PerreaultForever

Cause people use that chess analogy for football based on the simple idea that offensive and defensive coaches try to out do each other in a strategy but that's not chess. Chess is much more complicated than football.

I'm retired. I was an engineer. Why? (did you miss the smiley face? twas a joke dude).

I guess we learned that they didn't quit on Krueger, they just suck. Exactly the same. Is it just me or did Granato look like he'd rather be somewhere else? Lowest energy coach I've ever seen. Another team walks to a win against us with a mediocre effort required.

They could be bad people too. We don't really know them. Environmentalists would certainly question their character 🙂

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think Granato has to try something different. We have 2 over paid underachieving left wingers and if you're evaluating, you have to throw both of them into top minute rolls at this point and see what they do.

By the way, football is not chess. It's checkers.

Worst thing that can happen here is Granato makes this team respectable. If that happens, even by a glimmer, the narrative will be it's all on the coaching and next season we'll see all the same people and in the long run similar results. We were bad under Bylsma, we were bad under Housley, we were bad under Krueger. Unless you want to say "low event hockey" is our identity we have not had an identity since Ruff was here and even then we were iffy and soft (in the end). We have one moment here to completely rebuild around a new identity. If we just stall and take too long and just tweak and tinker hoping a new coach will fix everything we will lose that moment and suck for another decade as we lose core players one by one like ROR.

Sorry, I think this is completely wrong. You don't fix a young D man by letting him run free. Having him run free too much and too early is what broke him. When he was asked to play D he simply had no way to do that. Doesn't help playing him with Montour, another run wild and free lousy defender. imo new coach has to have a chat with every single player but not sure an interim has that role.

I think is very likely true. The trick is how does someone get Terry to realize this.

I don't think it matters. I know some people want to test out and see the youngsters, but I'm of the opposite mindset. I'd prefer they play in Rochester and keep them away from this disaster until we get a new coach and set a new identity. I don't want to break Bryson like we already broke Dahlin and Jokiharju as well. Don't let UPL anywhere near this. Since I believe we should trade off all UFAs and most RFAs the roster can be a bunch of cap cast offs we have to take in return (but not on long contracts, just guys on the books for the remainder of this season).

I like Cozens. I think I like Borgen and Bryson but too soon to be sure especially on Borgen. Horrible luck with that injury. I like Lazar cause he tries hard. I'm indifferent to a lot of them. Dislike several but that's not this thread.

1. We need a coach working with him and the young D directly and one on one. 2. His minutes need to be cut way back and he needs to be taken out of difficult situations as much as possible. 3. and this is the biggie. He needs to be paired with a steady veteran D man and that pairing has to stay paired until such time as he grows into what he should or could be. It all has to be pulled back drastically. He's broken and it's a slow and step by step fix. If you can't get that veteran D man to play with him we'd be better off to trade him and let someone else put in the 2-3 years this will take to get him where we want him to be.

We can't score. Boston doesn't score much. This one comes down to goaltending.............oh, damn.

They aren't a good leadership core though so I'd say yes, trade them both. Similar to the above, there's no real point to keeping Reinhart if you trade Jack. It's possible they will excel elsewhere, but I don't think that's guaranteed. If they were THAT good, we'd not be where we are.

My problem with believing in it is I see no evidence of any attempt to slowly move in that direction. He's been around. Evaluation shouldn't take that long and a lot of these guys have shown what they can and can't (or won't) do for years. Leaving everything to the deadline seems risky and I'm skeptical. He really needs to make a deal that sets the tone and direction. A big one.

Want Gallant. Bet it ends up being some Swedish guy nobody's ever heard of.

Well it definitely reads like a mission statement, but most mission statements are bs. If they want to actually follow it they need to rebuild around a captain and core that embodies that and this core isn't that.

There are some gritty names on there I like, Especially Nick Foligno, but I really don't see the Islanders making that deal, Reinhart is over valued, and nobody's going to want Thompson. Overall however I agree with the direction and the tone/character that line up might bring.

It's the latter. They're like Lazar was when he got here. Fringe players giving effort to keep jobs. It's that simple effort that makes them stand out. Really they shouldn't but the rest are just that bad and lacking.

You sully the good name of Punch Imlach sir. I mean come on, Rene Robert for Eddie Shack.............he wins best GM ever just for that alone.

This is definitely true. We've played like individuals over team for years now. Different coaches too. This is why I think we need a full rebuild. I'm not sure a number of these talented players are willing or capable of being team players. So that's a mission statement? I see no evidence of it being followed or adhered to.

I'm not quite as old as you, but as a kid I did become a fan watching the French Connection upset Montreal so I remember those days. What I've wanted for a long time now is a clear identity for this team. We've lacked that for quite a while simply building (floundering?) on some vague notion of Eichel will save us and not much else. Some teams build on one model and lack in another area (eg. Tampa had to beef up to match the speed and skill they built on, Boston plays hard D but lacks offense etc.) We're not fast, we don't play wide open, we don't play choking D, we're not tough, we're a mix of non entities and confusion. Our identity is simply losing and under achieving. I want a GM/owner to commit to one identity and build on that like we've done in the distant past. So what I'd be happier hearing is Adams saying ..............this (whatever it is) is who I want us to be and this is how we will get there piece by piece. Then we as fans can judge properly who fits into that and what we're lacking and so forth. Right now we are a rudderless sinking ship.

I'm just not sure what the thinking is on this so I'm not sure it matters. Depends on what the role/duties of this person are and how much influence they will have over the on ice product.

It's D pairs that are more important imo. You can see how Risto and McCabe had some communication and success together but that's about it for stable pairings. Dahlin paired well with Bogo for a brief while but overall it's a mess. Rookies should be paired with veterans while they learn, and more offensive minded D men should pair with responsible stay at home guys. Smaller guys with bigger stronger ones. Pairings like Jokiharju and Montour just boggle my mind.

I definitely didn't expect anything today and that is because since Adams has taken over I've not seen any indication of what the desired direction or result is and it continues. He is just "evaluating" but evaluating what? to what end? what is the plan ? what is his vision of what or who we should be? At least JBot and Housley had a vision. It failed, but it was an idea. I've just about had it with this franchise, and I'd like to hear what they want it to become so I ca decide if it's worth sticking around for it or not.