Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan in Exile
I thought that the team ultimately failed to scored goals and had one of the league's lowest shooting percentages despite creating a lot of chances. We lacked depth scoring. In fact in the first 10 to 12 games, the 3rd and 4th lines did not score any goals, even after Jankowski was called up. Which player helped address that better, Jankowski or Glass?
My whole point is that you can give the benefit of the doubt to Treliving for almost every single move he's made but his moves have a cumulative effect and it is straight out denial to claim he does not prefer to fill holes with questionable vet signings rather than try younger players. In and of itself leaving Janko in the minors was not an egregious error but it is part of a pattern that reflects a failed philosophy. The evidence continues to grow that leaving players in the minors is not the way to build a successful team in today's NHL. You need to let young players on ELCs have a bigger role.
|
Players also have to earn their spots, or you get Oiler-type scenarios. However, let's accept this statement as 100% true...
The Flames brought up Jankowski, Hathaway, Mangiapane, Lomberg, Klimchuk, Hrivik and Foo. How did that affect the bottom 6 production?
And also, how do you reconcile that to you current argument that they aren't giving players those chances?