1) Didn't mean to offend with the "played hockey" thing. I was just making an additional point.
2) Going to have to disagree with you about the boards things. If there's a loose puck in the boards and a big guy charging, they hesitate. Most players their size would. Just a fact of the game.
3) I'm not saying that Miller or Eaves aren't smart players, or that they aren't playing hard. I'm just saying that there are things we need out of their roles that they can't physically provide.
4) Agree that the whole team needs to start working harder. Agree that the top six needs to pick it up production-wise. But I think that a couple of really physical players in the bottom six would help us in a lot of ways. In addition to crashing the net, defending our own crease, being tougher in the boards, and just having a little more 'edge' as a team in general...as the other poster mentioned, they'd make our bottom six - which isn't at all hard to play against - harder to play against...and a big hit or fight does boost the team. But really, when I see our team out there most nights, I see a bunch of guys that look intimidated by the bullies on the other side of the rink. I hate that attitude. I think it leads to more problems than the eye can see. And I want to see it addressed, desperately.
...I mean, do you not think that McCarty and Probert gave our entire team a little bit of a different attitude that resulted in better play?
Think now we're finding some common ground, I mean heck yeah I think MaCarty or Probert give you a little more, and with regards to number 3) I agree that they're doing their jobs but not much else. It seems the whole bottom 6 is designed to be a PK unit. Essentially. But to what end is that the coaching/tactics of the team that they have to remain defensive before they play physical?
However having said that I reiterate the fact that changing a few bottom 6 players around wont steady a sinking ship, although it may help keep it afloat for a little while longer.
i love how everyone loves to rag on drew miller, yet the guy is +7 this year! i am not about to say plus/minus is everything. but think about it at the most basic level, if the bottom 6 is such a weakness, then wouldn't they all have bad plus minus ratings because they are giving up too many goals against? yet none of them do. bruunstrom is -2 in 4 games and bertuzzi is -1 in 11 games. thats it for bottom 6 guys. everyone else is even or plus. and heck, bertuzzi was last on the entire team 2 years ago so -1 ain't half bad for him!
i know people love to rip on plus minus, but to me it points to this basic premise: what games out of the 8 losses can be attributed to bottom 6 play? i would argue none of the losses have really been their fault nor have they even been significant factors in most losses. also, if having a more physical bottom 6 is essential, what games were lost because of a lack of physical play? the wings losses are because they are s*** on the PP and have not gotten solid play from their top 6. i really don't think a bottom 6 guy making some big hits is going to get dan cleary's head out of his ass...
i would love to imrpove the bottom 6. i would love to improve lots of parts of this team. but they aren't the problem. i dont even think they have underperformed. i would love to see a guy like brandon prust on this team, but i really don't think it would have improved the wings record at all.
Yeah I know! He's actually been chipping in well offensively, whilst still keeping his defensive strength. A little part of me nagging away in the back of my head is thinking that, for all the praise Kronwall is (rightly) getting for his good play, is his recent offensive surge (and in fact the recent surge of all our defensive players - highest goals scored by defencemen) taking precident over their defensive play?