kipwinger

Well my thoughts on him are pretty public at this point, but it seems like we're in the minority. However, if he's half as good as everyone else acts like he is then he's not going anywhere. So the only guys likely to be moved are Kindl and Lashoff and they aren't exactly being showcased right now. Although, to his credit Kindl does have roughly as many points as Tyler Myers has lol.

Think of it as a moral victory. Despite the fact that we didn't win most of the games, the opposing teams hardly scored any goals at all.

I don't mind speculating about the team, but I usually do it based on things the GM or coach have actually said (like I did above). I wouldn't want to speculate about showcasing the defense in order to make a trade, because nothing much has been said on that topic. Not to mention, the guy that the management would prefer to trade (Kindl) has been scratched lately, so they're certainly not showcasing him. I don't t know who else they'd be willing to trade. Babs' loves Kronwall, Ericsson, Dekeyser, and Quincey. I think Smith is tradeable, but everyone else says I'm wrong and he's awesome so I'll take their word for it. So it would come down to Kindl and Lashoff, and they've both been scratched in favor of Quellet the last couple games.

I don't think so. It would be contrary to each and every single thing he's ever said about roster management since he's been the coach. Which can be summed up by "Ken Holland manages the roster, I put the best team on the ice that I can with the players I have" [my words, not Babcock's].

If it's an opinion, it's an opinion that the coach of the team shared as recently as November 30th when he said... "We have more players than we've had probably since '09 that can score," Babcock said. "It didn't look like it early, but it does now." http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/11/theres_no_shortage_of_power_in.html Apparently we've got more people who can score, and they're shooting less that previous Red Wings teams. However, they're keeping opponents' shots WAY below what previous Red Wings teams did (per the charts in the article). The theory I'm proposing, is that Babs' strategy to keep opponents' shots so low, stifles our teams offensive potential. Potential that the coach himself acknowledges. It's a deliberate willingness to subordinate our offense in order to limit scoring chances by the opposition, which (as we have seen) results in lots of overtimes and shootouts. And I think Mike Babcock is smart enough to realize that this is the likely outcome of his preferred strategy. And it makes perfect sense if you think Mike Babcock already assumes we'll make the playoffs, where there is no shootout. And since he recently said verbatim "in the end they still don't have the shootout in the playoffs", I don't think it's a stretch to believe that's the case. http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/12/tomas_tatar_mike_babcock_say_d.html

On Dec. 2nd, the the middle of our best stretch of hockey all season, Babcock said... "We're a pretty good hockey club when we play with pace, " Babcock said recently. "When we don't play with pace, we're not. The thing I don't like about what's gone on lately is we're giving up too many goals. We want to get back to giving up no goals...I don't mind if we score goals but I'm not interested in giving them up." http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/12/detroit_red_wings_gameday_7.html We had won four in a row prior to that night, and three in a row afterward, and seemed to be creating offense pretty consistently. I don't know where that went. If you think that they've been fine all season that's cool, I don't want to argue with you. But Babs certainly thought they were giving up too many goals. Since that time we've failed to duplicate the offensive output we were seeing then, and we've failed to get a lot of points that we probably ought to have.

Remember when we won all those games in a row but it wasn't any good because we were giving up too many goals as well? And then we tightened up defensively and started losing a bunch? Maybe we should go back to doing things wrong and winning again eh?

I don't see anybody lamenting the fact that Big Richard Nedomlel wasn't getting his opportunity to shine with the Griffins as a result of being buried behind other guys. That's probably because he's kept his head down, worked hard, and waiting for his opportunity. Not cried about it like an entitled s***head and then ran back to Europe. Screw Backman. I'm excited to see what Richard can do. Put him on a pair with Sproul. Let Nedomlel be the stay at home, Stuart type, and let Sproul fly.

They're both REALLY sweet, but I liked Bobby's better. Agreed with above, it just looked cleaner.

The team, as a whole, is more offensively capable that it was two or three years ago is my point. I'm not sure how to quantify it, but a team with Bertuzzi, Abby, Franzen, Zetterberg, Datyuk, Filppula, and sometimes Cleary as a top six certainly SEEMS like offensively capable that one with Datsyuk, Tatar, Nyquist, Zetterberg, Abby, and Franzen. Plus, our third line is pretty obviously more offensively capable with Weiss, Jurco, and Sheahan. So why is the current incarnation shooting less? Perhaps because they're almost entirely focused on playing defense? The charts in the article SPECIFICALLY represent "shots for AND shots against" as a whole. And this year's team is shooting less, and holding their opponents to MUCH fewer shots. I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting anything. If you're not shooting, and you're not letting the other team shoot much, then you're going to go to a lot of overtimes. Why are you being so combative about this?

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not trying to knock his coaching. We're winning, what do I care? BUT, the stats don't lie, and one of your premises isn't correct..namely that the team no longer has "firepower". Babcock himself has said this is the best team he's had since 2009, and between Tatar, Datsyuk, Franzen, Z, Nyquist, Jurco, Sheahan, and Weiss he's got considerable more offensive potential than he's had in the last 5 or 6 years, yet the stats show that our "shots for" is considerably lower than it was during that period. We're shooting less than we did two or three years ago, with WAY more talent. What I'm saying is that we've got an offensively capable team, and yet we're playing a system that is so geared toward defense that the offense is shooting MUCH less than when we had less offensively capable teams. It's clearly working, as we're winning games and holding teams to very few shots. But you can't deny that no shots against, and no shots for, is a recipe for overtime, no?

Sure. But I'll be sure to take all those "I can't stand Columbus (or Nashville, or whoever), all they do is trap and play for overtime" comments with a grain of salt from now on. Particularly since we've got A LOT more offensive potential that we're intentionally not utilizing in order to play this system.

I was going to write a post about this and forgot. We hear people complaining all the time about certain teams, or certain coaches, playing for "the loser point" or just trying to get to overtime. Doesn't this stand as evidence that Babs is perhaps the worst culprit? I mean, I don't really care as long as we're making the playoffs, but it definitely seems like there's a deliberate strategy to subordinate the offensive potential of the team in favor of a air tight trap. Nobody scores, everybody goes to overtime. What say you?

Best post of the day.

Is he any good at the shootout?

I can see it now, Datsyuk and Oshie shooting one and two in the shootout. Getting outscored 3-2 would never look so satisfying lol.

You got it all wrong brah! Fighters keep that rats in check. Everybody knows that. Which is why guys like Kaleta, Carcillo, Downie, Marchand, Asham, and Ott never, EVER, acted like rats while big badass enforcers like Thornton, Orr, McLaren, Scott, and Engelland were patrolling the East. Nope, never. Haha, why do I assume you've got a framed one of these hanging over your bed?

Oooooh....ooooooooh....do...uhhh...do....do KEITH JONES! Yeah...do Keith Jones next!

That just aroused me a little bit.

Me too! He'd punch so many guys. Like, all the time he'd be punching guys. Punching guys is awesome!

Sure he will. Lol.

That's a legit point, and admittedly I do consider Mantha and Mrazek sure-thing future stars. I base that assumption off two things, A) they've excelled at every single level they've played at, and B) our organization is excellent at prospect development. I can only compare them on their body of work so far, and in every way they've been exceptional. Oh, I get it, because he's a homosexual. Hilarious.

In all seriousness, atta boy Dano. You are and will continue to be a class act.

Wouldn't you if you were him?

Did the original head in this picture belong to George W. Bush? Because it seems like it should have.