janisahockeynut

Benning is doing a great job! (Discussion)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Baggins said:

Not a snowballs chance in hell.

 

TO actually had a prospect pool and young players on the team when Shanny took over. We had nothing. We couldn't possibly be where TO is in the same time frame. It would take absolute extreme lotto luck and several lucky later round choices to be even in the fringe suburbs of where TO currently is.

 

Of TO's 34 picks only 3 are in the NHL. Their 3 top 10 picks. So even had we matched their drafting we'd have 3 picks playing with a bunch of nobody's because we had nobody to start. Can't say that about TO.

 

In terms of drafting I think canucks would be in a better position looking forward than the leafs as we’d have likely hit on far more picks.  Yes you are right we didn’t have Kadri, Gardiner, Reilly, Kessel and JVR like the leafs did in 2014, But we did have Horvat, Tanev, and Hutton, and we did have some young pieces like Kassian, Lack, Makstrom, Sbisa who were all under 25. 

 

Yes maybe we wouldn’t be quite at the spot the leafs are at, but if we add Marner, Matthews and Nylander to our roster last year, we are likely close to being a playoff team.  Those three alone add over 80 goals to our club.  And outside of the first round I think JB has been a better drafter, as he’s done more with less.  If he had the same number of picks as the leafs, I’d think he’d be able to pull an even larger number of quality prospects out of those picks than Shanny and Co.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

In terms of drafting I think canucks would be in a better position looking forward than the leafs as we’d have likely hit on far more picks.  Yes you are right we didn’t have Kadri, Gardiner, Reilly, Kessel and JVR like the leafs did in 2014, But we did have Horvat, Tanev, and Hutton, and we did have some young pieces like Kassian, Lack, Makstrom, Sbisa who were all under 25. 

 

Yes maybe we wouldn’t be quite at the spot the leafs are at, but if we add Marner, Matthews and Nylander to our roster last year, we are likely close to being a playoff team.  Those three alone add over 80 goals to our club.  And outside of the first round I think JB has been a better drafter, as he’s done more with less.  If he had the same number of picks as the leafs, I’d think he’d be able to pull an even larger number of quality prospects out of those picks than Shanny and Co.

Disagree. Leafs have been hitting on a lot of gems past the first round, such as Dermott, Grundstrom, Bracco, Brooks, Woll, Nielsen, Greenway, Dzierkals... and that is just from 2015 and 2016.

 

Benning had a great 2014 draft, and 2015 was looking good for a while, but the stalled development of Zhukenov, Neill, and Olson (the latter two of which simply walked for nothing) makes it look far less impressive.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Disagree. Leafs have been hitting on a lot of gems past the first round, such as Dermott, Grundstrom, Bracco, Brooks, Woll, Nielsen, Greenway, Dzierkals... and that is just from 2015 and 2016.

 

Benning had a great 2014 draft, and 2015 was looking good for a while, but the stalled development of Zhukenov, Neill, and Olson (the latter two of which simply walked for nothing) makes it look far less impressive.

Dermott, Grundstrom, Brooks Bracco, Woll, Nielsen i'll give you are decent prospects,  The Minny got the much better Greenway and Dzierkals is just meh

 

Canucks have been able to land Demko,Tryamkin, Forsling, Gaudette, Lockwood and Brisebois,  And that's with comparing toronto's 23 picks out side of the first round to JB's 15 picks.  Imagine how many more players JB would be able to add with another 8 picks. 

Edited by ForsbergTheGreat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Toews said:

Leafs 2nd and 3rd round picks

2015: Dermott (#35), Bracco (#61), Nielsen (#65), Dzierkals (#68)

2016: Korshkov (#31), Grundstrom (#57), Woll (#62), Greenway (#72)

 

Canucks 2nd and 3rd round picks

2015: Brisebois (#66)

2016: Lockwood (#64)

 

I think the above makes a huge difference. In those two drafts the Canucks had a total of 2 picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and the Leafs had 8. Pretty significant disparity.

True. But Benning is the one making the decision not to have those picks, so it's hard to give him credit for the situation.

 

The only pick in the top half of the draft he has acquired and made (not counting pick for Garrison that was flipped in a deal that didn't turn out well) was McCann (who was also flipped in a deal, that doesn't look promising either). He just got lucky inheriting the compensatory Columbus pick.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Dermott, Grundstrom, Brooks Bracco, Woll, Nielsen i'll give you are decent prospects,  The Minny got the much better Greenway and Dzierkals is just meh

 

Canucks have been able to land Demko,Tryamkin, Forsling, Gaudette, Lockwood and Brisebois,  And that's with comparing toronto's 23 picks out side of the first round to JB's 15 picks.  Imagine how many more players JB would be able to add with another 8 picks. 

Even though we drafted Jake with our 1st in 2014,I thought the rest of the draft was good..especially factoring in Demko and Tryamkin...The Leafs scored with Nylander,but the rest of their draft that year was disappointing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:41 PM, janisahockeynut said:

I understand where you are coming from, but like what Benning did with the void in middle age vets( trades and signings) he will take a look at these prospect as they develop and probably move some out, if they are not developing to plan.....

 

My big scheme is to continue to move vets....we signed some more....we keep them and move out some older vets for picks................we will not be ready to compete near the top for 3 to 4 years if everything turns out

 

so I see Gagner as a replacement for trading Sutter

I also see Del Zotto a replacement for trading Edler

and a possible move of Tanev, if a mid first and a prospect can be had

 

These type of returns would group a ton of our prospects in the same age grouping, and when they start coming alone is when we will be strong throughout the organization......this is why I think Benning is doing such a great job....I can actually see a plan, and it is looking as if it is working

 

I dream of a 2018 top 5 pick.....ORHD, another first, and several seconds...............will that happen who knows? But it is possible!

Ending up with an extra pick in the first round of 2019 would just about do it!

 

I could see where Benning starts looking for size....not huge, but 6'2" 210 # defenceman (2018 1st), and another center in 2019 first round.......and then all the other picks, it would be something!

 

This is not to mention Benning doesn't get another pick in one of these drafts by trading a 2020 1st, if he thinks he is deep enough and we are high enough in the standings to make a bolder move.......

 

My dream all happens within the next 2 years...............

 

But as for the last couple of years.....I am pretty happy with Benning! Admittedly it took some time.....but we are well on our way!

 

Now we just have to get Tryamkin back!

 

These are my reasons for thinking he is doing a great job!

wait...  your using logic...  is that even allowed here?  lmao!  Omg I miss Train already...  was a huge loss (excuse the pun) but hopefully the new signing helps but yep we need a big tough center to help keep the opposition honest and not beating on our young guns. Personally I doubt we'll do any better than top 10 ish on picks or even later if the team, and I don't see why not, does a lot better than last yr and accepts the experience of the team developing together over a higher draft pick that may or may not pan out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 10:26 PM, ilduce39 said:

I totally agree with all of this but I think when we're dealing with such a small sample size over the course of years it's misleading to just add up that 7% over and over.  

 

I know the math tails it off (the probability of flipping heads once in two flips isn't 50+50=100 it's 75%) but I still think it's misleading to say that with 15 2nd round picks you're guaranteed at least one will be an elite player (7*15=105% and you can't have 105% probability.)

 

Its more authentic to see each pick as singular 6.6% rolls of the dice considering  the sample size of picks a single team is going to accumulate. Not to mention the year between each event.

 

Even with 15 picks in a single draft of 30, there are an average of 2 elite players by the numbers - it isn't 100% to pull one of them. I think it can become more likely than not that you'll find at least one after a certain amount of picks - but given the sample size it could easily go any which way.

 

On 8/24/2017 at 4:40 AM, ilduce39 said:

 

Yeah, the equation assumes 2 "elite" picks per 2nd round (by forsberg's massaging the elite tag a bit).

 

The problem is that it gives 100% chance when you hit around half of the picks (15) and then around 200% with all 30.  That's measuring something but not what I'd consider to be honest odds.  

 

I'm still comfortable conceptualizing it as individual 6.6% odds not a cumulative chance to land evenly spaced out "winning picks" especially since he sample is over a decade of drafts.

 

Heres our last 30 second rounders - where's our 200% elite players!?

 

Mallet

Rodin

Sauve

Ellington

Raymond

Bernier

Koltsov

Grot

Chubarov

Bonni

Druken

McAllister

Gordon

Scatchard

Girard

Peca

Fountain

Cullimore

Slegr 

Woodward

Rohlin 

Murphy

Gamble 

Rohlicek

Bruce

Ashton

Fraser

Bandura

Manno

Gassoff

 

Depends how you like your thugs but Raymond could very well be top 3 in that list... and people want to whine about Vey not panning out or Baertschi being too "average." 

You are describing luck/skill/foresight etc. Math cannot foretell the outcome of an event it can only provide the likelihood of each outcome that occurs. You could flip a coin 100 times and not end up with a single "heads", its an unlikely outcome but it is still within the realm of possibility. Math can also not factor in "skill" when drafting, you can only plug in the numbers and receive outcomes as percentages. If you are comfortable stating that one pick has a 6.6% percent chance of landing an elite player then you can also extrapolate that without bias to multiple picks. Statistics don't change just because you have one pick or thirty picks. The odds are the same and hence math can predict what you should expect but it cannot foretell the exact outcome because other factors come into play like luck, skill at drafting, development etc.

 

 

Knowing this lets consider your example of 30 second round picks each with a 6.6% chance of success.

 

The odds that all picks end in failure is 12.89%, this is if you remove all intangibles when it comes to drafting and go purely by the numbers. This means that if you had 30 second round picks there is an 87% chance that you should have received at least one elite player. But this did not happen, that does not mean that the math is wrong or that statistics are useless, it just means that due to whatever intangibles you did not receive an expected outcome. The probability will never exceed 100% because there will always be a chance that all your picks could fail. For example if you go to 100 second picks, there is a still a 0.1% chance that all those picks fail to become elite players.

 

To those who have chosen to refer to this as "creative math"... Its not, I have provided a purely objective analysis based on the numbers provided by posters on this forum. If you have an issue, take it up with them on which figure makes sense whether it be "6.6%" or "7%" or "1/15". Either way it does not make a difference to math which will just take whatever figure you give it and spit out the probability for every occurrence possible. Don't dismiss the math just because it cannot predict reality. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Toews said:

 

You are describing luck/skill/foresight etc. Math cannot foretell the outcome of an event it can only provide the likelihood of each outcome that occurs. You could flip a coin 100 times and not end up with a single "heads", its an unlikely outcome but it is still within the realm of possibility. Math can also not factor in "skill" when drafting, you can only plug in the numbers and receive outcomes as percentages. If you are comfortable stating that one pick has a 6.6% percent chance of landing an elite player then you can also extrapolate that without bias to multiple picks. Statistics don't change just because you have one pick or thirty picks. The odds are the same and hence math can predict what you should expect but it cannot foretell the exact outcome because other factors come into play like luck, skill at drafting, development etc.

 

 

Knowing this lets consider your example of 30 second round picks each with a 6.6% chance of success.

 

The odds that all picks end in failure is 12.89%, this is if you remove all intangibles when it comes to drafting and go purely by the numbers. This means that if you had 30 second round picks there is an 87% chance that you should have received at least one elite player. But this did not happen, that does not mean that the math is wrong or that statistics are useless, it just means that due to whatever intangibles you did not receive an expected outcome. The probability will never exceed 100% because there will always be a chance that all your picks could fail. For example if you go to 100 second picks, there is a still a 0.1% chance that all those picks fail to become elite players.

 

To those who have chosen to refer to this as "creative math"... Its not, I have provided a purely objective analysis based on the numbers provided by posters on this forum. If you have an issue, take it up with them on which figure makes sense whether it be "6.6%" or "7%" or "1/15". Either way it does not make a difference to math which will just take whatever figure you give it and spit out the probability for every occurrence possible. Don't dismiss the math just because it cannot predict reality. 

Again, I completely agree.  Actually, 13% chance to miss your way through 30 picks is higher than what I'd have guessed.

 

My comments were against the gambler's fallacy, which I think people assume, as well as just multiplying 7% by the number of picks you have, which ends up at 210% by the time you hit 30 picks.  As you said, that's not how it works.

 

I'm not trying to crap on second round picks, but trying to dispel the myth (in my mind) that an extra 2 or 3 since 2014 would have significantly sped up the rebuild.  As we've seen - it's far more likely that we'd have little or nothing to show for it, especially compared to a solid if unremarkable player in Baertschi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

 

 

I'm not trying to crap on second round picks, but trying to dispel the myth (in my mind) that an extra 2 or 3 since 2014 would have significantly sped up the rebuild.  As we've seen - it's far more likely that we'd have little or nothing to show for it, especially compared to a solid if unremarkable player in Baertschi.

If a second round pick has a 7% chance of being an elite performer and a 44% chance of playing in the nhl as a solid but unremarkable player. I roll that dice. Especially with Benning at the helm since our competitive edge was in drafting and should have been capitalized on. And especially during the deeper 2015/16 draft classes

Edited by DSVII
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DSVII said:

If a second round pick has a 7% chance of being an elite performer and a 44% chance of playing in the nhl as a solid but unremarkable player. I roll that dice. Especially with Benning at the helm since our competitive edge was in drafting and should have been capitalized on. And especially during the deeper 2015/16 draft classes

I understand it but disagree.  

 

Our 2nd went towards Gudbranson who I think fills a pretty huge void on our team, even a rebuilding one still needs young toughness and leadership. I see Guddy as a number 4 at worst so he's already surpassing 90% of 2nd rounders ( going by Cullen's 10% ) - though he did cost more than a simple 2nd. 

 

Again, I don't mind trading some rolls for sure things and Guddy is a sure thing tough as nails NHL'er - an area we're deficient in even with him on the roster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-26 at 4:03 PM, DSVII said:

If a second round pick has a 7% chance of being an elite performer and a 44% chance of playing in the nhl as a solid but unremarkable player. I roll that dice. Especially with Benning at the helm since our competitive edge was in drafting and should have been capitalized on. And especially during the deeper 2015/16 draft classes

That 44% is just the chance the picks manage to play 50 nhl games. It's drops to 30% to play 100 NHL games and 25% to play 200 NHL games.

 

I also think they're being rather loose with the term "elite". That 7% translates to 21 elite players every decade just from the 2nd round. Elite players do tend to play well into their 30's. I would guess there's considerably more elite players coming out of the first round than the 2nd. Then of course there's a few that come out of later rounds as well. Just how many elite players are in the league?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-21 at 7:57 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Keith, Bergeron, Weber, Backes, Eriksson, Crawford, Krejci, Dubinksy, Vlasic, Stastny, Neal, Lucic, Subban, Simmonds, Stepan, Hamonic, Josi, Allen, O’Reilly, Faulk, Saad, Kucherov, Gibson

 

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

That 44% is just the chance the picks manage to play 50 nhl games. It's drops to 30% to play 100 NHL games and 25% to play 200 NHL games.

 

I also think they're being rather loose with the term "elite". That 7% translates to 21 elite players every decade just from the 2nd round. Elite players do tend to play well into their 30's. I would guess there's considerably more elite players coming out of the first round than the 2nd. Then of course there's a few that come out of later rounds as well. Just how many elite players are in the league?

The above is where the 7% comes from.  Over a 10 year span.  I apologize for not pressing forsberg on the issue - the guy would fit in commanding troops in WW1 - he's pure attrition and you have to pick your battles with him.  Still, I'll give him this: for whatever reason he was arguing "core players" with the list not explicitly elite.

 

For true elite I'd axe Dubinsky, Stastny, Backes, Eriksson, Neal, Stepan, Hamonic, Allen, O'Reilly,  Saad, Simmonds, Allen and Gibson at least.  Nice additions but they aren't tipping the championship scales (feel free to make your own judgement.)

 

By my count it's (roughly) 11/300 or 3.6% elite over 10 years. 

 

Now, the others named are certainly very strong players - but I wouldn't add them as cornerstones to championship clubs.  They fill into the upper echelons of the 10% of 2nd rounders who end up as top 6'ers or top 4 d-men though.

Edited by ilduce39
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-26 at 4:03 PM, DSVII said:

If a second round pick has a 7% chance of being an elite performer and a 44% chance of playing in the nhl as a solid but unremarkable player. I roll that dice. Especially with Benning at the helm since our competitive edge was in drafting and should have been capitalized on. And especially during the deeper 2015/16 draft classes

I'll add a little more on this.

 

Since the Sedins were drafted in 1999 to 2012 we've had 8 2nd round picks. Mason Raymond is the only one to play more than 50 NHL games (546). There's 5 that never played an NHL game.

 

To give you an idea of how much talent is required to hit 50 NHL games:

Frank Corrado has 71

Alex Biega has 94

Kevin Connauton has 187

 

None of these guys have managed to secure a regular position with a team. My point is, a 44% chance of playing 50 NHL games is a low bar to set as it doesn't take great talent to hit 50 games.

 

Chicago is great at drafting right? From 2002 to 2004 they drafted Keith, Crawford, Bolland, and Bickell in the 2nd round. Plus Barinka who never made 50 games and Garlock who never played an NHL game. But then the next 4 year, from 2005 to 2008 six 2nd round picks. They selected Blunden, Bertram, Makarov, Danis-Pepin, Sweatt, and Aliu. They have a combined 136 NHL games and 126 of those were played by Blunden, who at 30 now is still plugging away as a fringe player that's in the AHL far more often than the NHL. So they had 4 hits (one I'd call elite and one I'd call a star) and 8 busts in the 2nd round from 2002 to 2008. It is actually pretty good drafting (33%) as they've beat the 25% playing 200 NHL games odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Baggins said:

I'll add a little more on this.

 

Since the Sedins were drafted in 1999 to 2012 we've had 8 2nd round picks. Mason Raymond is the only one to play more than 50 NHL games (546). There's 5 that never played an NHL game.

 

To give you an idea of how much talent is required to hit 50 NHL games:

Frank Corrado has 71

Alex Biega has 94

Kevin Connauton has 187

 

None of these guys have managed to secure a regular position with a team. My point is, a 44% chance of playing 50 NHL games is a low bar to set as it doesn't take great talent to hit 50 games.

 

Chicago is great at drafting right? From 2002 to 2004 they drafted Keith, Crawford, Bolland, and Bickell in the 2nd round. Plus Barinka who never made 50 games and Garlock who never played an NHL game. But then the next 4 year, from 2005 to 2008 six 2nd round picks. They selected Blunden, Bertram, Makarov, Danis-Pepin, Sweatt, and Aliu. They have a combined 136 NHL games and 126 of those were played by Blunden, who at 30 now is still plugging away as a fringe player that's in the AHL far more often than the NHL. So they had 4 hits (one I'd call elite and one I'd call a star) and 8 busts in the 2nd round from 2002 to 2008. It is actually pretty good drafting (33%) as they've beat the 25% playing 200 NHL games odds.

Keith alone made it all worth it. Nailing 2 top picks in Toews and Kane was huge, but still without Keith they probably don't win those cups. Maybe they win 1, but definitely not the 2nd and 3rd one, after their depth was gutted.

 

Yeah, the odds are not great that any given pick is going to be worth much. It is, for all intents and purposes, a lottery. But the odds of finding a Keith-level elite talent from other teams' cast-offs is pretty much zero. So, IMO, rather than trading picks for player who are more likely to pan out...but as depth guys (who are easy to replace by FA), we have to get more lottery tickets.

 

To have an elite team, like our 2011 team, you need to find elite talent any way you can. That team was the result of a number of top-level lottery picks (Sedins), later 1st rounders (Kesler, Schneider), 2nd/3rd rounders (Edler, Raymond), late picks (Bieksa, Hansen), established FA signings (Hamhuis Samuelsson, Malhotra, Torres, Rome), trade acquisitions (Luongo, Ehrhoff, Salo, Higgins, Lapierre), and undrafted FA signings (Burrows, Tanev) all hitting their peak at the same time.

 

However, as dominant as they were for a couple seasons, they just didn't have the depth in the end (in 2011 playoffs Hodgson, Glass, Oreskovich, Ballard, Alberts, Malhotra, Tambellini, Tanev, and Bolduc combined for 90 games played, 1 point, and a -31). Once key players started regressing or leaving to free agency, the bottom fell out quickly (we have won a total of 3 playoff games since). Had they acquired more in the draft prior to that season, they would have likely had enough to win one more game in 2011, and perhaps have success in multiple playoff years. Losing Bourdon definitely hurt as well.

 

Edited by D-Money
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we are talking about draft picks making a team, okay.

 

Who would have been dismissed from the team during the Canucks time at the top? Any of the core guys?

 

Remember AV didn't know how to use Grabner as AV was a 1rst and 2nd line scorers and 3rd/4th line checkers/energy guys type of coach. Remember also the Kassian was traded for to get a bigger more robust player, skill traded for size and at that time AV had total control of the on ice product. One other thing to note of his control is during the TDL in Arizona Gillis was not in attendance, AV was and throwing a football around the room, this was a last minute trade and Gillis flew in the next flight down there after the trade. Once registered in the league office it is a done deal, no going back. After that just a bunch of stuff leaked to an Arizona beat reporter that hardly did hockey. Might as well throw in here that AV and Hodgson were at logger heads from day one his first camp where AV described him as playing like he was entitled and accused him of using his back injury as an excuse for taking time off. But then AV did the same thing to Mitchel and his concussion.

 

Bah, it is water under the bridge now, but Keith and those guys were replacing the same sort of player some this fan base now champion as "the next one's"

 

Linden, while sounding very confident that Horvat would sign still seemed to put Horvat in a position of being immature if he holds out by comparing himself to not being mature enough when he sat out. 

Edited by TheGuardian_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, D-Money said:

Keith alone made it all worth it. Nailing 2 top picks in Toews and Kane was huge, but still without Keith they probably don't win those cups. Maybe they win 1, but definitely not the 2nd and 3rd one, after their depth was gutted.

 

Yeah, the odds are not great that any given pick is going to be worth much. It is, for all intents and purposes, a lottery. But the odds of finding a Keith-level elite talent from other teams' cast-offs is pretty much zero. So, IMO, rather than trading picks for player who are more likely to pan out...but as depth guys (who are easy to replace by FA), we have to get more lottery tickets.

 

To have an elite team, like our 2011 team, you need to find elite talent any way you can. That team was the result of a number of top-level lottery picks (Sedins), later 1st rounders (Kesler, Schneider), 2nd/3rd rounders (Edler, Raymond), late picks (Bieksa, Hansen), established FA signings (Hamhuis Samuelsson, Malhotra, Torres, Rome), trade acquisitions (Luongo, Ehrhoff, Salo, Higgins, Lapierre), and undrafted FA signings (Burrows, Tanev) all hitting their peak at the same time.

 

However, as dominant as they were for a couple seasons, they just didn't have the depth in the end (Hodgson, Glass, Oreskovich, Ballard, Alberts, Malhotra, Tambellini, Tanev, and Bolduc combined for 90 games played, 1 point, and a -31). Once key players started regressing or leaving to free agency, the bottom fell out quickly (we have won a total of 3 playoff games since). Had they acquired more in the draft prior to that season, they would have likely had enough to win one more game in 2011, and perhaps have success in multiple playoff years. Losing Bourdon definitely hurt as well.

Seems to me we got Bertuzzi as a castoff. You never know where the stars will fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Well I guess we are talking about draft picks making a team, okay.

 

Who would have been dismissed from the team during the Canucks time at the top? Any of the core guys?

 

Remember AV didn't know how to use Grabner as AV was a 1rst and 2nd line scorers and 3rd/4th line checkers/energy guys type of coach...

You lost me there. AV sure seemed to know how to use Grabner last season, one in which the Rangers consistently ran 4 scoring lines for much of the year. And he seemed to know how to use Grabner during his rookie season, before he was shipped out for defensive depth.

 

AV was a fantastic coach, who structured his team according to the assets he had. The result in 2011 was one of the most dominant regular season teams in our modern era, and a team that would have likely won the cup had they not been decimated with injuries. But when players started leaving/regressing, he just didn't have enough organizational depth to win in the playoffs. Look at how poorly the team has done since he left.

 

Edited by D-Money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.