kipwinger

You and I are talking about two different things. Go back to Harold's original post and my response and watch how the coversation developed. Originally it had everything to do with Kindl and Lashoff. You just happened to come in during the middle of it, and perhaps the full context of what was being discussed was a bit lost in the fray.

Neither should Kindl and Lashoff. Especially before they've played a single shift together. Which was my point. Downplay the lack of depth scoring all you like, it's still a bigger concern that the Kindl Lashoff pairing is. Which is to say, as long as we're winning games why complain about either right?

Also, fun fact. Kindl actually plays one second more 5 on 5 per game than Quincey has. So he's no more "sheltered". Where he loses ground in the TOI per game department is on the special teams where he's averaging 21 seconds a game, compared to Quincey's 2 minutes of special teams TOI per game. So this "Kindl was sheltered when playing with Quincey" argument doesn't hold water.

I sure hope we're expecting them to play big roles. We've seen over the last five years what happens when we've only got Dats, Z, Franzen, Kronwall, and Ericsson playing hockey. *SPOILER ALERT* We get manhandled in the playoffs by teams with more depth lol.

Ok, my fault. In the future I'll "spend more time refuting" your "ugh" statement instead of assuming that you were taking the easy way out and bitching about a pairing that hasn't played one single second together so far this season. From now on I'll give your three letter posts the diligent reading and thought that they deserve. Or maybe, just maybe, you wait and see if they improve from last year (like Howard has done) before posting your obviously well intentioned and insightful "ugh" remark.

It was an example, I only bring it up to make that point that this team will deal with far bigger problems than the temporary Lashoff-Kindl pairing. And anybody making a big deal out of said pairing is blowing things out of proportion. Also, those guys have combined for 16 points. When a couple of guys have slow starts its just being snake bit. When six guys you rely on to play big roles on your team cannot put up points, there's something going on. I don't know what. But it's not just bad luck.

It's low hanging fruit in the same way that "ugh Cleary" is low hanging fruit based on his play last year. Or like Quincey was. Or Sammy before them. I don't think you're making anything up. But I do think it's too easy to complain about third pairing defensemen when they have very little effect on the game relative to the rest of the team. Also, I'm not really sure why you think that pair will now be sheltered less than before. If anything the other four will play even more now. Why not say "ugh" about that fact that none of Tatar, Sheahan, Jurco, Helm, Smith, or Dekeyser have produced up to expectations this year? That's a legit concern and has a huge effect on the team. The third pair's future mishaps affect the team far less. I just think it's too easy to ***** about third pairing d-men...regardless of how bad they obviously are. This team's future does not fall on the shoulders of Kindl and Lashoff, and if it does, someone screwed up worse than they likely will.

Too easy. Kindl's looked fine this year and Lashoff is steady (even if he hasn't improved, which hopefully he has a little). No reason to lament this, aside from the obvious "low hanging fruit" aspect.

Well that got out of hand quickly. I liked the Dats line and the Sheahan line. Glad to see Tatar get one. Looking forward to Franzen getting back so everyone can get slotted where they should and the offense will hopefully roll ing. p.s. Glendening was real good too. p.p.s. The defense is still woefully bad at advancing the puck.

The best tactic against the Kings seems to be to hope that Kopitar and Gaborik are injuried, in which case they'll have trouble scoring lol.

Are you implying that you'd be ok with Bob Hartley as the coach of the Detroit Red Wings? Bob Hartley?

Once everyone is healthy I'd try something like... Sheahan (Net Front) Datsyuk, Nyquist, Franzen Kronwall Abby Zetterberg, Tatar, Jurco Smith That's about as good as I can figure a couple of powerplay units based on the current roster.

I like the idea of trying Smith on the PP point (I mean, what could it hurt) but it's not going to work unless Babs' is going to let him use his wheels to make plays. Utilized in that way Smith could be dangerous. Utilized in the traditional "point shot-rebound-goal" strategy I think he's not much of an improvement because he's got a decent wrister, but not a noteworthy one timer. But again, Babs would have to let him wheel and deal to be effective, which I can't see happening. I also agree with you that there's not really a problem with trying him on the PP despite his defensive gaffs. Subban and Wisniewski are two players who come to mind who are awesome on the PP despite being shaky defensively (at times). I'm not sure why we can only use guys who are defensive studs...though I suppose that's not too different than the rest of our game. At times I think we're so petrified by the thought that the other team might get a scoring chance that creating any of our own becomes a secondary priority.

I think the reason he failed to capitalize on those chances is because he can't take a pass that's got any kind of zip on it. The kinds of passes that wingers have to deal with. The kinds of passes centers usually make. I hope we don't try him there again and again. He made it to the NHL as a center, not winger, for a reason. It's pretty rare that a guy makes it to the NHL at his second best position (maybe Byfuglien or Burns but that's about it). Everybody else is doing what they probably should be given how high the attrition rate for professional athletes is. So I guess my question is, if we need a winger, why are we trying him there at all? Let's just go get a winger. I don't understand the logic of turning a good center into an average winger (if you're lucky) just because you need a winger. If you've got so many centers running around trade one for a winger who can handle a pass or score on a breakaway.

How many points does Helm have to not score on the wing before everybody realizes he's not good on the wing? If the fact that he blew about six scoring chances last night doesn't convince people that he can't take a pass, I don't know what will. To reiterate. Helm. Is. f******. Terrible. On. The. Wing. Terrible.

Sooo...no good reason then?

Z and Franzen are first rate players. They produced when we had a horrible fourth line. I see no reason to believe that the new fourth line is somehow "freeing them up to produce more scoring". Z was over a point a game last year with a terrible fourth line, and Franzen kept his normal pace last year as well. That they're doing the same this year seems to suggest that their scoring pace will not change much regardless of the content of the fourth line. I'm not arguing that these guys are playing well. I'm arguing that they're not playing any better as a result of our fourth line's play. That said, it was a bit of hyperbole to say they're "not producing s***". The team as a whole isn't producing (in part because our fourth line is playing so much). Nevertheless, our regulars are playing like they regularly do.

It does? When? They haven't been producing s***.

God I hope they don't demote Jurco. Nestrasil is ******* garbage. I have no idea why anybody thinks he'd get claimed off waivers (not that you're saying this, but I've had the 'don't want to lose Nesty for nothing' discussion about 200 times this week). They need to get that kid out of the lineup. He's clearly not ready to play in the NHL and is just another one of Babcock's pet projects.

Rumor out of Buffalo has Detroit in on Chris Stewart. Babs would hate him I'm sure. But I'd love him in Nestrasil's spot provided we're moving equal salary out. http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/buf141023.html

Not necessarily, a faster team will generally have better possession stats than a slow one (us a year ago) because your forecheck creates more turnovers and you get to more loose pucks. It's basically a team wide version of the same theory that has Helm on the powerplay right now. He's faster than everyone else so he gets to more loose pucks (i.e. keeps possession for the Wings). Babs was commenting on how much faster our team is this year. My guess is this attributes MUCH more to those possession stats than defense to offense transitions. Against Montreal it was really obvious. ALL our decent scoring chances came as a result of the forwards mixing it up and making it hard for Montreal to get through the neutral zone. Even Datsyuk's "goal" (which came from deep in our d-zone) was passed up by Zetterberg and not a dman. Our defense is terrible at gaining possession in our zone, and getting the puck to the forwards competently (the aforementioned "turnover problem").

Our zone coverage has been really good. Our passing and transition game from the back end has been horrible, to the extent that our beat writers were discussing our "turnover problem" by about game 3 of the season. Two of our loses are directly attributable to massive defenseman turnovers that led to goals. Also our defense has produced a combined 7 points, so anybody ready to pat them on the back for "creating offense" should think again. So let's not sing kumbaya just yet eh boys?

You're right. We are stupid. I've changed my tune; from now on I'll form my impressions based on what should have happened.

Sure, the kids are playing mediocre right now, but that doesn't mean they're not skilled. Guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Smith, and to a lesser extent Dekeyser were drafted (or signed) because of their speed and skill with the puck. They certainly weren't brought on board to be bangers and grinders. The fact that they're not creating offense is a symptom, not a cause.

Lol. So your posting strategy is to say demonstrably false statements, but preface them with the word "maybe" in order to make it seem like you're not being intentionally misleading? That's a good way to add to the discussion. There is literally NOTHING to indicate that the "coaching staff expects more out of him" or that Babcock isn't playing him because he's "not performing". There's every reason to believe that Babcock is impressed with his work ethic and attitude. You know why we have every reason to believe that? Because Babcock said it. And I don't have to preface any of that with "maybe".