kipwinger

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.

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.