kipwinger

Jurco will be fine. Look how long it took Abby to become a consistent power forward. Jurco is starting much the same way, except he has an even higher ceiling. He just need s to continue to do the small stuff correctly and sooner or later he will get a chance and run with it.

No. Putting Abby with Datsyuk is not "just as, if not more dumb" than putting him on the fourth line. Unreal. Because I wasn't suggesting moving Abby to a place that would completely negate his production (like the fourth line). I was questioning whether it might be good to temporarily put Abby with Datsyuk, a guy he's been nearly as good with throughout the season, in order to maintain Cole's current production. The point was that you don't lose much by moving Abby to a line with Datsyuk, because he already knows how to play with Datsyuk and he's been effective on Datsyuk's wing in the past. Conversely Cole is also producing really well, but unlike Abby, he hasn't played with Pav in the past. And it seems like some players have trouble adjusting to Pav's style (Nyquist, for instance, still doesn't play well with Pav). I was asking Buppy which had the greater risk/reward: Moving Abby and potentially making him a little less effective, or moving Cole and potentially making him a lot less effective. Buppy understood this, and responded immediately and without issue. You're the only one still having trouble with it.

Prior to your proposed lineup change, Abdelkader was having the best season of his career and Jurco hadn't scored in 30+ games. It was only slightly less dumb then than now. But still massively dumb. As I articulated at the time.

Bingo. And it's clearly presented as such. And when I said, "Tatar has a better goals per game without Datsyuk than with him", it was a fact. Are we clear now, or are you just going to go through each of my posts and highlight when I offer an opinion versus when I state a fact? I responded to the part of your last post which was applicable to me. The rest of your post was pointless because I didn't say "Split Abby and Hank up", as you're insinuating. I asked Buppy a question based on an observation I made. I was hoping his answer, and our subsequent discourse, would be pleasant and informative. All of which is quite a lot different than you saying that "Abby should be on the fourth line and Jurco the third". Which was just dumb.

I thought Weiss looked decent when Zetterberg was out, Sheahan was on the second line, and Weiss was back at center. I don't think the wing plays to his strengths. He seems to see the ice well, and is good and recognizing plays as they develop. He seems pretty bad at winning board battles. I agree with Cole, Abby, and Helm being pretty interchangeable. My question had more to do with easing Cole's transition than some conclusion about their abilities.

See above. The two of you know the difference between observation and analysis right?

Not really. I didn't perform any analysis whatsoever. I pondered a question based on an observation that I've made. And as I stated above, observations (including my own) are often wrong. Hence the need for analysis. I sure hope your take away from everything I said above was not, "Don't ever make an observation". Because that wouldn't be correct. My point was, "don't ever confuse observations with reality unless you've verified them".

Do you think it would be preferable to put Abby with Datsyuk, and Cole with Zetterberg, considering Abby is more familiar with Datsyuk's style of play? Datsyuk is the more unconventional player, and while Cole is still learning the system it might be easier for him to play with Z. Just a thought.

I'm not really sure how you're not meaning offense, and telling me I've got a "problem" at the same time. But ok. To answer what I think your question probably is. Yes, I watch every game. Either during game play, or with the help of my DVR. However, because I don't rely on the "eyeball test", I don't automatically assume that what I see, and the empirical reality, are the same thing. Why? Because seeing and believing are both frequently wrong. And why do I think that? Because I perform statistical analysis, and policy review for the Department of Defense all day. And would you like to know what one of the most common things we find is? That what we hear when we ask people their opinions, and what we find when we use empirical methodology and statistical analysis to determine the reality, are often starkly different. Edit: Also, I didn't ever say Tatar and Datsyuk were "better" without one another. I said that so far this season, they've each scored goals more prodigiously when not on a line with one another, which is empirically true.

To say nothing about the possible chemistry, matchups, defense, etc., I will say this about Tatar being a "lock" to play with Datsyuk. Prior to being paired with Datsyuk and Helm, Tatar had 10 goals in 26 games (.38 goals per game). Since being paired with Pav and Helm he's scored 15 goals in 42 games (.35 goals per game). Datsyuk was noticeably better without Tatar than with him, in terms of production. Dats had 11 goals in 15 games without Tatar and Helm, and 12 goals in 42 games with them. Finally, Helm had 4 goals in 26 games before joining that line. And 9 goals in 35 games since. So, of the three, only Helm's goal scoring production has improved since that line was put together. Caveats: This says nothing about the affect that this line may have on others. Maybe it allows other guys to be slotted more appropriately. Maybe, it gets the hard matchups and therefore allows other lines to produce more. I don't know. Also, I've only looked at offensive production, and within that area I've only looked at goal scoring. So take it for what it's worth. But on the basis of this alone, if your primary goal is to get MORE goals out of Tatar and Datsyuk...you should split them up.

I'd be a real fool to read something that doesn't seem right (e.g. Datsyuk feeds Tatar his goals), and not check to see if it's true or not. I'll be stupid, gullible, or a rube if I just took everybody's word for it. And before you ask, the reason it didn't "seem right" is because I already know that Tatar has better possession numbers than Datsyuk, and I already know that he played significantly on Sheahan's wing before moving to the top line. So it's not unreasonable to think that he creates his own offense. Which would contradict the insinuation that Datsyuk is primarily responsible for Tatar's production by "feeding" him goals.

Because the alternative would be to read what's posted here and NOT verify whether or not it's true. Which would make me retarded.

Pavel hasn't been "feeding" Tatar anything. Pav has assisted on 6 of Tatar's goals. The same number that Sheahan has assisted on. And just ahead of Nyquist and Dekeyser, who have each assisted on 5 of his goals.

Martin St. Lois did at the same age. Although, he was playing with stamkos at the time.

If we can make some noise in the post season, even if we don't go all the way, we should be a destination for FAs considering we'll be one of the few contenders who will have the cap room to add a bigger piece. But I'm thrilled with Zidlicky's play, so no need to break the bank if it's not a great fit.

Well, that didn't really work all that well either. Ian White, when paired with Lidstrom, looked like a much better defenseman. But he was still Ian White lol.

1. Why not, you said you could? Start with the even strength ones, since those are all we have been talking about this whole time. There are only 6 of them. And I already showed you who was responsible for three of them. 2. The Schenn goal posted above is not on Kronwall. Schenn is Smith's guy from the blueline in. In no defensive scheme anywhere do the defensive players stop and go back the other way when the offensive players crisscross. You crisscross with them. Kronwall did. Smith didn't. 3. As I said before, the fact that Zidlicky sucked on the Harntell goal doesn't make Smith's play good by default. Smith sucked too. You cannot let Anisimov make that pass out front. It's Smith responsibility to tie up him or his stick. Smith did neither. The fact that Zidlicky blew his assignment too isn't a free pass for Smith.

Ok, go ahead. Find me three even strength goals against, during the last three games, for ANY other Red Wings defender. I'll wait. We're focusing on even strength (and not PK) is because people were saying that Ericsson and/or Quincey should be demoted at even strength in favor of Smith. But he's been MUCH worse at even strength than they have been. If people had said, "Smith should replace Quincey on the PK", I wouldn't argue.

So, Smith that wasn't that bad, and he's been our best defenseman lately huh? Lets just see if that's true. During the last three games, Smith has been an absolute dumpster fire 5 on 5. He's been wholly, or partially, responsible for 3 goals against, and one breakaway. If this is him being "good", then I don't want to see him being bad. Don't believe me? Here's the video. Here's Brendan failing to either tie up Anisimov's stick, or take the body and put him into the boards, and thus allowing him to take a pass behind the net and make a play out front for a goal. The fact that Zidlicky was worse on the play doesn't mean Smith was good. (Note: Pay attention to the replay, you get a good look at Anisimov making a routine play right in front of Smith's face). <iframe src="http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/embed?playlist=777725"frameborder="0" width="640" height="395"></iframe> Here's Brendan leaving the eventual goal scorer to "help" take a guy that Kronwall already has, and who's safely steered away from the play, leaving the aforementioned goal scorer all alone in front of Jimmy. <iframe src="http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/embed?playlist=779663"frameborder="0" width="640" height="395"></iframe> Here's Brendan throwing the puck away, and then drifting clear across the ice to challenge the guy Dekeyser already has, allowing the play to be made from the spot he should be in. <iframe src="http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/embed?playlist=779702"frameborder="0" width="640" height="395"></iframe> And finally, in his best game of the last three, here's Brendan bungling a routine play, turning the puck over in the defensive zone, and allowing an excellent scoring chance that Mrazek bailed him out on. <iframe src="http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/embed?playlist=781009"frameborder="0" width="640" height="395"></iframe> Third pair defense are rarely to blame for losing streaks, and this is no different. But you are all insane if you think Smith has played well the last three games. He hasn't. I don't blame him for the failures of our PK, but he's EASILY been our worst defenseman 5 on 5. Here's the evidence. Disagree with me? Go find the videos to prove it.

No doubt. That's why I'm completely fine with leaving Zidlicky exactly where he is. Whatever keeps hime fresh for the PP (which is where he's doing his damage) is fine by me. I'd shelter him from now until eternity if he scored even half as much as he is right now. No need to gas him making him play defense.

Chances are he wouldn't be playing this well if asked to be a top line defender. He couldn't start 75% of the time in the O-zone as a top line defender. Which means his offense would likely sag, and he'd get exposed more defensively. From a recent TSN article: Marek Zidlicky – The veteran, and newly-acquired, Red Wings defenceman paced the attack with a goal and two assists in Sunday’s 5-1 win at Pittsburgh. Since coming over from New Jersey, Zidlicky has seven points (3 G, 4 A) in seven games, with five of those points coming on the power play. While the ice has been tilted in his favour, with 75.0% offensive zone starts in Detroit, Zidlicky has put up strong possession numbers (59.9 SAT%, +6.3% Rel. SAT%) in seven games with the Wings. It didn’t take much, considering how left-handed the Red Wings blueline has been in recent seasons, but Zidlicky is already the top-scoring right-handed defenceman for Detroit over the past three seasons.

He's just so frickin' smart, and his ability to read our skill guys is incredible. He said as much after yesterday's game, but it was pretty obvious from the get go. I've said before that Kronwall is so good with Dats and Z that they should be the Euro triplets, but Zidlicky is just as good with those guys. Or maybe it's just been a while since we've seen good offensive defensemen so it just seems remarkable lol.

Neither he nor Smith are great defensively, but that's not really their purpose. They don't start in the D zone much anyway, so it's not really an issue. I mean, Zidlicky is clearly making a difference for the team, and Smith is much better with a rightly than without one, so I'd just keep doing what they're doing with that third pair. Give them opportunities to impact the game in the offensive and neutral zones, and keep them out of the d-zone as much as possible. Seems like a recipe for success. Ken Holland wins again.

So, is it safe to say that Marek Zidlicky ******* rules or what? Makes me drool thinking about what might have been had we been able to get our hands on him earlier. Both of these trades are working out for us pretty mightily. Kudos to Ken Holland. At the deadline I said that both trades addressed needs, but didn't address them enough. Boy was I wrong.

So Brendan smith on the first pair for two goals against at even strength today. Can everybody who thought that was a good idea raise your hand...and then go purge yourself of other bad ideas.