Guessing their idea to steal the Vegas system didn't work like they thought...
Am I wrong or is PDB one of the only NHL coaches that shuffles D pairs like he does Forwards.
You know what pains me is that my football team, Packers, has the exact same situation with regards to coaching. McCarthy has wasted so many of Rodgers prime years and the organization is really conservative with coaching. Very similar to the Sharks.Seriously the dude can't adapt and he's run his course, there is legitimately a better coach in every way available right now and we need to grab him.
Judging by Vegas' record I'd say it's working perfectly.Guessing their idea to steal the Vegas system didn't work like they thought...
Guessing their idea to steal the Vegas system didn't work like they thought...
You know what pains me is that my football team, Packers, has the exact same situation with regards to coaching. McCarthy has wasted so many of Rodgers prime years and the organization is really conservative with coaching. Very similar to the Sharks.
The big difference between the two teams being that the Pack have won several Superbowls including the one with McCarthy so he keeps getting to waste more of Rodgers years. Both my teams could benefit with systems that actually work with the players.
My problem is that the "he should've had that" tirades against Jones have, at various points in the season, morphed into "any NHL-caliber goalie should've had that". Implying that the issue isn't that Jones' goals against aren't bad just because he's a well-paid starter on a Stanley Cup contender, but that they're bad because they're flat-out unacceptable goals for any goaltender on an NHL roster. And yet, when Dell lets in a similar goal and people push back against him getting criticized, that's treated as OK.
If a goal is unacceptable for any NHL-employed goaltender, then it shouldn't matter if it's a starter making millions or a backup at the league minimum. A bad goal by that standard is a bad goal is a bad goal in any situation. But it's not. Mental gymnastics are performed to mitigate the damnation placed on Dell vs Jones.
I agree that in a vacuum Dell shouldn't be judged as harshly as Jones based on their positions in the goalie heirarchy. But the moment we have "no NHL goalie should allow that sort of goal" comments, context is added and the vacuum is gone. And it's at that point I have a problem, because now impartiality and a level playing field are thrown out and it damages any legitimate cases people might have with Jones because the complains stop appearing objective and start looking petty and disconnected.
What's wrong is that you've cast far too wide a net on mediocrity. Teams can be good without being cup contenders. They can be below mediocrity without being irredeemably terrible. Instead of framing the league in something like a bell curve, it instead looks like 3 distinct buckets. And quashing any sort of subtlety in that type of argument makes it harder to have any sort of meaningful discussion.
If there are 15 mediocre teams in the league, you've basically lumped half of all playoff teams and half of all non-playoff teams into the same bucket. To take last season as an example (while granting that season records/point totals are not a perfect correlation to overall team strength. I acknowledge that strength of schedule and luck are going to tweak things a bit), if we apply that sort of logic, you're saying that the 98-point Kings and Flyers are in the same boat as the 80-point Islanders or 78 point Oilers. Previous seasons show a similar distributions of point totals. The 9th and 10th best teams are around the high-90s to low 100s in points while the 9th and 10th worst teams are usually in the low 80s. I expect that this season will bear out similar results So your definition of "mediocrity" ends up encompassing a nearly 20 point swing in performance. That's a big, wide, ungainly middle class that you've created in the interest of being able to apply a very sharp term like "mediocre" to a bunch of teams. And representative of what I was trying to point out: Arguments on here increasingly lack subtlety in an effort to make things strident and snappy. It's like the debating equivalent of clickbaity article/video titles. Yes, there comes a point where you can be too subtle or too precise in trying to group things (HF's old prospect ranking system is probably a good example of this. Eventually the system is so wrapped up in minutiae that the distinctions become meaningless), but at the same time, being too stark in differentiation can bork things up just the same (because now your argument looks far more inflammatory than it needs to be and we end up in situations that lead to equally blaring arguments about some aspect of one of the grouped sets being "criminally over/under-rated" or the like and everything gets derailed for a side-debate about the nature of such a broad-encompassing set of grouping criteria)
Instead of benching Ryan midgame every other game, just ****ing dress Heed already, god damn.
Then why is Melker Karlsson even on this continent?Ryan's strength is his solid defensive play and Deboer benches him because apparently he thinks Ryan sucks defensively. Heed's weakness is defense so he'd get benched after 1 shift.
Dillon's "pass" was so bad.Game won by Khudobin or game lost by Dillon. You be the judge.
Jones was not the problem.
Then why is Melker Karlsson even on this continent?
inb4 Deboer 5 year extension cus we made the playoffs