kipwinger

I don't necessarily disagree with the general theme you're suggesting, but you're overstating it a bit. After trading for Zidlicky, we were slightly above average (amongst playoff teams) in terms of defense scoring. Our best offensive defensemen (Kronwall, Zidlicky, and Dekeyser) had 44, 34, and 31 pts. respectively. For comparisons' sake, Duncan Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson (Chicago's top guys) had 45, 31, and 19 points. I'd even argue that Ericsson, Quincey, and Kindl contributed MORE than you'd realistically expect them to considering two of them are stay at home guys, and one of them played 34 games. Smith was underwhelming offensively, but that's relative to his talent and pedigree, and not relative to other third pair puck movers around the league. And all these guys did that while playing REALLY good defense. Our shot suppression was impressive, and laudable. Again, I'm not trying to disagree too much. I'd love to have a player or two on the back end who have a more dynamic ability to make plays in the offensive zone. But our defense was actually MUCH better than advertised. How bad it was is drastically overstated around here (I imagine because in the post-Lidstrom era that's all part of the narrative). Especially in the playoffs. Our defense wasn't even bad the one game Kronwall and Zidlicky were out. So I don't want to blame of lack of offense on that too much. Side note: I laughed when I saw the "Is Kronwall a #1 defenseman" thread the other day. Kronners plays huge minutes, excellent defense, and scores 40+ points a season, but he's not a number 1. Keith, Pietrangelo, Suter, Byfuglien, Doughty, OEL, all do the the same thing and they're obviously better for some reason.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just at a loss for why a team full of so much offensive potential had such a hard time scoring goals this year. As I've stated before, I don't believe that Johnson, or Filppula, or Kucherov, or Palat, or Callahan, or any of those guys aren't noticeably more offensively capable than the guys we've got filling similar type roles. Only Stamkos is noticeably better than any of our guys, and he didn't do much. Every other player they have is comparable to someone we have. They aren't noticeably bigger, faster, or more skilled. So when all of our offensive players fail to produce, it makes me think it's something systemic.

It's easy to be confused. Anybody who regularly plays with Crosby or Malkin can look like a superstar. Just ask Chris Kunitz.

You heard it here first folks. Ovechkin with the first ever "Ovechtrick" in Game 7. He guaranteed a win, and he'll deliver.

You need your own blog. I'd read regularly.

Hasn't there been some concern in the past over Red Berenson's ability to develop players correctly? I'm thinking specifically about Jack Johnson here.

I was just confused because I never thought you'd root for any team with as many Russians on it as Washington does. Then again, they do fight more than New York, so it's a toss up. I should have known.

You know they're both Red, White, and Blue right?

I do want Blash as coach, and I do think that he'd get a different result. But that's a discussion for elsewhere. With regard to our drafting, I think you've totally mischaracterized our strategy for choosing players. Holland has stated repeatedly in the past that he draft on skill and hockey IQ. None of Tatar, Nyquist, Pulkkinen, Jurco, Jensen, Smith, Kindl, AA, Sproul, Frk, Tvardon, and Ferraro were "two way" players at lower levels. Most still aren't. And none of Helm, Sheahan, Turgeon, or Callahan were thought to have much offensive upside when they were drafted either. So they definitely weren't considered "two way" players. Of our current crop of young players/prospects, only Abby, Larkin, Ouellet, and Nastasiuk were considered "two way" players when they were drafted. And I'll give you Bertuzzi. While he had never produced offensively prior to being drafted, there had to be a reason why they took him so high. Otherwise it's a complete headscratcher.

That would rule soooo much.

I think Hitch would fare about as well as Babs has lately. He's a very similar coach. And yeah, my money would be on Blash. He's our John Cooper. He's had considerable success with the guys who will be the future of our organization, and he's been excellent at every level he's coached at. I don't see why you'd pick anyone else, but that's just me. Edit: If not Blash, I'd give Paul Heyman a shot. He knows what it takes to manage a champion.

Every single free agent, prior to leaving a place, talks about how great it is, and how much they love it, and how it's not about the money it's about winning, and how no decisions have been made...blah, blah, blah. Anybody remember Max Scherzer, or Ndamukong Suh, or Valtteri Filppula? It's bulls***. He's as good as gone. And it's almost certainly about the money. He probably wants a bunch of it. And the organization probably doesn't think he's worth it given the team's performances over the last 5 or 6 years.

Hitchcock is gone, one way or another. Either he resigns or he gets canned. Babs' decision won't have much impact on that IMO.

Well if you ask most everyone else, it's the smartest possible thing to do. Because Mike Babcock did it. Another thing to do, and this is probably a long shot, is to play your scorers a lot. Press offensively. Control the puck. And in doing so, make the other team use their 4th line 18 minutes a night and/or render their best player ineffective with defensive assignments. Nah...what am I saying? That would never work.

Fair points. If you're ready to attribute Nashville's increase in offense to predominantly those two guys, that's fine. It doesn't negate the underlying point I was making, which is that coaching style/system can have a significant impact on the productivity of a team. Perhaps a better example is how Pittsburgh was significantly better (and won a Cup) after they fired Therrien and hired Bylsma mid season. St. Louis improved dramatically after hiring Hitchcock mid-season. Anaheim did the same when they hired Boudreau mid-season and got rid of Carlyle. Los Angeles improved, AND won the Cup after firing Murray and replacing him with Sutter mid-season. In each instance the roster was essentially the same. In each instance the team was significantly better afterward. Having the right coach for the right roster is critical. Babs is a really good coach. With a different roster he'd have more success. Hell, he had quite a lot of success with our previous roster. But with our current group of guys, he hasn't shown that he can take them to the next level. If we don't consider the possibility that maybe there's a better fit, then the only other option is to tear the team down and rebuild one that Babs can win with. Which is totally unrealistic, and also totally unnecessary. Particularly given the fact that we've already got a coach in the system who knows how to win with our current guys.

Which is exactly my point. One of those guys is a rookie, and the other is a 35 year old goofball who's career was in the toilet prior to coming to Nashville. Yet both produced significantly better than expected this year. Why? Either because Forsberg is some otherworldly rookie who's a superstar in the making (he's not) and Ribiero experienced some sort of personal renaissance (he didn't). Or because Peter Laviolette's style of hockey maximizes the scoring potential of the guys who play in it. Conversely, the Red Wings had a healthy Dats and Z all season AND got career years out of Nyquist, Tatar, Helm, and Abby and we were a worse scoring team (even strength) than they were a year ago. Nashville got less production out of Neal than they got out of Hornqvist the year before under Trotz, but the teams overall production rose under Laviolette. They got signficantly less when you factor in Spaling's production as well. But I agree, he is a giant ******.

I don't think the difference between Johnson and Tatar/Nyquist was "toughness, grit, or compete level". I think, to a large extent, it was because Tyler Johnson was on the ice a lot more than Nyquist and Tatar were. He averaged 18:51 in ice time per game, while Tatar and Nyquist were 15:56 and 15:50 respectively. Also, our powerplay wasn't very good and that affected their production totals as well.

I don't want Joe Thorton or Dion Phaneuf. The name of the game in the NHL these days is speed and tenacity. Not big hulking slow pokes. Remember Tyler Johnson blowing by our defensemen and scoring goals? Now imagine if it were Dion instead of Ericsson (the much better skater of the two). I don't mind getting bigger and tougher if we don't sacrifice speed. That's why I like Drew Stafford actually. But neither Dion, nor Jumbo Joe, can skate worth a damn.

I don't know though. I mean, Laviollete unquestionably made Nashville a more offensive team, with essentially the same personnel. And Washington is much more defensive under Trotz. Look at the Vigneault/Tortorella swap, same deal. I do think the coach's system play a huge role in the determining the upper limits of your teams' productivity. I don't think it's a stretch to think a new coach could get more offense out of our current roster. The big question, to me, is whether or not that would be a good thing or not. I contend that it would, because our young skill players have the highest ceilings on the team, and the most room for growth. Or, put another way, I think we're more likely to have success if Tatar, Nyquist, or Pulkkinen can consistently play at their upper limits, than if Abby, Sheahan, or Helm consistently play at theirs. And I've never thought that Babcock was the guy to develop skill players like that.

I don't disagree that we were one of the better regular season teams in both 2010 and 2011. Obviously relative to the majority of the league we were better. But if we're comparing Detroit to the top teams in the league, we were average. We were 5th in the Western Conference in 2009-2010, and 3rd in 2010-2011. In both years we lost in the second round of the playoffs to San Jose. The first year badly, the second year in 7. So compared to the best teams in the league (i.e. playoff teams) we were probably worse than most. Seem like these two years were sort of the opposite of 2007. That year we were starting the ascent to our team's peak, and in 2010 and 2011 we were starting to come down a bit.

We were one of the best "offensive" teams in the league this year too. But to say that completely ignores the fact that we were abysmal at even strength. Our teams have scored a lot in the past because we had otherworldly talent, and our team consistently gets more power plays than any other team in the league. Which in itself is a testiment to Babs" system as well as his assistants. But our even strength scoring track record has been mediocre to bad. Edit: In in the interest of fairness I'm just going to put the numbers here. Which aren't as bad as I thought, but still aren't great. This is even strength scoring for Detroit (and Anaheim) during Babcock's tenure. I realize it's a bit of a truism to say his teams aren't offensive, because he's obviously not an offensive coach, but the majority of the game is played at even strength. If you're not good there, you probably aren't going to have tons of success in the playoffs when penalties dry up. 2003: Detroit-1st, Anaheim-22 2004: Detroit-1st, Anaheim 24th 2006: Detroit-1st 2007: Detroit-8th 2008: Detroit-8th 2009: Detroit-1st 2010: Detroit 22nd 2011: Detroit 4th 2012: Detroit 3rd 2013: Detroit 27 2014: Detroit 13th 2015: Detroit 25 It appears as though any team with prime Dats, Z, Lidstrom, (with help from) Shanny, Hossa, Hull, Robitaille, and Yzerman were going to do a lot of scoring. So 2003-2009 make sense. And Babs' system didn't stifle that one bit when he took over. However, his track record without that kind of talent (both with Anaheim, and with aging Dats,Z,Lids) isn't very good (as you'd expect). Which is relevant because he doesn't currently have that kind of talent. In all, I'd say I've overblown how bad his teams have been offensively, but I think you've probably given him more credit than he deserves for getting offense out of team that was already tops in the league when he got here.

Nah, I don't think his system is designed to stifle offense. I think its designed to limit shots, no matter what that does to offense. And that's why we haven't been able to score since 2010

The Canadian this is probably the single most important variable. Just ask Don Cherry...or Frankgrimes.

I know you don't. My point, is that part of the problem is that the Red Wings are trying to make a team full of guys drafted on skill into a team full of blue collar "hard working types". Rather than finding a coach, or playing a system, which compliments and develops their predominant skillset. This team has a much higher likelihood of success if Tatar, Nyquist, Pulkkinen, and Jurco reach their ceilings than if Glendening, Helm, Abby, Ferraro, or Miller do. Why? Because the ceiling is higher. Babs is excellent at developing grinders and physical guys. He's not been as good at developing skill players. The answer shouldn't be "change the whole roster to fit Mike Babcock's system", the answer should be "find a coach that can maximize the potential of this roster". You're putting the cart before the horse. Babcock's system would be lethal in Winnepeg or Columbus but the roster on those teams is conducive to his style. John Cooper, Alain Vigneault, or Peter Laviolette's systems would be better for the current Wings. So, maybe we should find someone like that eh?

Here's the thing I think about as a fan. Instead of being pissed off that Tyler Johnson is good, or "hating him" because he looks like a maidmer (like a mermaid, but with a fish top-half), I want to know why he's playing so well. I mean, he's not bigger, faster, or more skilled than Gustav Nyquist or Tomas Tatar. He wasn't noticeably better than them during the regular season. He's not fundamentally more clutch. He doesn't have a better draft pedigree, or winning tradition. In fact, our own Griffins outshone him in the Calder Cup. So why is Tyler Johnson carrying his team in the the Conference finals, while our young guys fell flat? Figuring out the answer to that should be the organization's biggest priority, and it's certainly what interests me as a fan of the team.