Right there with you on the wife thing.
Here's the other thing unfair about the "reality denial" thing: Either it's not fair, or I'm kind of in the same direction with it myself. Because if everything was rosy, it would be really weird for me to completely agree with you and others who say they don't want Gordon to stay as head coach next year with the "interim" removed (the only way he's staying). Obviously, my desire to bring someone else in either says something is still missing or whatever we have simply isn't enough.
Maybe it's "grass is always greener," but I don't think so. I mean, our record over the last month and a half going on two months is hard to argue with. But the truth of the matter is that it's not really a lot different from our turn around in the second half last year. Is it? The difference I guess, is that we didn't start from quite as far back. And that's with Hakstol on both ends of it.
Is our roster filled with an inordinate number of second half players? I don't know. Is it a lack of organizational urgency? I mean, on the player level. Because that would kind of go back even to Mike Richards' "it's only one game" ten games in a row.
I don't know if, for me, it's about Gordon or if it's just the desire to bring someone in that has not been here in any way for the last whatever number of years of stink. An outside influence that's willing and able to do things from a completely different point of view. We have the GM -- the perceived faults and all -- that fits that. So, let's do it with the coach and his staff.
It's possible my real objection to the negative comparison of Gordon vs. Hakstol is how bad I perceived Hakstol to be. I do see a lot of structural differences on the special teams, in particular, from Hakstol. One thing on power play -- particularly the first unit -- that I still see as the same, and I guess that's Knob, is the approach to entry. I do not like (then or now) one player carrying the puck almost to the redline and then TURNING to pass it back to the last trailing player and then attacking the center of the blueline to then attempt the pass usually to the wing on his right. I don't understand how that isn't tremendously easy to defend against, jump, and send it the other way either on a dump or on a rush. I think it's weak, but more importantly, I think it's horribly predictable. They don't seem to do that as much on the second unit, but they do it some there too. I do see some other teams doing this. The Panthers do it a lot. I've seen it elsewhere. But the teams that do this seem to vary where their point of entry is on the blueline. And they also seem to vary where they pass it to once they get to the blueline. It seems to me--and I've complained about this all year--that the non-puck-carriers are nearly full stop when the carrier hits the blueline. This takes any speed or fluidity out of the attack. It also increases the danger of the bumbled pass at the blueline while everyone is standing still.
If I'm right and the second unit doesn't do that as much, I think it probably explains why (at least anecdotally, I haven't measured it) the second unit seems to be more successful.
Anyway, I think Gordon has been a lot better than Hakstol. Whether it's by choice or because Fletcher has moved out some of the dead weight vets, Gordon is using different personnel.
I would like to see him jumble lines less. I don't think this has to be the go-to fix all the time. It's been that way for years. And while I will argue that 5v5 has improved, I'm not sure going from 48% to 52% is cause for a parade. Or even good enough.
We beat this part to death in the other thread: I'm willing to do Coach Q if that's the plan and ultimately what they describe. I have reservations, though, that I really can't articulate. Sadly, "spidey-sense" is not sufficient.