SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

NobodyCares

Member Since
Mar. 6, 2017
Forum Posts
978
Posts per Day
0.4
Forum: Boston BruinsApr. 18, 2017 at 2:26 p.m.
Thread: #3 Boston Bruins v. #2 Ottawa Senators: Playoff Series Thread
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NobodyCares</b></div><div>

If we lose this series I will try to bring you to the dark side of the force. (Fire Bruce Cassidy) Actually not fire, but just demote him back to assistant coach. Even while missing 4 defenseman, we are the more talented team.</div></div>

Not sure how you can say the Bruins are more talented than Ottawa when the Bruins are icing JML, Morrow, Cross and a 19 year old kid for their 6 defenseman. Ottawa has the best player in the series in karlsson. Bruins best players aren't showing up. That's not on Cassidy. You're not going to be happy when Cassidy returns as coach....A position he has more than earned. You will not "bring me to the Dark Side," on him b/c I think you're out to lunch on Cassidy.</div></div>

Cassidy has not been a good coach and your argument is inadequate. Saying a team is better because they have the singular best player in the series is reserved to Basketball buddy. Theres 20 guys on each side and you're right our guys aren't showing up. The simple fact is that it isn't one guy not showing up, it's our whole team for whole periods.... that's on coaching pal, not sure how you can't comprehend the logic there, but it's clearly throwing you a curveball. Hopefully you ascend to the point where you can see the picture clearly, but as of right now you're up too close to the painting to see what's really going on. It's just a blur to you, but I've seen clearly how multiple guys aren't playing well for long stretches. This guy clearly doesn't have the room and I don't even think he demands the respect of the players. I personally can't comprehend Bruce's angle. Is he supposed to be a nurturing coach for the young guys? Is he supposed to light a fire under the squad? Is he the smartest guy in the room? Am I supposed to be scared of him if I was a player on his team? He doesn't really fit any of that criteria and I am completely and utterly unimpressed by him and his performance through three games. Maybe it's just a case where he got so much out of our guys down the stretch that they've got nothing in the tank left, but then how are they turning it on in other periods and playing great? I strongly feel it's the message he's sending and it's not always the right message.
Forum: Boston BruinsApr. 18, 2017 at 2:18 p.m.
Thread: Bruins Defenseman
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NobodyCares</b></div><div>

I like Fowler too, but I picked Lindholm out of the guys available. I think I'd rather have Lindholm because he's younger and Fowler could be a 1 and done guy who flees as a UFA. The guy we don't need is Kevin Klein.</div></div>

Lindholm was also just re-signed in ANA for a great contract and is the reason the team will probably move on from Fowler. Cam is a guy I want them to pursue either this off-season in trade (and an extension) or when he hits the open market in 2018....The same year Chara is up, and seemingly done. That'll be Carlo's 2nd season and McAvoy's first (both have looked good this season). Sign Fowler, and your top 4 is:

Fowler -- McAvoy
Krug -- Carlo

Which would be a dream setup.</div></div>

Don't sleep on Chara resigning. We do have Tom Brady playing into his 40s as well. Right now I'd say it's clear cut that Chara is our #1. If he's still in the same position next year I'd rather just keep resigning Chara to 1 year deals until he hangs them up, then just to have a shot at Cam Fowler in UFA. Gotta think he'll cost over 6M as a UFA and I gotta think Anaheim would ask for the Moon in a trade. He's basically had a breakout year playing great. They'd want Marchand or Pastrnak in a 1 for 1 or a handful of prospects that equate to his value. If I was Anaheims GM and Sweeny called and offered me something like Zboril a 2nd and Heinen for Fowler, I'd probably laugh hysterically for 2 minutes, then ask hello? then say I can't believe you're still there! and laugh for another 2 minutes until my message sunk in. Also, you've got your years off. in 2018, when Fowler would be available as a UFA it would be Carlo's 3rd season and McAvoy's 2nd, assuming they both play this coming year of 2017-2018. Fowler is a ufa after the season commences, which would make both of them have another year under their belt. If you want to get even more technical, to a level of pure genius, you could say it's McAvoy's 3rd season as well. Because McAvoy will be in the 3rd year of his ELC, due to burning a year in the playoffs this year. After they both play next year they'd both be in their last year of ELC when we signed Fowler, which could make things dicey. Are we going to be able to swing Trouba style bridge deals with them or do we have to show them the money? It'd be kinda foolish to spend around 25M on 4 defenseman. If you sign Fowler for over 6M, you better be positive you can strong arm Carlo and McAvoy into taking bridge deals. McAvoy should earn like 5M+ and Carlo 4M+ at the rate they are playing if they don't go up or down much. Then the McQuaid and Kevan Miller deals really become cancerous. 5.25 Krug 6.5 Fowler 5 McAvoy 4 Carlo 2.75 McQuaid 2.5 Miller thats 26 million on 6 defenders..... somethings gotta give in that scenario. Add in the overpaying contracts we have to Bergy, Krejci, Backes, Rask and thats like 53M. Pasta 6 Marshy 6 ..... 65M Are we gonna spend &lt;1M per contract for everyone else? thats 7 more forwards and a backup goalie needed with whatevers left just to get to 20 roster spots. Not sure this is gonna get it done.

I love Fowler and would clearly take him for even the cap hit of 7M if there wasn't so many moving parts. It's not a bad idea for us to go after him in the GM game either, but that's based on the fact that I already moved Kevan Miller before you joined, so we gained cap flexibility. I also got something in return for Joe Morrow who I had assessed as not having a future with us because he's thrown up to level 9 before freakin JML. I haven't drank the last couple of nights and I feel like My half week bender is finally wearing off. Time to do some more scouting and see what else we can fit on our roster to give us a greater chance at a cup next season.
Forum: Boston BruinsApr. 18, 2017 at 11:16 a.m.
Thread: Bruce Cassidy Discussion
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div>I was going to go through your post and break it down, but I have no desire to do it after reading it. A lot of rambling and a lot of stuff that is just all over the place. I'll hit on the main points. You make it sound like the Bruins getting dominated like that is a re-occurring thing. It's not, so why do you keep hammering the point like it is? He, like any coach, can only do so much for the team. You make a lot of assumptions that he's not doing his job behind the bench. You complain he somehow didn't work his magic behind the bench on the team for the 2nd, but give him very little credit for the job he did for every other part of the game. You do realize that he was without his #2 center to start. That, on top of, already missing TWO top 4 defenseman. He lost a defenseman mid-game.... The job he did last night was great. That's not easy things to overcome. I'm getting pretty annoyed reading over your post, to be honest.

You're hammering the guy for the Bruins play in the 2nd period, but belittle him for their 3rd period play. "The simple fact is that I'm not sure if he got the team in the right mindset in the 3rd period or if it was just that he was such a fool that he didn't know he got literally spanked in the second period...." Like what in the actual ****? So no credit where it's due? So you speak from a sure-thing that he's not doing his job behind the bench and that's why they played the way they did for the whole 2nd period, but 3rd period roles around, and you're questioning if he even did anything/said anything that led to them winning the period, and the game. That's bullshit, man...

His playing career has absolutely zero to do with his coaching. Why bring it up? That's a crap point. I can find you tons of coaches who were poor-to-average players and turned into good coaches. Claude Julien as prime example #1. You want more? I can provide them. You referenced Mike Sullivan above? He went 7 years before he became a head coach again, and that turned out fine.

Yeah... You have me completely befuddled on your Cassidy opinion. I can't agree with it at all.... I don't really respect it either. Lots of crap to whisked in with your points. Over-the-top, dramatic things said..... If you want to make a point, fine. But I think you're out to lunch on this one.</div></div>

I think we have the better team. I think if we got to pick out who we played in round one of the playoffs, we would have selected Ottawa. I think if we lose to Ottawa it's basically poor coaching. We were better than them in basically every major category this year including Goals for, Goals Against, PP%, PK%, Corsi..... and you can keep going on and on because their team is fraudulent and was luckier than us to make the playoffs. They finished with a higher GAA 2.6 than Goals for Average 2.5. I don't know how you think we can lose to Ottawa and Bruce still did a good job coaching. I think if he's equal to Guy, we win easily. The only way Ottawa wins this is if we're out coached and out played. We can't afford these crappy periods BreKel and you said it's not a trend, but 2nd period game #1 and 1st period of game #3 were trash. We're mailing it in for full periods at a time, you can't even do that in beer league hockey if you want a victory. Maybe you're not seeing the game close enough, but it's easy to spot stuff like that for me. Really what we need is just better coaching, we're going to get screwed by the Refs every year. It always happens. We're going to get bad luck, it always happens. We need to outplay and out effort the opposition to win, but we're not even competing for a full 60.

We'll talk about this at the end of the series, but I think Cassidy's done an inadequate job so far. If he doesn't dig himself out of the hole he's created, he may not be best suited as a head coach.
Forum: Boston BruinsApr. 18, 2017 at 10:24 a.m.
Thread: Who should the Bruins trade this offseason?
I voted for Miller because I'm assuming its Kevan, even if it's Collin I still think he'd be the most likely out of the players listed. I could see McQuaid as well, but think he had the more prominent role this season out of him and the 2 Millers. To me that means he's higher on the totem pole and closer to untouchable then the Miller's. I wouldn't mind if Keavan Miller, Adam McQuaid and Collin Miller all got traded, assuming we got something useful back. I could see Carlo / McAvoy being our top 4 RHD's next season. That just leaves the 3rd pair spot open, which I think O'Gara or Grzelyck could handle as lefties on the right side. If not we could just sign a cheap older UFA. If we get no offers or value for McQuaid and the Miller's I'd just keep the depth, but if someone gives us something good, I'd take it and fill in my #6 with someone else. Maybe Liles could come back for 1 more year, he's been fine on both sides. We also have prospects like Lauzon and Zboril who could potentially make the NHL jump.

I'd like to keep everyone, but if we have to make a move one of the Millers or McQuaid is the best option. I'd also like to see us trade Subban before the expansion draft so we get something for him. He got passed by McIntyre imo, so he's really no value to us anyways if Vegas goes in another direction.
Forum: GM GameApr. 16, 2017 at 4:25 p.m.
Thread: GM Game - Los Angeles Kings
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikeyscav</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>krakowitz</b></div><div>Would you be willing to give up Pearson and a first for Pavelski?</div></div>

Pavelski is a bit expensive for what I'm looking for</div></div>

Boston's not interested in the trade we had talked about. We probably just keep Spooner now, given that our future 3rd C probably needs a year in the AHL and Vatrano just had an interview about how he lost all of the momentum he built in the offseason when he broke his foot in camp. Kid seems really mature and I'm penciling him in for atleast 20 goals next season. So far he's got the biggest goal in the playoffs for us imo, even though it wasn't the game winner. I think his preseason of scoring 8 points in 10 games at the world championship was more telling than his 18 points in 40+ games in the regular season.
Forum: GM GameApr. 14, 2017 at 11:18 a.m.
Thread: GM Game - New Jersey Devils
Would something around Hall for # 2-3 C Ryan Spooner, #4 D Adam McQuaid and a high prospect or 2 work? Right now we're trying to trade Spooner and change for Tanner Pearson, but L.A. is wanting more. To give more we need a better player. Someone like Hall could get a Haul, get it? it rhymed! You should sell him to us for some of our overstock prospects and McQuaidi and Spooner. Maybe like one of Lauzon, Zboril or Lindgren (LHD top 2 / 4 prospect types) and one of Gabrielle, DeBrusk, Donato (2nd / 3rd line LW prospects) I'd have to clear this with my assistant, but I wouldn't mind giving you a lot for Hall, as he's a first liner type. If we gave you Spooner (value of a 1st + prospect) DeBrusk (value of mid 1st) Zboril (value of mid 1st) and McQuaid (value of top 4 stay at home dman, like older Adam Larsson type) I'd think we'd be in the ballpark of Hall. Not sure if we would do anything like this, but I figured I'd bring it up as it seems like Kyle Connor would be your longterm top line Lw in the first place.
Forum: GM GameApr. 14, 2017 at 9:59 a.m.
Thread: GM Game - Los Angeles Kings
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikeyscav</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NobodyCares</b></div><div>

Vatrano would be a great replacement for Pearson if he keeps up his goal scoring. ELC, expansion exempt, LW 3rd liner, who if he gets better could be a 2nd liner. The problem is we need to trade Spooner for Pearson because they both have to be protected. If we just traded Vatrano + for Pearson we wouldn't be able to protect Pearson. That's why the deal has to be bigger, where you end up with both Vatrano and Spooner and we get Pearson + something good and young. Your first is what I saw as appealing. If you traded a good prospect instead like Kempe, that would be okay too. Theres a slight chance we could take Pearson and McNabb for Spooner and Vatrano. We'd then protect Chara Krug and McNabb on defense and lose one of McQuaid or Collin Miller which we'll do anyways.</div></div>

I'd lean towards my first before moving McNabb. I'm definitely losing a dman to expansion so my depth will help me take a hit. Would you take Pearson and a second for Spooner, Vatrano, and your other guy who's name is eluding me haha</div></div>

We need your 1st and Pearson for Spooner + Vatrano, but I think I might be able to give you a better winger prospect. If I added in Heinen instead of Blidh I think that would be the highest we could go. Vatrano could be as good as Pearson next season, but it's not for sure. Spooner is already as good as Pearson and then Heinen is a scoring line prospect. He's a lefty, but I think he can play both wings. He's done well in the AHL this season, when he was going to be a junior if he stayed in school. Instead he took on the AHL and I'd say he was legit one of the best we had in that league regardless of age. He's a major upgrade compared to Blidh, who was just a 4th liner. Again if you need your 1st rounder, we could just swap like Spooner + Blidh for Pearson. That way we give you a 4th LW to bump all your other LW's up a line to replace Pearson, without leaving a hole. Sure some of your guys would be playing over what they are comfortable doing, but sometimes that works out even better. We aren't going to offer a major plus to Spooner for Pearson because they are almost the same in value. Pearson fits our team better because we have a Rookie C who we think can play immediately in Spooners spot. Spooner fits your team better because he's less money and a 1st PP option. He'd score 40 points on the 3rd line no matter who you put with him. Last year he scored 49 points with freakin Jimmy Hayes and Matt Beleskey as his primary wingers. Two guys I purged from my roster as the first priority when I took over the team because they are bad. If we can't come to some kind of a deal soon I might have to go after a guy like Teravainen instead.
Forum: GM GameApr. 13, 2017 at 7:10 p.m.
Thread: GM Game - Los Angeles Kings
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikeyscav</b></div><div>NobodyCares, you're right. I'm just unsure on the prospects. They are a bit small for the big bad Kings but I could look past that. I guess my biggest concern is actually leaving my LW weak by moving Pearson. I'll keep you in the loop and will explore some other options to bolster my LW if Pearson departs. I also missed the fact that they're expansion exempt. That's kinda big too</div></div>

Vatrano would be a great replacement for Pearson if he keeps up his goal scoring. ELC, expansion exempt, LW 3rd liner, who if he gets better could be a 2nd liner. The problem is we need to trade Spooner for Pearson because they both have to be protected. If we just traded Vatrano + for Pearson we wouldn't be able to protect Pearson. That's why the deal has to be bigger, where you end up with both Vatrano and Spooner and we get Pearson + something good and young. Your first is what I saw as appealing. If you traded a good prospect instead like Kempe, that would be okay too. Theres a slight chance we could take Pearson and McNabb for Spooner and Vatrano. We'd then protect Chara Krug and McNabb on defense and lose one of McQuaid or Collin Miller which we'll do anyways.
Forum: GM GameApr. 13, 2017 at 4:56 p.m.
Thread: GM Game - Calgary Flames
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div>What are you looking for, for a player like Micheal Ferland? You can look at Boston's roster, prospects, picks or tell me on a broad spectrum what interests you and I could see if I have it, or am willing to part with anything that matches it.</div></div>

Not sure we should be targeting middling 3rd liners who aren't expansion exempt. We can only protect 7 forwards and right now we have Krejci, Bergeron, Backes, Pasta, Marchand, Spooner and Nelson. To me that's 7 guys we can't afford to lose, so we couldn't really fit Ferland onto our protected list. The only way this makes sense to me would be to trade for 2 guys like Ferland because Vegas would likely take one. That way we'd still have a 3rd LW.
Forum: GM GameApr. 13, 2017 at 4:48 p.m.
Thread: GM Game - New York Islanders
Are you going to sell Anders Lee for "cheap"? I think he may be a guy who got inflated production because he played with Tavares. Remember 30 goal scoring LW Matt Moulson? He's been poop without Tavares. If you sell Lee for "cheap" we could offer you a package similar to what we gave you for Nelson. We'd be sending you a good prospect instead of the 1st rounder because we don't have enough picks to make up the same value as the Nelson deal we made. The prospect would probably be Ryan Lindgren who's a top 100 prospect according to The Hockey News. He plays LD, which is where I see your biggest hole. That is why I'm saying he would be the guy who was worth the 1st rounder, but then we'd need to add another prospect to the pot to get up to the value we gave you for Nelson. Let us know if you're moving him for youth.
Forum: GM GameApr. 13, 2017 at 4:40 p.m.
Thread: GM Game Master Thread
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikeyscav</b></div><div>:kings

The LA Kings have started shopping Jonathan Quick. Would need a solid starting goalie in return, good young forward, and maybe a pick.

Tanner Pearson is also still on the block</div></div>

Don't forget the Bruins offer for Pearson. We may be able to ratchet it up a very slight notch. Don't make a trade without consulting us. We'd like to give you fair value for Pearson and think Spooner would be the Center equivalent. Perhaps we could just drop that 1st round pick and Vatrano from the deal and give you the chippy european 4th liner Anton Blidh along with Spooner. That would give you a 4th line LW so the hole you create at 2nd line LW would be filled by your current 3rd LW and the 4th LW goes for 3rd LW and Blidh goes to 4th LW. Everyone moves up and fills the system so there wouldn't be a hole created. That's about the best we could do.
Forum: GM GameApr. 13, 2017 at 4:28 p.m.
Thread: GM Game - Los Angeles Kings
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikeyscav</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NobodyCares</b></div><div>

If you are willing to part with your 1st then we could make a bigger deal:

The deal is Spooner, Vatrano and Blidh for Pearson and 2017 1st (lottery protected)

I would need to get this approved by my assistant and we haven't really discussed where we project Vatrano to end up. Facts are that he scored a goal per game in the AHL in 2015-2016 which is freakin unheard of, then when he healed from a broken foot; he scored 10 goals in about 30 games in the NHL this season. After that he went goalless in about 15 games, but then he had to sit out with mysterious upper body injuries. We're not sure if he's a guy who would score 30 goals or what, but he's only 23 and has the best release on the team. We'd be taking a big risk on this one, but I think I could talk him into it since we have a Rookie would could fill in for Vatrano. Vatrano is also expansion exempt which increases his value, not sure if that helps you or not.</div></div>

Moving my first for a couple prospects who seem to have some upside but are still risks is very sketchy to me. The Kings system doesn't have much depth at prospect anymore and I honestly was looking to draft a center high this year as there isn't much in the system. I am skeptical of this move but I'll let you know. Gotta figure out some money</div></div>

I don't get your premise to objecting to this deal. You're basically saying you don't want one of the best 3rd line Centers in the league, who has the skill to be on the first pp, so you can draft an 18 year old who has the upside to be a 3rd C and amount to what Spooner is? That seems like sketchy logic to me, a bird in the hand is almost always better than 2 in the bush and this scenario seems like a bird in the hand vs a bird in the bush. The sure thing is better and you get 3 NHLers for 1 who overpriced himself out of your core and a mid 1st. Remember if you win the lottery you're keeping the pick and giving us compensation the following year. Do you really think the guy you pick at 13 or 14 is going to emerge as a #2 C? I mean I guess it could happen, but this draft is pretty weak. The top guys in the draft project to be #2 C's so I'd imagine by the time they call your number there will be none left. Vatrano is being undervalued by you too I think. Did you catch the game last night? He sniped a goal that turned the tables in the game and lead us to a win. He scored 10 goals in under 30 games this year. He's got the fire in himself to be the same thing as Tanner Pearson next year if he stays healthy. I think we're offering ridiculous value for your assets. Spooner = Pearson and Vatrano = 14th pick in a weak draft. If Vatrano was healthy all year and didn't take a puck off his foot it's easy to imagine him scoring 20 goals. If you pulled off trading your guy who ultimately costs more than our 2 guys and then Spooner scores 40 points again and Vatrano has 15+ goals, with Blidh being a chippy 4th liner who hits everything I don't see how you couldn't feel like it was fair. I just don't understand it, but I respect your opinion and would not try to force you to make a deal you don't want to. I just figured with your cap problems that if I can give you 3 NHLers who would cost about the same cap next year as the guy your trading, it'd be a no brainer. Filling out your core around the unmovable contracts you have muddying your cap situation would be ideal. You can back off the deal, but I'm not convinced you'd be in a better scenario having 1 player who produces at about the rate as one of the guys I'm sending you, and also getting a guy who's accomplished a ton outside the NHL and scored at a rate of 10 goals in 30 games this season. Thats practically turning back the clock and having Pearson for an extra year on his cheap contract. The only reason I said I'd add Vatrano and Blidh for your protected 1st was to help you fill out your roster with cheap pieces who are expansion exempt. You simply do not need to protect them and they are cheap so you can stack your roster up and go for Cup next year, extending your window.
Forum: Boston BruinsApr. 13, 2017 at 3:59 p.m.
Thread: Bruce Cassidy Discussion
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div>Since he took over for Claude Julien, the Bruins went 18-8-1, making the playoffs for the first time in 2 years. My personal opinion is that since the team played so well down the stretch and made the playoffs, the Bruins are going to remove the interim tag and go with him as the coach next season. What does everyone else think?</div></div>

I think they might, but we can't have the team getting manhandled for a full period like they did against Ottawa. That simply can't happen and you saying it's on the team is ridiculous. Everything comes back to coaching and the coach and his energy and how he commands himself over the full team. He simply didn't focus during the 2nd period and the results speak for themselves. Saying it's on the team is like saying Dan Bylsma coached the Penguins well a couple years ago and it was just on the team not playing well, then his replacement brought them to a Cup and Bylsma is pooping his pants in Buffalo, but it's not the coach, it's on the players. Buffalo has enough talent to be a playoff team. The leafs freakin leapfrogged them and I put it on coaching. Cassidy isn't proving he's good by winning like that. I'm glad he didn't crack or turtle, but theres only so many times he can get completely spanked like that in a period before he crumbles.

No man can withstand such soul crushing dominance repeatedly and come out on top. We're not talking about Jesus here, or whatever person you hold with the highest respect and think he was basically a human miracle that happened long ago. Cassidy is not the reincarnation of such a prominent person, he's basically slightly above average and that's because Claude laid down such a great foundation. A foundation that won a Stanley Cup, but then Claude got crushed so now it's Cassidy's turn. The bottom line is that he will not be able to coach games where the other team partakes in pure domination over us and still find a way to win and keep his job. He was extremely fortunate that Vatrano ripped a snipe job past Anderson and the momentum changed. If that play doesn't happen and we didn't turn the tables and end up winning, it would have been one of the most embarrassing losses I've ever witnessed by the Bruins and I've watched an extremely long time. That's the bottom line. One somewhat lucky play that leads to a great shooter rippling the twine randomly changed that game from being one of the worst in history to being a mildly uplifting win. I know it's not always worth the time to look at things the opposite way, but come on if we didn't get extremely fortunate and if the couple of players we have with particular skills that contributed to the win didn't step up, which loss in the history of the Bruins do you think would be more embarrassing? I simply can't remember losing a period that bad in all the time I've watched.

At the end of the day he won so he should be commended for getting the job done. The simple fact is that I'm not sure if he got the team in the right mindset in the 3rd period or if it was just that he was such a fool that he didn't know he got literally spanked in the second period. I mean he was a poor to average player and has a huge gap in his coaching career in the NHL. I mean are we sure this guy was just such an Alpha male that he let Ottawa dominate us in the 2nd because it would be a more crushing blow to them when we overcame them in the third? I'm not positive of that and I don't think theres anything you could suggest to sway my opinion on that. I'll give him full credit for the win, but that might be unjustified and it could pump him up enough to make him collapse. Not sure this guy has the wherewithal to recognize his surroundings and dissect the game as it's playing and find the solution to the problems that are occurring. I don't have complete faith that he's simply like Ilya Bryzgalov and he's the master of the universe. He can't manipulate time and space or change the weather with the blink of an eye. I am not impressed for if he was simply to be held in such high praise he should surely be able to perform miracles.

My conclusion is: he's simply in the ballpark of an average coach and we need more from him to be great. I truly hope he gives more and we respond better and win a Cup. I would be his biggest fan, but I'm not sure he's got it in himself. He has to earn it and it all starts next game.