Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
I could, but why? Again it all comes out even.
13 goals, 50 points, and +12 is objectively better than 10 goals, 42 points, and -3. By the numbers, those are the best Hamilton years with Calgary and Boston, respectively. Hamilton has improved every year since the trade.
Monahan = Teravainen. Both improved and developed under their respective coaches.
Gio is as good now as he ever was.
Brouwer is Brouwer. What were the expectations? He's a bottom 6 forward often playing out of his depth. GG misused him, IMO.
But I don't get how that, or any of this, is furthering your original argument.
|
You basically said some players do well under some coaches and others struggle and it all balances out.
And then you use examples under GG
I say GG had a lot of players performing as expected, flat or worse.
I say Gio at 39 points is not the same as Gio pushing 60 points. You say he is the same
I say Hamilton with 42 points in 72 (a 48 point pace) followed by 43, 50 and 44 is flat, and you say he is improving every year
Expectations on Brouwer were clearly more than the coach got out of him
Not saying either of the D guys are bad, but I don’t see the career year / flourished in Calgary argument from Hamilton. I see primarily flat offensive output. Gio played damn well but Gully got 15 or so less points out of him than he has shown he can produce.
If we disagree on those points, as we seemingly do, then there really is no point.
I think not only does it not come out even, but the number of players on Calgary that underperformed outweighed the ones that did perform and I think the whole team collectively underachieved. And I see these things as linked
We have differing opinions, and we have differing interpretations of how data supports your narrative.
And with respect to Peters, I questioned whether he got all he could out of his top players and overall roster
Doesn’t matter, he is the coach. We will see what he does