Either you aren't reading, or chosing not to. I've stated my point a million times to you. Literally almost all of these posts have been directed at you, if you still aren't getting it then I can't spell it out any better. My entire point has been about usage and ice time for players on the team.
I don't mind having him if he wasn't treated like a savior defensive forward. I don't hate the guy at all. I hate how he's used. I also don't like how he's labelled as a great defensive forward when he's clearly not.
I present all these bad numbers of Glendening. But is that his fault? No. That's a coaching issue. When you put a player in a position to fail, that's on you as a coach. The difference between Babcock and Blashill is that Babcock used Glendening sparingly and in the right situations.
Blashill for whatever reason decided to take it up 3 or 4 notches and use the hell out of him last season.
The top two overusage issues on this team are:
1. Henrik Zetterberg
2. Luke Glendening
We went from being a team that would outshoot opponents to a team that was consistently outshot last year and struggled to hang on to the puck. How is this not an issue for people? Getting outshot is not the first step to winning games. This is basic hockey. How many games did San Jose get outshot by Pittsburgh by wide margins in the cup finals last year and lost? All of them.
Our team would be able to score more if our team wasn't being consistently outshot.
And more shooting starts from giving Tatar, Nyquist and other scorers getting more ice time. Guess who has more ice time between Glendening and Tatar.
You're complaining about players not scoring more than 50 points but the said players aren't even given enough ice time to begin with.
Tatar, Nyquist's icetime went down from Babcock to Blashill's coaching.
- kliq likes this