frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 No, most have realistic views of this team : - downhill since the last scf appearance - injuries are part of the game and will only increase as teams are getting older - potential but yet unproven talent - no playstyle identity - no PP - bad defense Given all that they are exactly rated in where the Wings are << treading water and hoping that some prospects are turning out much better than expected... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) How can anyone say the wings are underrated? Lol See bold below lol. Not to say there are no valid points in there, but there is a giant negative cloud over this team right now by some fans. I'm in no way saying we are something we are not, I believe our ceiling is #3 seed (if absolutely everything clicked) and our floor is #10th seed (if we have another year of injuries, a decline/sophomore slump of our kids, and another bad year from Howard). Realistically, we finish between #6 - #8. For a team rebuilding, I would take this any day. Being a Lions fan, I have seen a team being run into the ground, this is not it...alot of Wings fans view us as being garbage, I hope our kids prove them all wrong. No, most have realistic views of this team : - downhill since the last scf appearance - injuries are part of the game and will only increase as teams are getting older - potential but yet unproven talent - no playstyle identity - no PP - bad defense Given all that they are exactly rated in where the Wings are << treading water and hoping that some prospects are turning out much better than expected... Edited September 30, 2014 by kliq 2 krsmith17 and Nev reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Put is this way last year 1) We were riddled with a completely ridiculous amount of injuries 2) Howard had one of his worst seasons as a Wing 3) We didn't ice the best possible team for much of the year because we were crippled by terrible roster decisions And yet we were still an 8th seed. So imagine if this year 1) Injuries are at a reasonable level 2) Howard plays like he did in 2013 3) Cleary/Kindl/Lashoff don't keep more deserving players off the roster Like Kliq says, I think we are easily capable of being a 4-6 seed. And if Holland ever makes a trade for a RHD........ 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RyanBarnes! 293 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 The team is pretty good when healthy in my opinion but there isnt much depth at the top 6 so injuries to key players will hit us hard. I expect a much better defensive effort this season as Smith will be more experienced and hopefully Babs will separate him and Quincey. Quincey played well when paired with someone else last year. Unfortuantely I doubt there will be less man games lost to injury this season. I hope a rebound year from Howard will help improve the record from last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred_Bear 8 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Last season was by far one of the weirdest seasons I've seen. Not sure I can really draw any conclusions from it. The year before we took the Hawks deep in an early round. I don't think that's playing over our heads. They won a series they were predicted to win. We put up a helluva fight against a rival. Tends to happen. The injuries were unpredictable and ridiculous. The beginning of the season was bad puck luck and just the entire team in one big slump. I actually think the injuries helped in a sense, bc the called up kids sparked the rest of the team. I think this team really is underrated in a sense. We have some very good players at all positions, and very good young players at all positions. In the end I think we're probably middle of the pack come playoffs if last seasons bad fortunes don't repeat themselves. I don't think you can underrate potential. I think this team has potential, but they are rated where they should be - lower than most Wings fans would like or expect. We do have some solid youngsters, but there are big question marks about how they match up with the rest of the league and, if you were building a 'dream team' (even in a salary capped scenario), there are a lot of guys who would get replaced on all four lines... The Wings aren't in a position where they can bring up a bunch of rookies without making big changes, either. Jurco is the only one who doesn't need to clear waivers who has more than a couple games of NHL experience. The fact that some of those 'prospects' will clear waivers through 29 other teams, including Buffalo, the Isles, Edmonton, Calgary, etc. means we're not skating 20 'A' players. Other 'holes' have been identified in numerous posts on these boards - Kindl, Quincy, Cleary, etc. To me, the telling series was Boston last year. Yes, we were fighting through a number of injuries, but they skated circles. Most of that team playoff team is skating full time this year and that's expecting a lot of improvement by a lot of players and in a lot of areas to expect a completely different result. I do still believe, as others have said, if we can stay relatively healthy, a couple young guys continue to develop, and we catch a couple breaks, we have a shot at outperforming the predictions and keeping the streak alive, but I don't think that makes us underrated by any stretch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 I don't think you can underrate potential. I think this team has potential, but they are rated where they should be - lower than most Wings fans would like or expect. We do have some solid youngsters, but there are big question marks about how they match up with the rest of the league and, if you were building a 'dream team' (even in a salary capped scenario), there are a lot of guys who would get replaced on all four lines... The Wings aren't in a position where they can bring up a bunch of rookies without making big changes, either. Jurco is the only one who doesn't need to clear waivers who has more than a couple games of NHL experience. The fact that some of those 'prospects' will clear waivers through 29 other teams, including Buffalo, the Isles, Edmonton, Calgary, etc. means we're not skating 20 'A' players. Other 'holes' have been identified in numerous posts on these boards - Kindl, Quincy, Cleary, etc. To me, the telling series was Boston last year. Yes, we were fighting through a number of injuries, but they skated circles. Most of that team playoff team is skating full time this year and that's expecting a lot of improvement by a lot of players and in a lot of areas to expect a completely different result. I do still believe, as others have said, if we can stay relatively healthy, a couple young guys continue to develop, and we catch a couple breaks, we have a shot at outperforming the predictions and keeping the streak alive, but I don't think that makes us underrated by any stretch. Am I the only one who didn't think Boston 'skated circles' around us? 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Nope! There was only one game in my opinion that we got outplayed badly, game 3 if I recall correctly... The other 4 games regardless of the final score could have gone either way in my opinion... I also find it very funny that some people say that THAT series was the telling sign of what type of team we are... We were without our captain and best player for the better part of the series, every single player was worn out from the grind of the regular season because of the ridiculous amount of injuries we had. I don't think we will know exactly what this team is capable of until we see them fully healthy, or at least moderately healthy... We will see what this team is capable of at it's full potential in a few weeks, and a lot of people on here will refuse to eat crow and claim that they were behind this team 100% all along... 1 number9 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Nope! There was only one game in my opinion that we got outplayed badly, game 3 if I recall correctly... The other 4 games regardless of the final score could have gone either way in my opinion... I also find it very funny that some people say that THAT series was the telling sign of what type of team we are... We were without our captain and best player for the better part of the series, every single player was worn out from the grind of the regular season because of the ridiculous amount of injuries we had. I don't think we will know exactly what this team is capable of until we see them fully healthy, or at least moderately healthy... We will see what this team is capable of at it's full potential in a few weeks, and a lot of people on here will refuse to eat crow and claim that they were behind this team 100% all along... Ya. I mean Boston outplayed us, whi h is why they one, but skated circles around us? No. I think the Chicago series more indicative of what we can do honestly. We had pretty well most of our players not injured then. you almost beat the cup winners one year, and the next year riddled with injuries you lose (not even blowouts) and suddenly that's what kind of team you are? I've lost faith in Holland's abilities to be effective, but our team isn't as bad as some claim it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 You can't base expectations off last year unless your expectation is that everyone will miss 20-40 games. The talent level of this team is not a team that barely makes the playoffs as long as they're relatively healthy. If the younger guys take a step forward they'll be in the top 4 of the conference. 2 krsmith17 and nyqvististhefuture reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,475 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 You can't base expectations off last year unless your expectation is that everyone will miss 20-40 games. The talent level of this team is not a team that barely makes the playoffs as long as they're relatively healthy. If the younger guys take a step forward they'll be in the top 4 of the conference. I think they would have been last year if not for injuries. That was what I predicted last year at the beginning of the year too 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 If someone would pay 1 $ everytime that stupid injury thing is used, I'd be able to buy my own team by now. The Wings are exactly rated where they should be, even with Babcocks heroic coaching and some young players (Goose, Tatar, Danny !!) taking over they barely made they playoffs. Even healthy this team didn't set the league on fire, the last 3 years have provided a very good example on where this team stands where it's going to be, period. This is the exact same roster as last year just one year older and it's unfair to expect the young guns to carry the load again, because a. other teams are now aware of their skills - same goes for the MacKinnon's - and they might face better defenders b. sophomore slumps are going to happen wheter we like it or not. Boston exactly and even Chicago showed how you've to play against Wings ...bring a heavy game, intimidate them and be done with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 If someone would pay 1 $ everytime that stupid injury thing is used, I'd be able to buy my own team by now. The Wings are exactly rated where they should be, even with Babcocks heroic coaching and some young players (Goose, Tatar, Danny !!) taking over they barely made they playoffs. Even healthy this team didn't set the league on fire, the last 3 years have provided a very good example on where this team stands where it's going to be, period. This is the exact same roster as last year just one year older and it's unfair to expect the young guns to carry the load again, because a. other teams are now aware of their skills - same goes for the MacKinnon's - and they might face better defenders b. sophomore slumps are going to happen wheter we like it or not. Boston exactly and even Chicago showed how you've to play against Wings ...bring a heavy game, intimidate them and be done with it. Heroic? Lol. Babcock rode Nyquist into the playoffs. If Nyquist had scored even 80% as much as he did, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. Babcock did well given the roster he was forced to work with, but it wasn't heroic. He didn't use his coaching wiles to beat obviously superior teams. He rode a kid into the playoffs that his "heroic coaching" kept out of the lineup for 53 games. Just remember that while deifying Babcock's coaching a year ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusberg 1,256 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) If someone would pay 1 $ everytime that stupid injury thing is used, I'd be able to buy my own team by now. The Wings are exactly rated where they should be, even with Babcocks heroic coaching and some young players (Goose, Tatar, Danny !!) taking over they barely made they playoffs. Even healthy this team didn't set the league on fire, the last 3 years have provided a very good example on where this team stands where it's going to be, period. This is the exact same roster as last year just one year older and it's unfair to expect the young guns to carry the load again, because a. other teams are now aware of their skills - same goes for the MacKinnon's - and they might face better defenders b. sophomore slumps are going to happen wheter we like it or not. Boston exactly and even Chicago showed how you've to play against Wings ...bring a heavy game, intimidate them and be done with it. 1. "That stupid injury thing" impacts losing your high end talent, cohesion on the team and forcing players into unfamiliar situations. I'd say this team was lucky as hell that Goose responded the way he did. When you dress a full, healthy team, that depth gives you better chances up and down the line-up. You build on success and chemistry night in and night out, and it allows your team to get on a roll. When there's a constant rash of injuries, that kind of throws a wrench in things, wouldn't you think? 2. Yes, this is the same roster as last season. Thing is, it's also a healthier one. The biggest issue facing the older players is the wear and tear, but it's not like you're going to see a significant drop in ability for Datsyuk - I think he's already shown he looks better. Weiss looks much better, even though he's been given lumps of coal for line mates. As far as the kids carrying the team, I don't see it that way at all. With a healthy team (kind of important) the kids are playing against weaker competition. In saying that, Sheahan and Tatar have looked fantastic in the preseason, IMO. Nyquist isn't going to score goals at the same pace he did last season, but 20-25 isn't out of the question. Where some guys may have sophomore slumps, others may break out (I feel this way about Tatar) and have even better seasons. One year of older guys slowing down can also be a year of exponential growth for a younger ones - it's all about perspective. What I will concede here is that we have the exact same defensive core, and if it's going to be used the same way it was last season ,THAT is a problem. They're not all that great at generating offense and getting the puck up ice quickly. If there are question marks anywhere on this team, I'd say it lies with the defense. 3. Yes, the Bruins intimidated Montreal all the way to losing to them in game 7. Speed kills - as do smart decisions with the puck. Detroit didn't do that and that's why they lost - they played poorly. They didn't play intelligent, fast-paced hockey. Again, going back to what I see as the big issue on this team, it's getting the puck up the ice in a timely manner from the defense. I still say that's their Achilles heel, and something that really needed to be addressed in the offseason. I think it's part of why this team hasn't made their next round of cuts - guys like Ouellet, Sproul, and now Jensen last night are turning Babs' head. Edited September 30, 2014 by Jesusberg 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Heroic? Lol. Babcock rode Nyquist into the playoffs. If Nyquist had scored even 80% as much as he did, we wouldn't have made the playoffs. Babcock did well given the roster he was forced to work with, but it wasn't heroic. He didn't use his coaching wiles to beat obviously superior teams. He rode a kid into the playoffs that his "heroic coaching" kept out of the lineup for 53 games. Just remember that while deifying Babcock's coaching a year ago. Just to clarify a couple things, Nyquist played 57 games for the Wings last season, so he was kept out of the lineup for 25. More importantly, those lost games were a result of his two-way contract and Holland backing the team up to the roster limit with moves like signing Cleary, not Babcock's coaching. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Just to clarify a couple things, Nyquist played 57 games for the Wings last season, so he was kept out of the lineup for 25. More importantly, those lost games were a result of his two-way contract and Holland backing the team up to the roster limit with moves like signing Cleary, not Babcock's coaching. Point taken about the games played part. You're right there. Holland had no problem waiving Samuelsson, Eaves, and Tootoo once Babs' decided he didn't want them. It took him 26, 25, and 11 games respectively to figure that out. I realize that Holland makes the personnel moves, but please stop acting like Babs has no say whatever in which team hits the ice. You act like Babs was just begging for Nyquist and Holland had his fingers in his ears yelling no. That didn't happen. Remember "tie goes to the veteran"? I do. Also, none of that negates the fact that nothing Babs' did last year was "heroic". Which was my original point. He put an obvious player on an obvious line, and that player produced at an unsustainably high level to drag the team into the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) 1. "That stupid injury thing" impacts losing your high end talent, cohesion on the team and forcing players into unfamiliar situations. I'd say this team was lucky as hell that Goose responded the way he did. When you dress a full, healthy team, that depth gives you better chances up and down the line-up. You build on success and chemistry night in and night out, and it allows your team to get on a roll. When there's a constant rash of injuries, that kind of throws a wrench in things, wouldn't you think? 2. Yes, this is the same roster as last season. Thing is, it's also a healthier one. The biggest issue facing the older players is the wear and tear, but it's not like you're going to see a significant drop in ability for Datsyuk - I think he's already shown he looks better. Weiss looks much better, even though he's been given lumps of coal for line mates. As far as the kids carrying the team, I don't see it that way at all. With a healthy team (kind of important) the kids are playing against weaker competition. In saying that, Sheahan and Tatar have looked fantastic in the preseason, IMO. Nyquist isn't going to score goals at the same pace he did last season, but 20-25 isn't out of the question. Where some guys may have sophomore slumps, others may break out (I feel this way about Tatar) and have even better seasons. One year of older guys slowing down can also be a year of exponential growth for a younger ones - it's all about perspective. What I will concede here is that we have the exact same defensive core, and if it's going to be used the same way it was last season ,THAT is a problem. They're not all that great at generating offense and getting the puck up ice quickly. If there are question marks anywhere on this team, I'd say it lies with the defense. 3. Yes, the Bruins intimidated Montreal all the way to losing to them in game 7. Speed kills - as do smart decisions with the puck. Detroit didn't do that and that's why they lost - they played poorly. They didn't play intelligent, fast-paced hockey. Again, going back to what I see as the big issue on this team, it's getting the puck up the ice in a timely manner from the defense. I still say that's their Achilles heel, and something that really needed to be addressed in the offseason. I think it's part of why this team hasn't made their next round of cuts - guys like Ouellet, Sproul, and now Jensen last night are turning Babs' head. 1. Yes it does but other teams had injuries too as sad as it is, it's part of the game. In my mind Goose absolutely exploded expecting him to repeat such a performance over the course of a season is unfair. Counting on a fairly healthy roster is nice but at the end of the day older teams are more prone to injuries. I prefer to look at things realistically and by expecting a bad season (for Wings standards) they can only surprise me in a positive way so I guess it will lead to more fun watching the young - hopefully - soon stars play. But given the chance I honestly prefer watching Bruins - Habs, Maple Leafs - Habs, Canucks - Flames , Flames - Leafs or Flames - Bruins I have a feeling those games will be more entertaining than Wings - Florida, Buffalo, Isles ... 2. Tatar completely changed blew my mind not only with his play but also with his unreal mindset (playing after this horrible story) and scoring a goal, so I hope he explodes ala Goose. Yes, Weiss has looked a lot better and kinda bulked up a bit ? but please keep in mind it's only the pre-season. In terms of Goose I fully agree with you if he can score 20 - 25 goalson a regular basis that would be absolutely huge he [Goose] obviously has the talent to do it. The other teams aren't stupid I'm sure they've done their homework and now know how good Tatar, Goose, Danny are which is bad for our young guns but could also mean more space for Z and Pasha. 3. In my mind the Bruins played really bad against the Habs, Rask looked shaky compared to Price and Boston never found a way to replace that Chara - Seidenberg combo but if they meet again I would still bet on the Bruins they are much (or at least should be) a much better and more likeable team. The defensive core does have more problems than just getting the puck to the forwards and running the powerplay, they aren't phsysical enough. Other teams don't pay a price for standing in front of the net and screening Howard or the monster, do that against Boston and Chara, Lucic and McQuaid will make one thing very clear ...stay there and prepare to get pushed of forced out! Sadly the drop off after Danny, Kronwall and Ericsson is huge and I really don't think Oulett, Sproul or Jensen should be trusted to be heavy hitters or playing QB at their first pro-season (if they even make the team). At the end when I'm looking at the last 3 years as an example it is clear to me that the Wings are rated where they should be, it's up to the team to proof experts, fans and the media wrong. We are just fans we can't control anything so it doesn't matter what we think the team has to perform to their abilities will it be good enough for a 24 playoff berth ? Maybe maybe not but like I said, I prefer to look at iat rationally and of course being bad in a McEichel year isn't the worst thing in the world :-) Also, none of that negates the fact that nothing Babs' did last year was "heroic". Which was my original point. He put an obvious player on an obvious line, and that player produced at an unsustainably high level to drag the team into the playoffs. How about his calm down words for Tatar ? He could have absolutely unloaded on him but instead told him to keep his head up and not worry about the mistakes. Carlyle on the other side yelled at his pl ayers to "compete" without ever mentioning what he means . Edited September 30, 2014 by frankgrimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 How about his calm down words for Tatar ? He could have absolutely unloaded on him but instead told him to keep his head up and not worry about the mistakes. Carlyle on the other side yelled at his pl ayers to "compete" without ever mentioning what he means . So being better than Randy Carlyle makes Mike Babcock heroic? Lol. By that standard at least 16 NHL coaches were heroic a year ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Point taken about the games played part. You're right there. Holland had no problem waiving Samuelsson, Eaves, and Tootoo once Babs' decided he didn't want them. It took him 26, 25, and 11 games respectively to figure that out. I realize that Holland makes the personnel moves, but please stop acting like Babs has no say whatever in which team hits the ice. You act like Babs was just begging for Nyquist and Holland had his fingers in his ears yelling no. That didn't happen. Remember "tie goes to the veteran"? I do. Also, none of that negates the fact that nothing Babs' did last year was "heroic". Which was my original point. He put an obvious player on an obvious line, and that player produced at an unsustainably high level to drag the team into the playoffs. People can argue Babcock's role in wanting Cleary, but there's not a leg to stand on here with Nyquist. Nyquist was the only player who could be sent down without having to clear waivers, so he was. Saying Holland had no problem waiving those guys "once Babcock decided he didn't want them" is a completely unsubstantiated and misrepresented account of what happened. You can't go by games played because they were benched or injured and out of the lineup for a long time before Holland finally cut bait with his awful signings. It didn't take Holland 11 games to waive Tootoo. The truth is Tootoo only played 11 games with the Wings and spent the rest in the minors, and played only a half a season before that. They sent him to the minors for the second time in December. Holland had been trying to trade Tootoo but with that contract not surprisingly no one was interested. Finally in June they put him on waivers. And you're completely putting words in my mouth. What I have said that comes anywhere near that Babs was begging for Nyquist in the lineup? I'm not saying Babcock has no say, but it's holland's job, not Babcock's. I don't get mad at Holland for line combinations or icetime or how a player is utilized, but I'm guessing he has thoughts on that. Frankly it doesn't matter even if Babcock was begging for Nyquist. The fact is that Holland signed too many players and put the team over the roster limit (and I think cap limit if memory serves?). Nyquist was the only one who could be sent down, so they did exactly that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 So being better than Randy Carlyle makes Mike Babcock heroic? Lol. By that standard at least 16 NHL coaches were heroic a year ago. Won gold with Canada and no matter what people are thinking, it's not easy to get a superstar loaded roster to buy in into a 200 ft game. if it would be that easy Canada would win the WJC gold every year. Another talent is knowing when to unload on players and when to be kind. I think the only other coach who could have gotten this roster into the playoffs is Darryl Sutter but other than that no one would have been able to pull that of, so yes, Goose was amazing but so was Danny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Point taken about the games played part. You're right there. Holland had no problem waiving Samuelsson, Eaves, and Tootoo once Babs' decided he didn't want them. It took him 26, 25, and 11 games respectively to figure that out. I realize that Holland makes the personnel moves, but please stop acting like Babs has no say whatever in which team hits the ice. You act like Babs was just begging for Nyquist and Holland had his fingers in his ears yelling no. That didn't happen. Remember "tie goes to the veteran"? I do. Also, none of that negates the fact that nothing Babs' did last year was "heroic". Which was my original point. He put an obvious player on an obvious line, and that player produced at an unsustainably high level to drag the team into the playoffs. Nyqvist played excellently and definitely beyond what anyone was expecting him to do, but he was also playing in a system that Babcock ser up for the Wings to maximize their chances in. Nyqvist was able to win games because the system he was a part of kept the games close despite the Wings' obvious defensive weaknesses personelle-wise. Theres a lot more to the process than putting the obvious player on the obvious line. Nyqvist was a big part of the Wings getting into the playoffs, but let's not pretend that was all in spite of Babcock's work behind the bench. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) People can argue Babcock's role in wanting Cleary, but there's not a leg to stand on here with Nyquist. Nyquist was the only player who could be sent down without having to clear waivers, so he was. Saying Holland had no problem waiving those guys "once Babcock decided he didn't want them" is a completely unsubstantiated and misrepresented account of what happened. You can't go by games played because they were benched or injured and out of the lineup for a long time before Holland finally cut bait with his awful signings. It didn't take Holland 11 games to waive Tootoo. The truth is Tootoo only played 11 games with the Wings and spent the rest in the minors, and played only a half a season before that. They sent him to the minors for the second time in December. Holland had been trying to trade Tootoo but with that contract not surprisingly no one was interested. Finally in June they put him on waivers. And you're completely putting words in my mouth. What I have said that comes anywhere near that Babs was begging for Nyquist in the lineup? I'm not saying Babcock has no say, but it's holland's job, not Babcock's. I don't get mad at Holland for line combinations or icetime or how a player is utilized, but I'm guessing he has thoughts on that. Frankly it doesn't matter even if Babcock was begging for Nyquist. The fact is that Holland signed too many players and put the team over the roster limit (and I think cap limit if memory serves?). Nyquist was the only one who could be sent down, so they did exactly that. No, Nyquist was the only one that could go down without being exposed to waivers. Anybody could be sent down. The whole team can be sent down. Depends on whether you're willing to waive someone. Holland waives guys all the time. So why didn't he do it to start last year? Well I suspect that it has at least something to do with a coach who has EXPLICITLY made clear that until this season he preferred to have veterans in the lineup over unproven kids. Edited September 30, 2014 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Nyqvist played excellently and definitely beyond what anyone was expecting him to do, but he was also playing in a system that Babcock ser up for the Wings to maximize their chances in. Nyqvist was able to win games because the system he was a part of kept the games close despite the Wings' obvious defensive weaknesses personelle-wise. Theres a lot more to the process than putting the obvious player on the obvious line. Nyqvist was a big part of the Wings getting into the playoffs, but let's not pretend that was all in spite of Babcock's work behind the bench. Bobcock's system was designed to get unsustainably high offensive production out of one guy over a period of about 25 games, and then for that exact same player to completely disappear for the remaining 10-12 games? Come on? Babcock's system had very little to do with Nyquist's run...as evidenced by the fact that not another player in that same system has ever produced anything like that before or since. And that includes players like Brendan Shanahan, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, and Marian Hossa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Bobcock's system was designed to get unsustainably high offensive production out of one guy over a period of about 25 games, and then for that exact same player to completely disappear for the remaining 10-12 games? Come on? Babcock's system had very little to do with Nyquist's run...as evidenced by the fact that not another player in that same system has ever produced anything like that before or since. And that includes players like Brendan Shanahan, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, and Marian Hossa. You're interpreting my post incorrectly.Babcock's system allowed a bunch of AHL players, bottom six forwards, bottom three defensmen, and Kronwall to keep games close and competitive against NHL talent on a nightly basis. If it's only a one goal game, Nyquist, or Tatar, or whomever has a chance to play hero. If it's a two or three goal game, it doesn't matter if Nyqvist has the hot streak, because the Wings are still losing more games than not. Nyqvist's run was an anomaly that any coach would take advantage of, but most coaches wouldn't be in a position to get a win out of that anomaly with the roster Babcock was given on most nights. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) You're interpreting my post incorrectly. Babcock's system allowed a bunch of AHL players, bottom six forwards, bottom three defensmen, and Kronwall to keep games close and competitive against NHL talent on a nightly basis. If it's only a one goal game, Nyquist, or Tatar, or whomever has a chance to play hero. If it's a two or three goal game, it doesn't matter if Nyqvist has the hot streak, because the Wings are still losing more games than not. Nyqvist's run was an anomaly that any coach would take advantage of, but most coaches wouldn't be in a position to get a win out of that anomaly with the roster Babcock was given on most nights. That completely ignores that fact that we lost more close games than we won. Look at our dismal overtime and shootout record. If keeping games close was such a brilliant strategy you would think we'd have won more of those eh? Edited for accuracy: We lost more close game, but not "many" more close games. Edited September 30, 2014 by kipwinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted September 30, 2014 Also, trapping your way to victory isn't some sort of Babcockian master stroke. Teams without a lot of skill have done it for years. The New Jersey Devils organization has (and continues to have) considerable success with that strategy. As has Dave Tippet and the Coyotes, and Barry Trotz with the Predators. That's what teams without a lot of skill players do. Yet when Babcock does it, he's a genius who "heroically" coached the no skilled Red Wings to a first round playoff loss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites