I actually disagree, this team healthy (IE with Sammuelson, Calo and Bertuzzi) is worse on paper than the one with Lashoff, Andersson, Nyquist and Tatar, who are either over performing given their roles and skill sets (Lashoff and Andersson), or giving 100% in a role a boneheaded coach gives them (Tatar), or just giving the defense something more than logo hunting to think about (Nyquist). With the number of road games left, the wings anemic road special teams play, and the fact when Helm and Sammy come back to the line up, neither will be worth as much as they would be at 100%, I don't see how the Wings will surge as you believe they will. Also, given where they are in relation to more talented teams, I wouldn't say Detroit given the state of their team, and the management decisions are under performing.
That's your problem right there, it's not just the addition of Sammy, Cola, and Bert. It's the addition of those guys plus Helm. AND, it's a team in which Flip, Ericsson, Kindl, Smith, didn't all miss significant time with injuries as well.
None of Nyquist, Tatar, or Andersson have a game winning goal, and only 3 of their combined 8 goals came in wins. While they've all played good, none of them has been a difference maker thus far. So I'll amend my statement and say that having Helm, Bertuzzi, and Sammy in the lineup doesn't guarantee that we'd have done better, but it does mean that we probably couldn't have done worse. Add to this the fact that all three of them would have made their respective lines much better, Helm obviously, and Bert and Sammy would certainly produce more with Datsyuk than Cleary and Abby have. Finally, these numbers don't even take into account how many more games we likely would have made more competitive with fewer defensive injuries. As well as he's played, Lashoff on the top pairing is much worse than Ericsson (who missed time) and as we've seen, Smith and Kindl in the lineup makes the team better than it is without them.
So again, our early season performance is not indicative of the team overall, and therefore shouldn't be used as a baseline for projections.
Edited by kipwinger, 22 March 2013 - 12:04 PM.
GMRwings: "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage. For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada. There's some US states where it's 16 as well.
Get off the high horse. Not like she was 10."
"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."