kipwinger

It's official. Toews is better than Yzerman. Straight from the horse's mouth. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/jonathan-toews-better-player-than-steve-yzerman--says-steve-yzerman-175536179.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Hogwash. You do think he's terrible. You're agreeing with a guy who called him completely worthless. Now you're just trying to justify getting rid of him, post hoc. Secondly, yes he has impressed offensively. He scored at a point per game pace in the AHL the year he was called up for good. 32 points in 32 games. For comparison's sake, Nyquist scored 58 points in 56 games prior to his first extended call up, and Tatar never scored a point per game. Both of them got sent back down for additional seasoning after their first call ups. Jurco didn't. Which is why it's taking him longer to hit his potential. Secondly, we had 6 players put up more than 40 points this year. Three of them will be 35 years old, or older, next year. One of them was a defenseman. So no, we don't have a "surplus of young players who can provide those numbers". We have 3 young players that can do it, Abby, Nyquist, and Tatar. And two of them have only done it once. Because you said the guy was completely worthless, got called on it, and then put words in everybody else's mouths. Nobody said he was awesome, or that he ruled, or anything else like it. You said that in order to distort our positions and make yours seem more reasonable. Which it wasn't. It's a strawman argument. You're hardly the first person to do it. And it's obnoxious each and every time. If you don't want people "be a jerk about it", don't call players worthless and then distort people's positions when they disagree with you. Believe it or not, most of us are here to talk about hockey. And comments like that, and your subsequent behavior, make our ears perk up a bit.

You don't have to assume anything. Babcock was explicit in his desire to keep Jurco in Detroit. And while it probably didn't do him any favors, I'd be pretty reluctant to say that he f***ed up Jurco's development. At worst he probably delayed it, a little bit, but that's all. I've been Babcock's most vocal critic for a long time. But I've got no problem with the way he's handled young guys. He doesn't put them in over their heads. He doesn't make them carry too much of the load. And he emphasizes the fundamentals of the pro-game, rather than take the easy way out. That's what he was doing with Jurco, and given how it worked for other young Red Wings, I'd say it's the right idea.

Hyperbole, last refuge of flawed logic. Person 1: We should trade Jurco, he was completely worthless! Pretty Much Everybody Else: No he wasn't, he just didn't score a lot. He's still got plenty of upside. And he's young. Person 1: Fine! Jurco rules! Not disappointing at all. Pretty Much Everybody Else: Yeah, that's what we said.

Aha, thanks for the correction. It only bolsters my original point though. The Lightening didn't "play uninspired". The Wings are just a tough out.

I don't think anybody would be happy if that's all he ever turned out to be. Babs commented several times throughout the season that he was incredibly happy with Jurco's game, and that he needed to continue to have good habits and his offense would come. Which is exactly how I feel about him. If he'd had the opportunity to "over ripen" like Nyquist or Tatar, and enter the league at 24 or 25, after several years in GR, then I'd expect more out of him too. But he didn't. So his development will be slower than guys like that. It's to be expected if you're being even remotely reasonable in your assessment. If he still looks like this next year, or the year after, then talk to me. He's played less than 100 NHL hockey games. Have even the slightest amount of patience.

Knee jerk reaction I probably wouldn't have thought that about Abby. But when you think about it, having a fourth line that is as defensively responsible as ours was, allows you to keep your top six off the ice in the d-zone. And if you look at (for example) Glendening's TOI and faceoffs taken, it's probably much higher than most fourth line centers. Which suggests that he was probably put out there to win the faceoff and get the puck out of the defensive zone ANY time there was a d-zone faceoff. Which is not to say that Abby, or any of the top six, was being sheltered. Rather, why send them out when one of your best defensive players is also one of your best faceoff guys? Just use him, and save your top six the effort. I bet (had they kept track) that Draper's possession stats would have looked a lot like Glendening's, and our top six guys (in the glory years) would have had more o-zone starts than you'd imagine given how good they were defensively.

I completely agree about the importance of zone starts as a mediating variable when looking at Corsi, I've mentioned that same point many times when discussing B. Smith. I only brought up those guys to compare him to other third and fourth liners. And because Jurco played quite a lot on the fourth line this season. So while his zone starts probably weren't as tough as Glendening or Miller, they were probably AS tough as Andersson's, and considerably tougher than Weiss or Pulkkinen. But agreed. And point taken.

Wow, I don't know where to begin. First, possession means a lot, regardless of production. Which is why the emphasis on those metrics is sweeping the league. If you can go get loose pucks, or keep pucks when you have them, then EVERYBODY on your team benefits (regardless of your individual production). Jurco does this. Guys like Miller, Glendening, Pulkkinen, Weiss, Andersson, don't. Secondly, being on the penalty kill is not necessarily indicative of your defensive play. For example: Brendan Smith sees a reasonable amount of time on the PK despite being AWFUL defensively at even strength. Being good at one does not mean you'd be good at the other. Finally, Justin Abdelkader followed up his "coming out party" with 6 points in 50 games the following year. You'd probably have advocated trading him too. And it would have been just as silly. Jurco is young. He had a bad year offensively. However, he did a lot of other things very well, as evidenced by the fact that Babcock lobbied to keep him in Detroit instead of send him down to GR, AND Babs used him over guys like Weiss and Pulkkinen (who were better offensively) in the playoffs. If he sucked so much, and if he provided nothing at all, then why did Babcock keep playing him? It's not like he didn't have other options.

Very good point. EUROPE!

What would you get for him in trade that would be any better than him being a "complimentary scorer" in four years? He's not exactly overflowing with value right now. He's big, fast, good defensively, hits, and has strong possession numbers. If, in four years (when he'll only be 26), he can contribute 40-50 points around the crease, he'll be worth FAR more than anything you'd have gotten by trading him now. As far as the Franzen comparison, I agree. But we've already got Mantha for that.

Nah dude, he sucks. Cut him. Make him trade bait. Cut bait and trade him. etc. Why? Because one time, there was this guy named Ville Leino. And get this, Ville Leino was lazy, arrogant, and entitled. So therefore, he sucked. And Jurco wasn't really very good this year either. So chances are, he's probably like Ville Leino. Because both of them weren't very good, for totally different reasons. Make sense now?

Or before he turns into the next Justin Abdelkader?

So you're saying that in the event that two guys have the same number of Cups, nothing else matters as a tiebreaker? So John Tortarella and Mike Babcock are equally good coaches then? Lol.

I know, but not nearly as much of anything else. So it's hardly a tie. But I'll readily admit (and have) that Sutter is the second best coach in the NHL.

Except that five or six coaches with comparably talented rosters haven't done just as well. Babs had comparably talented rosters. So did McClellan. And Vigneault. And Hitchcock. And Sutter. And Bylsma. He's had good rosters but its not like he was coaching the 2002 Wings. He's won quite a lot more with a comparably talented roster than any number of other coaches.

Bummer. I hope Larkin likes watching "60 Minutes".

Good point, weren't they competing with the dynasty Wings and Avs? I just checked, in his 8 season with St. Louis he lost to the eventual Cup winner 5 times. 3 to Bowman's Wings, once to the Stars, and once to the Avs.

That's bogus. You're measuring his worth entirely by offensive output, which I agree he didn't produce. But that belies the fact that he's very good defensively, he hits, he's fast and hard to knock off the puck, he wins board battles. He was a very quality possession player given his role. His possession metrics were noticeably better than our other 3rd and 4th liners. He wasn't completely worthless. He did a lot for the team. He just didn't score. In that way he's very similar to Abby and Helm in their first few years. Measuring a guy's value based solely on their point totals (particularly in a non-scoring role) is only an indication that your "analysis" is incredibly unsophisticated. Not that the player is "completely worthless".

Because people have short memories, and they completely forgot exactly how long it took Helm and Abby to find their offensive games in the NHL. They also forgot that Jurco is much more skilled than either of those two, and while it will still be hard for him to learn a power foward's game, it will probably be a shorter adjustment period than either of the two aforementioned players. Prediction, by the time he's Abby's age he will have 2-3 50 point seasons under his belt, but none of them will probably come next season. Mark it.

I read an article on him recently, written by an analytics guy, who argued that he was pretty overrated and that his production was unsustainable. I'll see if I can find it. Edit: Nevermind, it wasn't an analytics guy per se. It was Ryan Lambert. Still, the point is relevant. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/the-matt-beleskey-question--trending-topics-195741162.html

I agree. He's won a lot more with a better team in Chicago. That's sort of a truism though. You'd expect a good coach to win more with better players. What's interesting is that he put up pretty solid numbers, and consistently made the playoffs, with marginal teams in St. Louis and Colorado. That's not too much different than Babs (for instance). He's done pretty good with marginal teams, and when he coached better teams he's achieved more. The only difference is that Quenneville has won more (with a very good team) than Babcock, or Hitchcock, or Sutter, did when they had very good teams. He's had one of the best rosters in the league for the last 5-7 years, and in that time he's gone to the conference finals 5 times, the Cup finals 3 times, and won the Cup twice (and maybe a third soon). Comparably, Babcock had one of the best rosters in the league for 5-7 years from 2005-2012 and went to the conference finals 3 times, the Cup finals twice, and won 1 Cup. Trying to diminish Quenneville's accomplishments is starting to get asinine. He's (by a mile) the most accomplished coach in the league. Nobody else is even close. To attribute all that to the quality of his roster implies that A) nobody else had equally good rosters (which is bull), or B) that everybody with equally good rosters would have won as much (also bull). He's really good.

He certainly had a knack for picking successful teams. Didn't they used to say the same thing about Bowman? His success spoke as much about his ability to pick good teams as it did about his ability to coach...or something to that affect?

Here's a pretty awesome article about the Hawks, Lightening, AND Wings. It's largely about how skill, speed, and puck possession have similarly contributed to all three organizations' success. But also talks a little about dynasties. As well. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/mirtle-a-stanley-cup-final-of-dynasties-past-present-and-maybe-future/article24715839/

It seems pretty likely, given that logjam, that Weiss will get traded or bought out no? I'd say they should look to trade Pulkkinen, but I suspect they'll give Blashill the opportunity to use him first.