kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 Let's say for the sake of argument that Jiri Hudler had scored 50-60 pts. (instead of 37 pts) and was the same -7 on defense. This would bring him in line with what everyone really thinks that he'll turn out to be. Does that make any difference in the San Jose series? Does it stop them from dominating possession and endlessly cycling the puck? Do we go on to win that one, beat Vancouver, and play Boston for the Cup? Does he somehow match up better against quality forwards? Does our goals against go down? Now replace Hudler with Wolski, Zherdev, Tim Connolly, etc.? Do we win with any of these guys? Against the good teams? If not, maybe the problem isn't that we don't score enough. What do you all think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rice 42 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 On the flip side, more offense = better puck possession = less time in your own zone. 1 SaCkaveli20 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Konnan511 1,736 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 I think we all agree that shotty defense was the reason we ultimately failed? 1 Rick D reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 I think we all agree that shotty defense was the reason we ultimately failed? That's the thing, I'm not sure that we all do agree on that. Especially when I see people suggesting picking up Zherdev, Connolly, and the like. It seems to me that when talking about forwards the only things many people on this forumn look at are points and cap hit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Konnan511 1,736 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 On the flip side, more offense = better puck possession = less time in your own zone. Or conversely, smarter defensmen who have a quick and precise outlet pass will help gain the offensive zone for more scoring chances! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) On the flip side, more offense = better puck possession = less time in your own zone. That's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly the wrong way to look at things. Which is the reason why Scotty Bowman preached forechecking, backchecking, and defensive responsibility. The team that possesses the puck most is not the one with the better offense, it's the one who's better at taking it away from the other team. On good teams the forwards have to play defense as much as the defenseman do. And as Konnan just mentioned, the d-men are usually the launch pad for the offense as well. Edited June 14, 2011 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rice 42 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 Or conversely, smarter defensmen who have a quick and precise outlet pass will help gain the offensive zone for more scoring chances! I don't disagree. This was why depending on Rafalski was an issue -- he was a big part of the offense but often a liability on defense. If someone can step in and replace 70-80% of his offense but play better defense, the team will be better for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,935 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) spend the majority of the money on defense, BUT if Holland could find a player to put in 30-40, maybe 50 more goals and can score consistently (unlike Franzen) then why not add that dimension? Edited June 14, 2011 by LeftWinger 1 Rick D reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) spend the majority of the money on defense, BUT if Holland could find a player to put in 30-40, maybe 50 more goals and can score consistently (unlike Franzen) then why not add that dimension? Because forwards have to play defense too. Because between 2008 when we won a cup and 2009 when we didn't our goals against increased by almost 100, so 50 extra points don't really matter. Because both teams playing in the cup finals right now were in the top five in "Goals for" AND had the lowest "Goals against" in the league. Because if you pick up forwards that don't play defense you may score more, but everyone scores more on you as well. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to sign a forward. But he better play good defense (unlike everyone I mentioned already) or he's not worth having. I'll take a 15-20 goal scorer who plays stud defense over Wolski, Zherdev, Connolly, or Hudler for that matter. Edited June 14, 2011 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
droz 5 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 What ufas are out there that score 30+? It would be nice to have a 40 goal scorer are last was hossa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 What ufas are out there that score 30+? It would be nice to have a 40 goal scorer are last was hossa There were only twenty eight players with over 30 goals this year, and only five over 40. Few or none of them are UFA's, with any realistic possibility of leaving their current teams, and if they do, you're going to pay a fortune. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brett 1,029 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) I was always told defense before offense. If you can withstand the other teams pressure, clear the front of the net and have a good smart outlet pass your going to spend a lot less time in the defensive zone. I would love to see a stay at home defense men added as well as a scoring defense men now that raffy is gone The PK also killed us in the playoffs... But if you want you can also pick apart the offense. Pretty confident in Zetterberg Datsyuk Franzen Cleary Flippula and Bertuzzi when they are healthy. Would be cool to have another top 6 since homer is on the down fall. I would also love to see a big power forward that brings it every night and is good on the PK. Ala Brandon Prust Edited June 14, 2011 by brett Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pucktividi 472 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 With all the respect to the OP...then how the hell we've lost 8 one goal games vs Sharks past 2 Playoffs? Last year Howard wasn't good and Lebda and Meech were patrolling the blue line,but this year Jimmy was very good and our D men were solid so I'm totally with Babs on signing top 6 forward to provide us more scoring depth 1 LeftWinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pucktividi 472 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) sry double post Edited June 14, 2011 by pucktividi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Let's say for the sake of argument that Jiri Hudler had scored 50-60 pts. (instead of 37 pts) and was the same -7 on defense. This would bring him in line with what everyone really thinks that he'll turn out to be. Does that make any difference in the San Jose series? Does it stop them from dominating possession and endlessly cycling the puck? Do we go on to win that one, beat Vancouver, and play Boston for the Cup? Does he somehow match up better against quality forwards? Does our goals against go down? Now replace Hudler with Wolski, Zherdev, Tim Connolly, etc.? Do we win with any of these guys? Against the good teams? If not, maybe the problem isn't that we don't score enough. What do you all think? Detroit was 2nd in goals per game and 23rd in goals against per game, this season. Yes, the team defense is what needs to improve. By the way. Those numbers change to 4th and 5th; respectively, in the playoffs. Edited June 14, 2011 by CenterIce 1 kipwinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,935 Report post Posted June 14, 2011 With all the respect to the OP...then how the hell we've lost 8 one goal games vs Sharks past 2 Playoffs? Last year Howard wasn't good and Lebda and Meech were patrolling the blue line,but this year Jimmy was very good and our D men were solid so I'm totally with Babs on signing top 6 forward to provide us more scoring depth I totally agree! Which is why I said spend most the money on making the D better, so we don't have as many third period farts...but I said IF Holland can get a goal scorer, then why not? If the D brings the GAA back up to the top 5, then adding a player that can score 30+ goals would be icing on the cake! Again, to the OP, I am not saying don't get better defensively, but after that, if we can add scoring, then do it! 1 pucktividi reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,793 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) I think we all agree that shotty defense was the reason we ultimately failed? You could also say that our crappy powerplay in game 7 is why we ultimately failed. Edited June 15, 2011 by GMRwings1983 1 pucktividi reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaman 713 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 I think we all agree that shotty defense was the reason we ultimately failed? I would say lack of scoring lost for them against the Sharks. None of the games were games the Wings lost purely because of bad Defense, and a couple of them they would have won with a key goal late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unsaddleddonald 357 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 I would say lack of scoring lost for them against the Sharks. None of the games were games the Wings lost purely because of bad Defense, and a couple of them they would have won with a key goal late. Excellent point! We needed timely goal scoring that just never came in that SJ series. Mule was hurt, i'll give him that, but its tough to explain the way he ended the regular season. Back to the SJ series, did anyone really feel confident in Cleary, Bert, Fil, Huds, Homer, etc. to score a goal when Pav and Z weren't out there? It got to a point where we didn't really have a chance of scoring unless the Euro twins were on the ice. The players I mentioned are nice DEPTH forwards but they are not players who can score on demand. We have two, and again I don't know what Mule will end up being. But you look at the top West teams: Chicago, SJ, and Vancouver. Something they all have in common is that they all have AT LEAST 3 elite/dangerous forwards who are a threat to score... Chicago: Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa (Bolland?) SJ: Thornton, Heatley, Marleau, Pavelski, Clowe, Couture, Setoguchi Van: Twins, Kesler, Burrows We have two elite players, I feel we need one more.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragonballgtz 273 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 I would say lack of scoring lost for them against the Sharks. None of the games were games the Wings lost purely because of bad Defense, and a couple of them they would have won with a key goal late. Consistency is our offensive weakness. Sure we had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the regular season but in the playoffs (where it truly matters) our depth disappeared for the majority of the SJ series. I think we need that consistent 2nd line center that does not vanish for long stretches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dirtydangles 1,328 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 Consistency is our offensive weakness. Sure we had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the regular season but in the playoffs (where it truly matters) our depth disappeared for the majority of the SJ series. I think we need that consistent 2nd line center that does not vanish for long stretches. B. Richards? Carter? Who do you think would be a good fit for second line center? Or at least work in with Z on that line as part time center if dats and z split. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) With all the respect to the OP...then how the hell we've lost 8 one goal games vs Sharks past 2 Playoffs? Last year Howard wasn't good and Lebda and Meech were patrolling the blue line,but this year Jimmy was very good and our D men were solid so I'm totally with Babs on signing top 6 forward to provide us more scoring depth And in both of the years we lost to the Sharks we had more goals per game. Suppose the reason we can have more goals per game and lose two years in a row is because they play better team defense and shut us down when it matters? Suppose they scored more because they had the puck more and cycled for larger peroids of time? Suppose they had the puck more because their defense forced more turnovers? Also, I don't want anyone to think that we should ONLY spend on defenseman, or that the defense is the ONLY problem. I'm saying whatever forward we sign needs to be defensively responsible. In a perfect world, like D and Z. The original post was in response to some of the names I'm seeing thrown around on this forumn. Zherdev? Connolly? You're talking about guys that are double digit minus in their careers. Scoring is nice, but a team full of Brett Hull's wouldn't be too hard to beat would it? Edited June 15, 2011 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,492 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Consistency is our offensive weakness. Sure we had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the regular season but in the playoffs (where it truly matters) our depth disappeared for the majority of the SJ series. I think we need that consistent 2nd line center that does not vanish for long stretches. We are currently ranked 4th in "Goals per Game" in the playoffs. Ahead of the team that beat us, ahead of the two teams in the finals, and one behind Tampa Bay, who advanced to the Conference finals. Suppose the reason we had more goals per game and couldn't score timely goals against the Sharks was because they played better TEAM DEFENSE, and shut us down? All five guys on the ice have to play D everybody, not just the two defenseman. That's why we "back check" , "forecheck", pick up our in zone "defensive assignments", etc. Edited June 15, 2011 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rice 42 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 But you look at the top West teams: Chicago, SJ, and Vancouver. Something they all have in common is that they all have AT LEAST 3 elite/dangerous forwards who are a threat to score... Chicago: Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa (Bolland?) SJ: Thornton, Heatley, Marleau, Pavelski, Clowe, Couture, Setoguchi Van: Twins, Kesler, Burrows We have two elite players, I feel we need one more.... You're forgetting Franzen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyerberger 279 Report post Posted June 15, 2011 Who do you think would be a good fit for second line center? There's this Finnish guy, I hear he has great skating and really good defense for a 2nd line C. Puts up a solid PPG. All of that and I hear he can be had for $3m/yr. Wish I could remember his name... I would say lack of scoring lost for them against the Sharks. None of the games were games the Wings lost purely because of bad Defense, and a couple of them they would have won with a key goal late. I'd say very badly timed penalties putting our equally bad PK on display is what cost us that series. 1 kipwinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
