kipwinger

The link has Quincey with Marchenko and Smith with Kindl. Is that a mistake?

I think the big sticking point with Smith is that many folks see a lot of potential in the kid. Which is fine. He did produce at lower levels. He was a first round pick. He does seem to have the natural physical gifts. But at least for me (and a few others), he needs to show me something with all that potential before I'm going to agree that the guy is "above average" or whatever. I don't expect him to even be all that good defensively (Babs did, and that was a mistake), but he needs to find a way to consistently produce offense. So far he hasn't. And while I'd agree that he hasn't necessarily been used properly, I think the same thing is true for Kindl and he's found ways to get on the board when Smith hasn't. Regardless of his potential, or his usage, this really is a make or break year for Smith. He'll get has chance to lock down a spot (as he should) but I don't imagine the Wings will continue to pay him 2 million bucks to play mediocre defense and not score points. Marchenko can do that for less money. So Smith better be ready to show what he's got this season.

Again, Kronwall is one of the better PP quarterbacks in the entire league. I get your point about his hard minutes, but I'd be very reluctant to take him off the PP. He might be the very most important part of it afterall.

I'm sure he'll get a look in the preseason. They usually use two different "teams" in preseason games, so I'd imagine that Kronwall-Ericsson will be the top pair on one squad and Green-Dekeyser will top the other. Which means the second PP QB spot will be open for each team. Which is where I imagine Smith and Kindl will get their looks. If either of them flat outplay Green or Kronwall, then sure, give them a spot. Doesn't hurt. But I'd be surprised if they did.

Ok, noted. I've heard you argue for that in the past. But since that's not likely to happen, what do you really think they should do?

Stoll, Richards, and Voynov. Three up, three down. I'm not going to pretend that LA handled these situations well. Or that (at least in the case of Voynov) public opinion didn't force them to do something they otherwise wouldn't have. But the fact is, none of those three dummies will be playing for, or getting paid by, the Los Angeles Kings. And that does resemble accountability, at least a little bit.

Provided he gets a shot on the PP, whose spot does he take? He's surely not going to supplant Green or Kronwall. Kronwall was 8th in the league in powerplay points amongst defensemen last year. Green was 16th. I just don't see it. Unless you think he should replace a forward. I'd imagine that either Smith, or Kindl, will be the first replacement should Kronwall or Green get injured. But I'd be really surprised if either of them saw much time on the PP with those two guys healthy. And as much as I hope Blashill can rejuvenate both of their careers, I've got to conclude that this decision is a no brainer. We've finally got two legit, proven, pp quarterbacks. Why over think it?

Word on the street was that Columbus was actually willing to trade Rychel this off season.

Nashville was just a bad fit for him. When Trotz was the coach, he fit right in, because they played a different game. Laviolette's system isn't great for Franson because speed is so important. It's the same reason why I think Franson would have been a better choice for Detroit if we'd kept Babcock. Green would have been a disaster under Babs for the same reason that Trotz didn't use him much. The skills he brings to the table aren't valued in a system like that. This is also the same reason why Detroit wanted Phaneuf while Babs was here, and lost interest when Babs left (And why TO suddenly wanted to keep him when Babs was hired there). Franson, and Poile, were familiar with one another and that's why he want to Nash. But the presence of Laviolette, instead of Trotz, made it doomed from the start.

Quincey played for one of the best possession teams in hockey. Franson played for one of the worst. The other day I posted a very good article with a quote from Dallas Eakins where he says that in a perfect game your team would have zero hits because you'd have the puck the whole game. Franson had a lot more opportunity to block shots and hit guys because he was playing defense the whole game. When he went over to a good possession team (Nashville) he played himself right out of the top four, and if you were to look into it, I'd imagine he had a lot fewer hits and blocked shots (Laviolette's teams play in the O-zone more than Carlyle's do). Again, I'm not knocking the guy. I think he's a good defenseman. But I think people are a bit off the mark when highlighting his "physical game". At least from what I've seen.

Quincey is a much more steady defender than Franson. He's a more traditional stay at home type. Again, Franson just isn't that great in the defensive zone. Quincey (and Phaneuf) are also much more physical, or at least consistently physical. Franson will knock a guy down in the open ice now and again, because he's really big and heavy, but he doesn't play a physical game. At least not that I've ever seen. Kyle Quincey, on the other hand, is the opposite. Doesn't really lay guys out in open ice, but is tough on the boards, in the crease, and as a shot blocker. Cody Franson really is just a big(ish) puck mover, with hard shot. He's more like Kindl than Quincey (disclaimer: he's better than Kindl, I get it. Just stylistically similar). People think he's physical because if you youtube "Franson hits", you'll see some quality body checks. But it's misleading. Had he come here, people would have been very disappointed in his "physical play".

I've always shied away from the Franson comparisons because for whatever reason people feel the need to denigrate one player, if they like another. But I don't think he's comparable to Quincey. Cody Franson is a good player. He's a legit top four defenseman on about any team in the league. That said, there are things he's good at, and things he isn't. When people say he's "physical" they seem to be talking about his body checking ability, which is true. But he's not particularly great on the boards, he doesn't block shots, he doesn't clear creases. He was considerably less physical than Phaneuf while in TO. Offensively, he doesn't have the handles that a guy like Green has, nor does he have the speed or the wrist shot. But he's got a really good slap shot/one timer, and he's an excellent passer with very good vision. Franson will score you some points, contribute on the powerplay, and occasionally lay a guy out in the open ice. But because his offense is limited to his slapper, and because he can't skate well, he's not going to be a strong possession guy. It doesn't make him a bad player, and he's certainly no Kyle Quincey (whom I love, but who is not comparable). I think the guy he most reminds me of is Sami Salo (minus all the injuries). But that's just my opinion.

Well, any defenseman that gambles offensively will get caught now and again and you'll see odd man rushes the other way. This is true of Green, but was also true of Orr, Coffey, etc. It's a fact of life. Teams that employ guys like that tend to assume that the offense they generate will outweigh the chances against over a whole season. So there's that. But I don't really think of that as a "defensive lapse". I think of it as an opportunity cost, which coaches feel is worth the risk. Otherwise, the traditional notions of "defensive lapses" don't really apply. He's sound positionally. Doesn't throw the puck away. Gets to loose pucks with ease. And (as I've mentioned) is surprising physical. I think Green is the victim of narrow perception. If you think that there's only one way to play defense (e.g. block shots, clear the crease, etc.), and someone doesn't do those things, then you'll naturally assume they don't play defense well. But that's really only one way of looking at defense. Another is that, if you're really good at keeping the puck in the O-zone, then you're playing defense by default. For example: People always say Gretzky was bad defensively. But that's only true if you have a narrow definition of defense. He was great defensively, because when he was on the ice, the puck was never in his team's defensive zone.

If Rechlicz wins us the Cup (as would obviously be the case) then I'd like Ken Holland to trade him to the Detroit Tigers. Because as much as the Wings are my favorite team, I REALLY want to see a World Series Champion in Detroit.

Green's most important "defensive" attribute is his ability to gain control of the puck, and lead the breakout, either by skating the puck out of the zone or making an excellent first pass. People who haven't watched Washington much don't realize how physical Mike Green is. He is very good as separating opposition players from the puck. And when he does, it's going the other way in a hurry. I think one of the key differences between Blashill and Babcock centers around this exact concept. Babs did not let any of his defensemen (other than Kronwall on occasion) skate with the puck. Their job was to gain possession, and look to dump the puck off to a forward. This does a couple of things. A) Makes the team easier to defend because you know where the puck is going, B) Makes the defensemen more vulnerable to the forecheck, C) Means that when your d-men turn the puck over, it will probably be in your zone, and D) Curtails the effectiveness of your zone entries. Obviously it remains to be seen how Blash will handle D to O transitions. But I'm optimistic. Letting your d-men skate with the puck should play into Green's skillset, but also improve Smith and Kindl's games (as they're both weak against the forecheck, but really good skaters).

Saying "he's not defensively responsible" is most frequently just a vague way for most people to justify their own personal dislike for a player. The difference in defensively ability between guys like Keith, Subban, and Karlsson is miniscule. Nobody (whose job security involves winning hockey games) would put those guys on the ice as often as they do, and give them as much money as they do, if they only contribute on offense. A 50-60 point, offensive, forward doesn't make as much money as P.K. Subban or Erik Karlsson . They don't play as much either. Yet their detractors all seem to suggest that a 50-60 point forward is all they are. It's bogus.

Who was that one offensive defenseman who kept the puck out of his own zone by essentially being another foward on the ice? You know, the one who was always jumping into the play and carrying the puck deep into the o-zone. I can't remember his name, but I swear he was pretty good. I mean, obviously not as good as a stay at home guy...of course.

Stay at home defense is overrated. I'd rather have guys who can get to loose pucks, get them up the ice, and make plays in the neutral and offensive zones. It's better to have guys that can do something effective with the puck, than guys who clear the crease, block shots, etc. because for them to do what they're good at, you've got to be hemmed into your own zone. I've posted this before. It's Daryl Sutter on why playing defense is overrated. It pretty much sums up how I feel about this topic. http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-03-10/la-kings-news-darryl-sutter-quotes-corsi-for-definition-sidney-crosby Here are a few more good articles on the subject: http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/07/27/puck-possession-game-makes-small-fast-defensemen-most-valuable-in-NHL http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24981849/the-decline-of-the-shot-blocking-crease-clearing-defenseman http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2014/12/30/7464149/nick-leddy-new-york-islanders-nhl-prototype-defenseman

So do you think that people should have to ask permission to wear 18, 30, 33, 24, 26, or 91 as well?

Did you just favorably compare Darren McCarty to Mario Lemieux, Pavel Datsyuk, Doug Gilmour, and Wendell Clark?

I think Verrier will get one. Todd Nelson has had nothing but good things to say about him and he was solid in the development camp. I'd be surprised if he didn't get one.

People can like him all they want to. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of their opinions. But that's a very different thing than having his number unofficially retired, as some here are suggesting. He didn't earn that. He may have had some important highlights, but he never treated himself, the organization, or the city with the respect it deserves. And as a result, he doesn't get to have any of the priveleges that go along with it. The organization threw him a bone in 2008. That's about all the favors "Dmac" should ask for, expect, or receive IMO.

You can pity a substance abuser without any particular need to glorify them, or make excuses for them, in the process. There may be a number of factors that contribute to his behavior. There usually are. But that doesn't excuse it. And I'm not going to glorify McCarty when players like Draper, Maltby, Osgood, Kocur, Chelios, etc. contributed just as much on the ice, and represented themselves, the team, and the city twice as well off of it, without all the baggage. If Mike Green shouldn't wear 25, then I'd expect 18, 30, 33, 24, and 26 to be taken out of circulation as well. Which is completely silly. McCarty is a guy with a few high points, and a lot of "might have beens" in his career. Nobody can take that from him. But IMO, that's not worthy of the respect and admiration that gets heaped on him. Pity maybe, but not respect and admiration. That's reserved for the guys who continue to earn it.

Nah. He's a druggie idiot who could have been a cornerstone piece of Detroit for years (a la Maltby and Draper) but instead pissed it all away. Why should I care about him? Because he punched Claude Lemioux? That was 20 years ago. Who cares? Sergei Fedorov was the absolute lynchpin of those teams and people throw him under the bus for some reason. Yet it's politically incorrect to say that McCarty was a hack. I don't get this fan base sometimes.

People love McCarty and hate fedorov. Unreal.