I contributed, just takes a smarter person to see what was contributed.
Nice, twice in the same thread with nonsense posts. You got to admit that in a thread where we discuss team identity your reply was not very contributing? We all want a winning team but there are different ways to get there and one proven way of becoming a winner is to adjust the scouting system, minor league training and via trades make sure you have players who fit together. If we wanna play run and gun then perhaps we should look for players who can play that brand of hockey. If we want to be a tough hard hitting team well then our pro- and amateur scouts should be asked to look for those kind of players. Just saying we should win more games and thus be "the winning team" as you put it is not enough.
The team has an identity, I think the problem is you don't like what it is.
If Pat Burns' teams were prototypically blue collar lunch pail guys, this team is basically the millionaire college boys club who ride pretty high when the going is good but when adversity strikes they collapse. The problem is exacerbated because they don't have adult supervision or the right role models to follow.
We have a large body of good, but not elite talents with softie games, who don't always show up to work, who together are a disaster. Their culture last season was distinctly of the university ranks with Kessel, Bozak, Gardiner, Liles, Steckel, Colborne, Scrivens, Brown, Komisarek all coming from the US college ranks and Lombardi, MacArthur and Connolly who might as well be schoolboys too. You match that up against some of the battle hardened Eastern Conference teams, and no wonder you're disappointed in the identity of this team.
The team has an identity, I think the problem is you don't like what it is.
If Pat Burns' teams were prototypically blue collar lunch pail guys, this team is basically the millionaire college boys club who ride pretty high when the going is good but when adversity strikes they collapse. The problem is exacerbated because they don't have adult supervision or the right role models to follow.
We have a large body of good, but not elite talents with softie games, who don't always show up to work, who together are a disaster. Their culture last season was distinctly of the university ranks with Kessel, Bozak, Gardiner, Liles, Steckel, Colborne, Scrivens, Brown, Komisarek all coming from the US college ranks and Lombardi, MacArthur and Connolly who might as well be schoolboys too. You match that up against some of the battle hardened Eastern Conference teams, and no wonder you're disappointed in the identity of this team.
The team has an identity, I think the problem is you don't like what it is.
If Pat Burns' teams were prototypically blue collar lunch pail guys, this team is basically the millionaire college boys club who ride pretty high when the going is good but when adversity strikes they collapse. The problem is exacerbated because they don't have adult supervision or the right role models to follow.
We have a large body of good, but not elite talents with softie games, who don't always show up to work, who together are a disaster. Their culture last season was distinctly of the university ranks with Kessel, Bozak, Gardiner, Liles, Steckel, Colborne, Scrivens, Brown, Komisarek all coming from the US college ranks and Lombardi, MacArthur and Connolly who might as well be schoolboys too. You match that up against some of the battle hardened Eastern Conference teams, and no wonder you're disappointed in the identity of this team.
