Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Coaching part of the problem?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#41 clutchngrab

clutchngrab

    clutchngrab

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 06 November 2011 - 04:22 AM

[quote name='dragonballgtz' timestamp='1320032458' post='2220362']
According to capgeek his NTC is up 30 days prior to this years trade deadline.

Swweeeet. Picks will help.
Are you kidding? Block you? And miss watching you stumble around the forum looking for an argument like a dog sniffing butts? It would be like turning off a bad episode of Jerry Springer. You know you shouldn't be watching, but you just... can't... help... it...

#42 clutchngrab

clutchngrab

    clutchngrab

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,572 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 06 November 2011 - 04:51 AM

Kopecky was let go because CHI paid far more for him then anyone should have. Leino was moved because his style of play was never going to be successful in Detroit and it would've been pretty damn hard to get his value up high enough to trade him for the value he showed playing in PHI without compromising the style the Wings play.


Oh yeah? What style was that? Somehow worse than Hudler? Ridiculous. Babcock and Holland can't manage personnel - it's been obvious for a while. For example, not finding legit wingers to play with Dats is borderline criminal. Here we have one of the top few players in the game playing with no line mates. What af****** waste.

Edited by clutchngrab, 06 November 2011 - 04:52 AM.

Are you kidding? Block you? And miss watching you stumble around the forum looking for an argument like a dog sniffing butts? It would be like turning off a bad episode of Jerry Springer. You know you shouldn't be watching, but you just... can't... help... it...

#43 Red Wings Addict

Red Wings Addict

    This is how I watch Wings games

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:09 AM

Another interesting symptom to report. Part of it could be coaching:

"What happens is, the game is tight; the game is tight, and suddenly as you loosen up and you score, then there's more room out there. There's not more room that they created or even that you created, it's just you feel it, because you're executing and you're fluid. When nothing is going right, you're grinding, and that's just the natural way the game is."The Wings beat Anaheim, 5-0, on Saturday, scoring one fewer goal than during the entire six-game losing streak. It was a nice reminder of how much easier it is to play with a good lead.

"Once everybody got more relaxed," Johan Franzen said, "then it's easier to get goals. At the same time, they let up, which hasn't been the case the last games. We've been down, and they've protected leads, and then it's really hard to create something. When you get the lead and they have to come at you, they will open up and we will create more chances. It's as easy as that."

http://www.freep.com...n-even-practice






#44 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:32 AM

Six years of big success under Babcock and you're calling for his head after a five-game losing streak. 14 years of GMing from Holland that has EVERYONE--columnists, fans of other teams, etc.--calling him the best overall GM during that period, especially in the salary-cap world, and you're saying he's the wrong guy for the job because of a short spell of losses. Give me a break. This is typical spoiled, ridiculous, grass-is-greener thinking. It comes from a line of success so long that many of you can't remember how it is to be on the other side. Go ask fans of most other teams, and they'll tell you they'd kill for their team to have the same level of success the Wings have had in the recent and distant (~20 years) past. Yet you want to axe a hugely successful coach and a tremendously successful GM over two weeks of unsuccessful hockey that still sees the team over .500. And I'm sure you're certain that their theoretical replacements would be better. That's a hoot. The idea that any replacement of any personnel anywhere will bring about positive change is always uncertain. The idea that you'll be able to easily find better personnel than Holland and Babcock is asinine. They each have their faults, but they're nevertheless amongst the best in the world at their respective positions. All the success the Wings have had has simply bred in many fans a mentality of "More, more, MORE!" It's runaway perfectionism that often does not even remotely meet with reality.

I'm sure I'll get responses along the lines of, "just because things are good doesn't mean that they can't be better." Well, sure, that's true--but there's a line beyond which desire for improvement becomes ludicrous perfectionism born of a complete lack of perspective.

Edited by Crymson, 08 November 2011 - 04:43 AM.


#45 Lonewuhf

Lonewuhf

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 199 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:07 AM

Six years of big success under Babcock and you're calling for his head after a five-game losing streak. 14 years of GMing from Holland that has EVERYONE--columnists, fans of other teams, etc.--calling him the best overall GM during that period, especially in the salary-cap world, and you're saying he's the wrong guy for the job because of a short spell of losses. Give me a break. This is typical spoiled, ridiculous, grass-is-greener thinking. It comes from a line of success so long that many of you can't remember how it is to be on the other side. Go ask fans of most other teams, and they'll tell you they'd kill for their team to have the same level of success the Wings have had in the recent and distant (~20 years) past. Yet you want to axe a hugely successful coach and a tremendously successful GM over two weeks of unsuccessful hockey that still sees the team over .500. And I'm sure you're certain that their theoretical replacements would be better. That's a hoot. The idea that any replacement of any personnel anywhere will bring about positive change is always uncertain. The idea that you'll be able to easily find better personnel than Holland and Babcock is asinine. They each have their faults, but they're nevertheless amongst the best in the world at their respective positions. All the success the Wings have had has simply bred in many fans a mentality of "More, more, MORE!" It's runaway perfectionism that often does not even remotely meet with reality.

I'm sure I'll get responses along the lines of, "just because things are good doesn't mean that they can't be better." Well, sure, that's true--but there's a line beyond which desire for improvement becomes ludicrous perfectionism born of a complete lack of perspective.


I clearly said I haven't been happy with some of the things he's done for the past few years, not just the previous 5 games. I still stand by everything I said in the first post. Babs rewards players who don't deserve it, and punishes those who don't deserve it. If you somehow can disagree with me, fine, that's your opinion, but I guarantee most of the posters here don't disagree.

#46 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:30 AM

I clearly said I haven't been happy with some of the things he's done for the past few years, not just the previous 5 games. I still stand by everything I said in the first post. Babs rewards players who don't deserve it, and punishes those who don't deserve it. If you somehow can disagree with me, fine, that's your opinion, but I guarantee most of the posters here don't disagree.


That's a pretty bold claim. Whatever the case, do you think that this means he should be replaced, and that there's a replacement out there who's indisputably better?

#47 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 08 November 2011 - 03:14 PM

I clearly said I haven't been happy with some of the things he's done for the past few years, not just the previous 5 games. I still stand by everything I said in the first post. Babs rewards players who don't deserve it, and punishes those who don't deserve it. If you somehow can disagree with me, fine, that's your opinion, but I guarantee most of the posters here don't disagree.


I disagree.

That's a pretty bold claim. Whatever the case, do you think that this means he should be replaced, and that there's a replacement out there who's indisputably better?


This. It would take a hell of a lot for me to lose faith in, and replace, the only coach in history to be part of the Triple Gold Club.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#48 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 03:43 PM

I clearly said I haven't been happy with some of the things he's done for the past few years, not just the previous 5 games. I still stand by everything I said in the first post. Babs rewards players who don't deserve it, and punishes those who don't deserve it. If you somehow can disagree with me, fine, that's your opinion, but I guarantee most of the posters here don't disagree.


Like the previous poster I disagree as well.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#49 Jesusberg

Jesusberg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,812 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:12 PM

Six years of big success under Babcock and you're calling for his head after a five-game losing streak. 14 years of GMing from Holland that has EVERYONE--columnists, fans of other teams, etc.--calling him the best overall GM during that period, especially in the salary-cap world, and you're saying he's the wrong guy for the job because of a short spell of losses. Give me a break. This is typical spoiled, ridiculous, grass-is-greener thinking. It comes from a line of success so long that many of you can't remember how it is to be on the other side.


While I completely agree that a ton of people have this mentality, there's also some legitimacy to the complaints about management on this team. Babcock has made questionable decisions with different players for a few years now (Hudler, Holmstrom in my opinion). He gets stuck on wanting things a certain way, and sometimes it feels like he's too stubborn to make changes or try new things. This team has found success for years, I agree...

But at some point that formula just isn't going to work anymore. You can only get so lucky with the draft picks this team gets for so long. Babcock said himself he wanted to bring in new coaches for some new perspective, and yet it seems like there's a lot of the same going on to me. This team has been the class of the NHL for 20 some odd years, but it's going to fall eventually. Hell, Metallica was the greatest (arguably) metal band for 20 years... then Load and Re-Load hit... I don't want this team to become St. Anger.

I don't think this team is doomed. I don't think this team is going to crap the bed, and I don't think the grass is greener on the other side. What I do this is management is a little bit out of touch these days, and I think it's a good idea to catch this stuff before the team really DOES slip. I don't think it hurts to TRY some new things. Tossing out some new line combinations instead of beating the same old ones to death isn't a bad idea in my opinion. While there are too many fans who are spoiled and demand change now, there are also too many fans who go, "oh, we're the Red Wings, we'll be fine." Just because some people would like to see a little change doesn't mean they're looking to blow things up completely.

For one, I'd like to see some other guys rewarded with time instead of Bertuzzi and Cleary. I don't think that's blowing the team up, or going with a doom and gloom mentality; I think it's realizing two players are struggling and trying something new out.

#50 Dynheart

Dynheart

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:05 PM

Boy people here overreact. No, coaching is NOT part of the problem. IF the boys looked disintresed, would they be able to put up 40+ shots a night? And 30+ against Minnesota (that's a difficult task). They want to win, you can see it, but they were snake bitten. Babcock and the coaches are doing what they do, the players get used to the new system/coaches (they are human) and they have to wait for it to gel.

At least their forecheck doesn't look as predictable. The D looks more aggressive than recent years... they seem to have some diffrent plays up their sleeves. Thats good. But as far as a diffrent system on the ice, let the players and coaches(2) work it out. It can't all gel together at the same time like some miracle. If this was truely a coaching issue, the Wings would be getting dominated game in and game out (scoreboard or not)... Not skating circles around their opponents most nights.

Wait till the first quater is over before /panic. And even then, they can go on a tear and still make it... Look at San Jose. They were out of it for sure until the last quater and they made 2nd friggin place in the league or conference...can't remember heh. (Wings did help them, though).

td;dl: Two new coaches, some new players... new systems whatnot... Give more than 12 games for it to gel? Plus 6 games of being snakebitten doesn't mean it's a coach problem.

Edited by Dynheart, 08 November 2011 - 05:08 PM.


#51 Lonewuhf

Lonewuhf

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 199 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 12:57 AM

Boy people here overreact. No, coaching is NOT part of the problem. IF the boys looked disintresed, would they be able to put up 40+ shots a night? And 30+ against Minnesota (that's a difficult task). They want to win, you can see it, but they were snake bitten. Babcock and the coaches are doing what they do, the players get used to the new system/coaches (they are human) and they have to wait for it to gel.

At least their forecheck doesn't look as predictable. The D looks more aggressive than recent years... they seem to have some diffrent plays up their sleeves. Thats good. But as far as a diffrent system on the ice, let the players and coaches(2) work it out. It can't all gel together at the same time like some miracle. If this was truely a coaching issue, the Wings would be getting dominated game in and game out (scoreboard or not)... Not skating circles around their opponents most nights.

Wait till the first quater is over before /panic. And even then, they can go on a tear and still make it... Look at San Jose. They were out of it for sure until the last quater and they made 2nd friggin place in the league or conference...can't remember heh. (Wings did help them, though).

td;dl: Two new coaches, some new players... new systems whatnot... Give more than 12 games for it to gel? Plus 6 games of being snakebitten doesn't mean it's a coach problem.


I'm not sure how you can say so definitely that coaching isn't part of the problem. Shots on goal mean nothing, quality shots on goal is the only thing that matters. Yeah, we have a lot of shots, but a lot of them are crap. I'm tired of hearing the "wait x amount of time before panic" crap. There was a problem with the team and if I feel, as a fan, that I want to vent my frustration on a discussion board made to do exactly that, I will. The system seems exactly the same, so I don't know where you're getting this new system stuff, and we only have 3 new players who play any substantial amount of time (White, Emmerton, and Kindle, and Kindle is used to the Red Wings system). Players are playing s***ty, it's the coaches job to fix that, or to stop rewarding those players. Babcock is continuing to reward s***ty play and it's irritating. He's been doing this for a couple of years now. I have a bad feeling that as soon as Bert comes back he's going to get thrown back in the top 6 with top minutes again.

Oh, and I by no means feel that he's a bad coach or that he should be replaced, but these problems have to be addressed or bad play will continue throughout the season.

Edited by Lonewuhf, 09 November 2011 - 12:59 AM.


#52 Heaten

Heaten

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:55 AM

I clearly said I haven't been happy with some of the things he's done for the past few years, not just the previous 5 games. I still stand by everything I said in the first post. Babs rewards players who don't deserve it, and punishes those who don't deserve it. If you somehow can disagree with me, fine, that's your opinion, but I guarantee most of the posters here don't disagree.


By your standards, Scotty Bowman and Kenny Holland should have been fired back in 1998 when the team went on a 7 game win-less streak.

You may not agree (or like) everything Holland and Babcock do, but rest assured without them, DRWs would have less Stanley Cup banners hanging at the JLA, and would probably be drafting top 5 yearly.

Be thankful that Detroit has such a good team as the Red Wings the past 20 years. Sure, maybe in hindsight things could been tweaked differently, but Holland and Co have done an amazing job and prove to be the best in the business.

#53 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,984 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:44 AM

While I completely agree that a ton of people have this mentality, there's also some legitimacy to the complaints about management on this team. Babcock has made questionable decisions with different players for a few years now (Hudler, Holmstrom in my opinion). He gets stuck on wanting things a certain way, and sometimes it feels like he's too stubborn to make changes or try new things.

...

I don't think this team is doomed. I don't think this team is going to crap the bed, and I don't think the grass is greener on the other side. What I do this is management is a little bit out of touch these days, and I think it's a good idea to catch this stuff before the team really DOES slip. I don't think it hurts to TRY some new things. Tossing out some new line combinations instead of beating the same old ones to death isn't a bad idea in my opinion. While there are too many fans who are spoiled and demand change now, there are also too many fans who go, "oh, we're the Red Wings, we'll be fine." Just because some people would like to see a little change doesn't mean they're looking to blow things up completely.

For one, I'd like to see some other guys rewarded with time instead of Bertuzzi and Cleary. I don't think that's blowing the team up, or going with a doom and gloom mentality; I think it's realizing two players are struggling and trying something new out.

You're ignoring the fact that changes have been made. Lines have been juggled several times already. What you really mean is that you just want the team to win, and when they don't you shake your fist and say, "You should have done something different". Just because the changes aren't what you wanted to see doesn't mean there weren't changes. Also, you can't just assume that the changes you want to see would actually be better, and use that assumption as your basis for bashing the coach. You actually need proof that your suggestions are better before you're allowed to say 'I told you so'.

Bert is 9th among forwards in average ice time, and has only played one game in the top 6. Cleary has struggled this year, but he scored at a 30 goal pace last year and at least he's shooting. Homer started on the 4th line, worked hard and was pretty effective so he got bumped up. Hudler struggled and got demoted, as did Filppula briefly. I'm not sure what changes you want to see. It's not like anyone lower on the depth chart has been playing so well as to command extra opportunities.

Fact is, if we're going to be a contender this season, Pav and Hank need to be better. It's that simple. We can work through the ups and downs of the secondary players; not so much with the stars. If we need specific line combos or new players to make Pav and Hank better, we're already doomed.

#54 Jesusberg

Jesusberg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,812 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:30 PM

You're ignoring the fact that changes have been made. Lines have been juggled several times already. What you really mean is that you just want the team to win, and when they don't you shake your fist and say, "You should have done something different". Just because the changes aren't what you wanted to see doesn't mean there weren't changes. Also, you can't just assume that the changes you want to see would actually be better, and use that assumption as your basis for bashing the coach. You actually need proof that your suggestions are better before you're allowed to say 'I told you so'.


Lines have been juggled, but how long did it take Babcock to split up the twins? Why is Cleary still working on the top line? If Bertuzzi wouldn't have been hit by the flu, who knows where he'd be right now. With Mule and Hank is my guess.

I've been relatively quiet through the whole 6 game drought. I haven't shaken my fist, given up on the team, or bitched at all. I saw this thread and decided to chime in. I don't really have changes that I WANT... specifically. I see players who have struggled and are left in certain positions. It's ironic that you're saying I'm assuming certain things, when you're assuming a whole lot about my intentions with my post, and what I've been doing during that skid. I'm just saying that I agree with people who think this team is slowing down, and that there are signs that management is a bit out of touch.

I even included in my post that I didn't have a doom and gloom mentality. I just think the team needs to be evaluated and watched carefully. Where am I saying "I told you so" about anything? Where am I bashing anything? Saying the management is a little out of touch is a far cry from asking to blow the team up. Maybe read what I wrote again. It shouldn't be blasphemy to criticize your favorite team, so long as it's within reason.

Edited by Jesusberg, 09 November 2011 - 02:31 PM.


#55 Heaten

Heaten

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 03:41 PM

I'm just saying that I agree with people who think this team is slowing down, and that there are signs that management is a bit out of touch.


I don't understand that comment. Is DRWs "slowing down", or are teams around the league getting better? I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I don't see how management is out of touch? They draft with late picks, don't have many trade-able assets (unless you want to give up the future prospects that look like they will be game changers in the NHL some day, i.e. Brendan Smith). The 2011 FA wasn't worth overpaying for, and the players who got big payouts and ridiculous contracts are mid-level NHLers that seem to have liability issues. Then the increase in the CBA salary cap was increased too much. I suspect the salary cap will go down and it's important for GMs to prepare for the worse.

Also, management has been drafting bigger, grittier, more physical players w/top 6 potential the last couple years. Last draft I thought DRWs did a great job drafting some high-potential defensemen.

In my mind, management is doing a great job keeping this team competitive while restocking the prospect pool, and not overspending or putting the team in cap hell. I personally can't think of anything Holland could have done better (unless you want to nit-pick the from the hindsight is 20/20 perspective).

I mean logically, what could management have done differently to make this team better? Trade our high-level prospects, draft picks, and future for a 1 - 2 year run for the cup, then rebuild like Edmonton is doing now and Penguins did before that? I'd rather Holland do what he's doing. Keep building while staying on top.

#56 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,984 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:01 PM

Lines have been juggled, but how long did it take Babcock to split up the twins? Why is Cleary still working on the top line? If Bertuzzi wouldn't have been hit by the flu, who knows where he'd be right now. With Mule and Hank is my guess.

I've been relatively quiet through the whole 6 game drought. I haven't shaken my fist, given up on the team, or bitched at all. I saw this thread and decided to chime in. I don't really have changes that I WANT... specifically. I see players who have struggled and are left in certain positions. It's ironic that you're saying I'm assuming certain things, when you're assuming a whole lot about my intentions with my post, and what I've been doing during that skid. I'm just saying that I agree with people who think this team is slowing down, and that there are signs that management is a bit out of touch.

I even included in my post that I didn't have a doom and gloom mentality. I just think the team needs to be evaluated and watched carefully. Where am I saying "I told you so" about anything? Where am I bashing anything? Saying the management is a little out of touch is a far cry from asking to blow the team up. Maybe read what I wrote again. It shouldn't be blasphemy to criticize your favorite team, so long as it's within reason.

I apologize for using you as a focal point for the argument I was making. However, much of my post was based on logical inference. If you imply that Cleary is getting too much of a chance or Pav and Hank were together for too long, obviously you have an alternative suggestion, even if it's not very specific. Of course, you wouldn't have that alternative if you weren't assuming it would work better, and that by itself is fine. You just can't use that as the basis of your criticism.

Let's wait a couple more games and see if splitting Pav and Hank really works, and then you can say he should have tried it sooner. Let's wait until Bert is actually getting top 6 time before critisizing Babs for giving it to him.

Cleary scored 26 goals last year, he's at least shooting a lot this year. Who else on the team is playing so well that they deserve that role over him?

#57 Jesusberg

Jesusberg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,812 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 09 November 2011 - 05:40 PM

I don't understand that comment. Is DRWs "slowing down", or are teams around the league getting better? I'm leaning more towards the latter.


Fair point. Other teams are catching up in the cap era, but the Red Wings also aren't getting younger. To be honest, I'm worried about some of the players who will take the team over in the future.

Also, management has been drafting bigger, grittier, more physical players w/top 6 potential the last couple years. Last draft I thought DRWs did a great job drafting some high-potential defensemen.


Grittier forwards with top 6 potential, such as? The issue here is, are these guys going to be good enough to make up for the loss of truly skilled players. I assume your main focus here is Sheahan. I'm not sold on him. This is the first year he's put up some point production in the NCAA. Aside from him, Aubry and Callahan pop into my head. That's great, but I'm not sure they fit into that mold. Tvrdon from the 2011 class comes to mind, but I'd like to see if he can remain healthy too.

I agree with you 100% on the defensemen, though. I'm very excited about Sproul. Ouellet is struggling a bit, but Nedomlel is a pleasant surprise. Of course, there's always Smith too, but I really think he needs to calm down on the bad penalties. I'm not just talking about the pre-season hit, but his total penalty minutes and lack of discipline.

I mean logically, what could management have done differently to make this team better? Trade our high-level prospects, draft picks, and future for a 1 - 2 year run for the cup, then rebuild like Edmonton is doing now and Penguins did before that? I'd rather Holland do what he's doing. Keep building while staying on top.


I don't think we have to unload everything, but one thing I think this team CAN do is make a play for a #1 defender. I'm not 100% sold on Smith. I like our forward depth (Nyquist, Tatar, Jarnkrok, Pulkkinen), but I'm worried about our blue line. Guys like Sproul and Ouellet are going to pop up several years down the line. Holland doesn't give up picks and prospects (on reputation) but I wouldn't mind seeing him break the bank once for a bona fide defenseman.

I apologize for using you as a focal point for the argument I was making.


No need to apologize, I just don't think I was reaching the levels of cynicism seen elsewhere in this thread.

Let's wait a couple more games and see if splitting Pav and Hank really works, and then you can say he should have tried it sooner. Let's wait until Bert is actually getting top 6 time before critisizing Babs for giving it to him.

Cleary scored 26 goals last year, he's at least shooting a lot this year. Who else on the team is playing so well that they deserve that role over him?


Bert was getting some top 6 time before the flu hit. I can't cite exactly how many games, but I'm pretty sure since Dats and Pavs have been split up. He was on a line with Zetterberg and Mule and looked terrible (in my opinion). I'm just tired of his errant passing. I think he belongs on that 3rd line, and as lazy as Happy can be, I'd rather see him in the top 6 than Bert.

As far as Cleary goes, I've always been a huge fan of Cleary. I just don't think it suits him to be the focal point of a line. If the Z-Dats-Cleary line would have clicked early on, everything would have been great. Now is that on Cleary? No, Dats and Z should be playing better, and allowed Cleary to play his role (puck retrieval, screening, tips).

Right now, Cleary is the focal shooter on that line and it just doesn't suit him. Datsyuk has Homer and Cleary flanking him when I think he should have some kind of pure shooter with him. I think he at least deserves Flip, but then you're breaking up that productive second line. This is where maybe Hudler comes in. I don't think he was that bad (and I've picked on him for everthing). Right now it seems to me like Datsyuk is having issues hanging onto the puck. Throw Huds in there to see if that line can possess the puck a little more, because handling the puck doesn't suit Homer or Cleary very well. To clarify, it's not necessarily about who deserves it most to me, but what combinations work and how to form some chemistry for the first line.

Edited by Jesusberg, 09 November 2011 - 05:41 PM.


#58 Heaten

Heaten

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:03 AM

Fair point. Other teams are catching up in the cap era, but the Red Wings also aren't getting younger. To be honest, I'm worried about some of the players who will take the team over in the future.



Grittier forwards with top 6 potential, such as? The issue here is, are these guys going to be good enough to make up for the loss of truly skilled players. I assume your main focus here is Sheahan. I'm not sold on him. This is the first year he's put up some point production in the NCAA. Aside from him, Aubry and Callahan pop into my head. That's great, but I'm not sure they fit into that mold. Tvrdon from the 2011 class comes to mind, but I'd like to see if he can remain healthy too.

I agree with you 100% on the defensemen, though. I'm very excited about Sproul. Ouellet is struggling a bit, but Nedomlel is a pleasant surprise. Of course, there's always Smith too, but I really think he needs to calm down on the bad penalties. I'm not just talking about the pre-season hit, but his total penalty minutes and lack of discipline.


I don't think we have to unload everything, but one thing I think this team CAN do is make a play for a #1 defender. I'm not 100% sold on Smith. I like our forward depth (Nyquist, Tatar, Jarnkrok, Pulkkinen), but I'm worried about our blue line. Guys like Sproul and Ouellet are going to pop up several years down the line. Holland doesn't give up picks and prospects (on reputation) but I wouldn't mind seeing him break the bank once for a bona fide defenseman.



Just because you aren't sold on X prospect doesn't mean they don't have potential and a high ceiling. You could argue that if they are that good, then why did they fall... well, Holland wouldn't have drafted them if they didn't fall because he didn't have good enough picks to acquire them if they did.

My question is who is this bona fide defenseman you want Holland to sell the future for? And why would any team want to trade their bona fide defenseman for prospects who you say are nothing special? Lastly, how do you know Holland didn't make a pitch to another team for their bona-fide defenseman? We don't know who he calls and what he offers.

P.S. I don't think Red Wings' weak area is a bona fide defenseman right now anyhow. Holland still has time and money.

#59 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 10:39 AM

Homer started on the 4th line, worked hard and was pretty effective so he got bumped up. Hudler struggled and got demoted, as did Filppula briefly.


Hudler scored a point in each of the first four games. He failed to score a point in the 5-2 whooping of Columbus, and was demoted early on in the Washington debacle.



Yes, "struggling" Hudler, who was leading the team in ES points at the time, was demoted. More like "The Wings had trouble scoring, and Hudler's gone two games without a point. Sit the bastard!"


Bertuzzi and Cleary have been FAR worse than Hudler this season, yet Hudler is the only one who has seen time in the press box. Hudler has been working hard and creating chances, yet plays on the third line with defensive grinders, while getting PP time that limits his offensive opportunity. Bertuzzi and Cleary have been getting top-six time and prime PP time.


WTF?

Bert was getting some top 6 time before the flu hit. I can't cite exactly how many games, but I'm pretty sure since Dats and Pavs have been split up.


They cloned him? Is that why Holland kept that open cap space? So we could run Flip/Dats1/Homer, Huds/Dats2/Cleary, Mule/Z/Bert, and Abs/Helm/Eaves as the lines?

He was on a line with Zetterberg and Mule and looked terrible (in my opinion). I'm just tired of his errant passing. I think he belongs on that 3rd line, and as lazy as Happy can be, I'd rather see him in the top 6 than Bert.


Hudler works much harder than Bertuzzi or Franzen, or most "top-six" forwards in the league. If he were actually given the opportunity FOR REAL he would produce a serious amount of offense. But Babcock would rather play a slumping Cleary, a worthless Bertuzzi or even an offensively useless Abdelkader because they're bigger than Huds.

As far as Cleary goes, I've always been a huge fan of Cleary. I just don't think it suits him to be the focal point of a line. If the Z-Dats-Cleary line would have clicked early on, everything would have been great. Now is that on Cleary? No, Dats and Z should be playing better, and allowed Cleary to play his role (puck retrieval, screening, tips).

Right now, Cleary is the focal shooter on that line and it just doesn't suit him. Datsyuk has Homer and Cleary flanking him when I think he should have some kind of pure shooter with him. I think he at least deserves Flip, but then you're breaking up that productive second line. This is where maybe Hudler comes in. I don't think he was that bad (and I've picked on him for everthing). Right now it seems to me like Datsyuk is having issues hanging onto the puck. Throw Huds in there to see if that line can possess the puck a little more, because handling the puck doesn't suit Homer or Cleary very well.


Cleary, when playing well, is perfectly capable of playing the "shooter" role. The problem is that he's NOT playing well, and is probably nursing an injury right now; he likely should be out of the lineup.

To clarify, it's not necessarily about who deserves it most to me, but what combinations work and how to form some chemistry for the first line.


Most intelligent thing you've said all post.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#60 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 969 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 November 2011 - 12:17 PM

Blah blah blah Hudler blah blah HUDLER.

Can we please keep this about coaching, not f**king Hudler?

I know line combos relate to coaching, but Hudler's lack of ice time is not the reason for our problems. We don't need a debate about the merits of Happy AGAIN.

Edited by Zetts, 10 November 2011 - 12:18 PM.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users