kipwinger

This is a pretty funny discussion. I recall one of the participants here CONSTANTLY b*tching about how Mike Babcock ruined Brendan Smith because Babs wouldn't play Smith with Kronwall. Seems like the shoe is on the other foot now.

Are they the same people who discount statistical differences, adjusted scoring rates, and obvious systematic differences like butterfly-style goaltending? Because I think you're just talking about yourself at this point.

Who are these people? We've been talking about this for pages and the only person mentioning trophies is you.

So youre saying AA single handedly won games for the Wings down the stretch? Sounds likee a stud to me.

GMR has an answer for that. Basically, if Hull played today he'd be 6'3, 225lbs, and lightening fast. Conversely, Ovechkin wouldn't even be in the league in 1972 because international hockey was just a bunch of vanilla midgets and commies.

Well, it's closer. Which is a point you keep ignoring. You seem to not care about context when it suits you, and not care about numbers when it suits you too. I'm not sure on what basis you're making your picks other than Richard trophies apparently... Also, who gives a s*** about Richard trophies? If Ovechkin score 50 four more times he sets the record. Who gives a damn if Matthews scores 51 in each of those same seasons?

610 is a long way from 894. It wasn't hyperbole.

Ok cool, I'll play your game. Take all context out of it and just compare scoring vs. peers? Easy. Ovechkin scored 703 in 1148 games. Hull scored 610 in 1063. Ovechkin is a better scorer. Also, regardless of era, peers, equipment, etc. only one of those two guys is going to have the all time record. The other isn't even close. What else do you need?

Your "devil's advocate" Schick is getting old. I've seen you rail against "big goalies with big pads" for years.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Bobby Hull never had to shoot on a goalie over 6'1. Let alone do it most nights. And I know for a fact he never shot on a butterfly goalie. Scoring a bunch of goals on short, stand up, goalies just isn't as hard. It's science.

Ovi, and it's not even really close. He's going to break the record in a lower scoring era, against bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic defensemen and goalies, and more sophisticated defensive systems.

Yup. But fewer goals, fewer points, and not a Selke caliber defender. Case closed.

Draisaitl > McDavid

Yzerman, Draper, and Verbeek all scouting Rossi last night according to The Athletics Max Bultman.

Watching Marco Rossi on NHL network right now. He's going to be better than Lafreniere. Mark it.

Nobody said Sakic or Shanahan made their teams good. I said that they did a lot their first year, and implied that an "assessment year" in which you do very little of substance is unnecessary. In the future I'm happy to debate with you, but I'd prefer you respond to what I actually said, and not what Edit: Also, now that I look closely at it, I'm gonna call bullsh*t on the "nothing stands out" comment too. Sakic traded a top young center for two prospects who are still playing big roles on the team now and a 2nd round pick; and added Stuart and Soderberg (top 4 defenders with Stanley Cups) and Daniel Briere (a bona fide star). Shanahan traded a young top four defenseman for a first round pick, cleared a massively bad contract (Clarkson), and traded a depth defenseman for a 2nd round pick. So yeah, hardly sitting on their hands here.

Presumably when a) he can clear some of the Kapanens and Johnssons from the roster and replace them with b) non-Patrick Marleau vets who don't cost a ton for minimal production.

You're on crack. Most of the credit goes to Datsyuk and Zetterberg for prioritizing two-way play themselves. If Mike Babcock taught them to play the right way, then why didn't he do the same with Matthews, Marner, and Nylander? A portion of the credit does go to Mike Babcock no doubt. He was the coach after all. But another portion of the credit goes to all those vets on the team that made sure Dats and Z were accountable every day. Pretty hard to play half-assed hockey when Yzerman, Shanahan, Lidstrom, Draper, Malty, etc. are on the team telling you to do otherwise.

I agree with all of this. Plus, he was 25 and his age doesn't fit with our rebuild timeline. Same is gonna happen to Mantha soon too. Those five goals in the first two games bought him some time, but his 8 goals in the next 37 games is glaring. Most "star" level players are basically as good as they're going to be at 25 or 26 anymore. If you're not, it's on you.

Lol. Doubt it. They need a few vets on the team at forward to help hold guys accountable on the ice, and a little growth/maturing by the coach and key guys. But that's about it. Also, from 2005 to about 2010 or 2011 Babs had all the talented, accountable, players he could ever want. AND had superstars too. And he got very mediocre results out of them. He literally had his ideal situation (prime two-way superstars, gritty role players, accommodating GM) for a long period of time and we didn't get some Joel Quenneville level of success. We got two trips to the finals and Cup win. A feat accomplished by Michael Therien/Dan Bylsma as well. Why? Because superstar talent is the rising tide that floats all boats. There are a ton of coaches out there that get a lot out of a little bit of talent, but Mike Babcock just isn't one of them.

Just like he cracked the whip in Toronto? Fat lot of good that did them. AND that was a much more talented team than ours. Babcock jumped the shark. He was never as good as people made him out to be, and he's worse now that everyone has had 15 years to figure him out. He had superstar players in TO at the beginning of the year and far from "cracking the whip" and making them competitive they were instead racing to the bottom. Dude sucks. He's basically this era's Ken Hitchcock.

I must have missed the part where "hard man" Babcock used his Babcockian hardness to propel a much more talented roster than ours to any meaningful playoff success in the 5+ years he was with the team. If being a hardass made Babs some super coach I'd sure like to see the results, because from where I'm sitting he's he REALLY good teams and marginal success. Plenty of other "player's coaches" have had as much or more. Now Sheldon Keefe (a rookie coach (with a better record than Babs this year) is considered a bust because he hasn't unf*cked Toronto in like 40 games? C'mon. You're reaching bro.

I disagree. Look at what Sakic and Shanahan did in the first 12 months after taking over their teams. Both of whom were at the bottom of the league too. I also totally disagree with this notion that we're so bereft of talent that there's nothing we can do to improve. We have tons of assets, between our middle 20s players, 2nd and 3rd round drat picks, and cap space. Nobody is expect a miracle in year one, but I think it's entirely inaccurate to imply there's nothing more Yzerman could do. He's done very little this year because that's his choice, not because he can't do more. I simply disagree with that choice.

Don't look now, but rookie Chase Pearson is playing like an absolute stud for the Griffins. 20 points in 53 games off their 4th line. There's a genuine chance we've got something more than a grinder here.