Thorny

It’s simply a statement of fact - yet devoid of context - akin to the sort of excuse making diatribe one might hear at your average Kevyn Adams concert everyone gets it. It doesn’t matter, relative to: the bar being merely their ability to field a playoff team *once* in 5 years. The discussion isn’t about becoming a mainstay Stanley cup contender. You know who can whine? The Jets and their fans. They are frequently (and most recently) ranked WELL below Buffalo *even now(!!!)* on player destination lists, bust their ***** because that’s the job..sorry, let me rephrase that: simply operate with basic competence because that’s the job, and due to the fact *mediocre* teams make the playoffs every year they’ve found a way to make the playoffs…8 times. THEY are hard done by from the system cause they’d be doing even better if not for the handcuffs we squander what we have. Theres no compelling case we are being screwed out of anything we wouldn’t screw up ourselves no, it is not an inhibiting factor - not a reasonable one to the small ask we have of a singular playoff appearance Beyond this, Adams has proven he CAN acquire higher level players: McLeod is a higher level player, relative to the simple goal we are trying to achieve. As is Zucker. what did McLeod cost? Only some humbleness. Cutting away a little bit of your slow play plan, admitting defeat and choosing to be better. Namely: a prospective player. it hasn’t been ability that has held Adams back, primarily, neither inside the individual nor without: it has been the will to act. The will to deviate - because his plan lacked the will, to begin with

NOTICE the above in bold has been found to be an infringement on citizen Thorny’s trademarked sarcasm gimmick CEASE AND DESIST to avoid further action

This might as well be an ai response literally what the chat GP spits out for Adams’s press conferences Let’s do better here

In space, no one can hear you spend

The benson Zucker switch is balance and I do expect it for fit too, Kulich OR Norris at 1C as we need a playmaker on that line, with Tage on other side If I wanted to win a game right now 5 V 5 I’d probably line up Zucker - McLeod - Thompson Byram - Dahlin - - - you could extrapolate the full top 12 from there actually (I just think they may lean Benson - Norris on top line beside Tage to maximize offensive upside) Zucker - McLeod - Thompson Benson - Norris - Tuch Doan - Kulich - Quinn Greenway - Krebs - Danforth would probably be my “win at 6 pm tonight” lineup. Maybe switch greenway w/doan if I’m falling victim to shiny new toy - - - As for the question…I think we are close to done ya. Maybe a depth add somewhere but I doubt something at least consequential like a Roslovic or something

I could see that being the lines tbh merely switching benson and Zucker. And honestly I don’t know where the centres like up if I was lining up to win a hockey game, right now, McLeod is the one C. I think when Norris is slotted there it’s at least partially the “idea” of Norris and I think when Kulich is there it’s basically an attempt to visually minimize the lines that look wonky (properly slot McLeod and Norris) and basically hope he’s masked by Tage’s shadow

FTFY sorry I just Wasn’t he lined up at 1C at time last year? I really tuned out towards the end

Fair enough

No I just didn’t find your logic very internally congruent towards the end there relative to the other post of yours I gave the thumbs up to i realize they are different situations contextually but I much preferred the “help where you can get it” take Rather than the one that leaned towards “probably wouldn’t help much”

Definitely. The biggest thing for them that worked in their favour and made the suggestion of the “plan” possible was that “long form rebuild, sacrifice now to build your future!” fit in so snuggly with not spending to the cap. The spending is the dictator of strategy. The relaying of the strategy is simply messaging

At least with critics there’s still mind paid to actual film criticism IMDb and anything user related is essentially a poisoned well when it comes to any film or show (see: anything Star Wars) thst even verges on whatever people are defining today as “woke”. or even just the “lore” good god. Toe out of line and a segment of SW fans torpedo the score on mass lmao But if you shoe horn in a deep fake Luke Skywalker kicking ass: masterpiece

Maybe even “middle(!) 6” if we are lucky oooo middle 6

This new fellow however you spell his name would fall under a “no stone unturned” mindset and it’s the correct tact to take. you know, enemy of perfect/good? can’t let “not a guarantee of improvement and probably not a ton if any” be the enemy of “a chance for improvement” This team isn’t in a position historically to turn its nose up at a single grain of rice

Obviously I agree with your logic and strategy but I’m putting in my “you always leave out assists for some reason” disclaimer for posterity

I was just asking if he could play C - the lineup would, if he could if you actually read my tweet you’d see it was more so a thought experiment - I find my perception almost changes when I can identify a solid 1C It was absolutely not rhetorical

“This must be some sort of rule circumvention?” - Kevyn Adams

Has Benson ever played centre?

That seems logical to me edit: actually, does it? this bears thinking about. Probably need to let this tumble dry for a bit

As a matter of practicality I don’t see how the model *can* account for it - my point is a function of team building not raw value comp. Let’s see if I can actually convey this- Even if the model has accurately figured out the ratio and a hypothetical +1 is exactly 1/7th the on ice value of a +7, a team won’t get as much value from the 7 pieces as the 1 due to dominance of role if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23?

Well if we score 254 (269 last year) and save 10 more extra, we’ll go from a -20 to a -25. If we score 254 and the D save us 20, we’ll get to -15

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six