Brad has utilized the word process multiple times, and also has multiple times spoken at great length about the steps they have taken related to many of his decisions. He waxed poetic about why Gulutzan was a good fit, why Ward was not just moved from interim to permanent as they put a lot of time in to the conversations, ensuring alignment etc. And then some tale about Sutter that just doesn’t quite jive with everything else, but some people here buy it.
To his credit, he often has done a decent job in the long winded justification of his moves.
I’ve listened, understood where he was coming from, and knew we’d just have to wait and see how they turned out
Having said that, at the end of the day, too many of the moves then simply ended up not really working out.
He strikes me as a grinder. A hard worker, just not the kind that is a consistent high achiever. He was a grinder as a player, and his previous NHL club sure wasn’t a high achieving club
I then look at guys like Yzerman and Sakic. Two leaders and champions. They know what it takes to win, because they both had really long careers, with varying levels of success, but ultimately multiple cups. They probably have a pretty good idea what it’s like in the room of a championship team vs one at other stages of development, how the leaders behave, who the real glue guys are, etc.
I see the references to the process by posters. Brad has spoken about what you have to do to build a contending or winning club. Thing is, he has not been part of one. It’s academic, and the reality is the regression that has been on display
I expect I will view him as a grinder for the foreseeable future, at least until the club achieves something of note.
Nothing much different than my vote suggests. I think he should be replaced, but he won’t. Because the reasoning and effort has been reasonable, just the results have been lacklustre.
|