A goal is a goal is a goal. I don't care how they go in as long as they go in.
That's fine - but let's not also throw him a parade because he basically happened to be in a position where 4 (I thought only 3) Vegas players were within stick's reach of the puck and he basically had to punch it towards a fairly wide open net (there was a defenseman in front, but the puck was so deep, it would have been very hard to not put the puck on net, at the very least). Did he put himself in the right position? Sure. But was Strome the one who brought Fleury so far out of his crease that it forced the Knights to collapse, which basically took the defense out of position and led to the goal? Or was that Kane and Debrincat's efforts and Strome just kind of happened to be in the "right place, right time?" (Watch the video again - the only time Strome was within 5 feet of the puck in the entire sequence was when he happened to be in the right position to follow up). We had used that "right place, right time" logic quite a lot back when chatting about Strome after drafting him - he doesn't look like he is doing much, but when you go back and look at the box score, somehow, he managed to get some points. Seems like we have long known that he needs other players to drive things for him, and then when the other players get the defense out of position, he happens to be the one to capitalize.
My question is that since we were shooting so much and getting the high number of shots off that we were, why is it that we didn't see more of this from Strome overall when he was here? Why was there a lack of driving the net, since people talk about that aspect of his game last night? Is that b/c Strome had a wake-up call from the trade? Is that b/c he was playing with better overall linemates? Is it the system in general? Or was it reuniting he and Debrincat that established some chemistry? Or was it b/c Kane is just that talented of a player that he opens up many more lanes for his linemates?
All of those questions are things that we don't have here. We didn't have a great amount of established chemistry between Strome and some other players. There may have been some chemistry, but we also didn't scare any teams into forcing their defense to adjust that much with any established chemistry, either. That is about the only thing that we can get pissed at the coaching staff for, but we see that players that have that "entitled" feel don't mesh well with any type of coach - whether Turris/Tippett or Strome/Tocchet. Ron Wilson was with Toronto in the 2009 season - he healthy scratched Matt Stajan often early in the year 2008-09. But Stajan manned up and took it as something he needed to learn from. He set career highs in points that year, so sometimes, the player needs to sit back and realize that getting sat can be a motivating tool when the player isn't quite up to par with what is needed.
We didn't always see the effort from Strome. We don't have Patrick Kane - we have someone who models his game after Kane, but Kane didn't see the decrease in production from year 1 to year 2 that we are seeing with Keller (although Keller is not a huge concern to produce going forward). We are working towards a similar talent level to what the Hawks have at forward, but we are a significantly younger team at this juncture, and still learning the ropes.
I do understand that a good goal and a bad goal still count as a goal, but when the goal comes from what everyone else around you does to set you up - that still may not mean that you can't do more.
Give credit where credit is due, that fourth line played fantastic. The kids did good, Crouse 1 goal, 1 assist, Archibald with career high 3 pts. and Strome will a goal and an assist.........oh wait, Strome is not on our team.
