Also, I get really angry when Wings fans are jealous of Boston and want to build a team like that. We've recently had our time and they are having theirs now. In addition, they may be in the position
we were in in 2007, 2008, and 2009, but the two teams are completely different.
I feel like some people who want the Wings to be bigger and more physical are using Boston's team as a self-serving example.
I'd rather have a young, highly skilled, hard working, super hungry team with a bit of grit (Drake, Stuart, McCarty) and two elite D-men, like the 2008 Red Wings team than have a team full of apes (Lucic and Chara) and hillbilly D-bags (Marchand). Personal preference I guess.
I'm not convinced the Bruins are going to be the beasts of the East much longer. For one thing, being big and nasty and hitting everything that moves takes a toll on the body in the long run and becomes increasingly difficult as you move past your prime years and push deep into your 30s. Chara - who's 80% of their team - is 37 and slowing down. Iginla - who's been huge for them - is 36. Bergeron - who's, well, Bergeron - is 28 and probably about the best he's going to be, and he's already put his body through a lot in terms of both injuries and mileage. Eriksson (who's been a disappointment and might have lingering concussion issues) and Krejci are also 28 and also probably about the best they're going to be. Kelly is 33. Seidenberg is 32. Marchand and Smith don't strike fear into my heart.
I dunno. I think Babs was right when he said what makes the Bruins special is they've got Chara and Lucic. I think that was a subtle dig at the Bruins. Can they be a contender for, like, 18 straight years? (See: Red Wings.) If (and when) they lose Chara, are they nearly as physically imposing and solid defensively? Are they really set up for a decade or more of dominance? If they're pushing deep into the playoffs every season, is fatigue and injury and wear and tear not going to be an issue? They've only won one Cup in the modern era, and if they don't win another within the next several years (and it's going to be tough with those top teams in the West pushing each other to be as good as they can possibly be), they'll be hearing about it from the very same people who were calling them a legitimate dynasty just a few years earlier.
Not that we're sitting pretty, of course. We basically have no identity post-Lidstrom. We talk about skill and possession and defense, but, to be honest, the only area where we have a big advantage over any other playoff team is our coaching, and that's probably up for debate. In the past, we won on skill. We're not skilled enough to do that anymore. Our possession game is average at best. We're used to getting so very, very much from our blue line, and now we're getting so very, very little. If we're going to play a low-scoring, tight-checking, ultra-defensive game, well, we're not at all built for it. All I really know is, if we're going to win one more Cup before Datsyuk goes back home, we need to bring in high-end help from outside the system. Sproul and Ouellet and Mantha won't magically have us beating Chicago in the finals in three years. To me, "retooling" means steadily bringing in youth but also adding key pieces through free agency and the trade route. Otherwise, it's basically just a rebuild, minus the tanking. So, a poorly done rebuild. (See: the Flames prior to this season.)
I think Chicago has it right. At their core, they're a skilled possession team that can move the puck like no one's business. They are ridiculously deep, talent-wise. BUT, they also have plenty of snarl. And they have great young talent that fits their current system.