Quote:
Originally Posted by Igottago
What I'm saying is they haven't been playing as well as you think they are..which is why the standings reflect what they do. Otherwise logic would dictate they would be up there with Vegas instead of where they are.
If you think the trend of play has been so convincingly good, how long do you think it takes for it to yield high end results in the standings -- like challenging for a division, or a conference -- something that would indicate the potential for being a serious contender?
|
Any one can look at the standings ...
It's one season.
The Avalanche won a division and then were never seen again, same with the Flames in 2014-15 season. Clearly many in Edmonton are suggesting it's one year abbe-ration, same in Montreal and Ottawa.
A GM has to dig deeper than the standings, it's not a one season job. If a team seems to out play the opposition but finds a way to lose you have to figure out why and not make silly rash decisions.
Is it coaching? A weak goaltender? Special teams? Bounces? A combination?
I see a team that seems to play well, but has a brutal shooting and finishing percentage. That plays out with the highest missed shot total in the league. That says gripping the sticks.
Do you fire a coach for that?
You can, but I'd be careful.
I'm not a huge fan of Glen Gulutzan, I'm not. But I'm also not a fan of organizations that change coaches every two years, especially when metrics say they're playing better than their record is playing out. Don't you worry about whose up next?