joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 Yeah that's why Babs stresses puck movement so much. The gameplan is to spend the entire game in the attacking zone. If we lowered our turnovers our defensive game is so much better. Still, our d men are much improved in puck movement but we still don't get a whole lot of good work from them in the offensive zone and not much of a threat from the point. Also, I don't think this scoring is sustainable. We're not all of a sudden the Pittsburgh Penguins and we can count on scoring 5 goals a game. We're still a streaky, somewhat inconsistent team. But, the improvement is noticeable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Yandle's one of the premier offensive defensemen in hockey; he's consistently been good for 10+ goals and 40+ points on a team that's perpetually short on high-end skill and scoring. He's not a great defender, no, but he's so good at moving the puck, driving the attack, and generating offense that he 1) doesn't spend much time in the d-zone anyway, and 2) can really help his team outscore his and their mistakes. I won't bring fancy stats into this discussion, but I'll also point out that he hasn't missed a game in six years, partly because he doesn't spend a lot of time in the d-zone and, by extension, doesn't subject himself to much physical abuse at the hands of opposing forwards. (It helps that he's a fantastic skater.) Babcock wants this to be a relentless attacking team like what we had with Rafalski and Lebda. That means our breakouts and transition game have to improve above and beyond what I feel our current D corps is capable of providing. We have plenty of steady, responsible shutdown options (Kronwall, Ericsson, DeKeyser, Quincey, Lashoff, Ouellet, Marchenko), and that's great, but I think we need to add a gamebreaking offensive defenseman if we're going to really, truly compete for the Cup. I'd love for that guy to be superb at both ends of the ice, but then we're talking about an extremely short list of all-stars. I'm not a fan I yandle mainly cause he is a lefty. But I do think he would help. I mean if we can hold into our "core" defensive guys it could(and ******* should Babcock!!!!!!!) look like this:Kronwall smith (success last year) Ericsson yandle (elite offensive guy paired with a really good defender) Dekeyser Quincey (says A LOT about the defense if these two are the third pair). Quinceys been quite solid and dekeyser is a great two way defender. Or you can go with a 1a 1b ten second(third) line. Smith kronwall Dekeyser yandle Quincey Ericsson. Either way I'd keep smith yandle and Quincey separated and whoever you pair with them gues us some good pairings. Edited December 12, 2014 by DeGraa55 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,521 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 Brian Rafalski wasn't "great in his own zone either", but I don't recall anybody complaining about his 40-50 pts., transition game, and powerplay ability. Not every defenseman is a two way superstar. Doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally valuable to the right club. Also, Yandle's "defensive shortcomings" are overblown. He's not bad defensively, none of Phoenix's defensemen are. Tippet is a defense first coach, and he plays a defensive system. Yandle's as good or better defensively than probably three or four of our defensemen. It's just a label he got suck with as a 20 year old that dummies keep repeating ad nauseam to justify not wanting him. Is he a shutdown guy or two way superstar? No. Know who else isn't? Kronwall. Smith. Karlsson. Shattenkirk. Wisniewski. Subban. Faulk. Ehrhoff. Burns. Edler. etc. etc. etc. Yet all of them are good players and none of them are liabilities. Neither is Yandle. I'm sick of this "he's not great in his own zone" argument. Not every player on a team needs to excel two ways. Also, the argument is usually only used to malign players we're already convinced we don't like, considering more players than not do not excel at the two way game. 2 krsmith17 and Dabura reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 I can see not wanting Yandle only because having a righty in the top 4 would be a huge boost and it's not like we're going to acquire another top 4. We'll pretty much be set going forward with no righties on defense Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 I'd love to have Yandle on this team but I just don't see it happening. He has been rumored to be "on the trading block" forever and he's still soaking up the sun in Arizona. What it would take to get him here, I don't think would be worth in the long run. That's just my opinion... We also desperately need a couple right handed shots on our blue line, so Green is more attractive to me for that reason alone. They're both very similar type players, but Green should come much cheaper, being on an expiring contract. Washington also have a glut of NHL defensemen and their team probably needs a bit of a shakeup if they want a chance at making the playoffs this season... 1 Dabura reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
13dangledangle 958 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 Am I foolish to believe we have a shot at the cup every year? Maybe, but I do feel every year that we (anyone who gets in the playoffs really) has a chance to win. You see everything fall in line when your on that special run, there is no reason this team can't put something special together! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 I'm not a fan I yandle mainly cause he is a lefty. Realistically, Mike Green (who's basically a right-handed, injury-prone Yandle) is probably our guy. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 I'd love to have Yandle on this team but I just don't see it happening. He has been rumored to be "on the trading block" forever and he's still soaking up the sun in Arizona. What it would take to get him here, I don't think would be worth in the long run. That's just my opinion... We also desperately need a couple right handed shots on our blue line, so Green is more attractive to me for that reason alone. They're both very similar type players, but Green should come much cheaper, being on an expiring contract. Washington also have a glut of NHL defensemen and their team probably needs a bit of a shakeup if they want a chance at making the playoffs this season... I definitely don't see us trading for Yandle, but there seems to be a sense that this might really be the year the Wings miss the playoffs he gets moved. Maloney and Tippett are both kind of exasperated, as the Coyotes are really, really, really bad this season - defensively, offensively, and in net. And they're not going to attract top free agents. And they don't have an especially good prospect pool. And, as valuable as Yandle is, he can only do so much for that team and franchise. But yeah, it's very unlikely we'd be the ones to get him (unless maybe a serious division rival were to show considerable interest in him). I've gotta think they'd want Nyquist or Tatar or Mantha, and, while I tend to play devil's advocate with these things (see: me trying to justify Tatar and a 1st for Tyler Myers), I wouldn't be ok with that. We all know Franzen isn't going anywhere, which is sort of an issue because we're going to have to clear cap space if we want to take on a big-name player. We can pretend Holland would move Quincey or Ericsson, but that's probably a fantasy, same as moving Franzen. IMHO, the only way we have a real shot at Yandle is if the Coyotes want to aggressively tank and, to that end, are willing to part with Yandle for, well, not much. We'd still have to dump salary, though. Green might only cost a pick, so that's kind of a no-brainer. But we'd still have to clear cap space. I guess moving Quincey and Kindl somewhere would make the most sense. If not WDC, maybe Colorado? Dallas? Edmonton? Philly? ...Arizona? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rick zombo 3,739 Report post Posted December 12, 2014 Trade Larkin you say? No way. http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2014/12/12/7373203/dylan-larkin-is-a-player-you-should-be-excited-for Green might only cost a pick, so that's kind of a no-brainer. But we'd still have to clear cap space. I guess moving Quincey and Kindl somewhere would make the most sense. If not WDC, maybe Colorado? Dallas? Edmonton? Philly? ...Arizona? Detroit is projected to have over 9M worth of cap space at the deadline http://www.capgeek.com/ 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Realistically, Mike Green (who's basically a right-handed, injury-prone Yandle) is probably our guy. And I wouldn't mind green if he came cheap. But I'm sure Washington would want too much. And by cheap I mean literally like pulk as being te best we send them... Or we could just stand pant and wait for ouellette and sproul!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 And I wouldn't mind green if he came cheap. But I'm sure Washington would want too much. And by cheap I mean literally like pulk as being te best we send them... Or we could just stand pant and wait for ouellette and sproul!!!! Are you crazy? We either need to tank now or win the cup tomorrow. Enough with this gray area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Are you crazy? We either need to tank now or win the cup tomorrow. Enough with this gray area. Agreed mcdavid sounds good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Agreed mcdavid sounds good. Tank it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Tank it? Well obviously. The Albert Einstein of hockey known as you says tank it. So that means....TANK IT! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Well obviously. The Albert Einstein of hockey known as you says tank it. So that means....TANK IT! I was asking a question, not making a statement. Doesn't take Einstein to know the difference... although I guess in some cases it does lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Are you crazy? We either need to tank now or win the cup tomorrow. Enough with this gray area. That's a statement not a question. Statement we either need to tank now or win the cup. I rolled with your tank now statement. Einstein. With an IQ of 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 That's a statement not a question. Statement we either need to tank now or win the cup. I rolled with your tank now statement. Einstein. With an IQ of 3. Lol you seriously just decided to quote an older post by me? Instead of the most recent one that I was obviously referring to? That contained an actual question mark? lol Whatever dude, I'll drop it, you're getting too ridiculous for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 Lol you seriously just decided to quote an older post by me? Instead of the most recent one that I was obviously referring to? That contained an actual question mark? lol Whatever dude, I'll drop it, you're getting too ridiculous for me. But you made a statement THEN asked a question regarding the same thing. You being the child you are challenged me for no reason. So yes I used your post containing your statement and not your question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 But you made a statement THEN asked a question regarding the same thing. You being the child you are challenged me for no reason. So yes I used your post containing your statement and not your question. Glad we agree lol My question still stands... that is unless you would rather answer a previous statement of mine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,951 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) I do think #9 was referring to (and poking fun at) the general attitude of some Wings fans....Stanley Cup or Tank It. Like, if they don't win the Cup, they may as well tank it, because fans aren't satisfied with a great season unless it's topped off by the Cup... I hope I read that "Statement" correctly. Edited December 13, 2014 by LeftWinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 I do think #9 was referring to (and poking fun at) the general attitude of some Wings fans....Stanley Cup or Tank It. Like, if they don't win the Cup, they may as well tank it, because fans aren't satisfied with a great season unless it's topped off by the Cup... I hope I read that "Statement" correctly. You did. But I would still like to know if anyone still supports tanking this team. So I'll ask you Lefty, Tank it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonSin 192 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyemeryhunter 2,747 Report post Posted December 13, 2014 You did. But I would still like to know if anyone still supports tanking this team. So I'll ask you Lefty, Tank it? TANK IT!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dicksmack 33 Report post Posted December 18, 2014 NO the Wings are NOT close to being a legit contender. Maybe they squeak into the playoffs to keep that streak going but so what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dicksmack 33 Report post Posted December 18, 2014 When you see a scrub like Dubinsky crosscheck Zetterberg across the lower back with impunity after there's no call... why should our "stars" even last till the post season. Dubinsky would have gone for stitches at best if this team had more Canadians on it...When you see Hank and Pav mailing it in and when they DO make a play guys like Tatar flub the gimme pass... you start to know the score. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
