Player Discussion Artyom Zub (D) [Page 4 Senators sign from KHL]

[jbeck5]

Imagine how good he can be on the ice once he understands basic English. Must be hard not being able to properly communicate with your teammates on the ice. He could even be that solid #4-5 on a good Blueline in a year or two once he adjusts and we also improve.

 

[coladin]

To be fair, what's he supposed to say? Zub was ready to go from day one but DJ thought it best we watch Brown flail about for a dozen games first?

I don’t know, maybe Bert is right and you are wrong then as everyone lies.

 

[Que]

DJ had worked with Brown before but had no history with Zub.

Then the language barrier.

Zub has always been better, we just had to figure it out.

And now that we have we’re going to have to gamble - is he worth a contract extension and hefty raise?

 

[BankStreetParade]

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

DJ had worked with Brown before but had no history with Zub.

Then the language barrier.

Zub has always been better, we just had to figure it out.

And now that we have we’re going to have to gamble - is he worth a contract extension and hefty raise?

It depends on what you think Zub is, and what his potential is. You see what the Leafs did with Zaitsev and it backfired, but I don’t think Zub is going to have the leverage of a long-term extension. Hopefully we can sign him for two or three years to get a better understanding of who he is and what his potential is.

 

[Que]

It depends on what you think Zub is, and what his potential is. You see what the Leafs did with Zaitsev and it backfired, but I don’t think Zub is going to have the leverage of a long-term extension. Hopefully we can sign him for two or three years to get a better understanding of who he is and what his potential is.

I see Zub as a Hjalmarsson, Ericsson, Methot or Hamhuis type of player.

Potential all world defensive defenceman with a significant probability that every year he will get hurt because he’s just that damn good.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

I see Zub as a Hjalmarsson, Ericsson, Methot or Hamhuis type of player.

Potential all world defensive defenceman with a significant probability that every year he will get hurt because he’s just that damn good.

Interesting. I don’t disagree with you, I’m just waiting a little longer before I buy in fully.

He has had an amazing start to his career. The eye test, as well as advanced stats, back this up. Last game vs Edmonton he was a monster in terms of possession.

He’s coming from a very good league where he was a very good player, but I definitely wasn’t expecting this.

 

[Que]

Interesting. I don’t disagree with you, I’m just waiting a little longer before I buy in fully.

He has had an amazing start to his career. The eye test, as well as advanced stats, back this up. Last game vs Edmonton he was a monster in terms of possession.

He’s coming from a very good league where he was a very good player, but I definitely wasn’t expecting this.

I was 50/50 on him before the season started but it’s hard not to be all in on him right now.

His offensive stats in the KHL suggest that he has a very high hockey IQ so even if he can’t communicate effectively he’ll still be a very reliable defensive player.

His biggest challenge will be learning enough English to effectively communicate with the rest of the team.

I can not - nor will not - understate the importance of players like Anisimov and Zaitsev to him right now.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

I was 50/50 on him before the season started but it’s hard not to be all in on him right now.

His offensive stats in the KHL suggest that he has a very high hockey IQ so even if he can’t communicate effectively he’ll still be a very reliable defensive player.

His biggest challenge will be learning enough English to effectively communicate with the rest of the team.

I can not - nor will not - understate the importance of players like Anisimov and Zaitsev to him right now.

Don’t forget Dadonov

 

[Micklebot]

I don’t know, maybe Bert is right and you are wrong then as everyone lies.

The one that made the most sense to me was the mention that there were some language barriers or communication issues early on.

Honestly he was a complete unknown, and practice is not games, i don't blame a coach for taking some time to ease a guy they know nothing about in.

 

[jbeck5]

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

Is the organisation above criticism? Why aren't we allowed to criticize the moves of a team that's finished bottom-2 four years in a row? Isn't it possible that more successful teams would have done things differently? Why is it so bad for fans to point that out?

I get being tired of the constant criticism, but that's what happens when there's so much room for improvement. Obviously people are going to explain where they think we could improve, including but not limited to roster management decisions.

Just to use coburn as an example. You're saying it's no big deal that they gave him a few games to see if he still had it. Others are saying it was painfully obvious to anyone who's watched him the last few years that he can't play. They're saying a competent staff doesn't even wonder if he can still play because they've already done their homework to see that he can't. You can say "meh, it's just a few games" or "it's just one player" but others are noticing these tiny negative details just add up to what can look like a clueless staff. Like why did Haley dress in a game this year over formenton or Logan brown? "Who cares, it's one game" right? Well, they all add up. And when you add them up, it looks like they don't pro scout and don't have a proper rebuild plan in place. Looks like they wing it. I bet if we were in a playoff spot from luck right now, our management would be using assets to add pieces and it would keep us in mediocrity. But that last part is just my speculation.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

Yes of course, given their track record of success, honesty, and general competence over the past few years you can understand why it makes sense not to question anything.
It must be swell to be able to take every single individual event/ happening in Sens world and compartmentalize them until the point there are no linkages between events.
Reminds me of the movie Memento.

 

[guyzeur]

Artem Zub for the Calder?

too old?

 

[guyzeur]

Never mind, he is eligible by 1 month: Zub dob October 3, 1995 (age 25 years)
"Beginning in 1990-91, a player must not have attained his 26th birthday by Sept."

 

[BankStreetParade]

Is the organisation above criticism? Why aren't we allowed to criticize the moves of a team that's finished bottom-2 four years in a row? Isn't it possible that more successful teams would have done things differently? Why is it so bad for fans to point that out?

I get being tired of the constant criticism, but that's what happens when there's so much room for improvement. Obviously people are going to explain where they think we could improve, including but not limited to roster management decisions.

Just to use coburn as an example. You're saying it's no big deal that they gave him a few games to see if he still had it. Others are saying it was painfully obvious to anyone who's watched him the last few years that he can't play. They're saying a competent staff doesn't even wonder if he can still play because they've already done their homework to see that he can't. You can say "meh, it's just a few games" or "it's just one player" but others are noticing these tiny negative details just add up to what can look like a clueless staff. Like why did Haley dress in a game this year over formenton or Logan brown? "Who cares, it's one game" right? Well, they all add up. And when you add them up, it looks like they don't pro scout and don't have a proper rebuild plan in place. Looks like they wing it. I bet if we were in a playoff spot from luck right now, our management would be using assets to add pieces and it would keep us in mediocrity. But that last part is just my speculation.

Did anyone say the team was above criticism? But any time someone tries to re-shape the criticism to actually talk about the important stuff you guys lop out this tired and lame counter.

The point you're making doesn't make sense.

"Why aren't we allowed to criticize the moves of a team that's finished bottom-2 four years in a row?"

So, are you saying that if Ottawa was one of the top teams in the league that they wouldn't be open to criticism?

You guys are getting lost in criticizing tiny decisions like it's the only reason we've been losing games. Every time someone tries to add perspective or balance to a discussion you start calling them shills or use the old "is the organization above criticism" refrain.

Ask the questions: "Why are we criticizing?" "What are we criticizing?" "How are we criticizing?"

You all want to have a substantive debate about the overall plan for the season, let's do that. There's actual discussion to be had there. Did the team do the right thing by trying to see if aging vets could prove themselves worthy to potential contenders later in the season? Is that the best tactic to maximize additions to our asset pool? How much rope should we give these guys before we can definitively say the experiment failed?

Personally, I don't mind the fact that the team tried to find guys who could potentially play a role and hopefully jettison them later in the season for some type of draft or prospect capital. Did it work? It's pretty clear with someone like Coburn that it didn't. We also got a second round pick in exchange for taking him and Paquette on, so we're already ahead. Does that mean the overall plan of trying it was right or wrong? That's the conversation to have.

But aimless criticism when this team is proving that they are willing to give young players a lot of leash this year for the benefit of their development is kind of weird. Almost any other circumstance would have led to a scratch for Norris and Batherson by now. After Wolanin's first few disastrous games, he would have definitely warranted a benching. Hogberg should have been riding pine after letting in that Draisaitl goal a few games ago.

It's crystal clear that this coaching staff is willing to be patient with guys and understanding of the circumstances they're playing under. Hogberg probably should have been sent down after that Oilers game, instead he single-handedly lost our last game for us.

I guess my biggest issue is I just don't understand what people were expecting from this roster. It's pretty clear whatever people said they were expecting before the season has changed significantly since then. Young guys are playing prominent roles and being allowed to play through ruts while some of the vets have already been waived through the lineup after not performing.

Yes of course, given their track record of success, honesty, and general competence over the past few years you can understand why it makes sense not to question anything.
It must be swell to be able to take every single individual event/ happening in Sens world and compartmentalize them until the point there are no linkages between events.
Reminds me of the movie Memento.

Yeah, Lord forbid anyone tries to bring balance and perspective to a discussion. Maybe we can create an HF Sens subsection where all the echo chamber bros can go and scream the same tired arguments at each other all day. I guess when the only tool in your belt is a hammer, everything has to be a nail.

 

[swiftwin]

Is the organisation above criticism? Why aren't we allowed to criticize the moves of a team that's finished bottom-2 four years in a row? Isn't it possible that more successful teams would have done things differently? Why is it so bad for fans to point that out?

I get being tired of the constant criticism, but that's what happens when there's so much room for improvement. Obviously people are going to explain where they think we could improve, including but not limited to roster management decisions.

Just to use coburn as an example. You're saying it's no big deal that they gave him a few games to see if he still had it. Others are saying it was painfully obvious to anyone who's watched him the last few years that he can't play. They're saying a competent staff doesn't even wonder if he can still play because they've already done their homework to see that he can't. You can say "meh, it's just a few games" or "it's just one player" but others are noticing these tiny negative details just add up to what can look like a clueless staff. Like why did Haley dress in a game this year over formenton or Logan brown? "Who cares, it's one game" right? Well, they all add up. And when you add them up, it looks like they don't pro scout and don't have a proper rebuild plan in place. Looks like they wing it. I bet if we were in a playoff spot from luck right now, our management would be using assets to add pieces and it would keep us in mediocrity. But that last part is just my speculation.

It's not as simple as that. Some players need a change of scenery. Some are more effective playing in different systems.

You always want to do your due diligence on your assets. It's just so petty to get upset over giving a few games to 700+ game vets like Coburn and Anisimov. It has zero impact on the grand scheme of things.

 

[Xspyrit]

Considering how shit our defense is it's pretty nuts how he's the more competent D-men out there.

That was true in the first 10 games but in the last 4 games, we allowed 9 GA, which is 2.25 GA/GP and it's including the bad goals Hogberg gave away last game

Since Zub arrived and then Brannstrom, the defense vastly improved but they also made a lot of adjustments in terms of defensive zone coverage, which has stabilized the goalies.

Hopefully it continues because it was unwatchable vs Vancouver

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

But... you've been basically doing the same thing in regards to goalies, you have used a lot of harsh language. Are you trying to defend management/coaching and direct the blame on goalies for the poor personnel choices (DJ+Dorion) and the major LACK of defensive structure/coverage (coaching)? How are goalies responsible for that?

We've seen that movie before. Just look at some Canada vs weaker country games. The goalie could stand on his head but would still give up 10 goals on 50 shots. I'm not targeting a game example in particular but it's pretty easy to see when a team is outmatched. Thank god for Zub/Brannstrom and defensive adjustments since because the trend would still go on.

Hogberg had by far the worst goalie performance this year in the last game but the game was close as we still played one of our best games defensively (supported by advanced stats). If you can't see the difference between our team defense in the last 4 games vs the first 6 games of the road trip... then I don't know what to tell you

Hockey is a LOT MORE complex than just "a team is good when the goalie is good, a team is bad when the goalie is bad", particularly at high levels where everyone is good and the execution level is high end.

Defensive Zone Coverage - Protect the House

It would be absolutely impossible for a team to even compete in a game vs a NHL team without a system and defensive structure. Think about those sequences when a team is running around in the defensive zone like chickens with their heads cut, but imagine that for a whole game lol. Some teams will be so good at cycling and applying pressure that they can disrupt your defensive system.

Obviously, no one would be a NHL coach without having a vast knowledge of this. DJ surely has "intentions" and is of course trying to protect the "house", but some players might have a hard time to follow directives or are taking time to adjust (lot of new players). It could also be a lack of communication and just choosing the wrong strategies for your player's skill sets, etc. That's just a few factors, we could keep going.

Obviously, Zub and Brannstrom (even Wolanin) instead of Josh Brown and Braydon Coburn makes a huge difference in terms of mobility and puck-movement ability. It probably helps the coaching improving the D systems and the players in general had more time to adapt. Goalies for the most part are just a reflection of the team in front of them. Yes their performances will vary like Hogberg was bad last game and Murray was excellent the game just before. But when your team as a whole delivers several goals per game on a silver platter, it's not because your goalies are bad. Then if the goalie gives up a goal he should have stopped to make it 5-1 instead of 4-1, it doesn't change anything as you basically already gift wrapped the game to the other team.

A NHL team can't afford to GIFT WRAP 2-3+ goals per game. Most goals come from hard work/skill/luck. Sure, every team make mistakes but there's a limit in terms of the quantity of mistakes and the nature of mistakes your team should do at the NHL level. We were just not at that level in those 6 games. Not sure I remember seeing anything as bad at this level.

Note : there's absolutely no need to call Dorion a moron to criticize him. For this I agree, it shouldn't be permitted.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Very interesting player. Right now he's playing steady and boy is he solid. Imagine if he gets more comfortable, I think Dorion struck a gem with this guy. Hoping he continues playing like this throughout the season.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

I get all these things but every team had the same issues this year. Why did we perform so much worse? Why are we comfortably last in the league?

I'm glad some of our less than stellar players were moved out of the lineup, or off the roster, after 10 games. The games are so much easier to watch the last week or so. But why were those guys ever on the active roster? who put them there? Why are these problems seemingly so exclusive to the Ottawa Senators? In short who is responsible for this?

Now on to your baseless generalization of this fan base as people that call our management morons and idiots. If we, as fans, don't question the guys in charge with those kind of results then we deserve to finish last (or next to last) every year. It sucks that our goalies have been bad. But our guys decided they were the best players to go with. You call it details but that's what separates winners from losers in the best sports leagues in the world. Besides, the big picture for almost 4 years has been even more bleak than the "tiny details". Perhaps people focus on the minutiae because the overall picture is much more depressing.

I'd agree that perhaps things go a little far with people calling the management idiots and morons. Whatever, shit gets heated but it's probably unnecessary. But when I simply say that Dorion and Smith are doing a bad job (the results back this up) without name calling I get attacked as well and lumped in as part of a fan base that just wants to call people morons. This is gaslighting of the highest order.

Most people just want to see our team perform better than it has. And they think, not unreasonably, that Dorion and/or Smith are the wrong people for that job.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Yeah, Lord forbid anyone tries to bring balance and perspective to a discussion. Maybe we can create an HF Sens subsection where all the echo chamber bros can go and scream the same tired arguments at each other all day. I guess when the only tool in your belt is a hammer, everything has to be a nail.

Sorry reality is getting in the way of your balance.
When rusty nails are sticking up everywhere, it’s difficult not to hammer them - the better solution would be to remove the nails but this organization doesn’t do that.

 

[Icelevel]

Trade him for a 5th round pick.
They can tell us how awesome they are for turning nothing into a pick and potential player.

(I’m actually a bit worried about this)

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Maybe the coaching staff wanted to give guys a couple of extra games to show themselves, on account of the horrifically dogshit goaltending we’ve had too many games this year.

Hard to assess a player when the goalies are fighting the puck all game and can’t provide any semblance of structure or assurance.

Once things stabilized it became pretty clear what the player assessments were and now they’re shuttling guys out of the lineup in favor of the next guy up.

All this mind you is going on while they’ve had no exhibition games and a relatively abbreviated training camp.

Extraordinary circumstances merit extra doses of patience and so far that’s what they’ve done.

If Coburn, for instance, had gone on to play 18 minutes a night for 56 games while guys like Wolanin and Brannstrom sat, then yeah that would have been a massive problem.

It’s clearly not the case though. It’d be nice if this fan base stopped focusing on the tiny details that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things but I’m not hopeful it will happen. Much easier to call guys morons and idiots rather than try to come up with a more reasonable explanation.

The grand scheme of things. 3 straight bottom 2 finishes heading for a fourth and probably a 5th.

the fact that they identified these bad players to be brought in. And then thought they were even good enough to play and assess. Speaks to a problem that is pretty important to having success in pro sports.... player evaluation. Actually acquiring player that are good

 

[jbeck5]

Did anyone say the team was above criticism? But any time someone tries to re-shape the criticism to actually talk about the important stuff you guys lop out this tired and lame counter.

The point you're making doesn't make sense.

"Why aren't we allowed to criticize the moves of a team that's finished bottom-2 four years in a row?"

So, are you saying that if Ottawa was one of the top teams in the league that they wouldn't be open to criticism?

You guys are getting lost in criticizing tiny decisions like it's the only reason we've been losing games. Every time someone tries to add perspective or balance to a discussion you start calling them shills or use the old "is the organization above criticism" refrain.

Ask the questions: "Why are we criticizing?" "What are we criticizing?" "How are we criticizing?"

You all want to have a substantive debate about the overall plan for the season, let's do that. There's actual discussion to be had there. Did the team do the right thing by trying to see if aging vets could prove themselves worthy to potential contenders later in the season? Is that the best tactic to maximize additions to our asset pool? How much rope should we give these guys before we can definitively say the experiment failed?

Personally, I don't mind the fact that the team tried to find guys who could potentially play a role and hopefully jettison them later in the season for some type of draft or prospect capital. Did it work? It's pretty clear with someone like Coburn that it didn't. We also got a second round pick in exchange for taking him and Paquette on, so we're already ahead. Does that mean the overall plan of trying it was right or wrong? That's the conversation to have.

But aimless criticism when this team is proving that they are willing to give young players a lot of leash this year for the benefit of their development is kind of weird. Almost any other circumstance would have led to a scratch for Norris and Batherson by now. After Wolanin's first few disastrous games, he would have definitely warranted a benching. Hogberg should have been riding pine after letting in that Draisaitl goal a few games ago.

It's crystal clear that this coaching staff is willing to be patient with guys and understanding of the circumstances they're playing under. Hogberg probably should have been sent down after that Oilers game, instead he single-handedly lost our last game for us.

I guess my biggest issue is I just don't understand what people were expecting from this roster. It's pretty clear whatever people said they were expecting before the season has changed significantly since then. Young guys are playing prominent roles and being allowed to play through ruts while some of the vets have already been waived through the lineup after not performing.



Yeah, Lord forbid anyone tries to bring balance and perspective to a discussion. Maybe we can create an HF Sens subsection where all the echo chamber bros can go and scream the same tired arguments at each other all day. I guess when the only tool in your belt is a hammer, everything has to be a nail.

I'm not saying we couldn't criticize a cup winning team. I'm saying the laughing stock of the league the last few years probably has more deserved criticism than other franchises...like almost open season.

The only reason I asked if the team is above criticism because when someone criticizes, we often get answers like "stop complaining" or "you think you know better than an NHL coach or gm?!" It's a weak shut down. It's like the parents who say "because I said so" instead of proper parenting where they set them aside and reason with them and use it as a teaching tool.

*Btw I'm speaking generally and not you specifically*

You can either not like the argument and gloss over the criticism or break it down and discuss it. It's when the response is "stop with the complaining" or "you don't know better than professionals" you'll get the dreaded "is the team above criticism?"

Anyways, it's clear you're actually willing to break it down and discuss, so that's good and I'm willing to do too.

Anyways, it's not the strategy that I'm against. I don't mind getting vets and allowing them to teach our young guys and then ship them off for assets. No problem from me there.

My issue? The quality of the assets and how poor our pro scouting tends to be. Instead of bringing in guys who have the attributes to succeed in this league, they brought in dinosaurs that would be effective in 1997 style play. Not 2021.

Had they brought in a couple solid vets, I wouldnt have a problem.

Instead of bringing in guys like sillinger, Smolinski, leschyshyn, etc (older guys who could play a role and accel but aren't super expensive) they brought in guys like Smith and Richardson that couldn't keep up.

It's the pro scouting I have an issue with. How did they not do their homework before coming? Especially when you can ask almost anyone who watched them on their previous team and they'd be like "way too slow. Can't keep up anymore."... Well what do you think is gonna happen with a full year off? They'll be that much older and slower.

I have no problem with the Coburn trade for the second. It's the playing him when it was clear he can't play. You don't have to play players just to justify a trade or signing if its obvious it's not working.

Like I used as an example earlier, we signed 500gp vet isbister in September and let him go in October without ever playing a game. We didn't try to justify the recent signing. We gave a bunch of rookies his ice. Why couldn't we have done that this year?

I agree though, that something like this is small.

I just don't say "who cares?" Because I add it to all the other small decisions that don't make sense..like Haley playing over brown...and it worries me just enough to post on a message board while I'm bored and not working. It's not like I'm upset. I'm just not like amazingly impressed lol.

 

[BankStreetParade]

That was true in the first 10 games but in the last 4 games, we allowed 9 GA, which is 2.25 GA/GP and it's including the bad goals Hogberg gave away last game.

But... you've been basically doing the same thing in regards to goalies, you have used a lot of harsh language. Are you trying to defend management/coaching and direct the blame on goalies for the poor personnel choices (DJ+Dorion) and the major LACK of defensive structure/coverage (coaching)? How are goalies responsible for that?

Our goalie lost us the last game we played. Single-handedly. Our vastly improved defensive structure didn't have any effect on winning or losing because our goaltender killed us. In our first grouping of games it was the same issue with goaltending giving up bad/soft goals every single game. And giving up multiple bad/soft goals in many of those games.

I'll concede something: my criticisms of Reilly, early on, were very sharp and harsh. If I was in the Senators' position, Reilly would have never had the opportunity to turn his game around. I'm willing to admit that he has played much better of late. As a matter of fact, the whole team has managed to play better of late. The virtue of patience, that I'm preaching, eluded me in this case.

My criticisms however never focused on the whole of the team. I have continually suggested that patience is necessary in assessing this team as a whole. What I've seen from so many though is a never ending barrage of how everyone in this organization is dumb and doesn't know anything about anything. DJ should be fired, Dorion should be fired, etc. The question I'm asking is how can anyone assess a player defensively when the goaltenders are leaking goals that any average NHL goaltender wouldn't give up? That's the issue. How can anyone assess the coaching when the goaltenders play like Hogberg did last game? How can anyone assess the progress of the lineup the GM assembled when the team was getting .860 sv%?

Again, it circles back to the overall view of the team. What were the expectations for this year? How much leeway should guys get who have been on extended layoffs from competitive hockey? How much patience is appropriate for the coaching staff to have when assessing players? Was it the right move to go out and get low-cost bodies and hope that they could play enough of a role to warrant an increase to their trade value? Should we still be criticizing the team when they've shown they were willing to move fairly quickly from certain guys (Anisimov and Coburn, notably)?

What I'm seeing is people whose expectations have changed yet most of the common variables haven't. This team DID have an extended layoff. This team was NOT expected to be very good. There WAS a massive roster overhaul. We ARE giving a lot of leash to young players to play prominent roles.

People are getting lost in the day-to-day roster decisions like Coburn playing 8 games was the reason we have a 2-11-1 record. I'm ok giving Coburn a few games at the beginning of the year to sell himself to another team. In the grand scheme of where this team is heading, it has no impact.

 

[coladin]

The one that made the most sense to me was the mention that there were some language barriers or communication issues early on.

Honestly he was a complete unknown, and practice is not games, i don't blame a coach for taking some time to ease a guy they know nothing about in.

It is completely plausible that a person who does not speak a lick of English, dropped into a culture shock, will take time to learn how to play on small ice , get comfortable, get to know a little bit his teammates, before throwing him out against Auston Matthews. 8 games, I don't think was something completely egregious. I know there is a lot to pick on about the GM, but I don't think this is one of them. Maybe the reason why he was able to be effective was the extra time taken to familiarize himself.

I cannot recall the last time someone came in and just blew me away like Zub, and he did it against McDavid , Draisaitl, what, 4 times now? Two best forwards in the world? He is +1 in those four games lol. His stats are playing against McDavid and the Habs. Wow