The whole idea of hiring a coach with respect to whom you would have to explain why he is good despite poor results does not make sense to me.
I am truly surprised that there are 8 smartest guys in the room in CP at this point in the voting. I would love to hear if there exists a well articulated detailed case in favour of Peters, and based on what set of criteria other than hope, you would favourably compare him to the other candidates. Honestly.
I mean heck, even if you say something like that he has great underlying stats, you still are explaining why he did some right things but couldn’t win. We just saw the same thing here.
There is an element of hope with any new coach, but at least someone who has some success at the NHL level reduces the risk factor. You know they can motivate a team of highly paid athletes at the top level to win.
I also can’t believe that I wouldn’t put it past Treliving though.
|