TrueBlueGED

Worked okay for Denver to sign an old QB who had 4 neck surgeries. Romo isn't Peyton, but he's a top-10 QB in the league if healthy. Not that I expect he'd choose to come here if Dallas cuts him, but I think it's definitely worth the gamble.

I appreciate the desire to be optimistic, but we have 39 games left and probably have to get to 95 points to make it, meaning just shy of 67% of available points. We're nowhere close, have been nowhere close, and have shown no signs we can get close, to that kind of success.

Those are facts, of course, but like what I posted, the interpretation of those facts need not be "because of Bylsma." I think most Pens fans, and many national observers, feel the Pens underachieved during the Bylsma era. Much like how many of us feel this Sabres team is underachieving now. But what I really took umbrage with is the assertion there'd be just as much bitching with Babcock. I totally disagree, unless you think we'd be in the exact same place in the standings. There will always be some level of complaining, but if we were just 5 points better and right in the thick of the playoff race, I don't think there would be nearly as much. Sigh. Starting the same goalie in both games of a back to back is such a bad decision.

We're 25th in the league in score-adjusted CF% at even strength (even his Pittsburgh teams were only decent at this metric, so it can't only be the roster). Our even strength scoring is that of the tank teams despite superior talent. We're 14th in the Eastern Conference, and 27th in the league in the standings. You won't get an argument from me that the roster is flawed, particularly on the blue line. But I'd love a coherent evidence-based argument for why Bylsma is a good coach. Where is his value added?

I don't think Lindy Ruff's job is safe, and if Dallas misses the playoffs, it shouldn't be. But that team lost a top pair defenseman (Goligoski) and a second pair defenseman (Demers) without replacing them, while still running out $10 million worth of AHL goaltenders. Jim Nill has done some great things with that roster, but the last calendar year has not been his finest work.

Nonsense. Babcock is the best coach in the league, at worst top-3. Bylsma is bottom 10. As much as some so desperately want the complaining about Bylsma to be complaining for the sake of complaining...it isn't. The guy is a below average coach. We lost, but we were the far better team in that game. I want to be the better team again, even if it isn't reflected in the final score.

Wow, that was a pass by Samson? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but to have the wherewithal while trying to slam it in on the doorstep to pass it...unreal.

Aaron Rodgers is by far my favorite player to watch. Just incredible. Best QB in the league.

Last offseason we were seen as a team on the rise, having made a major jump in the standings. This offseason, assuming we finish in the 82 point range, we'll look like a team that has stagnated.

Pretty much. Also intrinsic to the injury argument is the notion that we simply can't evaluate Bylsma because of them. I vehemently disagree with that.

Probably because he wants to run his own offense. If memory serves, Reid calls the plays and is the real OC.

If Belichick is willing to trade Garoppolo in the division, you should run far away from such a trade.

My unpopular hockey opinion of the day is that "culture of losing" isn't actually a thing.

There is no way in the world anyone will convince me this season was intended. Murray himself talked about competing for the playoffs this offseason, for the first time since he was hired. As to re-evaluating at this point and trying to maximize the returns of what is a lost season, though it's not out of the question, I don't think that's the reason he's keeping Bylsma on, at least I hope not. Screwing with the development of our best players is not an acceptable consequence of drafting 1-2 slots higher.

Yea, you're really not even close. For the vast majority, it's a labor of love. Have you really never been intellectually stimulated by something, causing you to want to take a deep dive to figuring it all out? That's what this is. It's a hobby fueled by passion and interest. Part of me thinks you want it to be all about money or a hockey revolution so you feel more justified in your abject hatred of the entire enterprise.

I don't think it necessarily has to follow that they aren't on the same page (could just be Murray thinks he has lost the team, or that the execution is flaws even if there is fundamental agreement on the approach), though I think it's certainly possible, maybe even likely. I don't think Bylsma is using the roster he has properly, and Murray may agree. But even if he agrees, his goal could still be to continue to massage the roster until it does fit what Bylsma wants to do, in which case I doubt a firing occurs. Edit: I happen to think there's a disconnect, and Bylsma sold Murray a false bill of goods while interviewing. Bylsma, on many occasions, says the right things...but then just fails miserably to translate those thoughts/words into actuality.

Well, I think there are perfectly legitimate things to criticize Murray for (particularly this offseason), but I think declaring him a failure at this point is jumping the gun. This was only his second offseason where the mission was to get better. I also don't think it's crazy to want to see some of the assembled pieces with a different coach before evicting Murray.

Rumors that Brad Childress may leave KC to be the OC here. If that happens, Tyrod is gone...and should be. Trying to put Tyrod into a west coast system would be the quintessential square peg meets round hole.

They also won their tank year lottery, and had pieces in place before they decided to tank, nor were they totally stripped to the bones to out-tank other teams. Rielly, Kadri, and Nylander were all there before their tank season via naturally sucking as a team, and JVR was also in place. We had...Moulson and Ennis. Oh and Risto, so there's that. But really, they zoomed past us because they got Babcock and Matthews, and we got Bylsma and Eichel. And I don't mean that as a slight on Eichel.

But you're painting a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one of them against 2-3 opposing players--zone entries should be designed so that multiple guys are going to the zone together so there are options and the other team just can't collapse onto the puck carrier.

While certainly many who start now are interested in making a career out of it be it with a team or as a writer (and hell, colleges are even creating sports analytics programs), it was very much just a hobby for the pioneers. Hell, a lot of it didn't even start out on blogs--a bunch of early "writers" were just posters on a hockey forum asking questions and looking for answers, bouncing ideas off one another. Hey, geeky numbers chicks do exist, ya know! Sure, maybe there's three of them, BUT THEY EXIST! :p

After the season we're having? No f'n way.

I'm just not super confident in our ability to upgrade the D through a trade. Call it the Larsson-Hall Principle. I can't fathom being better next season if Gorges, Kulikov (very much a queation himself), and Guhle make up the LHD corps.

Agreed. Unless we can also bamboozle Anaheim into Fowler for Kane...which, yea, not happening. I do like Palat as a target though. Still addresses a need, and would carry a cheaper price.

Well, there wasn't a massive difference last night (it was actually one of our better possession games on the season), but I do think there was a noticeable difference. That wasn't my main objective anyway. I wanted to do two things: 1) Show Swamp that the kind of stuff he wants out of "fancystats" does, in fact, exist. Despite what its critics constantly harp on, the field has moved well beyond simply Corsi. The full article even has the exact statistic he was looking for about zone entry attempts against specific defensemen. 2) Begin (after all, I would never suggest we should draw firm conclusions based on a single game) an empirical refutation of the notion that we simply don't have the talent to carry the puck in more frequently. Carolina has a bunch of nobodies carrying it in more frequently than some of our best players. We can carry it in more than we do, and we can generate more offensive chances than we do...but there's a systemic problem preventing us from doing so. Their mediocre players were doing it too!