I haven't read this yet, so I don't know if I like it or hate it...I'm just going to look one point at a time and respond because I like bulleted points...
owtahear wrote:1) Last year, the owners wanted Shero to fire Dan Bylsma. Shero stuck his neck out and defended and extended Bylsma. This year, the same failure has happened again and again with DB at the helm. So.....with the ship, down goes to the captain.
We didn't fail the same way again. We just failed again. I felt that 2012, 2013 and 2014 all had distinctly different feels and reasons for the losses. That said, they're all losses. I believe it's time for Bylsma to go, but this was probably the best job by the coaching staff in the last three years. Whatever that's worth. I guess not much.
owtahear wrote:2) The failure to get a top line winger for Sidney Crosby. Marian Hossa. That's it. Then again, you got Jerome Iginla for what looked like a winger, and you let your coach treat him like Tanner Glass.
Shero has provided a terrific roster over the years. Perfect? No. But he's done a great job. Hossa and Iginla were out-right theft. Dupuis as well. And the haul he got for Staal when we all knew had that was going to go is some kind of sorcery. Sure, Ekman didn't work and Murray was over-payment...but he's done a very good job in my opinion.
owtahear wrote:3) Poor drafting. After Rd 1, there has been little to no impact even at the "A" level. Constant drafting of defensemen. Constantly. ONE skilled forward in the system in Beau Bennett. Even Shero's BEST draft choice (Jordan Staal) was a mistake as he passed on Jonathon Toews. Look at teams like Boston, Chicago, Anaheim, they have 1st and 2nd year players playing major roles for them. Detroit looks like they are quickly retooling. The Pens? Looks like David Littlefield has been in charge of the drafts, then again, you could have drafted Brendan Saad or Jacob Silverberg and Disco would have played Gibbons or Vitale over them.
Nothing wrong with drafting d-men. Passing on Staal for Toews is awesome hindsight scouting, which everyone is good at. Either way, if they progressed the same way, how long are we able to keep Toews for? Or do we still have Malkin? Lots of alternate universes. Staal was a major part of a Cup victory. And the pieces gained from him are yet to be determined, but Sutter - the lone NHLer in the early going - has been nothing short of impressive. And was likely our best player in these playoffs. Our drafting is not great, but picking on the NHLers is the wrong way to go about it I think...
owtahear wrote:4) The Scuderi signing. You drafted defenseman after defenseman. And you felt the need to sign him for 4 years? In his mid 30's? Horrible. Just horrible.
Yeah, pretty much. Weird considering a player of similar attributes in Zbynek Michalek did not work out here. Surprised that the Scuderi signing took place. Looks even worse than it initially did after a year.
owtahear wrote:5) Too loyal to players who are fringe type. Craig Adams was done....you sign him to two years? Even the Dupuis signing.....great guy, but when it cuts down to it, he is a 3rd liner. Memo........think long and hard about Matt Niskanen. Good player, had a great season...but you drafted Depres, Borts, Harrington, Pouillot and Maatta.......time for these guys to rise up. Boston is able to play Hamilton, Krug and Bartkowski.
Fine with the Dupuis signing. Even if he's a top-9 player, he still a fine guy to have. Got a late start in the NHL, so the miles probably didn't pile up too quickly. Hope he's ok after his knee injury. But we owed him for some minimum wage work. This was a reward for what he did for us all these years. No problem with that. I didn't think keeping Niskanen was a likely or good idea because of the money. Having seen Niskanen's development since he was a lad, I'm pretty skeptical about this Niskanen. Undoubtedly the exception, not the rule, for his career.
owtahear wrote:6) Bottom 6. GMRS has forgotten that they compose two of the 4 lines. You had AHL players pretty much occupying 4 of these 6 spots every game. And smallish AHL players with little chance of becoming NHL players.
Meh, that's a little over the top and coaxed by an ahistoric amount of injury. Coaching plays a major factor in how bottom-sixes go too. As the forwards in the NHL that rank from 80 to 120 might not have too many differences. I don't think we've had a lot of great bottom six players here this year...but we've had very usable parts...
owtahear wrote:7) Prior to his stroke, I thought it was the perfect shot to trade Letang to get some quality forward depth. You chose not to, sign him to a long term deal, now you are pretty much stuck with him now that he has a stroke.
Well. That's a little much. It's very difficult to trade a player like Letang, a #1 PMD, like that...not because no one wants him, but because it's tough to bring yourself to do it. Like your scouting tip above, it wants to be a hindsight score, but honestly, the extension is exactly 0 days old. So to say anything about it would be, by definition, premature. I think Letang will be fine for us.
owtahear wrote:8) Failure to somehow get your head coach to adapt and learn from his mistakes. Somehow.....you let him continue on and on and on....
Coaching was largely addressed above. No doubt this staff learned from its mistakes though. Completely different club than the one we saw in 2012 for sure.
owtahear wrote:9) You turned this team from a potential dynasty, to paper champions, weak, soft, easy to play against. Somehow.
Eh, this is a point that is just being inserted so you get to 10...it's vague and unfocused on particulars...filler.
owtahear wrote:10) You failed to recognize the leadership void amongst your core players and didn't add a Billy Guerin type of player. Though you tried with Ryan Kesler. The problem here, some of the bad deals of the past, didn't allow you to up the ante and get a guy like Kesler. But they needed a grit and sandpaper guy like him who can play.
I don't think Kesler is really a great fit. But the leadership point is one I have harped on in the past. Interestingly, the coaches seem to have taken over more of a leadership role than before. Perhaps the organization thought that would mitigate the need to acquire a leadership guy. Either way, I agree, the leadership in the organization is not terribly strong. I'm not sure we have, as much as this is a buzzword and all, there is truth to it: a winning culture. Only one way to address that that I'm aware of...