kipwinger

They know what to do because they play the same system on both units. Which is my point. The net front guy (for example) on both units has the same job. So when injuries happen he moves from the second to the first unit with no trouble. In your scenario they wouldn't have the same job, so there would be a learning curve. And learning curves reduce effectiveness. Same reason why NHL teams' AHL affiliates run the same systems. So that players don't have to learn something totally new when they get called up. Only instead of the relatively infrequent situation of a call up, you're talking about varying systems situation by situation, pp unit by pp unit. Nobody does it. If you disagree with that I'm sure you can find a few examples. I scoured the recesses of my mind and the internet and couldn't find any. If it's such an obviously good idea I'm sure bunches of teams have done it/continue to do it right?

You would have to learn two different systems because if you moved from one to the other (which happens all the time to all players all season long for pretty much all teams), as a result of injury or because either unit wasn't doing well, you'd have totally different responsibilities. And hockey players, like most pro athletes, ARE idiots. Ever watch Ericsson, or Smith, or Abby play and thought "he seems like a bright guy"? I haven't either. Put it to you this way. Nobody has EVER done it, in the 100 years of the NHL. Which leads you to three possible conclusions. 1. People have thought about it and not done it because it's a bad idea. 2. People have never thought about it, you're the first. 3. People think it's a good idea, but don't do it because they don't want to do something that is obviously a good idea. I'd bet all my money it's the first one.

I actually think coaches are right to emphasize process driven results. In any system with multiple moving parts you want the entire thing to work together to achieve a result. If it's working then any one individual part may no reap the benefits, but as a whole you'll be better. Think about every job you've ever had. If everybody were trying to do everybody else's job it wouldn't work too well. Obviously the issue is that our system isn't getting results. And that may be the result of a bad "process". Or it may be because some of the individual parts aren't good enough. And I understand why Blashill's vague references to "the process" grate on some. But that's not a unique characteristic of Blashill. Babcock talked about it CONSTANTLY. But it's probably true. As fans we have a tendency to think that we're not getting results because player X "doesn't care" or player Y "isn't trying/hungry/engaged". But that's probably too simplistic. It takes a team effort to scores most goals, and if Sheahan is doing what he's supposed to (I don't know if he is or isn't), he might not be the problem regardless of his goal totals.

You've advocated two different powerplay setups for a while now. I think it's a terrible idea. Each player would have to learn two different systems, which is confusing enough for a bunch of pro athletes (who aren't notoriously intelligent). It increases the likelihood of confusion about what you're supposed to do whenever you hit the ice. Plus, if you had an injury you couldn't exactly plug one person in for another considering all their practice and training would have been for the other type of powerplay. Hence why nobody, ever, has done it. Same reason I can't stand when coaches move guys from wing to center to wing to center all season long. Better to teach each player to do one thing well then multiple things which get in the way of each other.

He did play the point, but that was before the 1-3-1 was instituted. They also tried Samuelsson back there as well. Both were disasters. The thinking was that they've got got a good shot, so naturally they should be on the point. Which is dumb. First, point shots almost never score on the PP because the box is loaded with bodies and the shots don't get through. Second, both of those guys are slow, so they couldn't keep the puck in or get back on shorthanded chances. The two qualities you want from your point man on the 1-3-1 are good skating and good passing skills. A guy up top has pretty much zero chance of scoring on the PP anymore. You're better off putting your best shooters on the half boards where you can swing the puck over for a one timer before the defense has a chance to rotate over.

Because it would be stupid? If you're going to make a coaching change why wouldn't you wait until the offseason to see who else is available and then hire the best of those options? As the season goes along you might see a Laviolette, Tippet, etc. become available and they would obviously be better choices. Then again, I assume much of modern hockey baffles you Frank.

If you think "everyone is available" I don't know what to tell you. Sure, in theory, everyone should be available for a better player, but that's not how trades work anymore. You don't get high end returns anymore. You get prospects, picks, and rentals. I'm not trading any of AA, Larkin, Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Dekeyser for rentals, prospects, or picks. The return isn't worth what you'd be losing. I would take picks for Vanek, Smith, and/or Green, although they would have to be first rounders to make it worth while. There's no market for trading a goalie, so that's pointless. Abby, Ericsson (who I'd give away for nothing), and Helm have contracts that are hard to move and I'm not sure I'd move Helm and/or Abby anyway. Marchenko, Glen, Miller, Ott, etc. don't have any value so you wouldn't get anything worthwhile for them. Realistically the only trades worth making are a package around Nyquist, Tatar, or Dekeyser OR Vanek, Smith, Green for picks. That's pretty much it. So no, not everyone is available.

Also, given that there's absolutely no market for goalies at the moment there's really no easy way to move one. I think we're far better off holding on to both of them into the offseason to see if anything changes (which is doubtful). Trying to force a trade would require you to A) eat some of Howard's contract, which is dumb considering he's our better goalie right now, or B) sell low on Mrazek, who's been bad enough that you couldn't get good value for him. Neither is a good idea. I'm all for moving assets if you can get a return, but I'm never in favor of giving assets away (unless it's someone abjectly terrible like Kindl).

Here are a couple good articles explaining who should be in which positions on the ice, as well as another detailing the overall strategy of the 1-3-1. This one was written about the Penguins, but it details what players should be used in each position, and what skillsets you need where. You can easily plug our guys in for theirs based on their skillsets. http://www.pensburgh.com/2015/6/12/8769605/mike-johnston-wrote-the-book-on-the-1-3-1-power-play-so-why-dont-the This one is written about the Caps and does a good job of explaining how the puck should be moved around the perimeter, and which shots should be available as you do. http://www.japersrink.com/2013/1/18/3888886/capitals-1-3-1-power-play-oates-ovechkin Finally, here's one that discusses the different types of zone entries and their effectiveness. I'm surprised that the drop pass entry leads to the most shots per PP, something we desperately need to get better at. But I'm not surprised to see that it's the slowest and takes the longest to set up, which are things that play away from our skill set. http://www.nhlspecialteams.com/blog/2016/3/1/are-power-play-drop-pass-entries-effective

Which is the reasonable point of view. Clearly.

I think Marchenko is decent enough. He's good positionally, is a pretty solid passer, and is strong. He's not aggressive or physical (which I don't really care about), and he's not a great skater (which I do). I just don't really value the skillset he DOES have. The primary skill I think all defenseman need in today's game is the ability to get back to loose pucks quickly, turn, and get the puck up ice quickly either via pass or skating. He doesn't really get back that quickly, though he can pass the puck. I'd be fine with him as a 7th defenseman on the cheap. 3rd pair if someone is really struggling and you need to bench them. But not much more.

It might say something about your character Lefty lol. You seem to have a compulsion to find a team scapegoat regardless of their talent. Better take a long hard look man :-)

This Mrazek debate is hysterical. On the one hand you've got folks who think you completely dump a goalie who's struggling in favor of our veteran goalie who has struggled in the same way for big patches of his career. On the other side you've got someone who basically refuses to admit that Mrazek has every played a bad game in his career, or at least not one that was his fault.

I also don't think Shattenkirk is substantially better than Green. He's just on a better team. If I'm going to part with good assets to get someone they wouldn't be a rental, wouldn't be "meh", and would be cost controlled. He's none of those.

Nah, I'm good on Shatty. Hamilton is my pick. Young enough to still be part of our future core.

To be honest the defenseman I like least of all in my pairings is Dekeyser. Not because he's bad but because I don't like him on the top pair. However, none of our other left defenseman would do any better there. But generally speaking I care more about usage than pairings anyway. In general I'd use Ouellet-Sproul for offensive zone starts, DK-Green for neutral, and Smith-Jensen for defensive zone starts.

Hmmm, with the players we have now? Ideally: DK-Green Smith-Jensen Ouellet-Sproul Marchenko Obviously Kronwall and Ericsson aren't going anywhere. And in a perfect world I'd trade Dekeyser. So I know my pairs are wishful thinking. But if I had to pick them, based only on what how they've played, I'd do these.

I don't think you need a big, tough, rugged, stay at home defenseman to "clear the crease". I think that's a thing you used to need and so everyone believes you still do. Who's Chicago's big crease clearer? Pittsburgh's? We should be trying to be more like those teams, given our current make up. Not pretending to be something we're not (i.e. a big, tough, team).

You went to college. I'm sure you'll be fine lol.

Lol. I'm not ready to go that far, but I don't think the season will be a disappointment if we make the playoffs and win a round or two.

I see you've left out another option. Improve by optimizing your lineup and systems, improve as your young, talented, players grow and get better, make the playoffs and maybe win a round or two. Hockey teams aren't static. They can actually get better as the season goes along.

Personally, I'd pursue the most aggressive schemes possible in all scenarios. 2-1-2 forecheck, 1-3-1 powerplay, and highly active defensemen. Sure you'll give up more goals, but you'll score more. And scoring should be a strength for a team that has drafted for skill since the dawn of man. Look how effective Jensen was last night by using his skating to advance the puck and attack the offensive zone. He made things happen. Didn't lead to a goal last night, but over a season those types of chances generally will. Way better than completely disarming his potential by forcing him to stay back and rarely take those kinds of chances. And it's not like we're some great team when we're being conservative. We've been amongst the best teams in the league at shot suppression all season and we sucked, so obviously being conservative isn't translating to wins.

I think the problem with Blashill, and a lot of other coaches, is that he's so convinced that the NHL is too good, and too tight, that you can't afford to make any mistakes. As a result he tends to be too conservative with players (and strategy). This, in turn, can stifle players' ability to make plays. If you're always being reactive you tend not to have any margin for error. I advocate identifying your strengths, and doing what you're good at SO WELL that other teams have to react to you. In our case I think that means emphasizing our speed, skill, and aggressiveness. If you're attacking all the time teams will be on their heels and will be more likely to abandon their game plan as a reaction to you.

I hope that too. But if they don't make it, I'm still happy to see the team getting better. I like seeing the young guys rising to the occasion and earning more ice time and responsibility. I like seeing Blashill slowly realizing what's working, and how best to utilize the talent he has. And I like seeing a team, and organization, not rolling over and giving up because of a bad season. There's a lot to improve upon obviously, but if you find yourself wishing we fail (so we get a high draft pick) you might as well just throw in the towel for the remainder to the season and take up a hobby or something. It would be better for you in the long run. I like watching hockey, and the Red Wings, too much for that.

Lol. Nobody is saying the season is saved, or we'll probably make the playoffs. Just that we're playing better than a month ago, or that's something to be happy and excited about. Otherwise, why bother to watch? Unless you're the type of person who gets off on being bitchy and miserable that is. Being ubiquitously cynical about the team is just as useless as being ubiquitously apologetic about it. At the very least it completely undermines the possibility of rational discourse, which is the entire point of a discussion board, and at most it makes you (and everyone else) a miserable dick.