Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
Ignore it? Who's ignoring it? You can't ignore it. Like vegans or crossfitters. You wont let us ignore it.
Frankly the Flames have struggled to get results other than "lots of shots" that means squat.
They didn't score more goals than other teams, proof is where we are today.
How about instead of expecting drive by deep dive joke perhaps recognize that you've opened yourself up to them because you're preaching too heavily that these things mean something. Results say they mean far less than people so very despartely want them to.
Gullys team in two years finished 18th (2016/17) and 27th (2017/18) in goals for under his corsi freindly possesion system.
anf 14th and 20th in goals against.
Shot quantity stats mean jack squat. And it's bizzare that people still want to talk about it.
|
What's bizarre is the need to boil any discussion like this down to shot quantity stats.
I've agreed on countless occasions that they don't say enough about what is going on.
The scoring chance thing is what had my interest because they conflicted with the goal totals you speak of. You have to look into that.
So now take Peters ...
Two very simple facts are that a) he's well thought of as a coach b) his teams have missed the playoffs four straight years.
Neither are enough to make a decision to hire him or turn him away, and the fact that they don't line up means you have to look deeper.
Does Peters employ a system that like Gulutzan seems to have good shot metrics but bad scoring execution? Looks like it.
If you deem the scoring chances to be escalated based on factors that make the chances less dangerous than their counts suggest, you don't hire the guy. If they don't say that, then you can make a case that a bigger payroll, and a different set of players may add to what he was trying to do in Carolina making it a good move.
I don't have the answer to that, but I would certainly look into it.