Dabura

I remember reading something about Ryan Mantha and being really confused for about ten seconds, and then figuring it out. Epic story, I know. I don't think they're related, but I could be wrong. And 6'5-200 is indeed huge for a high-schooler. But then, that's what The People want these days. Freakishly big defensemen who shoot RH. As for Anthony - I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't believe we got this kid. Does he need to work on his compete and defense? Yes. But the good news is he's coachable (receptive to constructive criticism and instruction, genuinely wants to improve). And compete and defense are things that can be taught and learned, unlike his size and nose for the back of the net. Also, all kids have holes in their game, so it's not like Anthony is some sort of high-risk project.

EDIT: Oops, hit submit too soon.

My impression is that a lot of people see him becoming, or simply want him to be, something he's not projecting to be. I'm not saying the majority actually think that way. It's just something I've noticed, mostly in conversations I've had with folks. At any rate, I agree with your assessment of him. There's a lot to like in his game.

Kip knows what's up. This thread is silly.

He's one case where I feel like a lot of people have pretty unrealistic expectations, at least in the short term. Just because he's big (by our standards) doesn't mean he's gonna step into the top six and be that home grown power-forward we're all waiting for. He's a defensive forward; if he makes the team next season (and it's not a given that he will), he'll almost certainly be on the fourth line. That said, I hope he really brings it in this short stint - for his sake and the team's!

Yes, it is. And hey, I'm the guy who's saying we should sign Ott and Westgarth this summer, and that Babs needs to preach a tougher brand of hockey to his troops. But the real priority should be addressing what's really killing us, which is goals, for and against. Every fan of every team will say this, but here it is anyway, because it's true: we need a top-four defenseman and/or a top-six winger. If our goal (pun) here is to win the Cup, we need some high-end help. Also, I'm still not sold on the Vanek-to-Minny thing. Like I've said, it makes sense, but it's all just speculation. As far as I know, Vanek hasn't said anything about it. As far as I know, no one close to him or the organization has said anything about it. It all started with a local Minnesota guy (a reporter or pundit or something, I don't know exactly) saying, "Well, this would make sense." And now everyone takes it as a given that it's happening. It probably will happen. But let me pretend there's a chance he might come here. Don't take my hope away!

I'd like to see what he could do on the third or second line, just as an experiment.

What I loved about the change from 1995-96 to 1996-97 wasn't simply the toughness. It was the fact that we had all our other bases covered before we invested in toughness. We could score with the best of them. We could defend with the best of them. Goaltending was always being questioned, but it wasn't a serious issue with the lineup we had. We went for toughness that season, 1996-97, because it was pretty much our only weakness. And even then, when we did go for toughness, we didn't just desperately grab the first four bruisers who came to mind. We traded for a dynamic first-line power-forward in Brendan Shanahan and brought back a familiar, reliable friend in Joey Kocur. We were smart about it. Today, we can't score, we can't defend, and our #1 goalie is somewhat on-and-off. While it's true that we're not a tough team, I'd much rather we address our glaring problems up front and on the back end before saying we need to trade for Colton Orr and Brian McGratton. We need more scoring depth and an actual top four. If we have that and we're still getting shut down by even the basement teams of the league, then maybe we should look to the past, specifically 1996-97. But, as things currently stand, we're just a mess of a hockey team on all fronts, even when we're healthy (see: shootout losses, thousands of blown leads). (Again, though, I'm not saying we don't need to get tougher. I'm just talking about priorities, i.e. What are our most pressing concerns?)

Oh man. Any time I think of "Guys I'd really, really, really like to see in the Winged Wheel," Ryan Callahan and Dustin Brown always spring to mind. Either one would be wonderful. Both, and I'd take back all the bad things I've ever said about Ken Holland. Another guy along those same lines: Wayne Simmonds.

No, it's not a coincidence at all. They're great team mates. I don't think anyone would deny that. And, as we all know, some of today's most notable enforcers are actually Ivy Leaguers, so it's not like they're all big dumb animals. But, at the same time, being a great team mate isn't everything. Well, it sort of is everything. But you could argue that catering to that wouldn't be too far removed from what Holland is often accused of being, which is overly sentimental and loyal and all that, to the point where it's actually detrimental to the team's ability to win games and, ultimately, Cups. Do we need a guy? Maybe. But let's not go overboard. We're not "getting run" every game of every season. I do like my Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Westgarth idea, though. I'll proudly own that. But that's about as far as I'll wade into the NEED MOAR FIGHTERS pool.

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just saying, it's an "unfair fair" system. If two similar crimes are committed, and only one guy is seriously punished...chances are, one guy is a Thornton and the other guy is a Neal. Is that right? Nope. Is it the way it is? Yup.

Two issues: Sheahan is more of a defensive forward (he'll play on the fourth line next season, if he even makes the team), and he's a center (Bertuzzi being a winger). Maybe in 3-5 years - but I'm looking at the short-term. Anyway, I'm bumping this mainly because I want to see some pipe dream rosters. I think it's safe to say reality is bringing us all down right now. And it's the holiday season, so being down sucks that much more. ENTERTAIN ME!!!

I have to wonder if the Winter Classic (i.e. HBO) and/or the Olympics are really messing with us. Because, while losing streaks and "injury flash mobs" are nothing new to us, we really have been a mess this season, on the whole. I mean, our record at home? When does that happen? Something like...never? And this shootout insanity, for which there is absolutely no good explanation. What the hell? Not an excuse. Just grasping for answers.

I WANT TO BELIEVE jk My only issue with the injuries argument is we have to find a way to win, because the NHL's point system doesn't reward you for injuries incurred. If we're gonna wait to get fully healthy before we start racking up the wins, well, we may be out of the postseason race altogether by that point. A brutal December would mean two straight months of brutality (November was not kind to us). That would not be good.

Because Thornton is Thornton and Neal is Neal (i.e. enforcer / 40-goal scorer). I mean, obviously that's an oversimplification - but you get the point.

Didn't Ericsson take a flying leap at McLeod immediately after he'd nailed Kronwall? (Honest question, because I'm not sure I'm remembering it right.) And, in fairness, we almost always have about 15 Swedes on the ice at all times. So the lack of response doesn't necessarily make it a Swedish thing. (Actually, the way I phrased it sort of does implicate the Swedes, doesn't it? Oh well. I guess we're finally too Swedish.)

To be fair, Bowman had a lot more to work with, because Holland wasn't limited by a salary cap. Everything's easier when you can ice a lineup full of locks for the Hall of Fame and every guy in your top six is a monstrous threat every time he's on the ice and we can consistently get out of our zone with one or two effortlessly brilliant passes. I do agree that we need a killer mentality, though. Regardless of who is and isn't in the lineup, this team has got to grow some teeth and learn to put games away when they have the chance. Not that these are new problems (how long have we been saying, "If we convert on any of our 17 PP chances, we probably win that game"?), of course.

It's been an issue with us for a very long time now. We're that team that should score five goals a game but, for whatever reason, likes to throw the fundamentals of solid forechecking out the window and take 40 shots from the perimeter, half of which won't even make it to the gargantuan goalie. ("Let me take three seconds to wind up for this shot. OH NO, IT GOT BLOCKED!") There's a bit of grinding in the corners, some shake-and-bakes here and there, but we're struggling mightily to establish a legitimately good forechecking game and maintain consistent pressure over a full 60 minutes. Too much one-and-done nonsense.

Re: Puck Daddy, The review is pretty dead-on. I mean, like I said, it's fantastic stuff - but the bar has been set ridiculously high, and this episode didn't even try to match it. The guy's not hating on the Wings (someone @ Puck Daddy, can't remember who, said the Wings are going to obliterate the Leafs in the Winter Classic. And there was no mention in this article of the fact that the Wings dropped both games against the Panthers.) He's just saying we're boring. And, for the most part, we are.

Pretty much this. Though we weren't very impressive even when we were mostly healthy.

Man, you guys. It's not even that I necessarily disagree. But you're just so predictably silly about this. Yeah, no one ever takes a run at your guys when you've got a tough guy in your lineup. (Lemieux-on-Draper, McLeod-on-Kronwall.) And yeah, a fourth line with Orr and Westgarth and McGratton on it is definitely something we should do. Then, when the offense dries up even more and opposing teams exploit that unholy clusterf*** of a "line," we can all get on Holland's case because ZOMG WE'RE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT WINNING. WHAT OTHER TEAM HAS THREE ENFORCERS AS THEIR FOURTH LINE? Dressing a fighter, in this day and age, is pretty much a waste. I get the argument for it, and I don't totally disagree. But, if John Scott is gonna take out Loui Eriksson, he's gonna do it. If James Neal is gonna knee Brad Marchand in the head, he's gonna do it. Having an enforcer just means you get to respond after the fact and make some kind of silly "statement" that doesn't really need to be made in the first place and isn't going to do much good. (ZOMG! Our guy who gets paid to take issue with transgressions takes issue with your transgression! What a statement!) Because, honestly, in all our years of not dressing an enforcer, how many times has a guy taken a clear-cut "run" at one of our soft Euro stars and badly injured him? We're talking, what, maybe five incidents? Which is probably at or below the league average over that span of time. Because, again, enforcers don't really deter. They just make "statements" after the fact. And then it happens again, and they get to make another "statement," after the fact. This isn't the '80s, guys. This isn't the Norris Division. There aren't 18 fights per game. Today's game is not nearly as rough-and-tumble and dirty. It's won mostly with speed and skill. Why are the Avalanche winning so much this season? Because they're fast and they can score in bunches (and their goalies have been great). We can't score to save our lives, so, if anything, we might actually need more skill. Certainly we need to be more fleet of foot. Not that I don't think we need to get tougher. We do. But we have to be reasonable about it. It has to be a change that'll help us win more games and ultimately win a Cup. Not something to make us feel like bigger men, because, ho ho ho, now we have a face-puncher to hide behind! That's how a man takes care of business! He hides behind a hired gun! I'd rather have more overall team toughness - though, again, we need to find a way to score more. So there has to be a balance. Not saying the two - skill and toughness - are mutually exclusive. I'm saying, basically, you can't just load up on one-dimensional tough guys and think it's going to make things a whole lot better, on any front. If it were up to me, I'd take a good look at Ott and Westgarth this summer. I'd almost never dress the latter, but I'd have him just in case things get ludicrous and an actual statement has to be made. Or I'd play him with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Because that'd be awesome. (Not being sarcastic.) As for Ott - he's a pain in the ass who's not afraid to mix it up, throw his weight around, drop the gloves. Ott and Westgarth. That might be a nice first baby step on the road to getting tougher as a team. I think most of it actually comes down to Babcock. He needs to preach a tougher, more aggressive and intense style. We generally play with no life, no oomph. Or, we'll have little flashes of intensity, but that's it. That has to change. We, as a team, have to bring it. Every shift, every game. We have to push the pace. We have to play to win, not to "not lose." We have to win those little battles that add up over 60 minutes. We have to be engaged and electric. I'd take all that over throwing three fighters into the mix.

I'd like to see Pulkkinen get a look.

It feels like you're pinning a whole lot on the simple fact that Tomas Jurco played on a line with Datsyuk and Alfredsson, becuse he's a kid, or something. I mean, yeah, we didn't score - but we haven't been scoring for a couple weeks now. I don't think "loading up" (Jurco - Datsyuk - Alfredsson is actually a pretty solid line, on paper and the ice) is much of a plan. If we do that, the opposition just has to shut down one single line. And our entire bottom six would be defensive forwards.

Any update on Franzen? He seemed "ok." I was thinking it might just be a dental issue...?

Oh, and Jurco looked fine. He's the least of our worries. Or would people prefer Cleary there? Miller? Eaves? Or Tatar, which would be cool but would take a big bite out of our already silly-bad bottom six.