kipwinger

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.

With seeds or without?

All of our best players (aside from Abby) are skill players. The fact that Babcock chooses to play Luke Glendening and Drew Miller 15+ minutes a night doesn't make us a "heart and soul work team". It just means that our coach's system gets more out of grinders than it does out of 25+ goal scorers. But that doesn't negate the fact that our skill players are out best players. If he had a team full of guys like Brandon Dubinsky, David Backes, and Andrew Ladd then I'd agree with you. But we don't. We've got more skill than most teams. It's just not being utilized effectively. Edit: And this isn't even really a knock on Babs. He does a fantastic job of getting more out of guys like Abby, Helm, Glendening, Sheahan, Miller, etc. than most coaches could. I only posit that given the current makeup of our team, it's more important to get more out of guys like Tats, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkkinen, and Weiss. Because those guys have game breaking skill sets. At his very best, Luke Glendening or Justin Abdelkader probably can't dominate a playoff series. Nyquist could though (just look at Tyler Johnson). I'd rather Glendening, Helm, or Abby be invisible than Nyquist or Tatar. And Babs' system doesn't seem to be able to do that.

Too bad for Europe. Because those uniforms look awful.

Agreed. I think he'll get a deal similar to the one Ryan Johansen signed a year ago.

Let him work with what he has, evaluate the teams' success, and then make changes/acquisitions as needed.

Word on the street says that Ed Snider is "all in" on hiring Babcock. So maybe.

Is there any way that we can bring Tom Brady on board in some capacity? No there's a guy who'll do what it takes to win.

So did I. That's the weird thing. I don't mind excessive celebrations. I just hate that particular excessive celebration.

Analogies are tricky. They don't always make as much sense as you think they ought to.

Keep dreaming. Backes is never going anywhere. The main Blues rumored to be on the block at the trade deadline were Oshie and Berglund. Not really sure if either of them help us all that much, but that's what they were dangling back then. Of the two, I suspect Berglund is the more likely to be moved considering he's a center and reports are that Vladimir Sobotka is looking to return to the NHL next season and would occupy that same position for St. Louis.

Yeah, I don't know what it is about the knee slide. I really don't. And it's not even like I have a problem with cellys either. I love how pumped Tatar gets. And if I think about it rationally, I lighten up about the knee slide after a minute too. But when I see it happen in real time, my gut reaction is always a combination of irritation and loathing.

Hire a coach who's teams score at even strength regularly, and not just on the powerplay?

Ugh, I don't know why I have such an aversion to guys sliding across the ice on their knees. I mean, I realize it's an important game, and you just scored a hat trick, and that tons of guys have done way worse and all. But I still get this overwhelming urge to throw a battery at his head when I see him do it.

I don't disagree that Ovi is better, but I don't think anyone in the league is "far" better than Steven Stamkos. He's pretty legit.