Buppy

On the whole of the internet, there are neither enough faces nor enough palms to adequately respond to this post.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I don't think the team is really doing as bad as is sometimes implied. Threads like this and some others make it sound like we're the worst team in the league. We have really only been notably bad at shot generation. By most metrics, we've been around the middle and even pretty good in some ways. Going back to last year, and even the last several years, the same is true. I'm not seeing what it seems you're seeing. I don't see any super-passive collapsing, and I don't think we're spending any inordinate amount of time defending in our own end. (And going by shot attempts against, we're not.) I think at times we get caught chasing, being too reactionary, and I see a bigger problem with our breakout being too easily disrupted, but I don't think that's a strategy. Overall, I don't think we can blame our offensive struggles on our defensive game. Offensively I see our biggest problem being our ability to get into the zone and establish possession. Maybe (probably even) part of that is being overly cautious; being too quick to resort to a dump-in, defenders backing up as soon as it looks like the other team might get the puck, single forechecker most of the time, etc. But I think our poor passing, lack of an offensive leader, and lack of strong puck-handlers are bigger issues. Every year, at pretty much any point in the season, there will be teams playing better or worse than what they should on paper. Being only a 3rd of the way through the season, that can still have a big effect on the standings. All the teams you listed missed the playoffs last year. I wouldn't be surprised if any or all of them miss this year. All of them, and plenty of others, have the same problem we do; the rosters just aren't that good. At the end of the year, or at any point during the year, some of them will be doing better than others. Who is doing what will often fluctuate during the year. It's the nature of parity. No doubt we can be better, and of course we should be (and certainly are) trying to figure out ways to improve. Particularly the offense. Other coaching options and systemic changes are things we should be open to, but I wouldn't expect any great improvements. We're a bubble-team roster getting bubble-team results.

We were down 0-3 in that series. And yeah, sarcastic. Also, half the league hasn't been past the 2nd round either. Some haven't been past the first, or even to the first.

If you define "defensive hockey" as clutching, grabbing, trapping, or "traditional" defense like shot blocking, hitting, tight man-man coverage...yeah, defending today isn't about that. It's about good positioning, good player rotations, being quick to loose pucks, and moving the puck well once you do. It's about being disruptive. Of course, the better you are on offense the more it will help out your defense, but the same is true the other way. When Sutter talks about possession, it's mostly hyperbole. He's exaggerating concepts far beyond the realm of reality to emphasize his points. The difference between even the best possession teams and the worst isn't nearly as much as some of what Sutter says would imply, and the vast majority of teams are separated by only a few percentage points. I think our struggles are perfectly normal for a mediocre roster. No doubt there are some things we could do better, but there isn't a single team that can't say the same thing. I think people are forgetting that there are two teams on the ice, and most of the flaws we see are probably not the result of flawed strategy, but the other teams simply being better at executing their strategy. I think we just became so used to seeing Wings teams that were better than the other team that we're having a hard time accepting that now we don't have the ability to dictate play like we used to.

Maybe that's their future, maybe not. And there's a lot of ways to focus on the future. If they're better players, and we're a better team, with one or both of them at wing we shouldn't complain about it.

Helm's a solid 3rd-liner, and even Glendening wouldn't be awful. While Glendening should be on the 4th line when we're healthy, we haven't been healthy. With Helm, Abby, and AA out, having Glen in a top 6/9 complimentary role is fine. Especially with how bad Sheahan has been. Now that AA is back, maybe he should be moved back. Looks like maybe we're trying to get all 4 lines to have some scoring threat. Worth a try (and something many have advocated), and it's not like anything else we've tried has been hugely successful. Jurco and Sheahan aren't exactly great scorers, or even much better than Glendening (and Jurco is arguably worse).

Yeah, they're different, that's why I pointed it out. He never said win% in the post you quoted. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the way the NHL rules are means that losing in OT/SO is better than losing in regulation. But even if you want to ignore that we've still been slightly worse. And even if you want to call it close enough, we should probably be getting better.

That's because they're point %. You know, the thing the NHL actually uses for the standings. But regardless of whether you go by point% or win%, his point remains the same. Arguably better roster, worse results.

That's not really true. Further development as players and further adjustment to the NHL game could make for a more seamless transition in the future.

He's been fine for a kid just breaking into the league, sure. But you're off base on the rest. He's played 15 games. He hasn't done anything consistent in the NHL. His CF% started out bad, but aside from a few bad games he was better in his second stretch in the lineup. The main area where he's been bad has been generating offense. Worst 5v5 CF60 on the team. 9 of 14 games he's been below even our team average (which is the worst in the league), and two more barely above. 5v5 GF60 is also worst on the team (by a big margin), as is his GA60. Scored 1 goal with him on the ice in his last 11 games (and 8 GA). I don't have a problem with him struggling. It should probably be expected even. Just pointing out that Blashill maybe isn't quite as dumb as people think.

He's hasn't. Not really even that bad before then either, just playing over his head. He's a solid 2nd pair guy, and when he's been used there he's been good. His contract isn't even bad, really. Only in the context of we already had enough mid-level players getting paid, so probably would have better with a cheaper option even if not as good a player. And for those talking about Sproul, he's actually been pretty bad so far. Got a few points early, and takes a lot of shots, but his advanced stats are about the worst on the team. Maybe not "replace him with Lashoff" bad, but pretty bad. Maybe getting scratched for an AHL plug will motivate him.

Beyond all that, his "spells of completely disappearing" are very much overblown. From his breakout year in 07-08 through the 12-13 season he was actually very consistent (for a hockey player at least). Really only had one big goal slump, and no major point slumps. Even smaller "droughts" like 6-ish games were pretty rare, maybe a couple a year, which is normal for all but the very best scorers (and not that rare even for them). In 13-14 he had a slow start, but was fine after that until the concussion. After that concussion he wasn't the same. 6 goals in his first 5 games back, but then only 8 in the 58 games he played afterward. I don't think he'd have been a 40g player, since he was aging anyway, but probably would have stayed around 30-ish for a couple years and still 20-ish today.

No one needs to go down, since we still have several others on IR. If Capfriendly is right, Nosek didn't even have to go down. Probably only sent him down because there's almost no chance of him playing. Bert should, and probably will, go down once he's healthy. If no one else is injured by the time Abby and Helm come back, I would guess Jurco would be the odd man out unless he starts scoring. Could go the easy route with Mantha if he falters, but if he keeps up his pace he'll stay. Of course, whether we ever get healthy enough to have to make a decision is a big if.

What do you mean? He's had a shot. He's in his 4th year of "a shot" in fact. If at some point this year he demonstrates some ability to play hockey, he might have a chance at going further. Seems unlikely though given the last 3 years.

Guess it's harder than he thinks.

Except none of that is actually true. Smith has been used on the PK because you need at least 5 D for it. More if you have injuries. He's never been asked or expected to be a primary PKer. He started out getting PP time, but wasn't any good at it. Jurco was put on the 4th line because he was a worse player, and worse scorer, than the players ahead of him. Helm has been used as a complimentary player on a scoring line. Mantha isn't being asked to play like Homer. He's asked to play net front on the PP (which is not synonymous with "play like Homer") because he's taking away time from Abby and Sheahan, so he's the best option available. The Tatar comment is just plain stupid. Sheahan has been a solid player. He hasn't been producing and he's been demoted and his icetime reduced lately. We don't have anyone better to put in the lineup. The team has to do what's best for the team, which isn't always going to be perfect for every player. Particularly for guys like Smith and Jurco, who aren't that good, and kids like AA and Mantha who still need to establish themselves and adapt to the NHL game. Not every player is expected to be "defense first". In fact, I could argue that players like Glendening, Miller, Ott, Andersson, Ferraro are/were here specifically to reduce the defensive responsibility of other players while still being able to play guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Larkin, AA, and Mantha. And no one has been scratched or demoted for poor defense alone. Players like Jurco, Smith, Pulk and Mantha last year were demoted because they're scorers who weren't scoring very well. Every time we've had a player come in and score at a good rate, they've stayed in the lineup regardless of their defensive ability. If Mantha keeps scoring, he'll stay. If Jurco gets in and starts scoring, he'll stay.

So, you're starting with the completely baseless speculation that there actually is a trade that some other team is willing to make that definitely improves our team. And because you're completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you're wrong; that maybe the literal few potential trade targets over the last 5 years actually would cost too much (or the teams just plain aren't interested in what we have), you have to force yourself to believe something completely irrational: that the same GM who packaged picks and prospects for rentals and gave a 1st for Quincey would, for no logical reason at all, suddenly turn penny-pincher in a meaningful trade to fill our biggest hole (and the very kind of trade he has obviously been actively trying to make, hence all the "kicking tires" talk). It doesn't make any sense.

Not surprising, a lot of people in the world find it easy to believe a lot of stupid things.

We'll never really know for sure, but I find it very hard to believe. Both that we had the pieces to make an equivalent offer (without adding a bunch extra) and that if we did Holland wouldn't have done it. Doesn't make much sense. Bitching based on both speculation and hindsight. Hard to get more irrational than that.

Reading this thread you'd think we were 0-19 and been shut out every game.

"Could have" is debatable. Franzen was a better player than Setoguchi, but he was also 32 at the time and signed to a lifetime deal. Setoguchi was only 24. Coyle at the time was considered one of the best prospects in the entire league. We didn't have anything that was comparable.

Bet it would look awesome if the Wings had 10 more points right now.

OK, just irrational Glendening hate then. Refreshing in a way.

Well, he's not actually relied upon. Or used that often in important situations. And he was scratched in 3 of the 5 games we've actually been healthy. (Or 6, if you count using over Miller last game.) So, your "plenty of ways" is Bertuzzi? As if he's done anything to suggest he's even as good, much less better, right now than Glendening.