kipwinger

I think Holland's trade deadline acquisitions are indicative of the types of moves he'd like to make in the offseason. I mean, Cole and Zidlicky perhaps didn't have the desired effect, but they were the right moves. I think Holland looks to add a big winger, and a right shooting puck mover. Another guy like Cole in the top six, and Franzen can go down to the third. That's my guess.

I wouldn't call Quenneville a "genius". I would, however, argue that he wins more with what he has. Sure, he has a really good team. Lots of other coaches have had really good teams too. But he wins more than they do. That's why he's the best coach in hockey. Edit: Per this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/mirtle-a-stanley-cup-final-of-dynasties-past-present-and-maybe-future/article24715839/ "Five final fours in the past seven years and the possibility of three Cups in six years – if they can beat a solid challenger in the Tampa Bay Lightning – is an almost unmatched body of work in the past 25 years. In the past seven, Chicago has more points during the regular season (700) and more wins in the postseason (69) than any other franchise. In the case of the playoffs, it’s not really close. (Only Boston is within 20.)"

Here's a thought. With the emergence of Abby, Tatar, and Nyquist as regular scoring threats. And with any potential FA acquisitions that Holland picks up, maybe Franzen gets pushed down the depth chart a bit. Or, at the very least, he gets to take advantage of easier matchups/usage. And in doing so, he isn't asked to shoulder as much of the offensive load as in years past. As a secondary scorer I think he'd be incredibly valuable. He'd (theoretically) carve up third line competition.

I don't think Tampa looked "uninspired" against us. That makes it seem like the series was only close because they were slacking off or something. The Red Wings are a tough out. Just like New Jersey used to be. We trap and trap and trap some more. It's not easy to score goals on a team like that. And Tampa needs to score lots of goals to win hockey games. But the writing was on the wall for most of the series. They owned the puck against us, just like they haven't against everyone else up to this point. No matter how much you trap, it's tough to beat a team when they always have the puck and you never do.

I didn't even know what disingenuous meant. I had to google it.

There really isn't any reason to take this discussion too far afield. Anybody who's been around LGW for a while knows the kinds of reactions that Franzen has received around here. And the criticisms have definitely gone pretty far beyond observations of his play. If people genuinely feel bad for him, that's fine. Who am I to say how you should feel about the guy? I was just making an observation that there were an awful lot of people who had nothing good to say about him and wanted him gone at any cost. Many went so far as to feminize his name (because chicks are lame bro! durrrrrr). And some of those same people now act like they really give a crap about the guy...so long as he still leaves, of course. I wish the guy all the good health in the world. And if he wants to continue playing hockey, or trying to play hockey, who the hell am I to wish otherwise? He and his doctors certainly know better than I do whether he's subjecting himself to anything unwise. And he and his family are far more capable of weighing the risks and rewards of playing than any of us.

It’s expected that Dan Cleary will retire and get a front-office job with the Red Wings after being a “rotating in” player in practice line rushes last year. He’s in same boat as former teammate Kirk Maltby, who thought he might get an offer from somebody else but didn’t and retired, and now is a pro scout in Detroit. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/edmonton-oilers/Hockey+World+Short+shifts+There+should/11090992/story.html

I completely understand the context. But I'd prefer the Wings be better. Not the Hawks be worse. Everybody always says that Chicago fans are classless because they chant "Detroit sucks!" instead of "Go Hawks Go!" or whatever. But this is the same thing. It's just validation by negation. It's false logic to determine your worth based on someone else's uselessness. It's the same as thinking you're right because someone else is wrong. It's faulty logic. Maybe the other person is just MORE wrong than you are. If we want to be considered the greatest modern dynasty we should be better. No hope that Chicago is worse. What am I talking about? f*** Chicago.

I think you missed some pretty relevant contextual information. I'm talking about the fans, on this site, saying those things about him. Not other players, on the ice. I think it's trashy for fans to attack the guy personally, and then pretend to have sincere concern for his person later on. Regardless of his work ethic. I don't care what other players say to him on the ice.

I'm rooting for Chicago. They're more fun to watch, and I hate the idea of the Stanley Cup going back to California. Seriously, think about that for a second. It's not too dissimilar from the penguins at the San Diego zoo. Just leave them where they belong.

So because he doesn't play up to his potential we should all expect, and participate, in the pejorative speculation about his sexuality, mental health issues, and criminality? He's been accused of everything from being a homosexual to intentionally defrauding the Wings by faking the severity of his injury. It's over the top. And the fact that he's "polarizing" is no excuse. Wings fans LOVE to go on and on about how classy they are. And how loutish and ignorant other teams' fans are. But in the case of Johan Franzen, quite a lot of Wings fans have been completely and totally trashy.

I guess my only point is that it's odd to see the very same people who had most vociferously attacked Franzen, now showing concern. However, Leftwinger did a pretty good job of articulating his feelings on the matter above. And he was definitely one of the folks I'm talking about.

Given that they're in the same division, and given all the recent hoopla, it'll be interesting to see whether Buffalo or Toronto has more success during their rebuild. As much as I obviously want the Red Wings to bury Toronto each and every single time we play them, I'd get a lot of mileage out of watching Bylsma do the same thing as well.

Well you weren't the one regularly insinuating that Franzen was a homosexual malingerer either. But that didn't stop plenty of people from doing so. Franzen, more than any other player on our team, has been singled out for personal criticisms which have nothing whatsoever to do with his play on the ice. It's odd to see those very same folks showing concern for his personal well being now. Anybody can be criticized (justifiably) for their play. But much of the Franzen hate has gone WAY beyond level headed scrutiny.

I didn't really think of it as a debate. I thought we were discussing the impact of a coaching change. Which is a pretty relevant thing to discuss given that we've just gone through a coaching change. If you didn't want to talk about Blashill's potential affect on the team, why bother posting anything in the "Coaching Search aka Jeff Blashill" thread at all? The next coach's. If an individual player improves, he gets the credit. When our powerplay improved over last season, the credit belonged to Jim Hiller. When our PK improved, the credit belonged to Granato. If the team overall had improved, the credit would have belonged to Babs. The same is true if they regress. One of the points I've made all season is precisely tied to this. We had improvement by a ton of individual players. We had improvement in goaltending (in the playoffs anyway). We had improvement on the PK, and on the PP. We had improved health. And yet we had the same exact outcome. Who's fault is it?

Running the same system doesn't really mean all that much. As I've noted above. Almost all football coaches run the same offensive and defense systems. But it would be wrong to assume that there's not much difference in coaching because of that. Same with hockey. Almost all teams have the same penalty kill (and now powerplay) systems. But it would be wrong to think that the only difference between the PK or PP is the quality of the players on the ice. That's one variable. But far from the only one. If that really was the case, special teams rates wouldn't vary much under new assistant coaches (like they did for Detroit this season). Since everybody already knows the systems, what more could they learn from a new coach? Was I not supposed to talk about hockey on the hockey forum?

So do you think that systems' play, player usage, special teams' schemes, etc. have much affect on the overall product? Is the coach's main job just to get the team to play up to it's potential? I mean, surely you'd agree that coaches have their own strategies, tactics, etc. And that how they employ these strategies makes a big difference. I think people often misinterpret the fact that because Babs and Blash ran the same system, they are very similar coaches. Which isn't really accurate. Systems' play is important, but not THAT important. Most professional defensive "systems" is the 4-3. Most teams use it. But it would be inaccurate to think that anybody who uses a 4-3 is essentially the same "kind" of coach. And that the only real differences (or similarities) reside in the varying degrees of ability inherent in the players. Babcock and Blashill have the same system. But they're very different coaches. The systems play just creates options, or challenges, for the coach to take advantage of or mitigate in a number of different ways depending on the context of the game. And those decisions are completely dependent on the coach and his tendencies. For example: Look at how Babs' used Glendening in the playoffs. The system would be the same whether he uses Glendening 2 minutes, or 20. But usage makes a ton of difference outside of the system. By using his line more, you're better defensively, but not offensively. Plus, you possess the puck less (the Glendening line had pretty bad possession numbers). What's the best way to protect a lead? Lock down defensively and suppress shots, or possess the puck and keep it 200 feet away from your net? That's a coach's decision that I'd imagine Babs and Blash would fundamentally disagree on. And one that could have considerable impact on the teams' success next year, regardless of the fact that the roster and system will be largely the same.

When you say things like "The Wings were gonna be better this season whether it is Babs or Blash behind the bench" it implies that coaching (in this instance) is incidental to the outcome. Which is a position you support in the case of Blashill (who you've said won't drastically affect the play of the team), but not in the case of Babcock (whom you've credited with a considerable amount of the teams' current level of play). I'm just confused what your position actually is? Seriously.

I never, ever, imagined he'd be as good of a defensive forward as he is. And apparently neither did some other folks. Because Winging It in Motown posted a blog at the beginning of the season debating whether Glendening or Andersson deserved fourth line center duties. Lol.

You say those things as if they're a fact, when in reality they aren't. Our defense contributed more offense than most other playoff teams. We were above average amongst playoff teams. They scored lot more than non playoff teams. Our defense generated offense just fine. It scored more than Chicago's defense did, as a matter of fact. And Tampa. And I think New York too (but I've have to look it up again). We were 25th in the league in even strength scoring. The five teams below us were non playoff teams. The five above us were non playoff teams. You really think that was our team "maxed out"? You really don't think they could have improved in any way? What are you even arguing anyway? That if we're better next season it will have almost nothing to do with our new coach? You just said a huge part of the teams' success last season was a result of Babcock. So coaching matters a lot, but only if that coach is Babs. Otherwise, coaching matters very little and any new successes will be the result of internal growth? You're seriously losing me. If we had even 8 of the ten points we lost in the shootout, we'd have played Tampa with home ice advantage. And Babcock could have matched up Glendening against Johnson more often than he did. And Johnson likely would have scored less. And we might have won. So yes. Shootout points very well could be the difference between a playoff loss and a playoff win.

And sometimes a midseason coaching change "re-energizes" a team because a new coach with a new approach is exactly what they need to play better than they were before. Why are you so insistent that the coaching change part of the formula is incidental to the success part? You're acting like the Red Wings were maxed out on potential, and that there's no possible way to get more out of them than Babcock already was. I don't agree. As I've stated above, one obvious way to improve the team is by scoring more goals at even strength. Something that Babs is bad to mediocre at. Is it really impossible to think that Blashill can't get more offense out of the team? And if he does, what affect would that have? A huge one when you consider our abysmal overtime and shootout record. You'll have to forgive me. I got a warning today for calling someone a "Babcock Slappy", which is apparently a "personal insult". So I'm not exactly sure where the line is.

He occasionally was used on the PK. But not regularly. He scored 22 points in 33 games last year prior to his injury. He's a useful player. No doubt.

Do you prance around when you're right about things? I don't. I guess because I've been right before. The novelty has worn off.

"I hope the Wings buy out that weak, lazy, imp of a player right now. What a girl!" 6 months later... "I hope, for his sake, he decided to retire. He really needs to think about his children, and the quality of his life. It's too important to be taking such risks with your health. I worry for him". Lol.

I was talking about the part where you said I'd "prance" around. It was pretty clearly intended to be condescending. Temper expectations a bit? We lost in the first round of the playoffs. What do tempered expectations look like? Should I assume we'll miss the playoffs? That's we'll get swept? Here's why I think Blashill will do better. Because his teams can score goals at even strength. Babs' teams usually don't do much of that (unless he's got prime Dats, Z, Lids, Rafalski, Hossa, Franzen). We were awful in the department last season. Awful. Way worse than our talent suggests we're capable of. We had a team full of 20 goal guys and we weren't even scoring at even strength. Just imagine? If we improve even strength scoring, then our four 20 goal scorers might be closer to 30 (or even 35), our 15 goal guys might push 20. With all those extra goals we might go to less shootouts. We might win a couple more overtimes or close games. And IF we do all that we'll get more points. And we'll get a better seed in the playoffs. And we'll get to play crappy Ottawa, instead of awesome Tampa Bay. And instead of losing a close series, we might actually win one or two.