I also argue that the rookies being played higher up the lineups and also being given more minutes just might be a combination of injuries and lack of depth. You can't just arbitrarily say that Peters favours youth because they got to play more minutes without looking at rosters and injuries.
Stempniak played 37 games
Kruger 48
Rask 71
Pesce 67
I think they had a lot more flexibility than the Flames in that regard. Also, how much say did Peters have on the PP? Cameron was in charge of the PP here and it seemed like it was his call on who to play and how much. We can't let Gulutzan off the hook for the lack of change on the PP, but give Peters accolades for placing rookies on it, can we?
I know a lot of people really liked the Haynes articles - and usually I do love them as well. For me, that article came off as overly-defensive rather than enlightening. Nothing written shed any light on what we already knew for the most part, and it just seemed to focus on the potential positives, rather than any shortcomings.
At any rate, it doesn't matter much. I think that the majority on this board would prefer giving Peters a shot over another year of Gulutzan, and I think most on this board are in agreement that it indeed may work. An article focusing on superlatives without digging deeper and speaking to potential issues that may need to be looked at doesn't sway me.
|