...

After official review...

Yay team.

If they would have scored some of you would have been saying that was one of the best periods of season.

Middle of the season road game for NJ.

It's actually a clever goal. Wish we'd try stuff like that more often.

Nice job.

Nice job.

What's up with Doug Allen's goatee? He has it just sitting on his chin like a toupee.

That's what you call chemistry.

This goes back to the debate on how the organization has viewed this season: step 2 of a development plan, or first year of attempting to ice a competitive team.

I guess the thing is that with past failed coaches, post Lindy (even though Lindy suffered from many of these as well), there were several issues that stood out: player usage, team prep, system, and special teams. Phil has addressed most of those in my opinion, and that includes player usage. The tools he has for offense simply aren't broad/good/deep. The only thing Phil really seems to have not addressed is the PP. However, that, again, comes down to the tools available. The areas where the players are a major factor, usage (as in: how to decide who to use and where) and PP, are really not Phil's "fault" so much as it the "fault" of Murray and JBotts. For the 10 game streak, Phil clearly was able to maximize his player usage. I think that evidence stands, when the players are playing right, he knows how to use them.

This is like criticizing a chef who has been given two ingredients to work with: filet mignon and carrots. There are only so many things one can do with such basic ingredients. But, maybe we're supposed to apply the axiom "a good artist doesn't blame his tools." Paint, Phil, paint! Paint for your life! That's more than I thought. He must have really blew the opportunity.

Wasn't Mitts given the opportunity to center Samson and Skinner the other day? It didn't last long, because the panic that has crept into his game is leading to bad decisions - can't do that against top-line defense.

I totally agree. Pommenstein being "slow" wasn't necessarily a negative for his performance on that line. So long as he was able to follow up the play generated by Eichel and Skinner, who would naturally draw most of the attention away from Pommers. He could hobble his way to a high percentage zone. No one expects the feeble old has-been to score a goal.

I'm a little...no, a lot...scared of this talk about Mitts being "ready", and banking on that happening. There is no way I would bank on him becoming anything in the NHL right now. Contrast Mitts' development to Dahlin's, TT's, Pilut's, or Ullmark's, just on our team alone. Look across the NHL at the development of other rookies. I don't think Mitts should be the automatic write in for 2C. Another issue: who is our trade bait for something like this? I think we all should be sick and tired of getting back players who are busts, so we'll need to pony-up to get a quality player back who will actually make a difference. I think we're talking TT, Pilut, McCabe, Larry, Samson (yes, I said it) or the like if you want a difference-make back. That's what's being asked for here, is a return that will make a difference. You're talking a first and maybe a second, at least a first, plus a good player to get someone worthwhile back.

You mean the '70s era karate chop fist pump when they score isn't enough?

What a bunch of whimpy forwards. Not a one wants to get into the dirty areas.

I agree with this. It would likely take a three year, though, if he makes it through the rest of this season and the first half of the next without missing more than a few games. At that point, as far as the rest of the league is concerned, his injury issues will be "in the past", so his value will be pretty high.

ROR, the Rodney Dangerfield of the NHL.

I caught that. That was a good funny.

If the snark snaps us from the cycle of misunderstanding, then the risk was worth taking. You are comparing two players with three years (or more) development behind them to someone who has just started their development. I don't see how this comparison makes sense given this fact alone. However, aside from those two players having already had been used at those positions in their development cycle, they are also individuals whose developmental paths are unique to themselves, just like Dahlin's.

We're going to have to be happy not seeing eye-to-eye on this matter. You seem to be suggesting that Phil ought to be putting Dahlin on the left because the stats say he is weak on the right. I am suggesting that Phil and crew know this and that they are playing him on the right for...reasons. I have tried to convey what those reasons could be, but since I am not a coach or teacher of high-level athletes, I can only surmise. I asked whether you might have such experience and if so, to shed light on what is right or wrong with their approach. The response was: "The statistics illustrate that Dahlin has been noticeably worse on the right side. Why would it be a good thing to play him on the right side? I'm basing my take on statistical evidence, you are theorizing that Housley must have some special reason we just aren't privy to. If not, that it's important for Dahlin to be put in a positional situation he's not as good at. Why? Should we put Sam back at centre? I don't care if Dahlin likes the right side. I care what side he plays better on." And you reposted the post about the stats. I fully understand your point having been exposed to it three times. So, I have batted the ball back to you again, trying to break down my point to its essence. Which is: "If they only allow Dahlin to develop on the side he statistically is better at over the past whatever amount of games, then he'll never develop the weak side. What if he and/or his coaches want to develop the side he has statistically been weaker at (over the past whatever amount of games)? What if they see a value for Dahlin and the organization in doing so? I don't know what else to say, other than, again, we may very well have to be happy not being able to communicate our points effectively. Of course, I may have the set up of this interchange wrong, and I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Following your logic to its absurd conclusion, the only thing human infants are good at are crapping and crying. Why, then, teach them language when, clearly, at the beginning they're awful at it and it causes confusion and anxiety? Or, if that doesn't make sense, if we follow your logic, if they only allow Dahlin to develop on the side he statistically is better at over the past whatever amount of games, then he'll never develop the weak side. What if, crazy thought here, he and/or his coaches want to develop the side he has statistically been weaker at (over the past whatever amount of games)? What if, even crazier thought, they see a value for Dahlin and the organization in doing so?

"Of course I read the whole post. The statistics illustrate that Dahlin has been noticeably worse on the right side. Why would it be a good thing to play him on the right side? I'm basing my take on statistical evidence, you are theorizing that Housley must have some special reason we just aren't privy to. If not, that it's important for Dahlin to be put in a positional situation he's not as good at. Why? Should we put Sam back at centre? I don't care if Dahlin likes the right side. I care what side he plays better on. "