kipwinger

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.

Just imagine what we could do if we had a competent defense and special teams! As a number of people have been saying all season, we're a more talented team than our record suggests. This was just more evidence. Really like Jensen's game last night. Tatar looked good. I actually like the Sheahan, Tatar, Larkin line and think Sheahan will bag one soon if they keep it. When Helm gets back just add him to the 4th and let's keep rolling.

I don't think there's less talent. As a matter of fact I think there's more. I just think that in today's game, with goalies, systems, etc. being what they are, a guy who scores 55 points now is comparable to a guy who scored 70-75 a few years ago. The numbers are deflated, the talent isn't. In 2000-2001 Martin Lapointe scored a career high 57 points. Tomas Tatar's career high is 56 points. Anybody who thinks they're similarly offensively skilled is on crack.

Looking good so far in the first. I'm liking all the lines (except the 4th, but ho hum). It's amazing how much more offense you get when you play offensive players in intelligent ways.

Niemi was the difference maker. I'm actually not that mad about that game. We played much better than them for most of the game. Just a short bit there in the 2nd. If we can get our coaching straightened out I don't think we'll be down too long. I loved AA again tonight. This kid is ******* legit. Before tonight he had 7 points in 3 games, and he looked dominant at times tonight. Stand behind what I said before, he's got elite skill.

Can we PLEEEEEEEEAAAAAAASE replace Ott-Glendening-Miller with Jurco-Helm-Sheahan at the earliest available opportunity?

Sheahan's natural fit is as a 3rd line center. But since we've got 2,000 of those I don't really see how he fits on this team. Trade.

Dekeyser manned the PP point two years ago when our PP was good, so I'm not against it in theory. But I don't think anything is going to fix this dumpster fire until the coaching changes. I'd like to see us go back to the 1-3-1 PP moving forward (after Blashill is gone).

It's smart from a business standpoint. You don't want to discourage people in certain markets from watching. That's the idea, which I understand. Sports are a business.

This is all speculation on my part, but I think it's possible he came into the AHL with a bit of an ego after his junior career. I think a little bit of adversity went a long way with him. I'd hate to see him start thinking things were easy so early in his NHL career. Let him dominate next season and get picked for the All-Star game based on his play and not by default.

Using goals per game factors in unassisted goals though, which ruins the sample. Again, the best way to do it is average all players individual points per game. Or do the same for a random sample. Goals per game doesn't reflect assists accurately and given that most of Orr and Lidstrom's contribution were assists I think it would be a bad measure.

I'm glad Mantha isn't going. I want to see him keep that fire going. Don't want him resting on his laurels. He is definitely more deserving though. I just want to see him getting too much too soon by way of accolades.

See my edit above. You used goals per game, which I don't think is a good measure. It would be better to use points per game to identify differences in scoring. Especially considering both Lidstrom AND Orr were primarily assist machines.

I thought your numbers were the league averages for the era. When you adjust for era you generally use league averages for all players, or a random sample of players, to show that players in general scored more in one era or another. Talking about an individual player's averages doesn't tell you anything about the era. I misunderstood your initial post. Also, upon re-reading your post I think you'd want to use points per game to establish whether there was more scoring and not goals per game.