TrueBlueGED

Despite being played at a time only sadists could love, this has been fun!

It's really not. He's Botterill's guy and Smith isn't.

We just have to be really sure the center addition isn't sad after losses.

Not at the rate you consume bourbon during games.

False. Saturday afternoons are for errands. Saturday nights are for sports bars.

Right. We have a giant hole in the middle of the ice and until that's fixed, whether internally through development or via trade, our non-Eichel line scoring is going to continue to struggle to score consistently.

It was always completely delusional to believe Berglund could be that.

Afternoon games are still the worst. Anyway, big win coming 4-1.

The situations aren't even remotely comparable. I won't derail this thread, but I'll happily explain in a PM if you'd like.

What?

Remember when @WildCard was being all negative while the team was winning but getting out-shot badly? Now the team is getting more shots but losing, and he's even more angry! Dude is never happy! ?

I have no what that first part means. Ah, but see, that's not observable. What we observe is team outcomes. Inferring individual characteristics from that is, uh, problematic at best. For the longest time, it was judged that Ovechkin was a poor leader because his teams didn't get out of the second round. Then they won the Cup without a single measurable difference in his performance. But he "changed his game" and somesuch nonsense. PS: affect and effect are different ? WildCard going full Liger on us.

And it's pure hubris to think we can infer this from a tiny subset of all games played. Clutch may exist, but the way it's assessed would fail inferential reasoning 101.

You thought the Nolan tank team was fun to watch and be made them more than they were? They were the worst non-expansion team of the modern era!

A certain goaltender would like a word with you.

Like David Price? Not clutch. Until he was. Ovechkin? Yup, not a leader. Until his team wins, despite him being the same as every, he is then portrayed as clutch. Toews must have misplaced his clutch gene last season. And on and on and on. Teams win. The Sabres are rolling out Pominville on line 1 and Sobotka as 2C and you're going after Eichel for "not leading" while he makes Pominville look like an NHL player. You've gone off the deep end.

Gregg Rosenthal‏Verified account @greggrosenthal 39m39 minutes ago More The Raiders are giving up more yards-per-play than any defense in NFL history. A morbid part of me would like to see a team with McDermott as OC and Gruden as DC.

Eichel is on pace for 88 points. That would have put him 11th in the league last season behind noted slackers Stamkos, Marchand, Tavares, Gaudreau, Kuznetsov, Panarin.... You've got the shiv out for the wrong guy. Your use of empty cliche is approaching McDermott-level.

I'm certainly not going to defend Housley. I'm just saying, the answer isn't Torts just because you're excitable and want a dude who yells. Not bad for how poorly he's playing...or, well, how poorly GDTs paint him as playing.

Using the board-approved DeLuca .500 formula, he was actually well under .500. Anyway, his 'Nucks had a points percentage of 50.6...down from 61.5 the year before he got there. They then rebounded to 61.5 the year after he got canned.

*glances at his tenure in Vancouver*

Know who else got played heavy minutes by a bunch of different coaches? Dion Phaneuf. Risto isn't a chickenshit, but he's in the same tier of player.

Green Bay had no idea how long he'd sit behind Favre. Favre was firmly in his year-to-year state at that point. They drafted Rodgers because he was an incredible value at their pick and they knew they would need a Favre replacement at any moment. He certainly wasn't drafted with the plan to sit him for 3 years. Anyway, playing quarterback is easier than ever before. No way should a player drafted #7 overall need to sit for two freaking years. No, there wasn't. Favre was still there.

Rodgers didn't sit because he wasn't ready, though. He sat because he was behind a HoFer.

Just because there was a plan doesn't mean it was constructed or executed well. For all the talk about how detail-oriented McBeane is, did nobody raise their hand for 3 seconds and ask what if Peterman really is every bit as bad as the San Diego game showed? Partial joking aside, the most optimistic appraisal of their plan is that it's from about two decades ago. I think they believe the best way to "insulate" a young QB is to have a solid defense and run game, as to not ask them to do too much too soon. That's horribly antiquated. Jeff Fisher-esque, even. It's pretty obvious the best way to insulate a young QB in today's NFL is to load up on college concepts with simple, defined reads that get players open in space. That does infinitely more than a good running game. And if a good running game was the plan, then, well, they failed there too. I know that losing Wood and Incognito wasn't part of the plan, but both of those things happened before the draft. They had opportunities to address it, and opted to draft Harrison Phillips. Also, to the extent the plan was to address the defense first and the offense second, they surely didn't think they'd be fielding a contender for worst offense since the merger. So even in might of a plan, they still wholly misjudged the talent on offense (and may have picked a second dud coordinator in a row at the same time). And it's going to have detrimental effects going forward, too. Everyone knows John Brown turned down our contract offer. Today on WGR it was reported the contract was 3 years $21M. He chose a 1-year deal in Baltimore instead. If a mid-pack WR like Brown turned down more money from us last year, why should we have any confidence we can just add Tate and Cobb after this debacle of an offensive season?