Leaderboard

Black Seats Matter.

How did you find me sensei?

HYPE! LGRW!

AA on the PP

nice

I'm drinking cranberry Canada Dry. O Ginger Ale Gods, please guide us to victory tonight.

It's that good. That's all I can say

git gud

October schedule has been brutal. Fortunately (?), November looks less Dark Soulsy: https://www.nhl.com/redwings/schedule/2018-11-01/ET

Careful, your mom is showing.

Cholowski and his Cholo Clique

Maybe so he can achieve the career milestone of 1000 points and cement his legacy?

HYPE! (underrated album btw)

I bet the locker room could use a nice area rug...

GO WINGS!!!

Red Wings won't 'sit back' in attempt to rebuild [NHL.com]

Like Blashill?

Why would you want to subject him to this dumpster fire? He already had to put up with it the last few years of his career

Ok, deflecting has nothing to do with opinions. Saying "Abby sucks" in a "Mantha sucks" topic, even if it's true, is still deflecting. "Whataboutism" in modern parlance. Vocabulary lesson aside... You're confused. Mantha wasn't scratched. He was moved to a lower line. Just like has happened to Abby and Kronwall. Just like happened to Vanek. But, to you, when it happens to vets it's "natural progression". And that's part of your problem. YOU don't treat kids and vets the same way. Vet gets demoted it's natural, kid gets demoted it must be punishment for a bad game. You can't even give the team credit for promoting a kid. That's just a kid "forcing" it. I don't believe scratching someone, or demoting them, is necessarily a punishment. (Nor every promotion necessarily a reward.) Sometimes things just need to change. Sometimes there are things to consider beyond performance. So I don't think the Ras question matters. (Though with Ehn gone, I'd probably say yes.) While I'm sure the lack of performance is part of it, I don't think it's everything. That's another problem. Kids and vets are, and should be, sometimes treated differently. That is not bias. Different situations sometimes call for different actions. There's an expectation that kids can learn something from watching the game from a new perspective. Both Cholowski and Rasmussen said they thought it was valuable. Maybe it's not true, maybe they were lying, doesn't really matter. If the coaches believe it's true, then there is no bias in that regard. A waiver-exempt, developing prospect is typically the better choice to send to the minors than the vet at the bottom of the pro roster, assuming they're roughly equal otherwise. I'd also argue that "trying hard", but not producing because you "suck" warrants different treatment than not sucking, but not producing because you're not trying hard. (And for the record, I'm not saying Mantha isn't trying. Just that effort and ability are different things.) This post makes it sound like you think Mantha was demoted because of the Montreal game. Though before that game you said he needed to be better. And you said afterword that he "responded" after being demoted, even though he hasn't scored, hasn't been on the ice for a goal scored, or even many decent chances. -5 ES shot attempts with him on the ice. 8 shots but again few dangerous opportunities. Do you really think he's responded? Should he be moved back to the top line? If so, what is it specifically about his play (and lack of production) that makes him deserving of promotion while Abdelkader's lack of production, despite "working his ass off", deserves a worse punishment than what you'd have given Mantha for what you called "maybe his worst game ever"? If I'm the only one saying "vet bias" is BS, it's only because I'm the only one who is paying attention. At least paying attention to the facts instead of Ken and Mick saying "overripe" 6000 times in the last 20 years. Fact is we have a roster comprised almost entirely of the best "kids" we've produced over the last ~15 years, and we're terrible. Not terrible because we haven't yet moved on from the oldest of those "kids" to the 2nd and 3rd tiers of the newest. Not because we've brought in some UFA vets and traded away a few mediocre kids. It's because none of the kids, from Helm and Ericsson at the end of the glory days, to Ras and Zadina today, have yet been good enough to make a difference. In all those draft picks, dozens of NHL players in the "Overripe"-era, dozens more near miss prospects, and what? Maybe 3, 4, 5? questionable decisions, and that based mostly on hindsight. Nearly all the kids who have stuck in the NHL came up before they were out of options, often taking a spot from a veteran. The best have all worked their way up to the top of the lineup. Our top D-man is a 20yo rookie, and top F is a 22yo in his 4th year. Mantha, Athanasiou, and Bertuzzi have all been in the top 6 most of the year, ahead of veterans, and they're some of the youngest players on the team. 19yo Rasmussen replaced veteran Abby on the PP, and he hasn't even been good. Jensen might be older, but he's played less than 2 full years and is currently our #2 defenseman, and he's not good either. When exceptions to your rule vastly outnumber the examples of it, it's time to rethink your rule. Aside from "bu-bu-but everyone says so!", what "examples" do you have? Your opinion on who deserves to be scratched or waived? Your baseless assumptions regarding how and why some decisions are made? That time Kenny said "It's a man's game"? Anything?

This board talks about other posters more than hockey. This is what happens when people live vicariously through their favorite players they become way too emotional and can’t discuss things with logic. Mantha was a train wreck to start the season and has been better in the last two games but has had some bad luck. He’ll come around. It’s also completely reasonable to think 25 goal seasons may be his peak. Other than juniors, his resume suggests nothing special.