kipwinger

I disagree. I don't think they're making safer plays. The cornerstone of Babcock's defensive philosophy was "make the safe play". He explicitly said so a number of times. He wanted the forwards to play back, and get quick passes from the defense to the offense when Detroit gained possession. That was the "safe play". Get the puck out of Smith or Kindl's hands and onto some forward's stick who doesn't suck. Trouble is, they're both bad passers and are very susceptible to pressure (as are Ericsson and to a lesser extent Quincey). So teams forechecked us hard, pressured our defense, and caused turnovers in Detroit's zone. Obviously, that's not good. Blashill doesn't ask those guys to make the "safe play". He empowers them to make the dynamic play. The next time you see Smith or Kindl gain possession of the puck and immediately carry the it up ice before making a play, ask yourself if either of them would be allowed to do that under Babs. Seriously, when was the last time you saw any of our defensemen (other than Kronwall) lead the breakout by carrying the puck and making a play? Not for a long time anyway. Our defensemen are super mobile, and yet speed and mobility were never a part of their game under Babs. Even Ericsson and Quincey are mobile compared to most other teams' big stay at home guys.

Our transition game is the biggest difference between this year and last. We're basically fielding the same "crappy" defense that Mike Babcock didn't trust to lead the breakout, and yet we're extremely effective at getting the puck up the ice with momentum. I mean, having Green helps no doubt. But it's interesting that Kindl, Smith, Quincey, and Ericsson can all look so much more effective than a year ago. Take Smith, for example. Everybody knows that I'm not the guy's biggest fan. And he didn't disappoint last night. A couple of bungling turnovers, etc. etc. But the big difference is that when he did it last night, he wasn't deep in the Detroit zone. I honestly don't give a damn if he throws the puck away up ice. Sure it breaks up momentum, but it's really not harmful. Same with Kindl. Weird how that works.

Lol. Trolls. Not to be taken seriously.

Our team is insanely fast.

Lol. You really think that's why we couldn't score? Because we didn't have the firepower? We had four 20 goal scorers. Our young guys have gotten a year better. We've added a rookie sensation, an elite offensive defenseman, and a skilled second line center. Oh, and we're healthier. This isn't the same team that played Tampa a few months ago, and you know that as much as anybody.

Every team, every year, plays 3-4 guys who are ostensibly less good than their prospects. If its such a bad idea, why does everyone do it? Why will William Nylander play for the Marlies while Daniel Winnik starts for the Maple Leafs next game? Surely there's no value in playing an old, one dimensional grinder over a you skill player right? Except there is. They play a role, and they play it well. A team full of skill players and rookie prospects would ******* blow. That's why Miller, Ericsson, Quincey, Helm, etc have jobs despite being "worse" than younger guys.

Which team are you watching, the 2012 Red Wings? We've got as much, or more, offensive firepower as any team in the league. Any attempt to characterize this current team as unskilled, or offensively impotent is a load of malarkey. Our third line in tonights game is Sheahan, Nyquist, and Pulkkinen. The Babcock days are long gone, we are a skilled team again. Embrace it. Come on board for the big win.

You mean like the big, punishing, body checkers that Chicago and Tampa have on their 4th lines? Nah, those pantywaists can't hack it.. We need a 4th line like the Islanders. Clutterbuck and Martin. Hells Yeah! Those guys hit anything that moves, which is why their team is so successful.

And I'd reiterate that after two games there's no need for things to "get ugly" as Rick had mentioned. However, if you have no depth scoring after 2 games, you should do something about it, as Blash seems to be thinking. If the problem continues, we might see a change in which guys get scratched. I agree. I don't think he's a bad player. My whole point is that with our current depth, he's not going to break into the lineup in a scorers role. He'll get his opportunity on the 4th, and it's up to him to produce a little in that role (which isn't impossible). Then work his way up. I definitely think he can do it, but that's the way it's going to have to happen because we're too deep for him to take the position "I can't produce if I'm not in a scoring role". He better, otherwise it may be a LONG time before he gets an opportunity.

We've only played 2 games.

I got you. I don't think you're hating on the guy or anything, and there are definitely very few spots available. I really liked him in the preseason with Tatar and Richards. Clearly Blashill likes the idea of a big winger with Tatar and Richards because he just moved Franzen up there. If Franzen isn't ready for that kind of ice time and/or Jurco plays well in the fourth, he could very well find himself back up with those two. He needs to see this as a process...and for that matter so do the fans. Again, I don't love him on the bottom line, but I like it a lot more than seeing him on the bench.

Didn't Ovie do it in like 375 games? I think Crosby did it even faster than that. Just puts into perspective just how special those guys are given that Stamkos is an insanely good hockey player in his own right.

I don't agree that he's getting close to "make or break" status. Abby toiled away on the bottom lines for years before he figured out his offensive game. It takes awhile. I think that Jurco is fine where he's at. He's only 22, so he's got plenty of time to grow. My only point is that he needs to produce if he wants a spot. And while it's hard to produce on the fourth line, it's not impossible. If he's as offensively gifted as I think he is, and he thinks he is, then he's got to make it happen. Right now there's a huge opportunity for a big winger to land a spot on the top 9. Nyquist is playing bad, and no matter what they do with him, it leaves two small guys playing together (which isn't working out). If we don't get some depth scoring, one of our skill guys is going to see the bench soon, and Jurco could be well positioned to take that spot if he's making things happen on the fourth line in the mean time.

I realize that Jurco on the 4th line isn't ideal, but I'm very wary about using it as too much of a crutch either. Last year Stephen Weiss scored 25 points in 52 games on the fourth line. Kindl scored 13 points in 35 games with almost no ice time. Glendening had 12 goals from the fourth line. He's got to get on the board. If he does that, he'll get an everyday spot. And if he has an everyday spot, the next time the lines need juggled, he might well end up with a little more icetime. But he has to produce despite the limitations in playing time. It's not impossible, it's just hard. But we've seen it happen before.

Ted Kulfan ‏@tkulfan 1m1 minute ago Looks like Jurco in for Ferraro... So our fourth line is Jurco-Glendening-Helm? Me likely. Edit: Nevermind, didn't see that Helm was still injured.

What the heck are you guys talking about? Barry Melrose coached Tampa Bay, and Stamkos, for exactly 16 games. He hardly impacted Stamkos' stat line.

Guy's a loser. Aside from the consistent winning he's done for the last 25 years, name one thing he's ever been successful at?

Lol. Holland doesn't know what he's doing? There's a reason why we've got more good players than places to play them, and it has EVERYTHING to do with Ken Holland.

Scrappletater!!!

Miller blocked two shots with no stick. Apparently that's why he's valuable.

Second and third lines are kinda invisible.

Who are you telling? I'm a govt. worker, I dare you to work less than we supposedly do lol!

Of course hockey would start on a Friday lol. I'm already not likely to work much on Friday, but especially if all I can think about is beer and Red Wings hockey.

Anybody else having the least productive day at work ever?

Is it possible that the kid could be good AND still be no big loss to the organization?