1) The Sens lost their last game of the year when they sat Brassard and Karlsson. Otherwise, they certainly would have won that game because their opponent was a non-playoff team (Islanders) so they actually had 100 points...even though the week before they lost 3 games to non-playoff teams with far worse records without sitting players.
If you truly understood my point and weren't grasping at straws, you would have realized that I was simply saying that the Sens hit 98 points and easily could have hit at least 100 points, demonstrated by an example of an easy win under 'normal' circumstances (i.e. not resting players before the playoffs). I could have used any game to make that point, I just used the one I thought was the most appropriate. When you take that into account, and the coaching adjustment, and the Anderson factor, I really don't see how the Sens can't at least make the playoffs next year... You seem to agree with that... I have a bigger fish to fry with the people predicting the Sens will miss the playoffs than you.
2) The Sens #1 G missed more than half the season on a personal leave...even though he really didn't. He played 40 games whereas 60 would generally be expected, and basically was on leave from December 6th until Feb 10th. During that 26 game period the Sens record was 13-9-0-4 for 30 points in 26 games. That was slightly worse than the Sens record before and after which would have predicted a whopping 31 points in 26 games. Your certainty about the Sens being a better team next year relies upon the performance of a 36-year-old goalie. Of the 30 goalies who played more than 40 games last year, only Ryan Miller is older.
Yes, he played 40 games. Yes, he would have probably played 60 under normal circumstances. Yes, the team went 13-9-4 during that stretch. You don't think that with their #1G in nets and a rested Condon (he played more than 25 games in a row last year iirc) that the Sens could have squeaked in at least a couple more wins? That brings them to 100+ points.
The point you rise with Andy's age is definitely a reasonable one. The thing is, goalies tend to have longer shelf lives and if you look at Andy's career, he hasn't played that many games from season to season. He very much still seems to be in his prime, which started not so long ago. Sure he'll drop off eventually (couple years? idk), but Condon seems like a reasonable alternative considering the stat you mentioned early. Either way, this thread is about next season. I highly doubt Andy suddenly drops off a cliff after his great showing in the playoffs. If you believe so, ok.
3) Top 6 forward was injured. Oh my! I guess the Sens should have better depth.
Are you sure about that? The Sens had 10 players with 30+ points last season, and that doesn't include Ryan who just played 62 games and slumped hard until wrecking the playoffs. Chabot is also coming in who seems to have at least 30 point production potential from the back-end. White too. I'm pretty sure that's solid depth. Ryan Dzingel who got 32 points last season is listed to start on the 4th line this year.
4) New coach! Oh my! That's like driving drunk....even though coaching changes happen all the time and most of the time teams improve with a new coach...let's look at the Sens' coaches during their first year compared to the earlier team performance:
Boucher - improvement
Cameron - improvement
MacLean - improvement
Clouston - improvement
Hartsburg - worse
Paddock - improvement
Murray - improvement
Martin - improvement
and improvement with a coach during their second year over their first year is less common.
Boucher - ?
Cameron - worse
MacLean - better
Clouston - worse
Murray - worse
Martin - better
It's the second time now you post random facts and think they mean something under completely different circumstances. One context doesn't relate to another... At least not usually. Your sample size is puny which doesn't help either. Clouston, Hartsburg and Paddock were all terrible terrible coaches.
Boucher was voted a top 10 coach by HF (maybe not the most reliable stat
), and I would think most posters here and most people in the hockey community know that he's a good coach. His systems were complex and difficult to adjust to. The Sens used to play a freestyle offensive style game with no semblance of defensive structure. It's one of the reasons why they were such a high scoring team before the 2016-2017. Boucher brought in defensive structure and the players and himself admitted that it took until about December or January until the team really sunk in. That explains why Boucher would rarely play rookies (notably White in the playoffs when we had some injuries), because you need time to learn to play his way. Next year, the team starts with that knowledge and gets into training camp comfortably and with much less adjustments to make.
You don't see how all these factors add a few points here and there, or at least point to the Sens making the playoffs next season?
