Good article! It will be interesting to see if Johnson’s poor analytics were all him or influenced a lot by the team around him. Which brings up the topic I’d really be interested to see you write about. Analyzing the other ‘rebuilds’ that have gone on and are going on. Which ones worked and why? Which ones (Buffalo, Ottawa for starters) haven’t and why? How many years of being in the tank does it take? Chicago will be interesting to see as Bedard develops in an awful environment without much in the cupboard except him. An analysis of Toronto would be really interesting. They tanked and got Matthews. Drafted really high 3 years in a row Nylander, Marner and Matthews. While having some regular season success just don’t seem to have developed a culture that works in the playoffs. Last year after they lost to Florida, John Scott commented during a Leafs Podcast that he didn’t think any of the 3 top players (he called out Matthews in particular) had been taught how to check or really play defense. Talented players in the wrong culture or system doesn’t guarantee success.

How does one differentiate the types of ‘awful’ environments and their success rates for turning into successful franchises? It just seems like such a qualitative style of evaluation and argument, but that does not deny that Briere and Co. have a point, I just think it makes evaluation of his process, of which you are doing a fantastic job of highlighting the contours of, Charlie, difficult because the actual on ice measurables seem to bear a role always in reference to the aims of “sustainable culture restoration.” Which is such a fluid, indefinite goal.

Further, this culture priority also doesn’t guarantee success, where even bad environments, for example im thinking of the LA Kings teams where it seemed like they didn’t have a necessarily good culture, achieved on ice success.