333 replies to this topic

[achildr1]

Alright look. Somebody with the Wings said something to this effect once and I thought it really encapsulated this issue. The style we play makes us look dominant when we win but makes it look like we're not "competing" hard enough when we lose. Because we're not running around hitting everybody doesn't mean we're not trying. We play skilled, positional hockey. That means when guys have lazy or bad passing days, we look horrible and like we're not putting in enough effort. I've read quotes from Holland about sticking to the philosophy and game that has lead to our success, even when we get beat by a team that plays another one (Anaheim '07).

That said, Conklin and our overall defensive play in the last two games look pretty awful to me. I am curious to see if Commodore brings a new element with a little energy and grit when he plays.

[rrasco]

they have also lost 2 games...and have played 11 games. That means our winning percentage is better, plus we have given up less goals even with 10 in the last two games. It is Washington that is the best team in the league right now, they are flying on all cylinders...

Where did you take math?

5/7 = 71%
9/11 = 82%

....And your point is?

I said that before the season. This isn't the same team from 2008. It's more like the same team from 2010 and 2011. You know, the one that lost to the Sharks in the 2nd round.

By 1 goal in a game 7. God we suck.

[haroldsnepsts]

People can focus on this topic coming up after the two losses, as if people are freaking out because the Wings won't win every game this season, but they're overlooking or ignoring how pissed Babcock was at his team for their lack of effort the last two games. Seems to me that's worth talking about.

It's not just a reaction to the 2 in the loss column. It was a piss poor effort and our star players haven't looked good. I'm not worried about a couple losses, but I don't think it's an outrageous concept to be looking at the team and the implications deeper into the season and things that need to change. This is a hockey forum after all. I guess we're supposed to wait until the Wings having a losing record or get knocked out of the playoffs before we can say anything critical?

Like I said, a forum full of "it's okay guys! We'll get 'em next time!" is not only dull, it's not actually discussing hockey. It's just a pep rally.

I think this has been quoted once already, but is worth repeating.

DETROIT -- The first question Detroit Red Wings coach Mike Babcock fielded after today's practice at Joe Louis Arena was about the hard skate he put the players through following Tuesday's 4-1 loss at Columbus.
“I guess if you don't do it in games, you can do it in practice, right?'' Babcock said.

The tone was immediately set for his post-practice address. Babcock was upset about his team's performance the night before, and it doesn't sound like he's gotten over it yet. His team's effort against the Blue Jackets apparently prompted him to reconsider what would have been a day off Wednesday.

"I had six different line combinations last night when I looked at my sheet after the game. So that's a problem,'' Babcock said. "That means nothing's going right.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2011/10/red_wings_mike_babcock_still_s.html

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 27 October 2011 - 10:52 AM.

[RusDRW]

Yes, it's pretty predictable, but not our reaction.. your post.

If it wasn't the record you were dissatisfied with why did you wait until the 2nd loss to post this topic just following the losing game in typical rage fashion instead of after the 5th win in a row hmm?

Perhaps because it was old Red Wings tradition to put the amount of effort on the ice that is <b>sufficient</b> to win games. When intensity of the games was bigger we almost always adopted appropriately. When it was low we never forced the tempo relying on skill only. That was the case 17 years ago when I started following the team and that was the case even 5 years ago. Recently, (last three seasons, just after we won the last cup) we always look disinterested, absolutely no emotions. If a certain team brings their A game against us we lose. I simply thought something changed this season after the second dissapointing loss to San Jose, but no... same stuff all over again.

[Doc Holliday]

People can focus on this topic coming up after the two losses, as if people are freaking out because the Wings won't win every game this season, but they're overlooking or ignoring how pissed Babcock was at his team for their lack of effort the last two games. Seems to me that's worth talking about.

It's not just a reaction to the 2 in the loss column. It was a piss poor effort and our star players haven't looked good. I'm not worried about a couple losses, but I don't think it's an outrageous concept to be looking at the team and the implications deeper into the season and things that need to change. This is a hockey forum after all. I guess we're supposed to wait until the Wings having a losing record or get knocked out of the playoffs before we can say anything critical?

Like I said, a forum full of "it's okay guys! We'll get 'em next time!" is not only dull, it's not actually discussing hockey. It's just a pep rally.

I think this has been quoted once already, but is worth repeating.



http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2011/10/red_wings_mike_babcock_still_s.html

Is anyone saying the Wings put a sufficient effort in the Columbus game?

The entire premise of the OP was that drastic steps need to be taken NOW based on the performance of the Red Wings in their last two losses. Nobody is saying Babcock should be okay with the Wings performance. It is his job to worry about the little things and tweak and tweak until he gets things right. Our job is to enjoy the ride and discuss what is going on. Based on what I've seen I don't see why we should be taking drastic steps when we don't have a strong grasp on the current team yet. Why rush and make a move when it could make things worse in the long run?

[haroldsnepsts]

Is anyone saying the Wings put a sufficient effort in the Columbus game?

The entire premise of the OP was that drastic steps need to be taken NOW based on the performance of the Red Wings in their last two losses. Nobody is saying Babcock should be okay with the Wings performance. It is his job to worry about the little things and tweak and tweak until he gets things right. Our job is to enjoy the ride and discuss what is going on. Based on what I've seen I don't see why we should be taking drastic steps when we don't have a strong grasp on the current team yet. Why rush and make a move when it could make things worse in the long run?

I don't know where you get that the entire premise of his post was based on the two losses. He clearly refers to the problem going back 2 to 3 years. These two losses just highlighted that problem.

The most radical action he mentions in the post is scratching Bert and Z.

For the record, I agree with you in that I don't think radical action is called for at this point. But how long did it take to actually say that instead of people just saying things about how he's a bad fan or pointing out that we're 5 and 2? People claim he's being reactionary to the losses, but at the same time they're being reactionary to his post (because he committed the sin of criticizing the Wings) without even actually addressing what I think is a legitimate point he raises, even if I don't agree with his proposed solution.

And because the Wings are so successful, I think practically every point made in this forum during the season is with an eye looking to the postseason. Looking to see what has changed or what needs to change that will get them deeper into the playoffs. Of course as fans we're happy that they're not a s*** team. But we want them to beat those flopping fish in San Jose.

We have one of the most capable rosters in the whole league that can deliver in each and every game and all we get is clear lack of effort. I'm getting tired of all these after game quotes "We though we were prepared", "We just got beat, 7-1, so to start like that tonight, to me, is lack of preparation," "It was a disappointing effort. The coaching staff didn't do a good enough job; the players didn't do a good enough job."

We've heard such things so many times during the last two/three years. Where are the consequences? I think the real reason is that everyone on the roster feel too safe. They known that no matter how bad they play they'll never be traded. Starting from 4th line plug Miller to "superstar" Zetterberg. When intensity of the game is rather low we often win on a pure skill, when it gets higher like in the last two games we simply give up. To me this is pure lack of effort. If Bertuzzi or Zetterberg don't like to compete in games like this scratch them and call up Nyquist or Tatar.

PS For those saying that it is only two games (there are always a plenty of such guys) I recommend to watch some other teams. No team in this league gives up games so easily.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 27 October 2011 - 12:02 PM.

[T.Low]

Here's the worrisome thing about this Wings roster: There is/has not been a pure goal scorer. Franzen was a checker turned skillful streaky scorer. Datsyuk has never been a big consistant goal scorer, neither has Zetterberg. Cleary has his moments but that is not his primary game.

That is why I would trade Hudler and Ericsson in a heartbeat for Iginla.

It's weird. One day I look at the roster and wonder where the goals are going to come from. The next day i look at the same roster and smile thinking that any of these guys can go off and score. They are all capable. But none of them have the dogged nose for the net, and scary hard drive the net only focus. Nobody is always hungry around the net ALL the time.

Yes it is hard to find those guys at the lower draft picks the Wings have had in the last 20 yrs. We've done super to get what we've got, no doubt, but that still leaves us with no real natural goal scorer.

Edited by T.Low, 27 October 2011 - 03:07 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

I don't know where you get that the entire premise of his post was based on the two losses. He clearly refers to the problem going back 2 to 3 years. These two losses just highlighted that problem.

Probably because the "scream for a trade" came immediately after loss number 2 and not during the offseason.

And he points out that other teams apparently haven't shown a lack of effort this season, which is ridiculous.

The most radical action he mentions in the post is scratching Bert and Z.

I think that is pretty radical, actually. That and accusing the entire team of not showing effort during this season.

For the record, I agree with you in that I don't think radical action is called for at this point. But how long did it take to actually say that instead of people just saying things about how he's a bad fan or pointing out that we're 5 and 2? People claim he's being reactionary to the losses, but at the same time they're being reactionary to his post (because he committed the sin of criticizing the Wings) without even actually addressing what I think is a legitimate point he raises, even if I don't agree with his proposed solution.

When someone gets up in arms about youth injection, scratching a top player for a prospect, and implying the Wings are the laziest team in the NHL, it is going to get radical responses back. And it took people who weren't the OP making reasonable points about the Wings' problems to get into reasonable discussion.

[Crymson]

That is why I would trade Hudler and Ericsson in a heartbeat for Iginla.

Is there any reason in the world why Calgary would accept this trade?

[Doc Holliday]

Is there any reason in the world why Calgary would accept this trade?

They really like the potential.

[T.Low]

Is there any reason in the world why Calgary would accept this trade?

The point is, the OP is not as wacky as he seems to a lot of people on this thread.

Someone else brought up that specific trade, I was just usuing it as an example of why a trade could be good for this team. Is that your only response to my post, to debate the hypothetical trade? The last time I checked, the NHL still keeps score during the games. We have a lot of skilled guys that do all of the little things right, but do not have anyone to count on to do The Big Thing right.

I think if Holland would have known then what he knows now, (how streaky Franzen is and how unreliable Hudler is), he would have found a way to keep Marion Hossa instead. Eventually, Hossa would have lightenned his death grip on the stick and been a horse the Wings could ride.

Hossa Dats Holmer/Brunnstrom
Z Fil Clears
Bert Helm Eaves
Miller Emmerton Abdelkrasher

[GMRwings1983]

Is there any reason in the world why Calgary would accept this trade?

Throw in a draft pick and switch Hudler with Fillpula. Or maybe, imagine if Hudler continues his 100 point pace by the deadline time.

Besides, it's Calgary. They'll accept anything.

Edited by GMRwings1983, 27 October 2011 - 07:54 PM.

[Steve Sample]

This team has looked too comfortable for the last couple of years no doubt. Going deep in the playoffs every year and no real risk of being traded has taken some of the hungar from the team. A big trade might be the best thing that could happen. But if you think any team will take our scraps for their quality it is not going to happen. The way Jagr is playing in Philly maybe he was worth a few more bucks after all???????

[Crymson]

The point is, the OP is not as wacky as he seems to a lot of people on this thread.

Someone else brought up that specific trade, I was just usuing it as an example of why a trade could be good for this team. Is that your only response to my post, to debate the hypothetical trade? The last time I checked, the NHL still keeps score during the games. We have a lot of skilled guys that do all of the little things right, but do not have anyone to count on to do The Big Thing right.

I think if Holland would have known then what he knows now, (how streaky Franzen is and how unreliable Hudler is), he would have found a way to keep Marion Hossa instead. Eventually, Hossa would have lightenned his death grip on the stick and been a horse the Wings could ride.

Hossa Dats Holmer/Brunnstrom
Z Fil Clears
Bert Helm Eaves
Miller Emmerton Abdelkrasher

Holland did not have the option to deny Hudler arbitration. As for Hossa, he is often criticized by Blackhawks fans for being streaky himself. And Franzen's "streaky" season netted him 30 goals.

Edited by Crymson, 28 October 2011 - 01:33 AM.

[T.Low]

Holland did not have the option to deny Hudler arbitration. As for Hossa, he is often criticized by Blackhawks fans for being streaky himself. And Franzen's "streaky" season netted him 30 goals.

Out of Franzen's 6 seasons in Detroit, only one season he was a 30 goal scorer. That was the same season Hossa was in Detroit and was a 40 goal scorer.

[Crymson]

Out of Franzen's 6 seasons in Detroit, only one season he was a 30 goal scorer. That was the same season Hossa was in Detroit and was a 40 goal scorer.

Your analysis is flawed. You accuse Franzen of being streaky for not always scoring many goals in a season, yet you ignore the fact that he was a grinder until 2008. In any event, I do not mean exactly 30+. 29 goals. 27 goals. That's not bad. It's what you'd expect from a $4m player, though he was actually paid less than $1m in each of two of those seasons. Also, he's rightfully known as one of the best playoff performers of the post-lockout era.

You whine about him when fans of every other team would love to have him. This is typical of fans who can't appreciate what they have.

Oh, and I don't doubt that Holland would pull the trigger in a second on a trade of Ericsson and Hudler for Iginla. But Calgary would not in a million years do that, so your point is null.

Edited by Crymson, 28 October 2011 - 03:29 AM.

[LeftWinger]

Where did you take math?

5/7 = 71%
9/11 = 82%

at the time PIT only played 11 games and only had 7 wins...today they have 8 wins in 12 games, I do believe that is only 66% and where I took math, that is less than 71%. BTW when I posted that first one, they were only at 63% still less than 71%. All you have to do is look at NHL.com and click on standings to READ the records of each team and see that PIT does not have 9 wins, nor did they when I posted originally, so the question that comes up is where did you take Reading? PIT has 8 wins and 2 OT loses for 18 points.

[ToMaToToWnWinGsFaN_24]

its too early in the season to indicate anything. 7 games in...come on. theres 75 more games to go. no need for "ZOMG panic!" or "ZOMG trade so and so!". and as it was permentioned at the start of this thread, detroit isnt in the position columbus is in! now if they were, THEN id call for a bit of panic. not a lot but some.

[joshy207]

I'll agree with this from the original post: There are no consequences for lackluster play. Nobody gets traded, nobody gets benched. Even when Holland says the team "needs to get better", he doesn't clear out the underperformers. Although, it sounds like he tried to move a couple guys and there just wasn't a market for them.
Once... just once... I'd like to see a struggling top-liner scratched and see the energy-type guys play more minutes. Those are the players who seem to spark the team more often than not.

[rrasco]

they have also lost 2 games...and have played 11 games. That means our winning percentage is better, plus we have given up less goals even with 10 in the last two games. It is Washington that is the best team in the league right now, they are flying on all cylinders...

at the time PIT only played 11 games and only had 7 wins...today they have 8 wins in 12 games, I do believe that is only 66% and where I took math, that is less than 71%. BTW when I posted that first one, they were only at 63% still less than 71%. All you have to do is look at NHL.com and click on standings to READ the records of each team and see that PIT does not have 9 wins, nor did they when I posted originally, so the question that comes up is where did you take Reading? PIT has 8 wins and 2 OT loses for 18 points.

So what you're saying is your first post was incorrect and what you meant to say was they lost 4 games, 2 in OT, and have played 11 games. I didn't look it up b/c you presented me with all I needed when you stated they had 2 losses in 11 games...OT loss is still a loss. I don't care if analysts act like it's not.