Bucci's preseason predictions

[hckypete96 3]

They are almost as successful, but far less interesting. They have lacked physical, confrontational players and are not as difficult to play against. You can't win a championship unless opponents are uncomfortable playing against you. No Red Wing had 100 minutes in penalties last season. In their Stanley Cup years, the team always had at least two. In 1996-97, the Wings had five. The champion Ducks, who beat the Wings in the conference finals last spring, had three players over the 100-minute mark.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/preview2007/...&id=3040915

I love Bucci, but this stuff is a bunch of crap. I feel one enforcer would be great, but you don't need multiple guys to hit the 100 PIM mark to win games. Penalties actually almost cost the Ducks the series against the wings, If the wings are so easy to play against then why did they beat the Sharks which every ESPN writer is in love with this year? Bucci's picks this year are awful, he has the Wild at #4 and the Canucks at #2.... both teams can't score for crap! What do u guys think?

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

We'll be just as good. But he's right, we lack physicality, and confrontational players, we wont have anyone get close to 60 PIMs, with at least two fighting majors.

But we will finish 1st, and hopefully during the season kenny picks up some scoring and some grit.

[servo 15]

Ho hum

\

Yaaaaaaawwwwwn.

Same crap, different turd.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

He's spot on

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

They have lacked physical, confrontational players and are not as difficult to play against. You can't win a championship unless opponents are uncomfortable playing against you. No Red Wing had 100 minutes in penalties last season. In their Stanley Cup years, the team always had at least two. In 1996-97, the Wings had five. The champion Ducks, who beat the Wings in the conference finals last spring, had three players over the 100-minute mark.

At first glance, the Red Wings' roster again appears a little old, a little small, and, yes, a little boring. The majesty of Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg is still worth the price of admission for the hard-core hockey fan. They take your breath away on occasion. But the rest of the story appears to be lacking zest and the casual fan has a hard time latching on. The Red Wings will win the Central Division and make the playoffs. But unless we see a rise from an unexpected source or a perfect deadline deal, I think we will see more of the same. A few empty seats in the lower bowl of the Joe and another spring without Stanley.

Amen brother John.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Buccigross is a retard, but he's right on this one. Even though from a fan's perspective it's hard to see my team as boring, I don't doubt for a minute that that is the way other people look at the Wings.

[WhiteLightning91 105]

Well, since Buccigross is the only ESPN writer I read on a constant basis, I was eagerly waiting for his predictions to come out. When I read the Red Wings' prediction this afternoon, I wanted to say we would prove him wrong, but he is right. You can never have enough grit and physicality to a team and that is what it will take to put this team over the top.

[Mors 201]

Well what can you say...pretty accurate, I wouldn't call the team boring, but he's certainly right about what this team lacks.

[theman19 47]

Yadda Yadda Yadda,...isn't this the same song they've been singing about us since the lockout, but in a different Key?

We were supposed to be terrible after the lockout, we wern't

We were supposed to get tossed aside by Calgary and SJ, We didn't

We came within scratching distance of beating the ducks, everyone said they'd thump us

Same song, different year, but a bit more bright at least this time around.

Why is it, that everyone seems to ignore that the Hurricanes won the stanley cup in 06 without so much as a shadow of an enforcer? (boulrice didn't play in the playoffs) It's like the NHL erased that from memory, and when they talk about stanley cup teams they skip that year.

Well it happened, a Defensivly sound, Offensivly explosive, forward corps, with a WEAK defense won it all. They won it, over a more aggressive, more confrontational team to boot. Now, you can say they did it for this reason (Rollie getting injured certainly didn't hurt) or that one,(don't forget cole was injured too until game 6)

but, point blank

A team without an enforcer did in fact win the cup in 2006 and could win it in 2008.

[sticknmove 0]

"We were supposed to get tossed aside by Calgary and SJ"

Get off it bro, I think people just love to mention how we won 2 rounds last year after the two AMAZING playoff runs we had in the years up to last. We all know we won, and the reason a perception formed that we were supposed to lose early, and to teams we shouldnt IS BECAUSE WE DID, 2 years in a row. And no, our team does not have the toughness or grit to win a cup, period. Watch the reels of our cup winning teams, each of the three incredibly more gritty, and physical, and I am not talking about just fighting at all. We need to address the issue or get used to being "a couple bounces" away from the stanley cup finals.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Yadda Yadda Yadda,...isn't this the same song they've been singing about us since the lockout, but in a different Key?

We were supposed to be terrible after the lockout, we wern't

We were supposed to get tossed aside by Calgary and SJ, We didn't

We came within scratching distance of beating the ducks, everyone said they'd thump us

Same song, different year, but a bit more bright at least this time around.

Why is it, that everyone seems to ignore that the Hurricanes won the stanley cup in 06 without so much as a shadow of an enforcer? (boulrice didn't play in the playoffs) It's like the NHL erased that from memory, and when they talk about stanley cup teams they skip that year.

Well it happened, a Defensivly sound, Offensivly explosive, forward corps, with a WEAK defense won it all. They won it, over a more aggressive, more confrontational team to boot. Now, you can say they did it for this reason (Rollie getting injured certainly didn't hurt) or that one,(don't forget cole was injured too until game 6)

but, point blank

A team without an enforcer did in fact win the cup in 2006 and could win it in 2008.

yadda yadda yadda... where does he say they need an enforcer?

It's the same old song and dance. Someone says the Wings need to be more physical and nastier to play against, and people come back saying "we don't need an enforcer."

A team can be physical tough and nasty without having a true enforcer. They are not one in the same.

And having read Bucci over the years, he's been right a lot more often than wrong. I wouldn't be so quick to lump him in with the "they" you keep referring to.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

I like this year....I feel confident we'll finish first in the West, because we always do and who cares at this point about President's Trophies. I expect the Wings to pick up a couple more gritty players during the season, not that these players will satiate the grit apetite of our LGW fanbase, but I still think we're legit cup contenders.

[Heaton 1]

What I find interesting is that this is exactly the same team as last year and once again they're not "hard" to play against. So the question comes up again, were Todd Bertuzzi and Danny Markov the keys to the Red Wings success to the conference finals last season? Oh they weren't? Gotcha.

I guess if you guys feel we lost to the Ducks last year because we weren't "physical" enough, Bucci is correct.

The Wings cut the fat in the off season, plain and simple, we're a better team this year.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Heaton

[theman19 47]

yadda yadda yadda... where does he say they need an enforcer?

Right about the time he talks about the amout of pim's our players have vs. times we've won the cup. My original point, is still valid, The hurricanes won the stanley cup without taking penatlies and attacking guys. In fact Brooks Orpik almost killed Eric Cole and nothing happened to him. Several months later Cole's hoisting the cup. Was it right? No probably not,...i'd have liked to seen someone get revenge, but playing mean nasty hockey by itself doesn't mean an automatic win. I want someone to come out and say it,....just once,....you can win the stanley cup by playing sound (but not super aggressive) team D and having an Offense that refuses to be intimidated.

[BlakChamber 8]

I don't see anything wrong with what Bucci said. Looks like a pretty spot on analysis to me.

[Heaton 1]

I don't see anything wrong with what Bucci said. Looks like a pretty spot on analysis to me.

There's nothing wrong with what he said, but his thinking is a bit flawed. Phsycially the Wings may not be "hard" to play against, but I'm pretty sure teams wouldn't say playing and winning games against the Red Wings is easy. It's difficult in a different way and it's working. This Red Wings team is a gritty, grind it out type of team the only thing it doesn't have is a bunch of fighting majors and more than a few borderline dirty hits. The Wings don't back down from physicallity, or at very least they didn't when it counted, they hung with the 3 "toughest" teams in the West, so saying that they don't have what it takes to the Win the cup is a bit of a fallacy, because if we're going by what's on paper, I guess Anaheim is the only real pick out of the West.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Heaton

[sticknmove 0]

"The Wings cut the fat in the off season, plain and simple, we're a better team this year."

Whatever makes you sleep easier bro. Losing Bertuzzi doesnt hurt, or help, its a non factor. Losing Markov on the other hand hurts us. It is pointless to argue about, I mean the year will play out and we will see who is right. But I am telling you, fighting not included whatsoever, this team is not tough enough to win a cup. And again you cited last years team, THEY DIDN'T win either so I do not know what point you are trying to get across.

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

He's actually pretty much right on.

[Yemack 1]

he makes some valid points

BUT

we dont need 100 min fighter just for the sake of it. We need 100 min role player who can contribute.

As for Markov, I liked him and what he brought to our team. But after watching last playoffs where he was caught out of position resulting in many goals we conceited, my view has somewhat changed.

It sucks we had to let him go and lose that much of physical presence but we are just too stacked in defence and he made a lot of crucial mistakes last spring.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

There's nothing wrong with what he said, but his thinking is a bit flawed. Phsycially the Wings may not be "hard" to play against, but I'm pretty sure teams wouldn't say playing and winning games against the Red Wings is easy. It's difficult in a different way and it's working. This Red Wings team is a gritty, grind it out type of team the only thing it doesn't have is a bunch of fighting majors and more than a few borderline dirty hits. The Wings don't back down from physicallity, or at very least they didn't when it counted, they hung with the 3 "toughest" teams in the West, so saying that they don't have what it takes to the Win the cup is a bit of a fallacy, because if we're going by what's on paper, I guess Anaheim is the only real pick out of the West.

How are we a gritty, grind it out type of team? Other than Holland, Babcock, and a few anti-fighting fans on this board, no one else who follows hockey beleives that statement. We're the smallest, softest team in the league, and our players don't do anything when the other team resorts to bully tactics. Everyone in the league knows that. Yes, we won 2 playoff rounds last year, but it's amazing how quickly many of you forget that we struggled in the playoffs the past few years before that. And if god forbid we get eliminated in the 1st round of the playoffs this year, once again the anti-fighting posters will find something else to blame besides the lack of tougness, such as goaltending or coaching. It's great to support your team, but how can so many of you turn away from the obvious fact that we're not a gritty team, and say the exact opposite?

[omnipotent_hudler 0]

Get off it bro, I think people just love to mention how we won 2 rounds last year after the two AMAZING playoff runs we had in the years up to last.

I think you love to throw out actual evidence backing up peoples arguments about this team right now; not the team from two years ago. Instead, you prefer basing your arguments on your "feelings" about the team.

[puckbags 863]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/preview2007/...&id=3040915

he has the Wild at #4 and the Canucks at #2.... both teams can't score for crap!

The Canucks have this guy named Luongo between the pipes..they won't have to score many goals!!

[Heaton 1]

How are we a gritty, grind it out type of team? Other than Holland, Babcock, and a few anti-fighting fans on this board, no one else who follows hockey beleives that statement. We're the smallest, softest team in the league, and our players don't do anything when the other team resorts to bully tactics. Everyone in the league knows that. Yes, we won 2 playoff rounds last year, but it's amazing how quickly many of you forget that we struggled in the playoffs the past few years before that. And if god forbid we get eliminated in the 1st round of the playoffs this year, once again the anti-fighting posters will find something else to blame besides the lack of tougness, such as goaltending or coaching. It's great to support your team, but how can so many of you turn away from the obvious fact that we're not a gritty team, and say the exact opposite?

I get the feeling you haven't looked at this roster since 2004.

[therock48880 14]

Why is it, that everyone seems to ignore that the Hurricanes won the stanley cup in 06 without so much as a shadow of an enforcer? (boulrice didn't play in the playoffs) It's like the NHL erased that from memory, and when they talk about stanley cup teams they skip that year.

You list ONE team that won a cup without anyone who would be considered tough. Way to prove a point. How about ALL THE OTHER TEAMS THAT WON IT? It's funny how many people hang their hat on the fact that one team in the past 20-30 years has been able to win a cup without toughness. How about the other 19-29 years?

By the way, the original post had nothing to with an eforcer, it was about team toughness. You don't need to have a goon to be a tough team. Technically, Mccarty wasn't a goon. He wasn't even a "heavyweight". He was probably a "light heavyweight". Yet those teams were tough.

[Vancouver Wings Fan 0]

How are we a gritty, grind it out type of team? Other than Holland, Babcock, and a few anti-fighting fans on this board, no one else who follows hockey beleives that statement. We're the smallest, softest team in the league, and our players don't do anything when the other team resorts to bully tactics. Everyone in the league knows that. Yes, we won 2 playoff rounds last year, but it's amazing how quickly many of you forget that we struggled in the playoffs the past few years before that. And if god forbid we get eliminated in the 1st round of the playoffs this year, once again the anti-fighting posters will find something else to blame besides the lack of tougness, such as goaltending or coaching. It's great to support your team, but how can so many of you turn away from the obvious fact that we're not a gritty team, and say the exact opposite?

Agree 100%......

We proved in last year's playoffs that toughness and grit were lacking....Pronger/Neids getting away with cheaping on Holms....countless late hits and run at Dom going unanswered...We have a great team and all the ingredients needed, but a little spice is missing.....

The years the Cup was hoisted never would the above examples go unchecked....