kipwinger

Ok gotcha. For some reason I interpreted Dickie's post as implying that Shanny had hooked up with one of his Red Wing teammates' wives. I couldn't care less about Craig Janney's wife, but I'd be furious if he did it to Igor Larionov lol.

Agreed. Here's the article. There's a lot of Babcockisms, which generally don't mean much at all, and Khan interpreted things in the most definite way possible. I'll be amazed if Kindl (and to a lesser degree Lashoff) aren't on a VERY short leash this season. http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2014/09/mike_babcock_brian_lashoffs_jo.html

Wait, have I been missing something for the last 15 years?

Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too much, but you hit on something that I've thought about for years. Why does anybody care about Don Cherry's thoughts on hockey. He wasn't a successful player, and he wasn't a successful coach. He's not Scotty Bowman or Pat Quinn; he's John Tortorella without the accomplishments. Why would anybody listen to this blowhard clown and think, "now here's a subject matter expert"? Ugh, I frickin' hate Don Cherry.

What about Callahanahan?

But he's big. I mean, look at the size of him. Who cares if he's any good or not? He's big. That's all that matters. We could pair him up with Mike Mckee and teams would be scared to death. Because NHL coaches, the league over, are bewildered by club footed meatheads. You know, cuz they're big.

Which Schenn did Paul Holmgren trade James Van Riemsdyk for? (It's so hard for me to say that with a straight face)

No doubt. After that sloppy loss last night he'll be lucky to last the season.

I'll believe it when I see it. Holland's been saying that for about 5 years now. Once the trade deadline passes then he'll start telling everyone how's he's going to be a big player in free agency. Ho hum.

You've got to assume after the way they played two nights ago, and Babs' post game comments that he's going to play with Sheahan and Tatar. But where the hell does that leave Alfie should he decide to return (which I think is probably unlikely at this point)? If you slot him with Datsyuk and Z, then Helm has to go somewhere else. But does Babs really want Helm, Abby, and Miller one the fourth? I mean, I do, but it's hard telling what Babs wants sometimes.

Not to mention Nosek and Athanasiou.

Of course it is. Go back to the game thread from two nights ago and look at page after page about how well Smith played. I even said he played well. Where are you getting this? You act like there's some bias against the guy. Nobody is treating him like Cleary or Quincey, who (by the way) I'd agree people need to chill out on.

I ***** about Smith when he f***s up, which he's done (a lot) in his short career. Just like I do with every other player. When he screws up and turns the puck over to I have to temper my frustration because one day he might be better? Also teams trade guys with potential ALL THE TIME. If they were destined to be terrible nobody would want to trade for them. I've advocated trading Nyquist, doesn't mean he's bad. Just the opposite. And nothing that you just said takes away from that fact that he's been pedestrian so far in his career...which is all I've ever said. Dig through any old discussion of Brendan Smith and you see me saying, over and over, that he'll get better and that he has potential. That's obvious. But saying that he's (paraphrasing) "as good offensively as Kronwall back when Kronwall wasn't great offensively, or as good defensively as Ericsson back when Ericsson wasn't great defensively" all adds up to him being average now. Which I said...yesterday. So here, I'll throw you a bone. One day Brendan Smith could be as good as Kronwall. He's got the tools. So far he's been average...and sometime disappointing. Can you live with that characterization, or do I need to follow up any criticism of Smith with an immediate disclaimer? "Smith had a terrible turnover last night (but don't let that distract anyone from that fact that his size and skating could surely put him solidly on the top pair should his developmental trajectory look something like Kronwall's did). Seems a little excessive.

I love drinking beer as much as anybody else. But I hate stupid, drunk, assholes sooooo much that I almost hate booze too. Which is hard. Is it really that hard to drink, have fun, and go home without being a disgusting piece of trash?

Why does it bother you so much to hear criticism of Brendan Smith? Nobody said he was bad. Nobody said he wouldn't get better. All your arguments do is reinforce the fact that he's the fourth best defenseman on a team with an average defense. Something I was happy to acknowledge two pages (and 24 hours) ago. But if I just say, Brendan Smith hasn't been great up to this point in his career (which is true, you've admitted as much above by saying "he's young...what do you expect?") then we've got to listen to you drone on and on and on making excuses as to why. He's young? Check. He's got the talent to get better? Check. He's still learning the position? Check. I agree with all of that. So the next time I say Brendan has only been average, can we forgo the excuse making and stick to the point at hand?

That is exactly how I feel about both points. Thank you for summarizing my thoughts (probably better than I could have at this point lol).

If you've already admitted that he just did what any other coach out do (standard practice), which you have, then it doesn't make sense to say that nobody else could do it. It's a contradictory statement. The key variable is the execution. Which is on the players.

He had them playing a style of game that leads many less-skilled teams to limited success. I agree. That doesn't make him "heroic", or a "genius". Many other coaches have used a similar strategy to have limited success in the past. Since when does adopting standard practice make someone heroic? The true "heroes" last season were a bunch of kids taking a team on their backs and outperforming expectations night in and night out. NOBODY, including our coach and GM, thought that Nyquist or Tatar were capable of what they did. Let alone Sheahan, Jurco, Glendening. But all hail Mike Babcock because he was forced to focus more heavily on defense given that his offensive stars were hurt. Nobody else would have ever thought of that. Mike Babcock is a good coach. Evidence of that is 2003, 2008, and 2009. Not 2014.

There's no law against waiving guys. You make it seem like Holland's signings gave the team zero options. Waive any two of Tootoo, Eaves, Andersson, Cleary, Bertuzzi, and/or Samuelsson and Nyquist starts the season with the Wings. But Babs, by his own admission, preferred a veteran team. He got a veteran team. He used a veteran team until injuries forced Tatar (and eventually Nyquist, Sheahan, and Jurco) into the lineup. And then we finally started winning some games...despite Babcock's philosophy. Not because of it. So much so that he had to publicly change his philosophy this season. Now "tie goes to the best player". Which, by the way, idiotically insinuates that in the past, Mike Babcock has specifically NOT played the BEST players. You make it seem like if Babs had his way we'd have had a totally different team to start the season. Nothing about his coaching philosophy up to this point suggests that given his way he'd have had played those kids. He either had no idea that the kids were better than the veterans they were replacing (which calls into question his evaluative skills) or he did and played the veterans anyway (which calls into question his judgement).

Also, trapping your way to victory isn't some sort of Babcockian master stroke. Teams without a lot of skill have done it for years. The New Jersey Devils organization has (and continues to have) considerable success with that strategy. As has Dave Tippet and the Coyotes, and Barry Trotz with the Predators. That's what teams without a lot of skill players do. Yet when Babcock does it, he's a genius who "heroically" coached the no skilled Red Wings to a first round playoff loss.

That completely ignores that fact that we lost more close games than we won. Look at our dismal overtime and shootout record. If keeping games close was such a brilliant strategy you would think we'd have won more of those eh? Edited for accuracy: We lost more close game, but not "many" more close games.

Bobcock's system was designed to get unsustainably high offensive production out of one guy over a period of about 25 games, and then for that exact same player to completely disappear for the remaining 10-12 games? Come on? Babcock's system had very little to do with Nyquist's run...as evidenced by the fact that not another player in that same system has ever produced anything like that before or since. And that includes players like Brendan Shanahan, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, and Marian Hossa.

No, Nyquist was the only one that could go down without being exposed to waivers. Anybody could be sent down. The whole team can be sent down. Depends on whether you're willing to waive someone. Holland waives guys all the time. So why didn't he do it to start last year? Well I suspect that it has at least something to do with a coach who has EXPLICITLY made clear that until this season he preferred to have veterans in the lineup over unproven kids.

So being better than Randy Carlyle makes Mike Babcock heroic? Lol. By that standard at least 16 NHL coaches were heroic a year ago.

I'm really not trying to turn this into something it's not. I just have a hard time reconciling the fact that Babs is "brilliant" for getting the most out of "every player, every season, every game, every shift" with the fact that Smith is not producing because Babcock isn't getting the most out of him. Seems like the opposite would be true. If Babs does what you say, then Brendan Smith is always giving about as much as he could reasonably be expected to give...which so far is only a little above average.