happened counterfactually if that wasn't the case. It's simply clear that many people, perhaps yourself included though I'm not certain, would gladly judge this front office when face with the same or even arguably far more drastic unanticipated and uncontrollable hits to planned assets when you would withhold judgment on others. You assert that Colorado is an elite team that struggled when they were hit with multiple injuries. Well, Dallas is, by team performances, just as successful in the past few years. Their front offices shouldn't be judged with different standards.

The assertion that Dallas caught "lightning in a bottle" is also requires a lot of speculation on counterfactual events. Dallas plays a very similar style to many if not most playoff teams and teams that make playoff runs and they had good players and made a good run. Every run requires a certain amount of "luck" given the volatility of not just the game, but life as a whole. And Dallas certainly was not remotely untouched by "unlucky" events such as injuries. So to single out Dallas specifically as lucky and all others as deserving takes a certain animus against Dallas.

"Strong system in the offensive zone", could mean really anything. All it means facially is "do better in the offensive zone", and there are numerous ways to achieve that. Perhaps what you have in mind is one way, but there are other ways. And there's also no blueprint for a championship team. They've come in all different shapes and sizes. The application of the phrase on setting the bar to the Dallas Stars is also weird. If a team consistently only makes the playoffs and never progresses in the playoffs like say the Toronto Maple Leafs, maybe you can say "they need to set the bar at winning a cup, and not just being happy to have a ticket", when you have a team that has been progressing in the playoffs and even made the Stanley Cup Final, considerations about focusing on contending for the cup, instead of just squeaking into the playoffs, don't seem relevant. Clearly they're already contending for the cup, that's how they already did contend for the cup.

Similar style to who? Hell even a dinosaur like Tortorella has admitted faceoffs "can't control your thinking about what your team is." Meanwhile Bowness is talking how important it was to have lumps like Faksa take OT shifts because 'well the faceoff is everything' (which sure, faceoffs are more important in OT, but it's still fairly representative of Bowness' mindset). I'm not singling out Dallas for being better or worse in terms of success. I'm singling them out for playing an outdated style literally no other team does. Literally no other team has their least productive forwards playing the most minutes. Not even Trotz' world famous "identity line" averages top nine minutes. How many other teams make fewer passes inside the opponent's zone? How many other elite teams don't have their best defender stapled to their best forward trio? I think we can all agree that Dallas was not the favorite going into last year's playoffs for the same reason they missed this year's playoffs: the lack of anything resembling consistent scoring. Nashville contended for a Cup not too long ago too. The concern isn't "how can we tear it all down so we can finally follow the Shanaplan and put our goal nuts in four baskets." It's more like 'oh shit, Radulov and Pavelski are really good players on the outs, so Dallas has one final year to make the most of it while Benn and Seguin can give whatever they still have left.'

 

[kabidjan18]

Similar style to who? Hell even a dinosaur like Tortorella has admitted faceoffs "can't control your thinking about what your team is." Meanwhile Bowness is talking how important it was to have lumps like Faksa take OT shifts because 'well the faceoff is everything' (which sure, faceoffs are more important in OT, but it's still fairly representative of Bowness' mindset). I'm not singling out Dallas for being better or worse in terms of success. I'm singling them out for playing an outdated style literally no other team does. Literally no other team has their least productive forwards playing the most minutes. Not even Trotz' world famous "identity line" averages top nine minutes. How many other teams make fewer passes inside the opponent's zone? How many other elite teams don't have their best defender stapled to their best forward trio? I think we can all agree that Dallas was not the favorite going into last year's playoffs for the same reason they missed this year's playoffs: the lack of anything resembling consistent scoring. Nashville contended for a Cup not too long ago too. The concern isn't "how can we tear it all down so we can finally follow the Shanaplan and put our goal nuts in four baskets." It's more like 'oh shit, Radulov and Pavelski are really good players on the outs, so Dallas has one final year to make the most of it while Benn and Seguin can give whatever they still have left.'

Ok, so you live in a bubble clearly. "How many other teams do this thing I dont like." I peruse the boards of other teams quietly and the answer is every single one with no exception. I kid you not, and those EXACT same complaints too. "Why did this player get so few minutes tonight and in the past few games?" "Why did this player who i dislike get so many minutes this game and past few games?" "Why is our best line not on the ice in this crucial period of the game?" "Why did such and such a line get shelved randomly?" "Why is this forward I find useless with this forward I find useful?" "Why is this person I think is our best defenseman get put with this guy who I think is our worst defenseman?"

Every team's fans say those lines. It's absolutely nothing unique to the Stars. As a general rule, no fan has ever believed they couldnt do a better job than the coach.

 

[Captain Awesome]

Ok, so you live in a bubble clearly. "How many other teams do this thing I dont like." I peruse the boards of other teams quietly and the answer is every single one with no exception. I kid you not, and those EXACT same complaints too. "Why did this player get so few minutes tonight and in the past few games?" "Why did this player who i dislike get so many minutes this game and past few games?" "Why is our best line not on the ice in this crucial period of the game?" "Why did such and such a line get shelved randomly?" "Why is this forward I find useless with this forward I find useful?" "Why is this person I think is our best defenseman get put with this guy who I think is our worst defenseman?"

Every team's fans say those lines. It's absolutely nothing unique to the Stars. As a general rule, no fan has ever believed they couldnt do a better job than the coach.

Duh, what the hell else are we supposed to talk about? Are we supposed to high five each other because we didn't make the playoffs? As long as there are sports, there will be fans complaining about one thing or another. And the appeal to authority stuff is always so tiresome. I haven't seen anyone here volunteer to coach or be the GM of the Stars, doesn't mean we can't criticize things that are obviously bad. But you're right, we should all stop questioning the guy who hasn't been a head coach since... *checks notes* 1995. David isn't nitpicking some detail of his coaching style, he's criticizing the entire thing. Probably because it's from 1995.

 

[David Castillo]

Ok, so you live in a bubble clearly. "How many other teams do this thing I dont like." I peruse the boards of other teams quietly and the answer is every single one with no exception. I kid you not, and those EXACT same complaints too. "Why did this player get so few minutes tonight and in the past few games?" "Why did this player who i dislike get so many minutes this game and past few games?" "Why is our best line not on the ice in this crucial period of the game?" "Why did such and such a line get shelved randomly?" "Why is this forward I find useless with this forward I find useful?" "Why is this person I think is our best defenseman get put with this guy who I think is our worst defenseman?"

Every team's fans say those lines. It's absolutely nothing unique to the Stars. As a general rule, no fan has ever believed they couldnt do a better job than the coach.

No, they're really not. There's a reason why I made a point of asking those specific questions, and it's because Dallas stands alone in each category. Sure if I were a Montreal fan, I might complain about Ben Chiarot's icetime, but at least a dynamic forward like Cole Caufield is their 3rd most used forward at EV. Ours was Blake Comeau. There's a difference between not having better options (ie. Montreal), and self-inflicted wounds. I don't pretend to know more than hockey coaches, but they're not out there figuring out Fermat's Last Theorem either. If we're gonna appeal to authority then what was wrong with Ruff's system? What was wrong with Hithcock's system? Therein lies the issue. Same problems with Hitchcock are looking like the same problems with Bowness. Then again Hitchcock blamed the season on Bishop's injury so maybe these defense-first coaches are simply unlucky.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

The Stars are what they are because they made a big trade for Seguin years ago and signed Benn and Seguin to monster contracts hoping they'd be Dallas's Kane and Toews.

Unfortunately for the Stars, when those two were playing their best hockey, the team was undone by suspect defense, terrible goaltending, and Seguin getting hurt. Then after getting their mega contracts, their play has declined and Seguin still has injury problems.

It's a mix of bad luck, bad timing, and maybe the wrong two guys to build a team around with mega contracts. The Stars took their shot by going after talent and throwing all kinds of money at this thing with free agents to fill holes hoping to help those guys win.

Probably a statement I agree most with. It is just hard to build a hockey team that wins consistently, and it seems things tend to go wrong more than they go right.

As you say, Nill inherits a decent no. 1 goalie in Kari, but by the time he makes all his big trades in the first two years, Kari is on the decline, and he has had trouble finding adequate backups. Of course, now that he has fixed that goalie problem, his high scoring duo of Benn and Segs has gone down from the production they had when he signed them. He has also largely drafted a D core to fix the Stars perennial (six third pairing, and maybe a second pairing guys) to have a solid top 4. It's always something, to quote that noted philosopher Rosane Rosandana.

Even though he has built up G and D, he may not be able to keep them intact given contract issues, as face any GM. You can rarely say you have a team put together for years, as things just keep happening.

The reality is you can only add so many players a year. Nill turned over the roster in his first three years to an extraordinary degree. And, I always felt the Jimmy Johnson's of the world could come in and build a contender in about 3 years, and that core roster could then probably be competitive for three or four years. Nill appeared to be on track for the three year building period, as they won the West in his third year. But, we were never really competitive in a true sense until 19-20 and 20-21, and even then, I saw us as a second tier contender. I see from Bones comments yesterday that they feel that when healthy, they are a top contender. Of course, he can't say the team has some problems beyond injuries, and he isn't that far off when he says if everyone is healthy, they are a legit, if not top contender. It's just that history shows that not everyone will be healthy and/or produce at their top levels. It rarely happens. Not to mention an owner led coach change, and another forced coaching change.

So, it's been 3 years of building (no one thinks he didn't do a great job then) and 3 years of barely contending (until 15-18) and 2 years of contending at some level, which both ended up without the coveted Cup. And, I think they think their core deserves another shot next year, to round things out to 3 year cycles. But, they have to know deep down that they aren't one of the 3-4 top teams that will be favored. The question is, realistically, what can they do?

I agree with the post that said he seemed to change his basic plan after the loss to St. Louis. We can question why he didn't plan the work and work the plan more consistently, although, losing to STL and knowing you have to beat them to get out of the first or second round in a normal year had to have some effect on him. Drafting high skill players like Honka and Guri that either didn't pan out or were late panning out, had to have an effect. Probably his worst choice (although drafted not far out of the range of most analysts) was Tufte. But, he made up for that in 17 with three great picks.

Other than Guri over Barzel, and Tufte over any number of guys, can we really question his picks at the time? Ditto with the UFA, with him bringing in Rads for scoring, Bishop Dobby as goalies as highlights, and even the Comeau signing to replace the checking line position of Roussell as bad moves at the time, given his situation?

That's why I have a problem with all the hypotheticals posing as facts around here. There may be a thousand posts on Barzel vs. Guri (although, while I agree Barzel is the better player, they have similar goal totals the last two years and Barzel seems to be a 20-25 goal scorer, not the next reincarnaton of Brett Hull.

I prefer to look at the long term record, because you are what your record says you are. And it tells me we are about 10-15 in drafting, wins, playoff series wins, etc. over Nill's tenure. So, it could certainly be better. That said, if we make wholesale changes as some teams do, it could also be worse. Our next GM could be a version of HullJack, and our coach could be Glen Gulatzen.

So, perhaps the differences in my opinions vs some of the others are perhaps I am more risk averse. People do tend to get more conservative as they age (just like coaches and teams tend to get more conservative over time, largely because experience tells them that taking the big swing also leads to more strike outs.

Anyway, I find I have enjoyed watching despite the mediocre results, and enjoy the wins and winning seasons even more when they come.

 

[kabidjan18]

No, they're really not. There's a reason why I made a point of asking those specific questions, and it's because Dallas stands alone in each category. Sure if I were a Montreal fan, I might complain about Ben Chiarot's icetime, but at least a dynamic forward like Cole Caufield is their 3rd most used forward at EV. Ours was Blake Comeau. There's a difference between not having better options (ie. Montreal), and self-inflicted wounds. I don't pretend to know more than hockey coaches, but they're not out there figuring out Fermat's Last Theorem either. If we're gonna appeal to authority then what was wrong with Ruff's system? What was wrong with Hithcock's system? Therein lies the issue. Same problems with Hitchcock are looking like the same problems with Bowness. Then again Hitchcock blamed the season on Bishop's injury so maybe these defense-first coaches are simply unlucky.

No they do not. You're being such a drama queen with this grass is greener on the other side mentality. I can literally recreate the same argument from any other team's perspective. Because what is your argument? You saw one thing that you liked about one team, that is not replicated on your team, and over a short period of time because Cole Caufield was only with the team for 16 games. Meanwhile, some Habs fan is asking why Jesperi Kotkaniemi gets 15 minutes a game when Jason Robertson on the greener pastures Stars team gets 17 minutes. Everyone can find something that they like that another team does and something that they don't like that another team does and something they like and dislike about their own team. The grass is not greener on the other side. All coaches are imperfect because all coaches are human, and all fans may even be imperfect because they may be human too, although many would argue ardently that isn't the case. If you really think there's a team out there that you'll never have disagreements and frustrations with, I encourage you to root for that team, but I warn you that it's much different from the outside than from the inside.

 

[kabidjan18]

Duh, what the hell else are we supposed to talk about? Are we supposed to high five each other because we didn't make the playoffs? As long as there are sports, there will be fans complaining about one thing or another. And the appeal to authority stuff is always so tiresome. I haven't seen anyone here volunteer to coach or be the GM of the Stars, doesn't mean we can't criticize things that are obviously bad. But you're right, we should all stop questioning the guy who hasn't been a head coach since... *checks notes* 1995. David isn't nitpicking some detail of his coaching style, he's criticizing the entire thing. Probably because it's from 1995.

He's arguing that the system is dissimilar to other systems that are actually very tactically similar for the sole reason that "this one makes ME displeased", to which the obvious answer is of course it displeases you, their system displeases them. A lot of teams if not every team runs a variant of the same plays, one super common one for example is the backcheck in the D-zone, chip along the wall to neutral-zone, center overlapping dumps it into the offensive zone, winger chases into the corner, back up to the point D, shoot and crash the net. There are other similar plays that many of the teams run, particularly many of the teams that play more like the Stars. There's a lot of similarity in the manpower. So what is actually different? He's not on the other team so he doesn't follow their games and doesn't see the moments that displease their fans so he isn't displeased by them. So he contrives this argument "the Stars are especially bad", "the Stars are drastically different from all the other teams", everyone has an exceptionalist mindset towards their team, he just doesn't realize that he does as well. You can criticize whatever coaching decision or lineup or set play you want, it's all free game, but to argue that "the Stars are uniquely different" is silly, because that's from the perspective of someone who primarily follows the Stars and follows the league from, ostensibly, the perspective of a Stars fan within the Stars fan community.

 

[David Castillo]

No they do not. You're being such a drama queen with this grass is greener on the other side mentality. I can literally recreate the same argument from any other team's perspective. Because what is your argument? You saw one thing that you liked about one team, that is not replicated on your team, and over a short period of time because Cole Caufield was only with the team for 16 games. Meanwhile, some Habs fan is asking why Jesperi Kotkaniemi gets 15 minutes a game when Jason Robertson on the greener pastures Stars team gets 17 minutes. Everyone can find something that they like that another team does and something that they don't like that another team does and something they like and dislike about their own team. The grass is not greener on the other side. All coaches are imperfect because all coaches are human, and all fans may even be imperfect because they may be human too, although many would argue ardently that isn't the case. If you really think there's a team out there that you'll never have disagreements and frustrations with, I encourage you to root for that team, but I warn you that it's much different from the outside than from the inside.

You can throw around words like "drama queen" to make yourself sound more confident than you really are, but none of that addresses my point. It's also a funny word. Are drama queens not allowed to have points? And did whoever smelt it, indeed, dealt it? Bowness plays a specific form of dump and chase. It has led to possession, but not goals in both seasons . Why is that? If it were simply because of injuries, this wouldn't have been an issue the season before as well. Remember this?

When the Stars are attacking, it’s not in waves; it’s in single-man pursuits or cycles that fail to create anything resembling a quality chance. When the Stars do get a quality chance, they tend to shoot right into the goalie’s chest, and that only happens if they actually connected on a pass that seems to miss its mark more often than not.

Sean Shapiro wrote that only last year. So what has changed? You can tilt yourself into pretending anyone who criticizes Dallas is simply being hysterical all you want. Me? I think Bowness deserves credit for a lot of things. Especially in two tough seasons. My criticism is that Bowness has not adjusted enough, nor has the vision to shift the team into a system that demands more off-puck movement, and more passing. So again - what has changed?

 

[kabidjan18]

You can throw around words like "drama queen" to make yourself sound more confident than you really are, but none of that addresses my point. It's also a funny word. Are drama queens not allowed to have points? And did whoever smelt it, indeed, dealt it?

That quote is really just a slighty older version of "I know you are but what am I?"

Bowness plays a specific form of dump and chase. It has led to possession, but not goals in both seasons . Why is that? If it were simply because of injuries, this wouldn't have been an issue the season before as well. Remember this?



Sean Shapiro wrote that only last year. So what has changed? You can tilt yourself into pretending anyone who criticizes Dallas is simply being hysterical all you want. Me? I think Bowness deserves credit for a lot of things. Especially in two tough seasons. My criticism is that Bowness has not adjusted enough, nor has the vision to shift the team into a system that demands more off-puck movement, and more passing. So again - what has changed?

Please actually describe this "specific form" or perhaps distinct variant. Every team runs slightly different packages with minor variations but you're trying to argue that this is a very distinct, perhaps a very distinctly bad variant.

Because what Shapiro writes is more than a criticism of the Stars, it is the most common criticism of chip and chase in general whenever it isn't working. It's nothing unique to the Stars. Think about it, like the play I just described above, the center flexes out to the neutral zone for the dump in and loses speed before entering the zone. That means that you only enter the zone with max 2 wingers, one of whom will trail the other. But inevitably, the lead winger won't slow down for the trailing winger who is coming from further up the ice, and it also depends to some extent on where the puck is placed. But often times the result of a chip and chase is a single winger bearing down on two defensemen or a defenseman and a center. And it's that lead winger's job to tie up the play, cycle the puck or win outright. But if the lead winger gets disposessed or doesn't get to the puck fast enough or fails, the puck comes right back out. That's why it's really frustrating, for example, to play chip and chase with slow wingers, and there was a period of time where wingers weren't necessarily fast but people were still chipping and chasing and then the strategy in general became heavily criticized. "Controlled entry" became a big buzz word, and only recently chip and chase has come back. But to return to the Stars. What "specific form" or "variant" with what distinctive qualities do the Stars employ that is just naturally more susceptible to the typical problems of chip and chase that exist when you don't have the right personnel or timing?

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

A team came into the NHL a few years ago and got to pick what other teams deemed their 7th best forward, 5th best defenseman, and 2nd best goalie. Even worse, those other teams could just not sign some UFAs until after the expansion draft, and a lot of their very young talents were exempt. So it's probably more like your best 4th liner, 6th or 7th d-man, etc. Even worse, 3 teams won the draft lottery from outside the top 3, so they got to pick 6th instead of the 3rd they were supposed to. Despite all that, the rest of the NHL blundered so badly that that team instantly made the playoffs and made it all the way to the cup finals with the rest of the NHL's castoffs. They haven't missed the playoffs since.

I know you were being hyperbolic here, but like, yes, a lot of the NHL probably SHOULD be shit on.

A guy asks you to name a team with 8 straight years of success, and you answer with one that has had four years of success. How about naming one with 8?

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

No, they're really not. There's a reason why I made a point of asking those specific questions, and it's because Dallas stands alone in each category. Sure if I were a Montreal fan, I might complain about Ben Chiarot's icetime, but at least a dynamic forward like Cole Caufield is their 3rd most used forward at EV. Ours was Blake Comeau. There's a difference between not having better options (ie. Montreal), and self-inflicted wounds. I don't pretend to know more than hockey coaches, but they're not out there figuring out Fermat's Last Theorem either. If we're gonna appeal to authority then what was wrong with Ruff's system? What was wrong with Hithcock's system? Therein lies the issue. Same problems with Hitchcock are looking like the same problems with Bowness. Then again Hitchcock blamed the season on Bishop's injury so maybe these defense-first coaches are simply unlucky.

I disagree that Dallas is stand alone in each category.

Dump and chase, the trap (who no one calls that anymore for PR reasons, LOL), and offense from defense are all long standing theories in hockey. Many teams play slight variations of the theme. They must have some merit or they wouldn't hold on for 50 years. Coaching is a matter of matching systems to personnel for the maximum possible benefit. We can all have our opinions there.

Bones explained just yesterday why he put Faksa out there a lot - without Seguin to win faceoffs, they wanted their next best guy out there, although I think most of them are pretty much 50% winners. You can't say that playing D first when so many of your top guns were out (Rads, Segs) or dropping in production (Been, Guri) wasn't at least a thought out and plausibly rational decision, under those circumstances. Bones did activate the D during last year's playoffs, so he is not all conservative, but it is frustrating to a degree to slip back to more conservative hockey. It's funny (and great) to see them play as if they had nothing to lose in the PO last year, only to revert to the conservative style because they might have something to lose (i.e., the playoff spot)

As to Bones offensive reliance on dump and chase, I will say that I sit in my seat and count the number of zone entries where the Stars don't even get off a single shot, and it seems high to me. That said, I can't believe it's the system as much as the players. How many games did the Stars have 15+ shots in the first period, often without scoring? You can't get that many shots if there aren't a few flurries, instead of all "one and done." Ditto the power play. When on, they zip that puck around pretty well. Some nights, they just stand around. I can't figure out what is different night to night - tired, hurt, whatever, but I am pretty sure the PP system at least doesn't change, only the results.

And in the end, we were 16th in scoring this year, and 7th in the league last year. Some portray that as "bottom of the barrel" scoring ability, but it's not. And, this year's drop does look a lot like it can be attributed to injuries to scorers, along with Finals fatigue, COVID, snowmageddon, and the compressed schedule to me.

That is why I get frustrated by fan analysis that uses often poor memory as "fact" and individual instances of something to prove that is the Stars season long trend. I agree the results might have been better, but again, try to factor in a lot of things, when considering such things.

 

[David Castillo]

That quote is really just a slighty older version of "I know you are but what am I?"


Please actually describe this "specific form" or perhaps distinct variant. Every team runs slightly different packages with minor variations but you're trying to argue that this is a very distinct, perhaps a very distinctly bad variant.

Because what Shapiro writes is more than a criticism of the Stars, it is the most common criticism of chip and chase in general whenever it isn't working. It's nothing unique to the Stars. Think about it, like the play I just described above, the center flexes out to the neutral zone for the dump in and loses speed before entering the zone. That means that you only enter the zone with max 2 wingers, one of whom will trail the other. But inevitably, the lead winger won't slow down for the trailing winger who is coming from further up the ice, and it also depends to some extent on where the puck is placed. But often times the result of a chip and chase is a single winger bearing down on two defensemen or a defenseman and a center. And it's that lead winger's job to tie up the play, cycle the puck or win outright. But if the lead winger gets disposessed or doesn't get to the puck fast enough or fails, the puck comes right back out. That's why it's really frustrating, for example, to play chip and chase with slow wingers, and there was a period of time where wingers weren't necessarily fast but people were still chipping and chasing and then the strategy in general became heavily criticized. "Controlled entry" became a big buzz word, and only recently chip and chase has come back. But to return to the Stars. What "specific form" or "variant" with what distinctive qualities do the Stars employ that is just naturally more susceptible to the typical problems of chip and chase that exist when you don't have the right personnel or timing?

Yes. Let's discuss maturity with the person throwing around words like "drama queen" completely unprovoked. You keep asking for something distinct - what separates Dallas from other teams, either on the surface, or tactically? I honestly don't know why. It's all there. Over the last three seasons, Dallas is 26th, 29th, and 29th in shooting percentage. Over the last three seasons, they average even worse in first-period goals. Tactically, they've achieved this by being one of the worst passing teams in the league. Which we see on a nightly basis. Dallas rarely moves the puck east-west, and they do little to open up extra lanes in the middle of the ice. It's why it's not surprise that Dallas nearly made history by sucking in overtime. OT relies on more touches around the net. Not braindead point shots for random rebounds. No wonder Dallas was actually considered "lucky" as an OT team the season before. These are not 'injury' problems. These are systemic problems. And they've been distinct ever since Dallas felt like they should mimic the team that kept beating them: St. Louis.

 

[M88K]

I disagree that Dallas is stand alone in each category.

Dump and chase, the trap (who no one calls that anymore for PR reasons, LOL), and offense from defense are all long standing theories in hockey. Many teams play slight variations of the theme. They must have some merit or they wouldn't hold on for 50 years. Coaching is a matter of matching systems to personnel for the maximum possible benefit. We can all have our opinions there.

Bones explained just yesterday why he put Faksa out there a lot - without Seguin to win faceoffs, they wanted their next best guy out there, although I think most of them are pretty much 50% winners. You can't say that playing D first when so many of your top guns were out (Rads, Segs) or dropping in production (Been, Guri) wasn't at least a thought out and plausibly rational decision, under those circumstances. Bones did activate the D during last year's playoffs, so he is not all conservative, but it is frustrating to a degree to slip back to more conservative hockey. It's funny (and great) to see them play as if they had nothing to lose in the PO last year, only to revert to the conservative style because they might have something to lose (i.e., the playoff spot)

As to Bones offensive reliance on dump and chase, I will say that I sit in my seat and count the number of zone entries where the Stars don't even get off a single shot, and it seems high to me. That said, I can't believe it's the system as much as the players. How many games did the Stars have 15+ shots in the first period, often without scoring? You can't get that many shots if there aren't a few flurries, instead of all "one and done." Ditto the power play. When on, they zip that puck around pretty well. Some nights, they just stand around. I can't figure out what is different night to night - tired, hurt, whatever, but I am pretty sure the PP system at least doesn't change, only the results.

And in the end, we were 16th in scoring this year, and 7th in the league last year. Some portray that as "bottom of the barrel" scoring ability, but it's not. And, this year's drop does look a lot like it can be attributed to injuries to scorers, along with Finals fatigue, COVID, snowmageddon, and the compressed schedule to me.

That is why I get frustrated by fan analysis that uses often poor memory as "fact" and individual instances of something to prove that is the Stars season long trend. I agree the results might have been better, but again, try to factor in a lot of things, when considering such things.

We were 18th this year.
We were 26th at scoring last year. (By gp/g, by actual goals scored 29)
Ahead of.. in gp/g
Detroit 31
La 30
Ana 29
Clb 28
Sj 27

Where did this 7th come from?
We havent finished top 15 in scoring since 15-16, when we were first.

 

[LT]

We can move on. Our season is over, this discussion is souring, and we're just about at 1K.

Time to move to the offseason thread.