kipwinger

How in the world do we only have 18 shots? We have been dominant.

Who are these two guys playing for Detroit and wearing 70s numbers? They're pretty quick eh?

Wings are dominant right now, gotta think theyll break through soon if they keep this up.

Rumor mill says the Islanders and Kyle Okposo aren't even close to an extension. That's the kind of guy I'd look to acquire. You'd have to give someone legit to get him, but he's big, strong, tough, and provides quality offense. Don't know what the Isles need, considering they're good, but I'd certainly be finding out if I was Kenny.

Wrong, I just don't fetishize guys who's only job is to take penalties. It's retarded. I've repeatedly said we need big, tough, guys, like Drew Stafford or Troy Brouwer, to be as good as our team can be. I'm all for toughness, as long as the guys can contribute on the score sheet as well. But people like you always ignore that and pretend like I don't like tough players. Which is a crock. Stop distorting what I say to fit your narrative and you might find out what kind of players I actually do think we need.

When Datsyuk gets back I'd like to see him, z, and sheahan at center with Larkin, Tatar,and Nyquist as the skill guys on the wing, and Abby, Player X, and Helm as the muckrs on the other wings.

I disagree with the notion that we need a goal scorer. I think we need somebody that drives possession and can compliment skill players. Something like Washington did getting Oshie and Williams. Guys that are physically tough and can chip in 40-50 points. I want a battler, we've got enough guys that can finish if we could just maintain offensive zone time.

He's still a small, skilled, forward. I mean, Tatar is more gritty than the other two as well, but that doesn't make him something different. They're all just differing degrees of the same thing. When I say I want a big forward, I'm talking about another Abby type guy who can put up 40-50 points. At this point it's all about HOW they score, not HOW MUCH.

I think Pulkkinen has been reasonably successful given what is expected of him. I'd still trade him in a heartbeat for a big winger for the top six. We don't need ALL of Larkin, Tatar, Nyquist, and Pulkkinen in the lineup every night. What was it that Scotty said, "a little less pretty and a lot more gritty"? Something like that.

So is it safe to say the Jak is back?

I completely forgot teemu pulkkinen was on this team until the just said his name.

I'll tell you why I feel the need to chime in on Babcock. And this is only from my point of view. I don't "hate" the guy. Or even "dislike" the guy. I read his book, and I actually think that many of his general philosophies about life are spot on (with regard to putting in honest effort and holding yourself accountable). What I can't stand about Mike Babcock, is this tendency to lionize him. I don't like it when anybody becomes larger than life. It's the same reason I always make sure to mention his unpaid taxes when anybody gets too crazy with the "Mike Ilitch is Detroit's savior" stuff. It's the same reason I said Crosby is the better player in the Ovechkin thread that I started. Idol worship isn't really my thing. And sometimes, here on LGW, discussions of Mike tend to trend that way. Anyway, that's why I feel the need to talk about him. Can't speak for anyone else.

In the context of a "who is best" discussion, I'd argue that its very important to point out when other people have done similar or better things than what he is being given credit for.

You mean aside from Dan Bylsma. Who did the exact same thing, in the exact same year, only better. He had even more injuries that year and won his division, and a playoff round. Actually, maybe Dan Bylsma is the best coach in the world when I think about it. I mean, he's got a better win percentage than Babs AND Quenneville. Just as many Cups as Babs (but who cares about those when evaluating coaches anyway), and he WILLED his team to a division title, the playoffs, and a first round win despite massive amounts of injuries to key players. Now that's impressive. I'm completely sour on Q now. All he ever did was win 3 Cups and is 20 wins away from overtaking Al Arbour (in fewer games) for second all time in wins. Which I've been reliably informed isn't all that impressive because Quenneville has coached for a long time. 1. Bowman 2. Bylsma 3. Babcock 4. Arbour 5. Quenneville. Seems just as plausible as any other top five eh?

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise. Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

I want nothing to do with Lupul. He's a really good player when healthy, but he's never healthy. Also, I don't want any of our guys to catch Toronto's loser germs. We need to keep the locker room sterile of Maple Leaf filth. It might be contagious.

If he wants more scoring I'm sure Mike would agree that the league should do away with the neutral zone trap in the same way that the NBA did away with the zone defense. That generated massive scoring increases.

My point isn't even to denigrate Babcock. He's accomplished what he's accomplished. I just can't stand how people pretend like he's been dealt a tougher hand than other guys. Most criticisms of other coaches are criticisms of him too and most of his strengths are strengths of other guys too. Yet all that is conveniently forgotten by those folks that beat the "Babcock is best" drum. People say Babcock is great because he nearly beat eventual Cup finalists on a number of occasions. They forget that Quenneville did the same thing on even more occasions. They say Babcock is great because he took a marginal team to the finals on the back of good goaltending. They forget that Sutter did that too (with Calgary). They say Quenneville and Sutter had "stacked" teams. They forget how good Babcock's teams were from 2005-2010 (seriously, his first year he coached four 80 point players, neither Quenneville or Sutter have ever had that kind of talent). All the things true of those guys are true of Babcock too. And vice versa. And they won more championships than he did in the same number of opportunities. And that's conveniently overlooked by those saying he's the best.

So did Babcock. And he won less. Unless you don't consider Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa, Rafaski, Lidstrom, and Kronwall stacked. In 2005 Babcock had four 80 point players and lost in the first round. This insinuation that Quenneville has had better teams is a complete joke.

All I've ever said is that Babcock is "one of the best". I've said so hundreds of times. I've NEVER said he was a bad coach. What I've refuted, and what started this discussion yesterday, was this asinine "Babcock is the greatest coach in all of hockey, period" argument. I even said so. Something to the effect of "Nobody would argue that he's good, but he's not the best". And I stand by that. To be the best you have to win Championships. Quenneville, Sutter, and Babcock have all gone to the finals three times. Babcock won the fewest of the three. If he truly was "the greatest coach in all of hockey", I'd expect a different outcome. He's not the best. If you want to call it an "opinion" fine. But it's an opinion based on the fact that other people have won more than he has at the highest levels. Which is a little more sound than your average "Babcock is the best and there's no debate" type of opinion. And yes, I do know that Quenneville coached before Chicago. I assume that if Babcock gets credit for getting knocked out of the playoffs by eventual Cup finalists (Edmonton, Tampa, and Chicago) that Quenneville would to. During his tenure before Chicago he was knocked out by the eventual Cup finalist 6 times.

Nobody is saying that upsets are impossible. But they're upsets precisely because there is an underdog and a favorite. And Canada is the favorite in every single Olympic tournament. You were making it seem like winning the Olympics was some huge thing for Babcock because he was facing "the best players in the world". You forgot to mention that he was playing the "best players in the world" with even better players. His teams should win...barring an upset. Winning with the best team in the league/tourney/etc. is what good coaches are supposed to do. Babcock does it, Quenneville does it, Sutter does it. What makes them better than Babcock is that they do MORE winning with good teams than he does. None of them coached bad teams to championships, and when (in the past) they have coached bad teams, they all had roughly the same results.

If you're the coach of team Canada every single team you play is inferior to yours. They aren't playing AGAINST the best players in the world. They ARE the best players in the world. You make it seem like he's overcoming adversity or something.

I would assume Cam Fowler, since he's on the block and it's rumored that the Ducks are only willing to send him to the East.

Lol. Because you have to play 82 games just to qualify, and then for several more months in the post season, overcome a grueling travel schedule, and win 16 games to win the Stanley Cup. You have to win 4 games in one place to with an Olympic Gold. How is that not apparent? I'm not ignoring anything, I've already told you why that's silly. If being Canada's coach makes you the best coach, then being Canada's captain makes you the best player. Which means that in 1994 Fabian Joseph was the best player in the world, and not Sergei Fedorov. Lol. I didn't say he had as many gold medals. I said he has as many Cups as Babcock has Cups AND Gold Medals. And Cups are harder to win.

By my count he's about 9X the coach Babcock is.