TrueBlueGED

If Nylander turns into a 2nd line player at this point, that's a win, right? I've been clinging to the "he'll be a better NHLer than AHLer" for awhile, but that hope tank has moved near empty. This call-up has been nothing but encouraging.

Although I am heartily enjoying Leafs fans overreactions, it's a really tough argument to make that we wouldn't be much better had he signed here. I don't think this is too controversial.

I'm curious what his UFA market is going to be. I definitely have interest.

In part because it happened so early. Also because of how bad we've been outside of it. BTW, the Blues aren't awful. They're sitting at a +14 goal differential. While that's hardly world beater status, they're definitely more than just a lucky win streak.

See, I'm positive there are great coaches and bad coaches at the NHL level. The fit argument you present simply explains performance vacillations among the great swath of mediocre coaches in the NHL.

I think his player usage is a pretty clear knock against him. It's not a cliche. He consistently deploys players suboptimally, and a fair number of relevant examples have been provided. If you're looking for a systems breakdown, then yea, the one guy who could and would do that is still on hiatus unfortunately. It's not unreasonable, but it probably is unrealistic if you're looking for a Flagg-style deep dive. I'd love to see it, but I can't exactly blame anyone for not doing it. That said, I do think most of the "ready to play" and "effort" style cliches are hogwash. On the flip side, I'm still searching for positive reasons to keep him. To me, the evidence suggests he's one of probably 15-20 replacement level coaches in the NHL lost in the great ocean of coaching mediocrity. I want better than that. I want someone who I think can give me an advantage in a playoff series.

So, I'm completely with you on the bold. Occam's razor is simply the team lacks talent in the critical areas. And where the overall numbers are concerned, we're still in the 18-22 range for most stuff. It's not good, for sure, it it's also not apocalyptic. The current losing streak is the yin to the winning streak's yang. Highs and lows are funny in hockey with how they shape perceptions. Buuuuuut the idea that Housley can be only what his roster is, is not exactly a good reason to keep him, ya know? Especially at the micro level where he thinks putting Skinner with Sobotka is the solution to not scoring, or that Risto and Scandella are a good pair. If he can't get those things right, should I really think he'll make better choices when the roster is better? Again, I want a coach who adds value. I'm not expecting anyone to make this roster a division winner, but I think Housley has left points on the board and hasn't done well to develop, say, Pilut. Those things matter. I don't think he's a catastrophic failure, but I also don't want my team to say that mediocre is good enough.

He's gotten a raise two years in a row. Maybe he's happy where he's at personally and professionally?

Why? Do you expect he can't sustain the winning here and so you think his star will fade rapidly?

It's truly amazing what Legette-Jack and Oats have built. Hope they stick around long term. Much better use or the evening than the Sabres game, that's for sure.

UB currently winning by 15 if you want some entertainment tonight ?

#18 in the country UB. MAC championship. ESPN 2. Even if you hate basketball, I promise it will be a better use of your time than watching the Sabres game.

I don't think it has to be an either or. For instance, part of the reason the Preds emphasized D-driven offense is because their forwards were mediocre at best and couldn't transition the puck. I mean, their best offensive center for years was Mike Fisher. Which brings me to my second point: even if given different players, it doesn't mean Housley is good enough to do it without Laviolette. Speaking of Laviolette, he coached quite a bit differently in Philly. He adapted to his talent. I want a coach who can do that. So let me reverse the question on you: is it worth turning over the roster to be more like the Preds only to find out Housley stinks regardless? Housley hasn't shown me anything to make me believe he's worth the trouble.

At one point so were terrible goalies and useless defensemen. So was the red line. In your line of work, bleeding people who were sick used to be all the rage! You're perfectly free to want fighting in hockey to stick around, but "this is how it's always been" is always a bad argument.

There's a difference, of course, in the downside risk of firing a coach who has had considerable success and one that has led consecutive bottom-5 finishes. What, exactly, is the risk in firing Housley? And honestly, I really want someone to make a positive case for Housley, rather than deflecting to the roster or warning of a downside. What has he done to add value to the team? What can anyone point to and say "this is why we need to keep him around."

Accidental tankathon Mark II. Last year, of course, was Mark I. Might as well start naming them like Iron Man armors.

Sir, you just gotta let Callaway be Callaway.

A dozen wins? There isn't a player in the league worth a dozen wins. That's an insane number for a single player. 2-3 wins is huge when we're talking about how much one player means in the standings. Crosby in his prime was only worth about 5 wins. It's why you need to keep the O'Reilly types around: you need to stack them with others to build a top notch team, not because individually they lift the team.

As a general principle, I don't pay any attention to why GMs and coaches say unless it is consistently matched by actions. If trading O'Reilly was truly about the age and timeline not matching up, then I don't see why he wants to keep Skinner.

Find me where anyone has said we would be a playoff team with O'Reilly. Nobody has. What has been said is that his value at 2C, filling the gaping hole we have there, has more value than the catastrophic return we got for him and whatever locker room voodoo you want to believe in.

Housley is cooked.

More games than we're winning without him. But that's besides the point. What you're suggesting is simply flawed logic. Just because we weren't good with him doesn't mean we weren't good because of him, or that this year's team wouldn't be better with him. Most bad teams have a great player or two. The problem isn't the player, it's not having enough players like them. We're not bad because of Eichel, Skinner, and Reinhart. We're bad because of Sobotka, Okposo, et al.

Flip side: he's not going to say anything else. He (nor anyone else) is going to come out and blast players as simply not being good enough. What should we expect? Him to say "Yea, we only have 3 top-6 caliber players and 2 top-4 Dmen, and that's our problem." Seriously? Everything players/coaches/GMs say in-season is going to be all fluff around the edges rather than digging into the heart of the issue. Separately, a funny comment I heard on WGR this morning: "Look on the bright side, Nylander is tied for the team lead in points since his call-up." ?

I'd take it one step farther: he seems like he legitimately hates everything about his job. The callers, the teams (to be fair...who doesn't?), and the sports he has to talk about. He's a baseball and tennis guy in a city with a football and hockey team. And they're almost always bad! That'd wear on anyone in a similar situation. It's understandable, but not excusable. If I ran WGR, I wouldn't renew him.

Those Denver and Seattle duos were absolutely great. At the time, Thomas was a top-5 WR and Sanders probably top-15. Both Baldwin and Tate are Sanders-level. We currently don't have one guy in that class, let alone two. John Brown is our best WR! That's pretty terrible.