- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,269
- 13,030
If you don't have anything concrete to add, why beyond the world are you quoting in the first place?
At first I read "oh this again" and thought you misinterpreted something and confused a statement with the last playoffs but then I read again. But seriously? Geez, I really want to repeat myself here with the "this again?" So every time P.Mo makes a bad move/decision, doesn't comprehend the opposing tactics or is ten steps behind in strategy, we shall call it "lost to a super hot goalie" . Right. Vegas says hello!
Too bad there are no statistics to show if a coach is or is not a winner. Expect that maybe there is? What about that record of "most lost games by NHL coach"?
What exactly are you talking about picking "my option not yours"? The only "option" I even mentioned or suggested was slotting Roslovic into the second line, which by the way has nothing whatsoever to do with Kyle Connor being moved out of second line. Think your imagination might have gone off the trail here a little bit.
First of all, have you been reading anything at all what I've been saying here? Secondly, what exactly have I "made up"? Nevermind talking about temporary or permanent solutions, gah. We were explicitly talking about last night's game against St Louis that I specifically brought out as an example, or well I and some others at least were talking about the game. Not exactly sure what you're on about. So unless you are denying that switching Connor with Ehlers (straight up) doesn't pretty much shatter the offensive efficiency of the second line, then I suggest you at least re-read what it exactly is you're debating over for. It doesn't even matter if we are talking about long-term or short-term solutions. I didn't think I'd have to explain this this thoroughly, but obviously if your second line has close to zero odds producing in the next 20 minutes, that doesn't exactly increase your odds of winning a game when your team is already trailing before entering the third period. Just to elaborate to avoid any further misunderstandings.
I never argued about the plan probably being about uplifting the first line, but about first AND second lines both being as dynamic as possible uplifting the odds of winning the game (as opposed to just one) which ultimately is the goal. In this scenario they disarmed the second unit by reforming a line that has proven almost entirely incapable of even ending up in the score sheet. So even if the first line was better, the entire balance was worse because two offensively capable lines are always better than one. Now if you don't believe me and you wish to argue for the sake of arguing, why not check again what the end score was? We are dealing with what happened, not about my take on the weather.
Ok, so lets say you have two players playing chess and player A has a "brilliant" offensive plan in the makings and he executes a move that initiates a chain of events that collapses his front soldiers, kills a queen and stalemates the king in the favour of player B. Now this is imaginary example but what if it really happened, would you still say hat player A made a "smart move"?
Now I didn't start anything, but I don't particularly enjoy when someone claims that I make things up. Everything I've said I've tried to either explain or illustrate to the best of my abilities. Anyway, you can say you agree to disagree and leave it to that or we can talk more. Cheers!
I'll try harder to explain my comments - here goes:
Your quote -
"Erm, it was a good move and the team lost? I'm little bit confused here cause how can a decision be good when the outcome is bad?"
So, based on this, every decision that doesn't end in a positive outcome, is a bad decision?
That's making stuff up - you are not allowing for any other circumstances to play a role - just the one.
The team may have lost for other reasons - maybe very good apposing goal tending? Maybe hitting the post? Maybe fanning on a shot?
Your second quote:
"So you think it's better to be a one line team than have at least two scoring lines? That doesn't sound quite right either."
I never said that - it's pure hyperbole. I would never suggest we run as a one line team. But I might suggest stacking one up for a few minutes in a smothering situation like last night. So yes, stop making stuff up - or - do a better job of explaining your point it the initial post rather than coming back and pretending I can't read.
Anyway, from there it all went down hill - so let's just move on.
