• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


krsmith17 last won the day on October 20

krsmith17 had the most liked content!

About krsmith17

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Paradise, Newfoundland

Recent Profile Visitors

8,295 profile views
  1. The next captian: #39 Anthony Mantha!

    I know skill level doesn't determine whether or not you can captain a team. I said exactly that in the post you replied to. I disagree though that it wouldn't be a decline in captaincy standards... Has Zetterberg announced his retirement and I missed it? It's still 3 1/2 years until he officially retires. He may leave before then, but he's here for at least another year or two. Larkin will be 23-24 by then. It's not like we'd be handing it off to a 19 year old kid... Larkin has also been being groomed to take over since day one, immediately given a stall next to Z. Time will tell, but I'd make a wager on this one for sure.
  2. The next captian: #39 Anthony Mantha!

    Nah, I'd take the bet on Larkin being the next captain over Abdelkader. I know the captain doesn't necessarily have to be the best player, and it can go to a role player, as we've seen with Steve Ott captaining the Sabres, or Tim Taylor, the Lightning, or Andrew Ferrence, the Oilers... But are we willing to set our captaincy standard to that level? We're going to go from Steve Yzerman, to Nicklas Lidstrom, to Henrik Zetterberg, to Justin Abdelkader? I'd be very surprised if that were to happen, and to be honest, a little annoyed. Abby is a great alternate captain, I just wouldn't want him wearing the C... Larkin will get the C when Zetterberg retires, Abdelkader will keep his A, and DeKeyser will get the other A when Kronwall retires. If we ever decide to go back to 3 alternates, maybe Mantha, Rasmussen or Cholowski get it...
  3. You're wrong. No, that's where you're wrong. Only one can be correct. It's all on the player. It has nothing to do with coaching management. You sir, couldn't be more wrong. I hope you all learned a valuable lesson here. Things are always black and white, and kickazz is always right. Smith sucks, he was destined to suck, and there was absolutely no avoiding the suckage.
  4. Ericsson needs to sit

    F*** off with your rational. Smith sucks because he's stupid. Remember that one time he batted the puck with his glove while sitting on the bench? What an idiot. By the way, Babcock is God.
  5. The MANtha watch.....

    Nah, not really. Maybe an outside chance of being as good as Mantha, but I highly doubt it. I hope so though...
  6. The MANtha watch.....

    Umm No...
  7. Ericsson needs to sit

    Except Smith didn't get to play with Lidstrom... Instead, he played with the juggernaut Doug Janik that season... Oh what could have been if he were given that opportunity to play with Lidstrom though...
  8. Well he had a great rookie season in Grand Rapids, and an even better sophomore season, finishing top 20 in defensive scoring, while playing less games than virtually everyone ahead of him. He finally got called up in November for injured Ian White, in which he played very well, and put up 2 assists in a short 3 game stint. Got sent down again when White returned to the lineup, and put up 10 goals, 27 points in 36 games for the Griffins. He then got called up for the rest of the season in late February, where he put up a goal and 5 points in 11 games, while playing very good hockey paired with Kronwall. The sky was the limit at this point in time. The following season he once again started in Grand Rapids (probably shouldn't have), despite being better than White, Lashoff, Quincey, Huskins, or whoever else was ahead of him. That may have shook him a little, but still managed to put up 5 goals, 20 points in 32 games for the Griffins. He got called up for the first time in January, to one of the worst defense corps we've seen in recent memory. This is the first year after Lidstrom retired and we had Kronwall, Ericsson, White, Kindl, Smith, Quincey, Lasoff, Colaiacovo. Smith wasn't given much help coming into that mess. I don't think it helped at all when Babcock tried to mold him into a defensive defenseman, playing penalty kill rather than power-play. This organization did have a tendency to make players think defense first, rather than allowing them to play to their strengths. If we kept our 2004 1st round pick, and taken Mike Green, maybe he would have gone the way of Smith years ago. Maybe not, but I highly doubt he would have had those 70+ point seasons. Maybe Smith would have turned out better if he were given a year or two to learn from Lidstrom. Maybe he would have been better if he were drafted by another team. Maybe he would have sucked more if either of these things happened. We have no idea. This is all conjecture, but for me, I don't believe a kid as skilled as Smith was destined to fail, having absolutely nothing to do with his surroundings. I've admitted in the past that he didn't do himself any favors, but I think the environment he was placed in, had a lot to do with why he turned out the way he did.
  9. Why are we better than last season?

    I can almost smell the 1st round draft pick...
  10. Ericsson needs to sit

    I said before that Marchenko reminded me a lot of Ericsson, and man did he ever. Both drafted in the last round of their draft. Both inexplicably overhyped by Wings fans when they first entered the league. Big, stay at home defensemen that weren't particularly good at anything, other than taking up space on the ice, aka, getting in the way. Imagine if Marchenko had the opportunity to play with Lidstrom... We'd have both Ericsson and Marchenko locked up long term at a combined $10M... I'd prefer to imagine if Ericsson never had the opportunity to play with Lidstrom... Big E would probably be over in Sweden for the past several years, the same way Marchenko left for Russia...
  11. No, you're not wrong at all, and I agree with pretty much everything you said here. No one's saying we can't rehash this. I don't mind talking about it at all. I just hate the "told ya so" attitude by some. It's childish, but then again, some users here are very childish, so whatever. I was completely wrong with the projection of Smith and Jurco, and I'm fine with that. But when I say that I think that was in large part due to the way they were handled at the beginning of their careers, and people say, "No, you're wrong. Our organization is perfect." That's what bothers the s*** out of me. I did say that Smith had top 4 potential, and he absolutely did. To say otherwise, is false. I also said that at one point in his career (didn't last long...) he was a top 4 puck moving defenseman, and I stand by that. You may disagree, and that's fine. What do I think of Smith at this point in his career? I think he's a guy that had all the tools, but was never able to put it all together. Was that all on him, or was it partially due to the way he was handled as an up and comer? I still think he was mishandled a little at the beginning of his pro career. Again, you may disagree, and that's totally fine. Same goes for Jurco. A kid with all the talent, but was never able to put it all together. I think Jurco not only had top 9 potential, but top 6 potential. Unfortunately for him, like Smith, he struggled, and lost all confidence in his game. Trying to completely change his game probably didn't help matters much though. So anyway, to answer your question, Smith is a bottom pair defenseman. Jurco may get another shot in the NHL, but will probably play another year in the AHL and head back over seas, where he will be a middle 6 forward. We won both of those trades. Good on Ken Holland. It's not revisiting arguments that is trolling, it's the way you go about it that people consider trolling. The bolded - Case in point. Again, I was wrong in their projection, but you can't say I'm wrong about a hypothetical, something no one will ever know for sure, aka, the reason they failed to reach their ceilings... There are countless factors that go into whether or not a player makes the NHL, and what kind of career they have if they do make it. One major factor in that in my opinion, is coaching. Another one would definitely be mental toughness. Two key factors as to why neither of the aforementioned carved out the type of careers that myself and so many others thought they would. The skill was there, therefore the potential was there. Unfortunately for us, they failed miserably... I'd once again say MOVE ON, but I'm sure you'll try your damndest to spin this to keep the argument going...
  12. Ericsson needs to sit

    Yeah, Ericsson has been much better this season, the past few weeks in particular. I honestly thought this was a joke thread, in the same way someone just made a thread "3 goal Howard"... Ericsson isn't a "great" defenseman by any stretch, but he's far from this team's biggest issue right now.
  13. 2018 Detroit Red Wing All-Star(s)

    I agree that any of the three could be (which is what I'm assuming you mean), but no way all three are.
  14. The MANtha watch.....

    I agree for the most past, and that's what I meant with Larkin and Mantha. The potential is there for both to be in that borderline elite class. I don't think there's any question that Mantha will be a top line winger, how good of a top line winger he can be, is still up in the air. As for Larkin, he will definitely be a top 6 center. Whether he becomes a very good 1C, or a great 2C is undetermined, hopefully the former. As for the bolded, I don't really buy into that. I think there are teams out there that are well set on the back end, but could use some help up front that would be interested in some of the pieces we have. Nyquist and Tatar still have trade value, but you're probably right in that they alone wouldn't get a high end defensive prospect. Part of a bigger package, maybe. Athanasiou would though in my opinion. Svechnikov is off to a horrifically slow start, but if he heats up, and starts producing at or close to a point per game pace, I think a lot of teams would have interest in him. Point is, I don't think we would have to trade Larkin or Mantha in order to get a high end defensive prospect, and a high end defensive prospect is exactly what I'd be in the market for if I were Ken Holland. We're not going to get a Sergachev type, but we could get a Girard type, who is a highly regarded prospect that just got traded along with Kamenev, another really good prospect, and a 2nd round pick for Turris. Nothing against Turris, I've said in the past that he is underrated, but he's also a 28 year old 2C. Point is, Nashville badly wanted to add offense, and Girard wasn't as important to them (behind Josi, Ekhold, Subban, Emelin, Ellis) as he was to Colorado (top pair with Johnson). Maybe after that deal, Poile wouldn't be so eager to make another trade sending out another defense prospect for offense, but if we could get Fabbro, I'd do it. I do think there are other potential trading partners out there though (Carolina, Philadelphia, Calgary, Anaheim, Minnesota)...