kickazz

Still waiting for a response. Is Babock at the level of Blashill for having a similar (technically worse) season with better secondary players and the same two elite superstars either injured/not performing as their prime level? Is the common denominator the coach or is it the Euro-Twins?

Just look at the difference Connor McDavid is making for Edmonton. It's insane. They had 1st picks for years and couldn't get anything done. One guy comes in and changes the franchise. Bring him here under Blashill's coaching system and we'd be a playoff contender. Just saying. Coaches are being overrated around here. Our players suck (except Mantha and Zetterberg for his age) and so does Blashill.

Ahh yes the good old logical fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion"

Calm down.

Great game by Mrazek. First shut out for him in almost a year, dang.

Died laughing.

Hahahahha Helm why did you try to deke bro shuda shot it. That's how you can separate the Helm's from the shooters. He let Rinne set up perfectly instead of one timing the pass.

Some exciting hockey right now.

First of all, we finished 3rd in the division under Blash and were wild card under Babcock. And second of all you're failing to see the point which is mind boggling to me because I know you're smarter than that. The point is this. You claim that Blashill is not an NHL caliber coach. But I just showed you an instance that Mike Babcock, "the best coach in all of hockey" finished worse than Blashill did when he was missing certain key players as well. For s***s lets just say they both finished the same because of the 93 points and let's go ahead and look at the silly point you made about goal differential. It was a 5 goal differential (lmao big deal btw) . Mike Babcock - 39 wins , goal differential better by 5 , 93 points. Jeff Blashill - 41 wins , worse goal differential by 5 , 93 points. Since you're saying that Blashill is not an NHL calibre coach, by your own assessment what does that make Mike Babcock? Remember that year Mike Babcock had Franzen, Alfredsson and Kronwall (still in his prime) playing for him. Blashill had none of those and he had a slow Zetterberg and a slow Datsyuk, his only plus was having Mrazek and Larkin. If Mike Babcock is really all that great you would think the team would have done far better. So is it the coach? Or is it the fact that neither coach had elite super star players performing well /healthy in those years? Also about this statement you made "Babcock's team looked ready to play in the playoffs, Blashill's didn't. But tell me again how Blashill did better." ^ Babcock's team got KO'd by Boston 4-1 in one of the most embarassing ways in recent memory. Blashill too lost 4-1 to Tampa.

Can you explain to me why Babcock did worse in the 2013-2014 season than Blashill did in 2015-2016 season? The answer is because he didn't have his superstars that one year. Here you go for your reference. So is it actually Blashill? Sure he's a new coach. But it's alarming that Mike Babcock performed worse than Blashill did when Zetterberg/ Dats got injured that year. To me this shows how much superstar players can really make a difference. Even the great Babcock couldn't do much without his Euro Twins. And we all remember what happened as soon as we lost lidstrom between 2012 and 2013, we finished 7th in the conference in 2013 (down from 5th in the conference with Lidstrom in 2012). Remember the 23 game home win streak with Lidstrom in 2012? What happened to that in 2013? That's right, same coach but no more Lidstrom. Like it or not, superstar players make a difference. We have none. Sure Blashill is an issue. He's just a part of it. But let's not scapegoat a guy when his predecessor clearly struggled without the players he needed. (look at the proof above). I'm not sure if people are having amnesia but Zetterberg and Datsyuk had the ability to single handedly carry the team to victories. Fact of the matter is, we don't have those types of players anymore.

This.

Or any other elite player really. Even when elite players suck, it's still usually better production and play than average players.

Didn't see it. You should do the next one though if you want

I really don't like any of our defense besides Green. And I honestly mean that. Aside from Green I thought Kronwall was a solid D-man up until 2014. I don't know but I feel like our standards have decreased as a fan base. A lot of our D-men couldn't crack line-ups on good teams. We need to draft a couple of good D-man in higher rounds (it doesn't have to be the 3rd pick, but something in the top 20 - ish) for a couple of years imo. None of Smith, Sproul, XO, Jensen, Ericsson, Kronwall, DK are good enough for me. Jensen and XO I would take as a 3rd pair (also very cheap) but I think our biggest holes are those 3 spots in the top 4 and none of the guys on this team can fill that void. If DK doesn't improve by next year, I'd look to move him. He's far to expensive to be playing this terribly. Sproul, I'm not sure. He screws up a decent amount (nowhere like Brenden Smith did for years) but has some rare moments of shining. If we're seriously considering a re-build then most of our guys need to be parted with or waived in the next few years and bring in some young D-men from the first round for a couple of years.

Alright so it is opinion. I was clarifying that because you were stating things about players etc as if they're facts, and they're not. Not yet.

I think there's inherent bias in your post. Both Jurco and Marchenko are similar in age yet somehow you ruled Marchenko out and think he sucks but with Jurco you're saying he "does have potential" as if it's a fact. We don't know if that's a fact. Just like we don't know how Marchenko will do under Babcock. For all we know Jurco could end up in Europe in 2 years. A lot of the knowledgeable posters (at least 3-4 of them) here thought Pulkinnen would be a stud, moreso because they we're rooting for him to be rather than actually looking at it critically. That troll number9 always said the "one-trick pony" wouldn't go far. I wonder what he thinks now as he watches this forum as a banned member (Side tracked there for a bit)

I mean, you're just assuming though.

The Leafs just keep stealing our s*** don't they?

Thought this article was hilarious. www.wingingitinmotown.com/platform/amp/2017/1/31/14465266/dan-milstein-sticks-his-nose-where-it-doesnt-belong-criticizes-red-wings-scratching-alexey-marchenko?client=safari

Kickazz says "Holland offered the same amount per year to Suter". Bill Berzeench says "So Holland offered less and you agree with me!" (then follow the typical Bill Berzeench 4-5 exclamation points). Ahhhh the posting style is finally reverting to the Bill Berzeench style. Let dat evidence stack up.

And just like in your previous post you tried saying that the next sentence was regarding something else, you hypocritically do the same thing. The next sentence in your case is pointing out the offer we gave to Parise was lower. For Suter, which is the case you've been arguing with CRL. According to the Anti-Holland article he offered him $90 million and bumped it upto $98 million last minute. Not the $73 million figure you came up with. And here is USA Today as another source. "The Wings made an offer of $80 million over 13 years to Suter on Sunday, and have since increased the money to $90 million." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012-07-03/Red-Wings-up-offer-for-Ryan-Suter/56008136/1 Shall we keep going till one melts in the hot seat? Here. "According to a source, the Wings offered Suter a 13-year contract worth $90 million." https://redwingsfront.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/wings-gm-ken-holland-im-disappointed-we-didnt-get-suter-certainly-when-you-offer-someone-the-amount-of-money-we-offered-him-you-feel-youre-a-legitimate-player/ It's time to evaporate now. "The Red Wings, according to a source, offered Suter a 12-year contract worth $90 million." http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2012/07/as_red_wings_await_decisions_f.html Regardless of how you cut it, the offer was still $7.5 per year. Even that anti-Holland writer did his research. Bill I do give you credit for trying against us. It's fun I must admit. The 0-20 record or whatever it is in debates is the only depressing thing.

Because he's not happy about the Red Wings. It's all dem emotions. Well just for giggles. He made it to the playoffs in his rookie season and won a playoff game. What were the other 14 coaches doing in the meantime around playoff time? Busy not being NHL caliber?

Two years ago? Why should they?

https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/2012/08/02/is-wings-gm-ken-holland-willing-to-adapt-to-the-new-nhl/ "...when it looked like they were going to lose out on Suter when Holland bumped their offer from $90 million to $98 million." The usual "Bill Berzeench gets put back on the hot seat scenario" for me. My work here is done. .