kipwinger

Point taken about the games played part. You're right there. Holland had no problem waiving Samuelsson, Eaves, and Tootoo once Babs' decided he didn't want them. It took him 26, 25, and 11 games respectively to figure that out. I realize that Holland makes the personnel moves, but please stop acting like Babs has no say whatever in which team hits the ice. You act like Babs was just begging for Nyquist and Holland had his fingers in his ears yelling no. That didn't happen. Remember "tie goes to the veteran"? I do. Also, none of that negates the fact that nothing Babs' did last year was "heroic". Which was my original point. He put an obvious player on an obvious line, and that player produced at an unsustainably high level to drag the team into the playoffs.

So if I'm understanding this line of thinking correctly, Smith is really good but is just used wrong by the coach and isn't given a chance to succeed. But the coach is brilliant because he gets the most out of everybody all the time. Except this one guy, in this one instance. Because Smith, as you've stated, hasn't been great so far precisely because Babcock hasn't gotten the the most out of him every season, game, shift (as you've also stated)?

Wait, so your opinion about Smith rests on the premise that "The Best Coach in Hockey" is using him wrong?

Heroic? Lol. Babcock rode Nyquist into the playoffs. If Nyquist had scored even 80% as much as he did, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. Babcock did well given the roster he was forced to work with, but it wasn't heroic. He didn't use his coaching wiles to beat obviously superior teams. He rode a kid into the playoffs that his "heroic coaching" kept out of the lineup for 53 games. Just remember that while deifying Babcock's coaching a year ago.

Smith looked fine. He doesn't look great. He's an offensive defenseman and he's not really factoring into the offense very much. Once we get to the season, if he's adequate defensively and contributes offensively I'll gladly "eat crow" because he'll be doing what we drafted him to do. If he doesn't, then I'll wonder what all the fuss is about. We didn't draft this guy to be Ericsson. As for Jensen. He's a rookie. I'm not saying he should make the team. But I don't think I'm making some outrageous claim to suggest that in this one area he's better than Smith. As a matter of fact, it's a little bit outrageous for you to act like its anathema for me to say Jensen is better at something than Smith. I didn't say he was a better player. Here's a couple of other things that will probably stick in your craw if you don't like acknowledging that a rookie has one or two characteristics better than Brendan...Sproul has a better shot, Marchenko (and probably Quellet too) are better at zone coverage, and Jensen is a better decision maker with the puck. None of them are better all around. But all of the statements I just made are true.

I didn't intend for that last post to be a criticism of Smith's performance last night. He was fine. I didn't really have any complaints with his game. I'm saying that he has had a tendency (thus far in his career) to either A) try to stretch pass out of the zone (which he's not great at), or B) skate out of the zone but hang on to the puck too long and get caught. Jensen seems to know already what it's taken Smith a little while to learn, skate the puck out of trouble (if that's your strong suit) and then get it to a forward quickly and get back in position. My guess is that because his skating and offense really came along later in his career he's got the mentality that he needs to get the puck to the forwards. Conversely Smith hasn't really ever learned that lesson because he's been offensive and dominant his entire career. At low levels there wasn't really any downside to playing like that. It was only after he got the NHL that this kind of play got him in trouble. Kind of like what happened to Jack Johnson during his time in L.A. But again, he wasn't bad last night.

Yeah, it was pretty dirty. Thankfully nobody got hurt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DUTUOwXthM4

Like everyone else I thought Jensen looked really good. He does exactly what I wish Smith would do with the puck. Skate it out of trouble and then get it to a forward. He doesn't do too much. Otherwise I thought the Jurco-Sheahan-Tatar line looked great. If Babs breaks that line up he's a goon (so I guess I should prepare for it). I thought Callahan showed he could be an effective fourth liner in more than just an agitator role. Also, Sproul's shot is sick...but I already new that. Wish I could have seen Nosek more, but unfortunately he must have forgot that the numbers go on the back of the sweater in North American hockey. Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that Weiss looked really good out there. He's a really quick, efficient player. He gets to loose pucks and has the skating ability to hang on to them. He's going to score points for us this year. He just needs a bit more time to knock the rust off his passing and shot, and WAY better linemates.

I agree. Sometimes there are exceptions to what I said above.

There's a reason that Reimer gave up a huge rebound on that even though he was squared up to it and there was nobody screening him...Sproul has a frickin' laser beam for a shot.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd really like that point shot on the Red Wings powerplay.

What are the odds we could give the Quincey bashing a rest...ya know...since he's not even in the lineup tonight.

The Memorial Cup...easily.

"Hey guys, I didn't know Patrick Eaves was back from injury!" or... "Hey guys, I didn't know David Legwand was out of Babs' doghouse!"

That prediction for last season was essentially just based on the fact that we played above our heads the year before in the playoffs, and because we were moving east. Nobody who seriously looked at our defense would have believed we were going to contend for the division. Even without injuries its not like we were setting the world on fire the first part of the season. I'd say we were worse than we appeared at the beginning of last season, and (if Babcock truly ices the best squad) we're slightly better than we appear this season.

I get what you're saying but I think you're over simplifying a bit. I mean, scouts lauded Emmerton and scouts lauded Nyquist. But it would be silly to suggest that there's no telling which of the two would be a better NHLer until they get to the big club. You could tell by their AHL careers who would be better before they ever touched the NHL. One dominated that league, and one was average. That's all I'm saying about these d-men. Jakub Kindl in his best AHL season wasn't as good as Ryan Sproul just was as a rookie. Does that guarantee that Sproul will be stud NHLer? Absolutely not. But it's a pretty good indication that he'll be better than Jakub Kindl. I don't think it's fair to say "we don't know until they get there". We know how these guys project, and we know how far along their developmental trajectories they are based on how well they're playing against their current level of competition. So I think it's safe to draw SOME conclusions from that. Not guarantees. But certainly conclusions.

Blash was already an assistant for Babs and it only lasted a year. One has to think that happened for a reason. My guess is he wanted to helm his own team, but who know?

People here say a lot of things.

I agree with a lot of what you said, and I'm not going to go through it point by point. But I would address two things. First, the reason I think that Marchenko will be quality in the NHL is because he's already played a lot of years at a professional level and seems to be able to keep pace pretty well. He was good in the KHL, he was good in the AHL, and I think he'll be good in the NHL. Provided his ankle heals, he'll be a very good defensive d-man with the ability to pass the puck forward. I'd actually compare him favorably to Vlasic as well (although I'm probably not the only one who's noticed that Quellet and Marchenko play a very similar style of game). Secondly, I think that Sproul will be the best of the bunch because he's got all the things you can't teach. Size, speed, and that shot. For a defenseman to score in today's NHL they need a good point shot. The NHL game is too structure for defensemen to wheel and deal like they can at lower levels. Those that rely on that type of scoring (guys like Smith) find it hard to transition their offensive game to the NHL. Look at all your top scoring d-men in the NHL. What do they have in common? An awesome point shot. Sproul has it. He'll be fine.

Well, I think there are a couple of defense prospects that its reasonable to assume will be good NHL players based on their skill sets and body of work so far (Sproul, Marchenko, and Ouellet). Backman and Jenson I'm less convinced of. I consider the first three a lot like Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco on offense. It was pretty clear from their AHL play that they'd be quality NHLers. How good is anybody's guess, but it wasn't a stretch to assume they'd have an impact. The other two (Backman and Jenson) are less sure, but certainly COULD surprise in the same way that Sheahan, Glendening, or Andersson did. While none of them are great (Sheahan's clearly the best) it's worth noting that NOBODY thought they'd be as good as they've been. I 100% agree with your last statement though. If you aren't Kronwall, Ericsson, or Dekeyser you should have a VERY short leash.

Agreed, which is why I said wait and see how the season turns out. But I disagree with your second point. Babs has got plenty of good young talent on defense too. But we'll never know how much better we'd be if he doesn't play them. Hence his perplexing "Kindl and Lashoff's jobs are safe" interview. We've got to remember that until injuries forced his hand a year ago he wasn't aware of what he had on offense either. When it comes to playing young guys, Babs is risk averse. Which I'd understand if our team was really good. But it isn't. So I don't see the problem in tinkering with the defense given the dirth of talent we've got sitting in GR.

Is this post meant to be tongue in cheek? I just want to know whether you're being sarcastic before I respond. Right, but we know Holland isn't going anywhere, and Babs has got some pretty good talent to work with this year. So if the outcome is yet again underwhelming, would it be the worst thing in the world to let him go and try a different direction?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE SIGN AN ENFORCER!

I agree, and I'd be really reluctant to see him go. I like his system. He believes in team defense, but he seems more amenable to offense than Babs does. Babs seems to want to win every game the way the Canadian Olympic Team did. Which would be fine if you were winning those close games, but we don't. With guys like Dats, Z, Franzen, Nyquist, Tatar, Weiss, and hopefully Mantha and Jurco (by the end of the season) there's no reason not to have a pretty good offense. So hopefully we won't be hearing "we don't have the skill to play like we used to", because this team has a good bit more skill (on the front end) than the 2008 team did.

I'd rather he not sign until we see how the season turns out. Coaches have a shelf life and while I don't know if Babcock has reached his...it's certainly possible. Why not wait to see what happens? We've got a team that should be pretty competitive. Lots of good veterans and young up and comers. If the team stays relatively healthy and still underwhelms, I'd take that as a sign that Babs' has taken the team as far as he can and I'd hand the reigns over to Blashill. If they play above their heads, or are Cup competitive, re-sign him.