kipwinger

I don't believe that we have a "need on D". We're top ten in the league in 5 on 5 goals against AND top ten in the league on the PK. Plus out goalies are playing well. Defensively we're fine. You could argue that we need better puck movers, but I'm not really sure that's true either. While Kronwall isn't playing well, there's no reason to believe that he won't pick it up at some point. He's consistently produced points throughout his career. Likewise Green and Kindl are moving the puck well given our offensive woes. Even Dekeyser is a capable puck mover, albeit not his specialty. I think a lot of the lack of production from the back end (as well as the forwards) was the result of learning to get comfortable in a new system which asks more of our defensemen than they've previously been expected to contribute. As the offense picks up steam, and our shot differential improves, so will the defensemen's numbers. I do think that it wouldn't hurt to have a power forward type who can bang and crash around the net. But even that seems less necessary when you consider that Richards' return will likely push AA to the wing and given that Sheahan is currently playing wing (and looking good). That gives us decent size on the wings for the first time all year. However, if we are absolutely sold on acquiring a big, gritty, forward, I'd take a look at Kerby Rychel for Columbus. He was drafted one spot ahead of Mantha, plays a physical game, and is rumored to be on the block. Columbus is also rumored to want a defenseman in return, and lord knows we've got a bunch of those. It's a pretty low risk move even if the kid doesn't pan out. Otherwise I'd say stand pat. We've looked better the last 5-6 games against better competition, we're not slipping in the standings, and I think there's every reason to believe our guys (and coach) are finally finding the right fit for the system they're playing.

This probably doesn't deserve it's own thread, but I didn't want to derail another one given the recent emphasis on keeping things on track. Anyway... Just look at this. This guy is on a whole different level. Take a look at the score as well. 5-1 through two periods. I thought Barry Trotz was a defense first coach? Lol.

Apparently Kindl took Blashill seriously tonight. 6 shots on goal for the Jak. I thought he and Marchenko looked strong again tonight. Green too.

One way or two way?

You realize that you can't "steal" a coach that's under contract right? I mean, its against league rules. It's not one of those things people say "can't be done" just because it's hard. In this instance you really CAN'T steal a coach. So Trotz was out of the question. You'd have to choose between guys like Tortarella, Bylsma, McClellan, and a bunch of guys worse than them. There was only one first rate coach who wasn't under contract, and he was leaving Detroit, not staying.

I realize now that my previous use of Ted Nugent was a bit cavalier. The Wings just aren't there yet. This isn't a team that's so good they can goof off. This is a team that's still on the grind. And a team on the grind needs something a little more aggressive. Wings: 3 (Larkin, Sheahan, Green) Senators: 1 I'mma rip this s***, till my bones collapse!

I think we already have. After our first few games we looked REALLY bad against Carolina, Ottawa, and on our Western Canada road trip. We looked absolutely abysmal against bad teams. Since then I felt we played better, even when the win/loss column didn't reflect it. We played some pretty good teams recently, and I thought we looked good. We beat Tampa, beat Toronto (not a good team), lost to Dallas in a closer game than the score indicated, beat Washington in a strong performance, lost a good game to San Jose, and lost a stinker to Boston. Lately it seems (with the exception of the Boston game) that we're playing good for periods of time, against pretty good teams. Earlier in the season we never played good, even against bad teams. We're coming along. It's going to continue to take time. However, if we can hang around the standings (thankfully we're doing fine so far), I'd expect to see a dramatically better team after the new year.

To tell you the truth, I think I'd rather this team struggle to begin the season and finish strong down the stretch. Last year the Capitals struggled badly during the first part of the season after Trotz came on board. Everybody expected immediate improvement considering Trotz is one of the better coaches in the league but presumably learning a new coach's systems and adjusting to massive personnel turnover took some time. However, once everything clicked they finished strong and were one of the hottest teams heading into the playoffs. We'll find our stride.

Well look who decided to show! How you been you mangy son of a *****?

Wow. Holland is now being criticized for bad trades he was rumored to be considering, but never actually made? This is getting silly. I used to get so annoyed when people said, "Red Wings fans are spoiled". I thought it was elitist and patronizing. But there may be something to it when some of our fans are critical of things their GM was rumored to have thought about. It's not enough that he doesn't make bad trades, he can't even to rumored to have thought about bad trades. Lol.

He'll get it sorted out. He's not a bad coach, he just needs to make sure the guys realize that just because they don't play for Babcock anymore, doesn't mean they don't have to play the game the right way.

I think the problem is coaching actually. Or one of the problems anyway. But not in the way some folks think. I think we have a bunch of skill guys who, after losing hardass Babcock, thought that meant they had the green light to go out and be ultra cute. Half our team wants to play like Datsyuk, but don't have the ability. Babcock demanded that they simply their games, and play more north/south hockey. And for guys like Tatar, Nyquist, etc. it made them better. Tatar is a real threat when he's being fiesty and driving the net. He's got great hands in close. But he's only an ok player when he's out on the perimeter trying to dangle. Like any young coach, I think Blashill has to enforce some accountability. If he's telling them to play simpler, and they aren't, he needs to make it clear that he's not ******* around. If he's not telling them that, and he thinks these guys are better when they're being cute, he needs to have his head checked. There are plenty of skilled, highly effective, hockey players in the league who don't dipsy doodle like Datsyuk does. He needs to really drive that home.

I was reading an article by Chuck Klosterman recently, and thought this would be a fun discussion. It's simple, identify the nemesis AND archenemy for various Red Wings. But first, a few points of clarification... "You're probably asking yourself, How do I know the difference between my nemesis and my archenemy? Here is the short answer: You kind of like your nemesis, despite the fact that you despise him. If your nemesis invited you out for cocktails, you would accept the offer. If he died, you would attend his funeral and--privately--you might shed a tear over his passing. But you would never have drinks with your archenemy, unless you were attempting to spike his gin with hemlock. If you were to perish, your archenemy would dance on your grave, and then he'd burn down your house and molest your children. If this distinction seems confusing, just ask your girlfriend to explain it in detail; women have always intuitively grasped the nemesis/archenemy dichotomy. Every woman I've ever known has had at least one close friend whose only purpose in life is to criticize her actions, compete for the attention of men, and drive her insane; very often, this is a woman's best friend. Every woman also has a former friend (usually someone from high school with large breasts) whom she has loathed for years (and whom she will continue to loath with the intensity of a thousand suns, even if she sees her only once every ten years). This is her archenemy. Women intrinsically understand human dynamics, and this makes them unstoppable. In the 1980s, Larry Bird's nemesis was Magic Johnson, and it was always beautiful when they tangled. But Bird's archenemy wasn't Magic; it was Isiah Thomas. When the Celtics played the Pistons, it was a train wreck, and it went deeper than basketball: In 1987, Isiah supported Dennis "Rush" Rodman when he claimed Bird was famous only because he was white. Larry forgave Isiah in public, but he still iced him in the end; the first thing Bird did after becoming president of the Pacers was fire Zeke as head coach. Steve Jobs is Bill Gates's nemesis, but if Gates had only one bullet in his revolver, he'd shoot David Boies. J.R. Ewing was at war with nemesis/brother Bobby for twelve seasons (thirteen if you count the year Victoria Principal dreamed he was dead), but Cliff Barnes was the true Minotaur of Southfork. Jack White turned Von Bondies singer Jason Stollsteimer's face into a speed bag, but Stollsteimer barely even deserves nemesis stature; White's archenemy is Ryan Adams (although he'd be better off if it were Julian Casablancas of the Strokes). The Joker was Batman's nemesis, but--ironically--his archenemy was Superman, since Superman made Batman seem entirely mortal and generally nonessential. Nobody likes to admit this, but Batman hated Superman." So, name the nemesis AND archenemy for any or all of the following: 1. The Red Wings Organization 2. Steve Yzerman 3. Nick Lidstrom 4. Chris Osgood 5. Pavel Datsyuk 6. Ken Holland 7. Mike Ilitch 8. Henrik Zetterberg 9. Johan Franzen 10. Darren McCarty

We just played three of the best teams in the league. So win one lose one doesn't break my heart.

I still hate Pulkkinen, even while eating my heaping helping of crow.

Anybody notice how much kindl is playing?

I hate Pulkkinen.

Zetterberg dives a lot and doesn't get caught? I never noticed.

Also, the thing that annoys me about articles like that is that it completely ignores the fact that contracts aren't given out for production only. Nobody bats an eye when a player with good production (but a bad attitude) makes a little less than they otherwise would. That just seems normal. But it seems crazy to everyone involved when a guy with modest point production (but a great attitude) makes a little more than he otherwise would. It's not the best contract on earth, but it's a far cry from the worst.

I don't think Puck Daddy is the St. James of Yahoo. She's not critical at all. If anything, Puck Daddy (and especially Lambert) are OVERLY critical in an attempt to keep up their snarky, smartassy, personas.

Dang, I wonder if fans from other teams are going to start saying the Wings are divers the way we say it about means like Boston, Vancouver, and San Jose? Maybe they always have.

Chicago seems to do pretty well with one elite center and a bunch of good wingers. And I completely disagree about the defense too. Kronwall has consistently put up as good, or better, seasons that guys like Keith, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Suter. They're all obvious number 1 defensemen, but he's not? Seems like you're deliberately distorting things in order to validate your premise, that Holland sucks. Our team isn't on a "downward spiral". We've had plenty of good talent over the years. We've got one of the best prospect pools in the league. And we're in a healthy cap situation. Unless you're the one spinning it. In which case we're a cellar team, with a garbage prospect pool, and no future. lol. Whatever man. You win. We suck.

Lol. Apparently all Holland has to do to get some respect is to personally scout, draft, develop, acquire, train, and coach each and every player on the team. That's all. Totally reasonable.

That's right, he was only the Assistant GM when Shanahan was acquired. I guess I was exaggerating a bit. He wasn't responsible for ALL of the Hall of Famers that played for Detroit during that period. Just most of them.

Which downward spiral? If anything we've plateaued. Plateaued as a playoff team. Which is hardly a "downward spiral". Also, I think there are plenty of "signs of reversing". Nyquist, Dekeyser, Tatar, Larkin? Are those guys chopped liver? I thought they were top young players. It seems like you're only going to be happy if Holland magically figures out how to transition from prime Datsyuk and Zetterberg to prime someone else without transitioning at all. Which is absurd. Remember the four years between 2002 and 2006 when we were first and second round fodder for teams like Edmonton? All our established stars were getting old or leaving, and our young guys hadn't stepped up yet? We were in a downward spiral right?