Thorner

hockey

One of these guys better do it tbh

Can you FIND a goalie with better results than Comrie provided in that one period? No, you can’t I’d say this was a joke, but that sample size is negligibly different to the one we actually bet on lol

He’s injured, not his fault

Will they score the next goal? Or will our first go un-answered Not so fast: he’s the fill-in for next year for whoever inevitably goes down before the season starts

Granato’s new contract hasn’t even started yet haha. He’ll be back

People always be like “ignore context” I’ll keep saying, “why”

I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news Conroe lol

Re: your last sentence - yes, the plan devotes one full year to the players learning each skill. 26-27 is “how to body check safely”

Spoke to soon. He made the cut.

Peterka will skate in his 82nd game of the season - only Sabre to do it Dahlin will be at 81. (And I think Dahlin has had the harder minutes)

Meaningful games in mid-April

Comrie is so bad they WON’T LET HIM play in *meaningless games* to wrap up. I honestly don’t think so

The league isn’t divided into only Comries and Haseks, as much as simplifying to such a degree serves your argument. Finding a goalie better than Comrie is absolutely possible because the bar is basically underground

Best part about the team has been this board for a while, and like you said the overall angst probably lessens somewhat when the weight of the active failure of this season is lifted away. So not really.

Here we go

Good cautionary tale re Sammy At least in terms of offence translation

Dude I LIVE here your sample size sucks You are arguing about over a decade’s worth of data and using like 5% of the sample size to hone in on your argument Tis a bad argument

Great stuff. - - - I, too am shocked the sv% is only 1 point higher …and I knew I was right in predicting last offseason that a run back would result in a shell game.

There’s a *slight* shot that a win today, with some help, can get us in the dance

It was and always has been dependant on complimentary moves, if any, this summer. Most trades are hard to judge in the immediate, but this one seemed especially so, because it felt like maybe the first half of something. If we do nothing at C, ya, I don’t like it either No he did not

We might have the C. We certainly won’t have Byrum.

Opportunity indeed missed, I don’t know what’s gotten into me

I think this is sort of a myth. At least as far as how much their desire to “change plans” has been a definitive factor. Like, the idea we aren’t giving these guys time for their plans to take hold, I don’t really buy. Not sure there’s any inherent value in stability if the result aren’t being yielded. Both Botterill and Adams have sort of utilized a longer form approach and really both are using a lot of the same core. It’s not that the plan is changing or that the change itself is somehow destructive, by way of, I dunno, needing a re-mould of roster to fit said new plan, in reality what’s actually happening is each GM feeling they need to trade away disgruntled star players, which resets the timeline (convenient). Even if you disregard the convenience, the issue isn’t “changing plans” it’s disgruntled star players by way of never winning. Botterill reset his timeline with ROR and Adams did it with Eichel. So I suppose the “deconstructing and reconstructing” part is the most important. But it’s also important to draw the distinction I am because merely “sticking with” Adams and his plan won’t yield extra results if you aren’t winning, just cause you stuck with it. The players didn’t become disgruntled because we changed plans we “changed plans” because they became disgruntled. That’ll still happen if the plan isn’t working, regardless of its seniority. Don’t stick with it just to stick with it. Don’t make avoid making a change just to avoid making a change. You stick with it if you believe it will yield results. And if they DO bring in a new GM at some point, it need not be another “reset the timeline” guy. Perhaps if their focus is on immediate winning this could be the case.

Conviction isn’t the right word. He absolutely believed we could make the playoffs. He absolutely drank some of the kool-aid of last year’s finish and honestly, if I take off my “analyze these guys on a professional level because they are professionals” hat for a moment, I actually get it: Trend line was pointing to a playoff berth by doing nothing. It’s ok to say the quiet part out loud But that’s not the point. Playoffs could have been possible, even likely, but Adams could have done more to make it a lock. You can argue he shouldn’t have, but you can’t argue reasonably he couldn’t have. It’s an issue of strategy, not conviction. It’s not about whether you think we’ll make the playoffs. How much do you want to make the playoffs? How many failsafes do you believe your current roster needs and how many are you willing to implement? No stone unturned.