Echolalia

Who knows maybe Glendening will earn the money over his term. The more I think about it the less the contract bothers me.

Wow quite a lot of money. He has to be one of the most enigmatic players for LGW. On one hand he's a fourth liner. Period. On the other, Babcock and now Blashill are more than comfortable giving him extended minutes in all situations atypical for a fourth liner. One coach doing it is maybe poor judgement, but two? I'm happy he will remain with Detroit but this seems like overpayment.

I already claimed making that thread so back off I know you want it

Ok I vote Matthews for A

Someone with better statistical analysis abilities should go trough the past 15 drafts and look up probabilities of picking a successful kid in the draft based on when your pick is. In this particular draft it appears there's no difference between picking 16th or 60th. Does that trend hold true in other years? Are there more patterns worth knowing? We may not be able to criticize Holland's specific picks based on success for 3-5 years, but we might be able to develop a clearer picture about his odds of success, and then perhaps even compare his rate vs the league mean.Someone get on that.

Does that mean Larkin will lure Matthews here???

I still maintain that the only way he will stick in the NHL is if he diversifies his skill set right now, and gives Blashill a reason besides a heavy slap shot to put him on the ice. The only way he's going to learn to score regularly in the NHL is with regular opportunity, and the only way he's getting regular opportunity is if he demonstrates value to the team in some form right now.

I mean.... It works both ways. The defender had just as much right to do that to Bertuzzi, and if he had it would have been heralded as a solid defensive play.

Yeah I saw that haha I'm glad no slashing was called on the play. You gotta hold onto your stick if you want to play this sport.

I took a quick look at some more numbers from the 2011 draft, specifically how many players drafted that year have gone on to play at least 60 games in the NHL. 60 is an arbitrary number, but I picked it so those players who just last year found their niche in the NHL wouldn't be excluded from the list for only playing in half of the season last year. I would say the vast majority of players who haven't played at least 60 games in the NHL by now likely haven't established themselves in the NHL, and in most cases they probably won't find permanent NHL jobs. I don't know if its the most definitive way to classify someone as a bust as I'm sure there are a handful of players who may still slip through, but its at least one way to do it and for its convenience its what I looked at. ANYWAY: -In the first round 11 of the 30 players picked have played less than 60 games thus far. ----Colorado's 11th overall pick Duncan Siemans has played 1 NHL game. ----Buffalo's 16th overall pick Joe Armia has played 44 NHL games. ----Chicago's 18th overall pick Mark McNeill has played 1 NHL game. ----Ottawa's 21st overall pick Steven Noesen has played 2 NHL games. ----Toronto's 22rd overall pick Tyler Biggs has played 0 NHL games. ----Pittsburgh's 23rd overall pick Joe Morrow has played 48 NHL games. ----Ottawa's 24th overall pick Matt Puempel has played 39 NHL games. ----Toronto's 25th overall pick Stuart Percy has played 12 NHL games. ----Chicago's 26th overall pick Philip Danault has played 53 NHL games. ----Minnesota's 28th overall pick Zach Phillips has played 0 NHL games. ----Vancouver's 29th overall pick Nicklas Jensen has played 24 NHL games. Things to note: Players who have established themselves in the NHL by now really thinned out after pick 15. Only 5 of the back 15 have played more than 60 NHL games, whereas 14 of the first 15 have (and many of those are in the 200+ games played range). 11 of 30 players in the second round have played more than 60 NHL games, which is a hair higher than the success rate of the back 15 of the first round (essentially the same rate). In other words, your odds of picking an NHL-calibre-player-by-2016 is essentially the same from pick 15 to pick 60, at least in this draft year. Kudos to Holland for trading one shot in that 33% success range to two shots (for a total of three shots, all in the second round). Holland's personal success in this frame currently mirrors the league: 33% success rate of this three picks between 15 and 60. That is Jurco has played more than 60, and Ouellete and Spoul have played less. Notable picks in the second round: Brandon Saad at 43rd overall by Chicago Matthew Nieto 47th overall by San Jose, and Nikita Kucherov 58th by Tampa Bay. 5 players from the 3rd round have played more than 60 games: Vincent Trocheck, picked 64th by Florida; Adam Lowry, picked 67th by Winnepeg; Klas Dahlbeck, picked 79th by Chicago; Andy Andreoff picked 80th by Los Angeles; and Nick Shore picked 82nd by Los Angeles. 4 players from the 4th round have played more than 60 games: Jean-Gabriel Pageau picked 96th by Ottawa; Reid Boucher picked 99th by New Jersey; Jonny Gaudreau picked 104th by Calgary; and Tobias Reider picked 114th by Edmonton. Only Andrew Shaw, picked 139th overall by the Blackhawks, and Nikita Nesterov, picked 148th overall by Tampa Bay have played in more than 60 games from the 5th round. Josh Manson from Anaheim, picked 160th by Anaheim is the only player from the 6th round. The 7th round produced four 60+GP players: -Iiro Pakarinen, 184th Florida -Jyrki Jokipakka, 195th Dallas -Alexi Marchenko, 205th Detroit -Ondrej Palat, 208th Tampa Bay Overall I'd say Tampa Bay had the most successful draft that year. Chicago also did quite well (although they struck out on both of their first round picks). source: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2011e.html

Another thing I noticed between five years ago and now is the knowledge base of these prospects from a fan's perspective is much broader. In 2011 there seemed to be only a dedicated few who even felt they were knowledgable enough to voice an opinion. This year it seems like many more of these prospects are known throughout the fanbase. Admittedly, I'm still not one of them. The two defensman whom people are debating over taking in this year's draft in the first round are just anonymous blanks in my head right now.

Given your views on Jurco, the mismanagement and the player he is today, I'm curious: would you consider his draft pick a bust or still a good pick? Cuz now we are jumping down a whole new rabbit hole with the idea that a pick can be an absolute gem to draft, but then mismanagement ruins it. At that point would it be better to pick a different player or can we assume a similar process would have crippled anyone else's development in the same position? Interesting to thing about.

Jurco has really been an interesting one to watch. He was kind of everyone's ideal pick that draft, and he had a good amount of success living up to his hype all through his first year or so in the NHL, and then just hit a wall. Now he's stuck in this hockey purgatory where he's trying to reinvent his game while other players pass him on the depth chart.

THANKS HOLLAND

omg i cant believe youre copying my poll idea

theres nothing about that I "like"

Link? I don't have a Facebook account

*Helm

i mean the year before we were 1st place the majority of the season

Frankly I think the power play needs to be built around Vanek and Nyquist. Get them open down low and find a way to get them the puck. I think that's the simplest recipe for success.

Helm fits in perfectly because somebody will inevitably get injured before the season starts and Holland will ride that wave until mid January when the picture becomes more clear.

oh trust me this kid will be paying debts for a while

I guess your left hand is the winning hand then

Dude those are just words. You had a solid 8hrs of rest and now you're voting better. That's all there is to it.

When i went to bed last night 'better" was in last place. Maybe optimism is related to how well-rested you are