Echolalia

I'm also in the minority in that Smith gets an unnecessarily bad rap around here, although I will preface this post by saying I haven't caught many games in the past month or so, so my evaluation of the guy is based mostly on pre-deadline Smith. It may be he took a nosedive since then. Anyway, Smith has a few things working against him from a fan's perspective: 1) he was a highly touted draft pick with an offensive upside, who was stepping into the NHL right around the time when Rafalski and Lidstrom were wrapping up their careers. In other words, there was a gaping hole to fill, and Smith happened to be coming into the league right when we were looking to fill it. Right off the bat there's a lot of things us fans were expecting of him, and in his first 12-14 games up he actually delivered quite nicely. But when he became a Wing full-time his game changed from being an offensive defensman to a more defense-oriented player. That transitition doesn't sit well with several fans because they're either still judging his play based on what a scout said he could be back when he was in college, or they're upset about losing our offensive output in Rafalksi and Lidstrom, and Smith was unable to put up big numbers to help fill that void. 2) I've noticed that many fans judge defensman primarily based on two things: 1. the aformentioned offensive output (which is why players like Karrlson and Green win Norris trophies), and how often they deliver crushing hits and play physicially (which is why so many people suddenly thought Kronwall wasn't a top 2 defensman once he slowed his Kronwalling down). There's surprisingly not a whole lot of attention for actual defensive plays (and if there is, we often forget about them by the end of the game), and frankly its not hard to see why because there aren't many quantifaible stats on defensive plays out there, and the ones that are our there are convoluted and intimidating, and require some introduction to understand. So Smith isn't a big hitter, and he isn't an offensive defensman. Consequently he's not going to have sexy numbers on nhl.com. But that by itself doesn't mean he's a bad defensman. I do think its worth mentioning that Smith has the most amount of takeaways out of all defensman on our team, and is second highest out of all our defensman in takeaways per game/giveaways per game ratio. That second value, particularly, is a good measuring stick for defensive defensman. It means less opportunity for the opposition to generate offense, and more opportunity for the Wings. Thats why its not a surprise to see that Smith also leads all our defenseman in corsi (by alot), which is even more impressive when you note that Smith is last of our defensman in offensive zone start percentage. 3) Probably the biggest thing Smith has going against him is that its trendy to hate him. People go out of their way to find flaws and mistakes in Smith's game, sometimes to ridiculous lengths. I had an argument a few months back with a poster who tried arguing that Smith was also to blame for a giveaway that Ericsson had to Parise at the end of a game against Minnesota (for the record, Ericcson was behind the net, unpressured, Parise was in front of the net, waiting, Smith was the safe outlet pass at the corner, which Ericcson didn't utilize, and instead tried beating Parise with an ill-advised pass). Apparently Smith was supposed to predict that Parise would intercept the pass and cover Parise preemptively, instead of provide an open man for Ericsson to pass to. Now don't get me wrong, Smith does make plenty of mistakes that he definitely deserves blame for, but there are also plenty of times when Smith just happens to be in the same building as someone else's mistake but still gets the finger pointed at him. Similiarly, our other defensman make plenty of mistakes that go unnoticed here, or at the very least people don't make a big fuss about them. Datsyuk has blown coverages quite a few times this year which have lead directly to goals. So has Zetterberg, Kronwall, Dekeyser, etc etc etc. But Smith is the trendy one to hate on now, so his mistakes are the ones that are emphasized. So echolalia, if Smith is so great, why is Babcock sitting him?? Well I don't think Smith is great, but I do think he's better than LGW values him. I think Babcock plays him appropriately for his skillset to succeed the most, and Smith has been effective in that role. But based on Babcock's decision to play Mrazek over Howard, and Marchenko over Smith, I strongly believe Babs is pushing a fast-transition agenda for game 1. Whatever upside Smith may have over Marchenko, he is not a right-handed defensman and won't be as efficient as getting the puck up from that side simply for that reason. Likewise, whatever advantage Howard has over Mrazek, nobody can deny Mrazek is essentially a third defensman back there, and that is going to help our transition game markedly. The emphasis here is getting the puck out as quickly and efficiently as possible. Afterall, the Lightning can't score if they're not in our zone. Its a risky move, to be sure. Babcock is investing in tactics over experience. But I'm not against seeing where it takes us for game 1. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

I think it has more to do with the success that Tatar, Sheahan, Jurco, Nyquist, Glendening, etc have had when thrust into the spotlight after showing promise in a more limited NHL role, and now we have additional young talent who seem to be ready for that opportunity as well.

Where did you read about Jimmy's reaction?

Between the news of Mrazek starting over Howard, and Marchenko starting over (likely) Smith seems to imply that Babcock wants a fast transition game to combat the Lightning's offense. I'm hesitant to see Mrazek get the nod simply because he's been unable to string together a series of solid games, but nobody can deny the kid moves the puck phenomenally, and I don't think Babcock will look to Mrazek for game 2 if he doesn't have a strong game 1. Jimmy might come in and play with a chip on his shoulder, should he get the opportunity.

Ericsson isn't as bad as LGW make him out to be. Nor is Smith. People go out of their way to look for their mistakes, and have become really good at ignoring the solid things they do. Its the trend right now. It also happens to be magnified in the case of Ericsson and Smith because neither are offensive, so they're not going to put up solid, quantifiable numbers that are easy to analyze in their support. They make s***ty decisions sometimes, but they're also solid at their position, and for the most part nullify offensive chances and are pretty good at getting the puck back in our possession after defending an attack. I can't speak for Babcock for his decisions to make the lines the way he does because I don't know what his thought process is, but Weiss is much better playing on the bottom two lines for the team than on the top two. He's a play-killer wherever he is, and if he's gonna be on the ice, its best to have him killing the plays of players like Glendening or Miller, instead of Datsyuk or Zetterberg. The latter two's offensive chances are pretty valuable to the team, and we could use those as often as possible. Additionally, the tactics of the fourth line are to be defensively sound at all times. They will play on the defensive side of the puck in almost every situation, so it forces Weiss at least positionally to be in a safe place. The top six have more variability and have the green light to be more aggressive and take chances. I don't want Weiss taking chances or losing possession in a top six role because we might not have the bodies back to cover for him compared to if he was playing with MIller, Glendening, Jurco, etc, who's main goal is to be in defensive position at all times. In short, Weiss is playing protected minutes on the bottom six. And he still has the opportunity to play more offensively on the powerplay. In the meantime, playing in a defensive line might get him to be a better two-way forward, or at the very least know when he can take chances and when he should play it safe, should he ever get the chance to play on the top six. And again, I don't know why Babs has him where he does, but those would be my reasons.

You're right, there is more to it than production. It also has to do with lack of responsibility with the puck, consistent turnovers and losses of possession when he's out there, particulalry in the offensive zone, being a non factor along the boards and in the corners, having no defensive game, no ability to retrieve loose pucks or force turnovers. You can point to just about any facet of the game and Weiss has been below average.This is necessarily directed at you, but I'm shocked that there are so many Weiss apologists on the boards given everything the guy has shown us. Especially considering how quickly people turn on players like Howard, Smith, Ericsson, etc and go out of their way to look for ways to blame them, you'd think there would be more people who can just say "Weiss has not been good." I was as excited as anyone when the Wings signed him, but it hasn't been working out for him, and at this point I would be very nervous to see Weiss playing in the top six, against top six opposition.

I lolled at that last night and I lolled again just now

Funny you guys should bring this up. Nate Silver actually just took a look at this approach: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-radical-proposal-to-destroy-the-nhls-loser-point/

Carolina is such a mess

Think of how many people were complaining when Holland didn't sign him to be our long lost sniper a couple years back.

I'd be pissed about that call if I was Washington.

looked clean to me

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I seem to recall Weiss has been given multiple opportunities on the top six throughout the year and aside from that one brief stint of productivity in December or so, has been equally as brutal as he is now. And also, I don't get this whole "he's not here to play defense" argument. Playing defensive hockey and playing responsible hockey are two different things, neither of which Weiss has shown at any point with the Wings he is capable of. I don't care if he's not the first guy back into our zone. I don't care if he back-checks like a dog out there. I don't care if he doesn't orient his game to protect the middle of the ice and siphon pucks to the perimeter. I don't care if he doesn't force turnovers and regain puck possession. These are things defensive forwards focus on. What I do care about is his poor pass decisions, particularly at the offensive blue line. And I care about his inability to keep an attack alive. And I care about his incompetence along the boards, and in the corners, where even the slightest pressure against him seems to lead to a lost puck. Putting him on the top 6 isn't going to magically give him tons of time and space to work with. Playing smart with the puck is still an important quality to have on the top 6; in fact its more important to have, because now instead of offensive attacks breaking down with Jurco and Glendening on the ice and wasting their opportunities, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are losing opportunities when Weiss loses the puck. To complicate matters, instead of turning the puck over to other team's third line players, he's now turning the puck over to top-six talent. He's a liability. And he's consistently been a liability, regardless of when, and regardless of who he's played with. This is why Babcock has him playing sheltered minutes on the third line and on the powerplay. Its all Weiss has shown he can handle.

I agree 100% on the unforced giveaway to Washington. I think the pass from Nyquist was more on Nyquist putting it too far ahead of Weiss. But my initial post was referring to Weiss who was covering for Smith on D when Smith pinched in to keep the play alive at the half-boards, and Weiss just let the puck-carrying forward skate right past him which lead to a scoring chance. Like, I know he's offensively capable. But its like he has nothing else to provide besides scoring the occasional goal. If he's pressured along the boards; turnover. If he's pressured at center ice; turnover. He doesn't steal pucks back. He's not smart defensively. He's ineffective as a forechecker. Outside of whenever he scores a goal, I don't notice him in any positive manner. And its so upsetting because I've been rooting for this guy for two years (and still am). If he could even get to be average at protecting the puck and getting involved, he would be so much more effective. But until them I'm scared whenever he's out there that the puck is going to end up in our zone, or our net.

Weiss.... terrible

Final tomorrow. Who cares. I need hockey. LGW

I disagree about Weiss and board battles. Regardless of his position or what line he's on, I expect him to be responsible with the puck and play strong wherever he is on the ice. Centers play along the boards all the time, and if he's going to cough the puck up when someone pressures him, I'd rather he blow the fourth line's scoring chance, and not Datyuk's or Zetterberg's.

I'm in the minority here, but I don't want to see Mrazek tone it back. I think its easy to blame the aggressiveness because if the puck goes in when he's out far, it looks much worse than when the puck goes in when he's deep in the net. His problem is, if he's going to play aggressive, he needs to have solid rebound control, and that's usually what gets him in trouble. Goal 2 is a good example of this. His aggressive positioning contributed to him making the first save. The shooter didn't have much option but to put it into Mrazek because the angle was cut down so far. But Mrazek had no rebound control, and he put the puck right into the path of the only open guy on the ice. I've seen this exact situation happen to him before. But overall, his aggressive nature has been more beneficial than not. Anyway, Mrazek is showing today what he's showed all season long: he's not a number one goalie yet, and if the Wings want to get past the second round in the playoffs, our best bet is that Howard somehow regains his pre-injury form. I think that's more likely than Mrazek gaining 2-3 years of NHL experience in three weeks, at least. But unfortunately neither Howard nor Mrazek seem capable of taking that step.

I've got nothing against Quenneville, or anyone for that matter, for succeeding when they're put in a position to succeed. At the very least its what's expected of every coach in the NHL. But I don't think that's a good criterion to base whether an NHL coach is among the best in the league at their job. And honestly, I don't have much of an issue with under-performing either, so long as its not a career-defining thing and more of an anomaly, because its something that has and will happen to every coach. I think one of the best ways to define the effectiveness of a coach is to assess how much they can get out of a team, and if a team is performing beyond expectations, I'd say that's a good indicator that the coach is doing a good job and getting a ton out of his roster. Its why I respect Trotz and Hitchcock (although admittedly I want to see how Trotz can handle the Caps before I make any definitive case for or against him). Sutter has had teams go beyond expectations in his career, and I would have him more highly rated if he was able to get the Kings' to play at the very least like they're capable of playing (this goes back to whether you make under-performing a habit, or an occasional thing. Sutter is teetering on that line right now and leaning on the wrong side of it). Babcock has had teams play beyond expectations several times in his career. Tippet has done it as well. Quenneville, I don't see it. His teams either perform exactly how they're expected to when you look at the roster (which again, isn't a knock on him as a coach) or they under-perform. He's had several opportunities in his almost 20 year career to meet expectations when he didn't or to exceed expectations when he didn't, and its those missed opportunities to really show that he can be a difference-maker as a coach that I'm basing my criticism of him. Which is why I think he's an average to above average coach, but not best in the business, despite his accolades. I think there are many coaches who would have had the same success as him if they were given his opportunity. But I don't think many coaches would recreate what Trotz was able to do with a bunch of scrubs in Nashville, or Tippet with some of those Phoenix teams (especially with the ownership s***show show they've had to endure). The question now with those two, particularly Trotz now that the opportunity is there to see him in a different environment with more skill to work with, is are they capable of earning playoff success, and eventually winning a Cup?

Cherry picking three players from a team of 20 players isn't an effective defense of saying one team is better than the other. It also doesn't discredit anything I've said. I think the Wings were the best team in the league in 2008 and 2009 skill-wise. I think since then, its been the Blackhawks. Both teams have experienced success in those periods, as expected they would given their makeup on paper. Babcock's 2005 squad was a solid team and they underperformed when the got to the playoffs. The same way Quenneville's Chicago teams underperformed when they were eliminated in the first round two years in a row after winning a Cup, and the same way Quenneville's Blues underperformed earlier in his career. I would say its the same way Sutter's team is currently under-performing, but if the reigning Cup champs end up missing the playoffs altogether, I think that's taking it to a new level, and I certainly don't think that is something that would be on the resume of one of the best NHL coaches in the league. We'll have to see what happens on that one. Also, forgive me if I don't jump up in disbelief of Quenneville's 700 wins. The guy has been coaching playoff caliber teams his whole career dating back to 1996-1997. That's almost 20 years of opportunity to work with. Also your comparison to his time with the Blues and Blackhawks ("He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games") is flat out wrong. 307 wins with St. Louis in 593 games coached =/= 266 wins with Chicago in 454 games coached. That comes out to 51.7% wins vs 59% wins, which isn't a small margin. That amounts to an extra six games won per 82 games, or a 12 point gap in an 82 game season. So while they were both playoff-caliber teams, his time in St. Louis definitely isn't "more of the same". Its quantifiably worse. And the contrast between the two teams in the playoffs is even more apparent. 34 wins, 34 losses in seven playoff appearances with the Blues. 57 wins, 37 losses (and two aforementioned Cups) in six playoff appearances with the Hawks. Definitely not more of the same. But considering those Blues teams only made it past the second round once in seven seasons (eight if you include the year he was fired) it does further support the notion that Quenneville is unable to achieve any level of success with teams that aren't totally stacked and favored to win the Cup. In short, Quenneville's teams don't exceed expectations. They either meet their expectations, or they fall short. And yes, Babcock has missed the playoffs 50% of his time not with the Wings (n=2, ie one time in his career). Its also worth mentioning the skill level of that squad was marginal at best. The year the Ducks went to the finals they went as a 7th seed, and unlike Sutter's Kings, the Ducks weren't a Cup favorite that for whatever reason barely squeaked into the playoffs. The Ducks went as team that higher seeds thought of as a stepping stone to get to the next round. Then they swept the defending Cup champion Red Wings team in the first round. Then they beat the top seed in the West, the Dallas Stars 4-2. Then they swept Minnesota in the Conference finals, before finally losing in seven games to New Jersey in the SCF. The next season (and after losing their top-scorer Kariya when he bolted for Colorado in the offseason) they played closer to their skill set and missed the playoffs. And just a side note: the Mighty Ducks team Babcock inherited ended the season in 13th place the year before he took them to the finals. But that's neither here nor there. The real beef I have isn't with how you perceive Babcock. Its how you perceive Quenneville and Sutter. Two guys who I think are somewhere between average and above average, but not cream of the crop. edit: sorry for the wall of text, I'm on a study break and wanted it to last as long as possible lol

Looking forward to the postseason, I think the biggest name on there is Abdelkader. He has become the epitome of a playoff style player (well.. I suppose we'll see if that's true when we get there). His goals are greasy, dirty, and he has been wreaking havoc in the crease, in the corners, and is still defensively sound. As Cole continues to mesh with the Wings I think having him and Abby as a one-two punch in our top six could be the difference between success and failure in the playoffs.

I disagree about Quenneville and Sutter being better coaches. I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table. The Blackhawks squad has probably had the most raw talent from top to bottom throughout the entire league over the past few years, and better still is that the most important pieces have been playing hockey in their prime age. Before becoming Chicago's coach, Quenneville was coach of some pretty solid teams, yet he got to the conference finals only once in nine playoff appearances, where his team was promptly eliminated 4-1. He's had some good success in Chicago, with two Cups, two more conference finals appearances, and two first round exits sandwiched between the two. But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career, especially considering the skill-set he has had at his disposal during his only period of success. Its kind of similar to the argument that people make against Babs being a good coach because he won a gold metal with a stacked Canadian team, except on a smaller scale, and unlike Babcock, Quenneville doesn't have any other credentials or success stories to fall back on. Sutter I have more respect for, mostly because I think his lack of success in the postseason can be attributed largely due to his teams being playoff bubble teams up until LA (and he also managed to get Calgary to the finals). But the big red flag for me with him is that he has repeatedly struggled to even get a proven Stanley Cup winning roster into the postseason. Right now they're on the outside looking in despite largely the same roster winning the cup last year. In 2012, LA won the Cup as an 8th seed. Awesome feelgood story, but its not a story of a Cinderella team overcoming all odds to win the Cup. Its a story of a super talented team who underperformed for 82 games, almost didn't even get an opportunity to compete for the Cup, and turned it on at the right time. The amount of talent on that team is inarguable. They've won two Cups in the past four years, and again, little turnover in talent from season to season. Why is it that they are struggling to even make the playoffs? Dave Tippet I respect immensely and I also respect Trotz, largely because they've gotten a hell of a lot out of some very average teams. Tippet I would put in the same tier as Babcock. With Trotz, I want to see what he can do with the Capitals before I pass judgment on him, but I gotta say I think Ovechkin has really grown under Trotz already. Anyway those are my thoughts. I think we've discussed this before so I'm not expecting to change your mind on the matter.

I haven't been able to watch a whole lot of games lately, but from what I've seen I'm surprised people are vouching for Weiss. Now maybe I only caught his bad games, so my assessment may be way off here, but in the games I catch he has been one of the lightest guys on the puck I have ever seen in an NHL game. He's a feather in the corners, generates nothing, breakdowns in possession usually happen on his side of the ice, and he hasn't been particularly noticeable defensively either. Looking at his stats over the past few months, the guy doesn't have much to speak of. One assist on Feb 26th (on the powerplay), his last point before that was Feb 11th (a goal, on the powerplay). He had a solid stretch over 4 games in late January where he had three points against his former team, at even strength, and an even strength assist against Minny, and a powerplay assist against Nashville on Jan 17th. His next point before then was another assist on the powerplay Dec 29th, and a goal on the powerplay Dec 23rd. That's 9 points in the past 3 months, of which 5 came on the powerplay. That really confirms (at least offensively) what you can see just by watching the guy play: he hasn't been an effective player in tight-checking, fast-paced, little-time-and-space hockey, aka a typical even strength NHL game. This issue is likely compounded by the fact that Babcock has been grooming the Wings to be a fast, up-tempo, heavy fore-check team who's bread and butter are forced turnovers. Weiss may have more raw skill than Anderson, or Miller, or Glendening, or whoever, but looking forward to the playoffs, when the speed gets even faster, and the play gets even tighter, I'm more comfortable giving ice to the guys who have shown at the very least they're capable of enduring the pressure in the regular season. If Weiss is able to step his game up and get to that level, then more power to us. We could certainly use a guy with his skill-set. But until that point comes, I think the team is better off with Pulkinnen and Andersson on the ice.

I want to play the Bruins, the Pens, the Habs, and the Ducks. Bring em all on.

I don't pretend to understand Echolalia's law, I merely enforce it. Echolalia's law is like Echolalia's love: hard and fast.