Brendan Smith

[kipwinger 8,522]

I'm also in the minority in that Smith gets an unnecessarily bad rap around here, although I will preface this post by saying I haven't caught many games in the past month or so, so my evaluation of the guy is based mostly on pre-deadline Smith. It may be he took a nosedive since then.

Anyway, Smith has a few things working against him from a fan's perspective: 1) he was a highly touted draft pick with an offensive upside, who was stepping into the NHL right around the time when Rafalski and Lidstrom were wrapping up their careers. In other words, there was a gaping hole to fill, and Smith happened to be coming into the league right when we were looking to fill it. Right off the bat there's a lot of things us fans were expecting of him, and in his first 12-14 games up he actually delivered quite nicely. But when he became a Wing full-time his game changed from being an offensive defensman to a more defense-oriented player. That transitition doesn't sit well with several fans because they're either still judging his play based on what a scout said he could be back when he was in college, or they're upset about losing our offensive output in Rafalksi and Lidstrom, and Smith was unable to put up big numbers to help fill that void.

2) I've noticed that many fans judge defensman primarily based on two things: 1. the aformentioned offensive output (which is why players like Karrlson and Green win Norris trophies), and how often they deliver crushing hits and play physicially (which is why so many people suddenly thought Kronwall wasn't a top 2 defensman once he slowed his Kronwalling down). There's surprisingly not a whole lot of attention for actual defensive plays (and if there is, we often forget about them by the end of the game), and frankly its not hard to see why because there aren't many quantifaible stats on defensive plays out there, and the ones that are our there are convoluted and intimidating, and require some introduction to understand. So Smith isn't a big hitter, and he isn't an offensive defensman. Consequently he's not going to have sexy numbers on nhl.com. But that by itself doesn't mean he's a bad defensman. I do think its worth mentioning that Smith has the most amount of takeaways out of all defensman on our team, and is second highest out of all our defensman in takeaways per game/giveaways per game ratio. That second value, particularly, is a good measuring stick for defensive defensman. It means less opportunity for the opposition to generate offense, and more opportunity for the Wings. Thats why its not a surprise to see that Smith also leads all our defenseman in corsi (by alot), which is even more impressive when you note that Smith is last of our defensman in offensive zone start percentage.

3) Probably the biggest thing Smith has going against him is that its trendy to hate him. People go out of their way to find flaws and mistakes in Smith's game, sometimes to ridiculous lengths. I had an argument a few months back with a poster who tried arguing that Smith was also to blame for a giveaway that Ericsson had to Parise at the end of a game against Minnesota (for the record, Ericcson was behind the net, unpressured, Parise was in front of the net, waiting, Smith was the safe outlet pass at the corner, which Ericcson didn't utilize, and instead tried beating Parise with an ill-advised pass). Apparently Smith was supposed to predict that Parise would intercept the pass and cover Parise preemptively, instead of provide an open man for Ericsson to pass to. Now don't get me wrong, Smith does make plenty of mistakes that he definitely deserves blame for, but there are also plenty of times when Smith just happens to be in the same building as someone else's mistake but still gets the finger pointed at him. Similiarly, our other defensman make plenty of mistakes that go unnoticed here, or at the very least people don't make a big fuss about them. Datsyuk has blown coverages quite a few times this year which have lead directly to goals. So has Zetterberg, Kronwall, Dekeyser, etc etc etc. But Smith is the trendy one to hate on now, so his mistakes are the ones that are emphasized.

So echolalia, if Smith is so great, why is Babcock sitting him??

Well I don't think Smith is great, but I do think he's better than LGW values him. I think Babcock plays him appropriately for his skillset to succeed the most, and Smith has been effective in that role. But based on Babcock's decision to play Mrazek over Howard, and Marchenko over Smith, I strongly believe Babs is pushing a fast-transition agenda for game 1. Whatever upside Smith may have over Marchenko, he is not a right-handed defensman and won't be as efficient as getting the puck up from that side simply for that reason. Likewise, whatever advantage Howard has over Mrazek, nobody can deny Mrazek is essentially a third defensman back there, and that is going to help our transition game markedly. The emphasis here is getting the puck out as quickly and efficiently as possible. Afterall, the Lightning can't score if they're not in our zone. Its a risky move, to be sure. Babcock is investing in tactics over experience. But I'm not against seeing where it takes us for game 1.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Smith doesn't have the highest corsi on the team. Here's his individual corsi.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&pos=skaters&minutes=50&teamid=11&type=individual&sort=icorsi&sortdir=DESC

What he has is a high "SAT" score. Which is a team measure.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/advancedstats?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=DET&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=advancedStatsSkaterShooting&sort=&ord=&gp=1

And the reason why he has a high SAT, and not a high corsi, is because he gets put on the ice in situations where the team is likely to get a shot on goal anyway (i.e. he plays in the offensive zone a lot, like Zidlicky). Highly sheltered players are likely to have a high SAT (Kindl is third on the team by the way), but a low Corsi (Smith 11th, Kindl 20th) because they reap the benefits of playing in the offensive zone while not actually generating much offense themselves. The very definition of sheltered.

Smith has 88 shots on goal. That's not much for a guy who gets favorable matchups all season long. That's why his corsi is low. The fact that his SAT is high is the product of sheltered minutes, not because he's a quality possession player.

Edit: Also, when you adjust for zone starts, Smith's corsi plummets even lower, as does Kindl's.

Edited April 14, 2015 by kipwinger

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

How do we know when he's not given the chance? When he played with Kronwall he has looked pretty decent, albeit small sample size but to say there is no upside is not true. He's not a defensive minded guy, he's more offense driven. As I said earlier, we are not playing him to his strengths, he should have absolutely been given a chance on the PP this year.

He did get time on the PP this year. He couldn't keep the puck in the attacking zone.

I don't even remember that at all and I watched most of the Wings games this season. The only PP time he got was when the game was out of reach and he had a couple points on the PP during that time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

How do we know when he's not given the chance? When he played with Kronwall he has looked pretty decent, albeit small sample size but to say there is no upside is not true. He's not a defensive minded guy, he's more offense driven. As I said earlier, we are not playing him to his strengths, he should have absolutely been given a chance on the PP this year.

He's given more offensive zone starts than anyone one the team. He's asked to defend against the other teams' worst players. How is he not being used to his strength? Babcock already shelters him more than every other defender we have. Despite this, he's our lowest scoring regular defenseman, and our second worst regular defensiveman in his own zone (behind Kindl).

What's Babs supposed to do that he's not already doing? 100% offensive zone starts? 75%? 60% How sheltered does he need to be in order to be effective, and at what point are there diminishing returns on a guy like that?

Can you provide some stats that he gets the most offensive starts? Would be interesting to see if that is true and measure up to every other dman.

Again, pointing out he's our lowest scoring dman is pointless. Put him on the PP and he will score, that's his game - offense. Jake Gardiner is the exact same type of player yet he's used incorrectly. Lots of points come from man advantage if you take away nyquist PP points and his numbers are not top 6 worthy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Echolalia 2,961]

Smith doesn't have the highest corsi on the team. Here's his individual corsi.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&pos=skaters&minutes=50&teamid=11&type=individual&sort=icorsi&sortdir=DESC

What he has is a high "SAT" score. Which is a team measure.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/advancedstats?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=DET&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=advancedStatsSkaterShooting&sort=&ord=&gp=1

And the reason why he has a high SAT, and not a high corsi, is because he gets put on the ice in situations where the team is likely to get a shot on goal anyway (i.e. he plays in the offensive zone a lot, like Zidlicky). Highly sheltered players are likely to have a high SAT (Kindl is third on the team by the way), but a low Corsi (Smith 11th, Kindl 20th) because they reap the benefits of playing in the offensive zone while not actually generating much offense themselves. The very definition of sheltered.

Smith has 88 shots on goal. That's not much for a guy who gets favorable matchups all season long. That's why his corsi is low. The fact that his SAT is high is the product of sheltered minutes, not because he's a quality possession player.

As a defensman, he has the least amount of offensive zone starts on our team, so if he's playing in the offensive zone a lot as you suggested, its not because Babcock is starting him there. Its because he's skating there from initial defensive zone coverage. Which makes sense, because his takeaway/giveaway per game ratio is excellent. So in that sense, he's the least sheltered defensman on our team. As for his matchups, I agree he's sheltered; in fact I alluded to as much in my initial post.

Corsi is a team measurement in that it assesses how offensive your team performs when you're on the ice, which is what SAT is. So yes, Smith does have the highest corsi on the team out of defenders. Individual corsi, which is not SAT (or Corsi), is essentially just shot attempts, so yeah its an individual stat. Either way, my point still stands. Smiths Corsi is 1st in defensman, and Smith's iCorsi is 3rd of our defensman, behind Quincey and Zidlicky, which doesn't exactly scream "sucks" either.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Echolalia

[kipwinger 8,522]

As a defensman, he has the least amount of offensive zone starts on our team, so if he's playing in the offensive zone a lot as you suggested, its not because Babcock is starting him there. Its because he's skating there from initial defensive zone coverage. Which makes sense, because his takeaway/giveaway per game ratio is excellent. So in that sense, he's the least sheltered defensman on our team. As for his matchups, I agree he's sheltered; in fact I alluded to as much in my initial post.

Corsi is a team measurement in that it assesses how offensive your team performs when you're on the ice, which is what SAT is. Individual corsi, which is not SAT (or Corsi), is essentially just shot attempts, so yeah its an individual stat. Either way, my point still stands, and Smith's iCorsi is 3rd of our defensman, behind Quincey and Zidlicky, which doesn't exactly scream "sucks" either.

Not really sure where you're getting that.

He starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time. That leads all our defensemen. Dekeyser (33%), Ericsson (30%), Kronwall (32%), Quincey (33%), and Zidlickey (35%), all get fewer offensive zone starts as a percentage of the total starts. Not surprisingly, he also starts LEAST in the defensive zone (26%).

See for yourself (the second table down is 5 on 5 stats and zone starts are at the end).

Smith: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1560

Dekeyser: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1764

Ericsson: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=909

Kronwall: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=96

Quincey: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=898

Zidlicky: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=263

Again, if you adjust for zone starts his individual corsi regresses to near the bottom of our regular defensemen. While I can't find a stat for zone start adjusted SAT, it's not hard to imagine that a guy who starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time, and the defensive zone 26% of the time while have a significant regression. He starts on top of the opposing goalie more than any other defenseman we have. It's easier for him to get a shot on goal than any of our other defensemen, and harder for the opposition to get one against him (because they have to go the length of the ice).

Edit: Adjusted for zone starts, here's our defense's individual corsi.

Smith: 125 (down from 161)

Ericsson: 123 (down from 155)

Kronwall: 93 (down from 114)

Zidlicky: 160 (down from 185)

Quincey: 159 (down from 202)

Dekeyser: 144 (down from 159)

Edited April 14, 2015 by kipwinger

[Echolalia 2,961]

Not really sure where you're getting that.

He starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time. That leads all our defensemen. Dekeyser (33%), Ericsson (30%), Kronwall (32%), Quincey (33%), and Zidlickey (35%), all get fewer offensive zone starts as a percentage of the total starts. Not surprisingly, he also starts LEAST in the defensive zone (26%).

See for yourself (the second table down is 5 on 5 stats and zone starts are at the end).

Smith: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1560

Dekeyser: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1764

Ericsson: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=909

Kronwall: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=96

Quincey: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=898

Zidlicky: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=263

Again, if you adjust for zone starts his individual corsi regresses to near the bottom of our regular defensemen. While I can't find a stat for zone start adjusted SAT, it's not hard to imagine that a guy who starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time, and the defensive zone 26% of the time while have a significant regression. He starts on top of the opposing goalie more than any other defenseman we have. It's easier for him to get a shot on goal than any of our other defensemen, and harder for the opposition to get one against him (because they have to go the length of the ice).

I'm getting it from NHL.com

http://www.nhl.com/stats/advancedstats?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=DET&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=advancedStatsSkaterScoring&sort=zoneStartPctg&ord=desc&gp=1

ZS% is offensive zone start%

[kipwinger 8,522]

I'm getting it from NHL.com

http://www.nhl.com/stats/advancedstats?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=DET&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=advancedStatsSkaterScoring&sort=zoneStartPctg&ord=desc&gp=1

ZS% is offensive zone start%

It seems to be the exact inverse of what mine says. No way is Smith, Ouellet, or Kindl less sheltered than Kronwall, Dekeyser, Quincey, and Ericsson.

That same stat says Pulkkinen starts in the offensive zone LESS than Glendening and Andersson.

I don't know what the issue is. But those number contradict every zone stat I've ever seen regarding zone starts for this team.

Maybe because it doesn't account for neutral zone starts. But I honestly don't know.

Edited April 14, 2015 by kipwinger

[Buppy 1,720]

ZS% shown on NHL.com seems to be wrong. If you want fancy stats, http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ or http://war-on-ice.com/ are much better.

[kipwinger 8,522]

ZS% shown on NHL.com seems to be wrong. If you want fancy stats, http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ or http://war-on-ice.com/ are much better.

Agreed. I just did the math on it, and there's no way those numbers are right. Smith started in the o-zone 391 times, out of a total of 1006 total starts...38%. Kronwall started in the ozone 419 times out of 1289 total starts...32%. They have them listed as 48% and 51% respectively.

Not sure what's going on with NHL.com, but I suspect they're having some issues considering they've only just started tracking advanced stats in the last month or two.

[Echolalia 2,961]

ZS% shown on NHL.com seems to be wrong. If you want fancy stats, http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ or http://war-on-ice.com/ are much better.

The issue I have with these sites is that the former gets their data directly from nhl.com, so if nhl.com is inaccurate, then by extension we can't trust hockeyanalysis either. The second link you posted doesn't say where their values come from (unless I just can't find it), so I have no idea what their raw data looks like. Anytime a secondary site is providing statistics on official data I get a bit weary because I have no idea how thorough they are in data collection, entry, whether their equations are accurate, etc. Both sites do have a lot to offer, though. On Thursday I may keep track of zone starts myself and see what numbers I come up with. Maybe we can get a group of us to do it to ensure accuracy, then compare these numbers to what is posted for game 1 stats on all these pages.

[kipwinger 8,522]

The issue I have with these sites is that the former gets their data directly from nhl.com, so if nhl.com is inaccurate, then by extension we can't trust hockeyanalysis either. The second link you posted doesn't say where their values come from (unless I just can't find it), so I have no idea what their raw data looks like. Anytime a secondary site is providing statistics on official data I get a bit weary because I have no idea how thorough they are in data collection, entry, whether their equations are accurate, etc. Both sites do have a lot to offer, though. On Thursday I may keep track of zone starts myself and see what numbers I come up with. Maybe we can get a group of us to do it to ensure accuracy, then compare these numbers to what is posted for game 1 stats on all these pages.

Where does it say that hockeyanalysis gets its data from NHL.com? Because hockeyanalysis was keeping track of zone starts WAY before NHL.com started doing so. It's also much more comprehensive and actually gives you the total number of faceoffs a player has taken in each zone. I don't know where they'd get that number if they relied solely on NHL.com considering the league doesn't report out this number.

To be clear, I don't think you're being deceptive or anything. I'd just like to understand the discrepancy. I've used hockey analysis for a couple of years and have never had a problem with the veracity of their data. NHL.com has only just started reporting on advanced stats, and if there's an inaccuracy I'm inclined to believe it's on their end. But I'd like to be sure.

Edit: Nevermind, I just found it in the FAQ. This is just a theory, so don't take it to the bank. But hockeyanalysis says they get their info from "play by play, TOI tables and event summary pages". He accesses those from NHL.com. However, chances are that official score keepers employed by the home teams are the ones who generate this data, and then kick it up to NHL.com to analyze, as well as share. It doesn't seem like the raw data is flawed, but that the analysis (either by NHL or by hockeyanalysis) is flawed because the math being done on the same data, by two different sources, is yielding two different results.

Again, I'm inclined to think the problem is with NHL.com, because across the board theirs seems to be backward. Unless you really think Pulkinen starts in the d-zone more than Glendening (for example).

Edited April 14, 2015 by kipwinger

[Echolalia 2,961]

Where does it say that hockeyanalysis gets its data from NHL.com? Because hockeyanalysis was keeping track of zone starts WAY before NHL.com started doing so. It's also much more comprehensive and actually gives you the total number of faceoffs a player has taken in each zone. I don't know where they'd get that number if they relied solely on NHL.com considering the league doesn't report out this number.

To be clear, I don't think you're being deceptive or anything. I'd just like to understand the discrepancy. I've used hockey analysis for a couple of years and have never had a problem with the veracity of their data. NHL.com has only just started reporting on advanced stats, and if there's an inaccuracy I'm inclined to believe it's on their end. But I'd like to be sure.

Edit: Nevermind, I just found it in the FAQ. This is just a theory, so don't take it to the bank. But hockeyanalysis says they get their info from "play by play, TOI tables and event summary pages". He accesses those from NHL.com. However, chances are that official score keepers employed by the home teams are the ones who generate this data, and then kick it up to NHL.com to analyze, as well as share. It doesn't seem like the raw data is flawed, but that the analysis (either by NHL or by hockeyanalysis) is flawed because the math being done on the same data, by two different sources, is yielding two different results.

Again, I'm inclined to think the problem is with NHL.com, because across the board theirs seems to be backward. Unless you really think Pulkinen starts in the d-zone more than Glendening (for example).

No it looks like nhl may have it goofed up. Either way I think I'm going to track it myself on thursday, provided I can watch the game and see how my numbers compare.

[kipwinger 8,522]

No it looks like nhl may have it goofed up. Either way I think I'm going to track it myself on thursday, provided I can watch the game and see how my numbers compare.

Not a bad idea, and definitely a fun way to add something to the game experience. I've tried, on occasion, to track different stats myself. Gets hard if the game is exciting lol.

Anyway, as I said before, wouldn't really surprise me if NHL.com is a little off on their advanced stats right now. Until recently they never kept track of these stats and only just started reporting them. Seems reasonable that you'd have some issues to work out when beginning to report significant amounts of new content.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Not a bad idea, and definitely a fun way to add something to the game experience. I've tried, on occasion, to track different stats myself. Gets hard if the game is exciting lol.

Anyway, as I said before, wouldn't really surprise me if NHL.com is a little off on their advanced stats right now. Until recently they never kept track of these stats and only just started reporting them. Seems reasonable that you'd have some issues to work out when beginning to report significant amounts of new content.

well youre welcome to join me, and anyone else who's interested

[kickazz 5,459]

Look lets put aside the fact that Smith had a poor season. And all the opinions on whether or not he's good. There are certain facts here aside from opinions that we can't just ignore.

1. Dude is 26 going onto 27 for his next season. He should NOT be making errors like he does. Same rule applies to Ericsson.

2. Even if he is making errors like this do you REALLY think he will get any better on this roster considering he's already into his prime?

3. He's got the highest giveaways per game of our bottom 4 D men.

4. Marchenko is NOT superior to Smith offensively.

5. Marchenko has NOT made nearly as many errors as Smith does per minutes played.

6. Babcock decided to pick the player that will not be a liability regardless of offensive prowess. He just needs a D man he can count on to not screw up.

Edited April 14, 2015 by kickazz

[number9 3,297]

Stats are for math freaks.

The ol eyeball test says Smith is train wreck that landed in a group of dumpster fires

[joesuffP 1,746]

He's a competent 5/6 defensively but besides his speed, you don't see a lot of offensive upside to his game which is concerning at this point of his career. I think Babs makes him nervous. A guy with his skill set should be physical at least

[redwings56 1]

I swear he's going to cost the Wings a game in this run if Babs doesn't bench him asap

[barabbas16 499]

I swear he's going to cost the Wings a game in this run if Babs doesn't bench him asap

Well, if he was going to take a stupid penalty for cross checking someone in the back of the head, at least it was that ****** Paquette after he tripped Datsyuk.

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

He's been to the box three times, but he hasn't been bad other than that.

[Barrie 900]

Zetterberg took 2 penalties last night.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Ericsson should have went to the box so we can keep him off the ice for at least 2 mins.

[yztheman 29]

I think Smith has upside still, I remember when people were questioning kronner and people said it takes longer for d, etc.

He's physical and speedy can jump into plays like we all want good d to do, I give credit to Babs for benching him and stoking a fire, you saw what he can add to the team. He played a 200 ft game hualing ass back on d. Throwing away investments is the fastest way to poverty. I say nay.

Babs plan is for this team to be a pace team with speed and checking and d. He goes crazy when they start standing still and have trouble identifying assignments and making reactive mistakes and bad line changes. And that's only on the penalties they really make. And we all know turnovers kill. And then there is the factor of you have to work with you got.

I am getting on the bandwagon for babs, keep him here and give him better talent like he wants and you will see more than a 7th or 8th seed.

I know it's hard esp for us longtime fans but unfortunately life (and accordingly all things including hockey) turns and moves and changes whether we are ready or not. Stars/players are individuals and human and make mistakes,. As a collective we can cast a glaring eye but in the wider context it takes many pieces working well to produce. The fact that we have had consistency and stability this long is indeed a testament to all involved from fans to ownership. We keep a hard working no quit blue collar team even in the spite of marginalization of the sport and all the associated shortcomings. When we get older we will know we had greatness and all of our Wings from top to bottom aspired to that and kept this TRADITION going no matter the payout.

Sorry for the off-topicness and rant, recently I made some negative posts and I realize that we have and have had for many years a good team just not always the best, and that turning out a good consistent product is a vital step towards achieving the ultimate goal. Life is important love what you love but don't put your hopes and dreams on uncertainity and euphisms. It really is hard to be so successful. Love my wings but if they lose it happens, I know we have high standards and I know they tried. We did it before, we will do it again. Just not all the time. Go Wings.

Peace people

and yes I am drinking while posting, or posting while drinking..I think that's it

[VM1138 1,921]

I agree that Babcock should stay if we get better pieces to work with. His bizarre decisions stem mostly from having not a lot to work with.

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

I think Smith has upside still, I remember when people were questioning kronner and people said it takes longer for d, etc.

He's physical and speedy can jump into plays like we all want good d to do, I give credit to Babs for benching him and stoking a fire, you saw what he can add to the team. He played a 200 ft game hualing ass back on d. Throwing away investments is the fastest way to poverty. I say nay.

Babs plan is for this team to be a pace team with speed and checking and d. He goes crazy when they start standing still and have trouble identifying assignments and making reactive mistakes and bad line changes. And that's only on the penalties they really make. And we all know turnovers kill. And then there is the factor of you have to work with you got.

I am getting on the bandwagon for babs, keep him here and give him better talent like he wants and you will see more than a 7th or 8th seed.

I know it's hard esp for us longtime fans but unfortunately life (and accordingly all things including hockey) turns and moves and changes whether we are ready or not. Stars/players are individuals and human and make mistakes,. As a collective we can cast a glaring eye but in the wider context it takes many pieces working well to produce. The fact that we have had consistency and stability this long is indeed a testament to all involved from fans to ownership. We keep a hard working no quit blue collar team even in the spite of marginalization of the sport and all the associated shortcomings. When we get older we will know we had greatness and all of our Wings from top to bottom aspired to that and kept this TRADITION going no matter the payout.

Sorry for the off-topicness and rant, recently I made some negative posts and I realize that we have and have had for many years a good team just not always the best, and that turning out a good consistent product is a vital step towards achieving the ultimate goal. Life is important love what you love but don't put your hopes and dreams on uncertainity and euphisms. It really is hard to be so successful. Love my wings but if they lose it happens, I know we have high standards and I know they tried. We did it before, we will do it again. Just not all the time. Go Wings.

Peace people

and yes I am drinking while posting, or posting while drinking..I think that's it

They weren't . 7th or 8th seed this year. They were 6th in the conference and third in the division and were literally one win off of 4th in the conference and for a large part of the year were competing for the first place spot in the conference