Its pretty disingenuous to frame my stance on Olofsson as an extreme. I have not, nor have I ever, said “omg don’t question the GM and trust the process”.
What I have done is evaluated how each prospect has been handled on a case by case basis as well as evaluating the overall approach. I love the overall approach but have disagreed with how certain players have been handled. Thompson’s handling being the chief problem I’ve had.
When it comes to Olofsson they hit a homerun developmentally. Look at the growth in several aspects of his game. That is the main reason he was sent down and he responded Ed and is still responding spectacularly to that mandate. Also Just watch today’s Amerks’ game. The Olofsson/Asplund/O’Regan line led the charge for the Amerks from being down 4-1 in the 3rd. Taylor has so much confidence of those guys he put them out to end regulation after the game was tied up and he started all 3 in OT (yes 3 forwards). Where they went on to win the game. That they are trusted that much is a product of their growth, particularly Olofsson’s. Its stuff like that I care way more about. As opposed to a random 3-5 game look with us so Housley can not put him into position to succeed.
I’d also point that if he actually got those 3-5 games. We both know you and many others would still be complaining. It would just move on to the fact that he didn’t stay up. Basically this is complaining to complain or maybe just letting overall frustration for this season seep in to development evaluation s, at least when it comes to Olofsson. He’s a development bright spot. Does it have to be maligned in some way so the GM can’t get credit for something good? Is that what this is about?
I wasn't saying you were being extreme, it was meant as a general comment on the back and forth.
I think it's perfectly fine to think the development of players in Rochester has gone well since the team is succeeding. I don't think anyone has been mad at Taylor.
But to be so defensive and emotional about people disagreeing with your analysis or being hard on the GM is bizarre.
One, the obvious is that this gm has been failing at the nhl level in all regards. So to give him the benefit of the doubt is a little bit naive.
Two, we can all pretend that Botts is being very specific with his development choices on an individual basis. But apparently there is no consistency for how that development is rewarded. Which can be frustrating for teammates. But lets be real. Do we really want to say the long time pro Olofsson needed a whole year in Rochester, but Tage Thompson didn't need any? And don't these types of mismanagement make you question other choices made by management that can't really be proved either way.
Like I get it you think that Olofsson couldn't have become this tremendous two way player that he allegedly is in Rochester, if he had played in the nhl. Who knows, he might have developed great, formed a nice second line with Reinhart and Mitts.
Same with Nylander. Same with Pilut. Maybe it helps for him to go ppg in the ahl for a while, but just as likely he could be still holding down top 4 minutes getting plenty of minutes in the process.
But who knows. And maybe thats why we shouldn't worry too much about Botts getting credit, until you know he starts getting good results. Hate to be a buzz kill, but when I see you hate on housley, totally rightfully, I find the idea that you would simultaneously support Botts development strategy as unimpeachable, stretches reason.
The mental gymnastics needed to defend this guy with the results we have seen so far is extensive. Must be tough to keep looking for positives for botts and his plan.
