Kronwall in the Playoffs

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I will say this, Suter is more of a defensive defensemen. I'm not sure if he'll ever score lots of points. Weber has been decent in the playoffs, but If I'm a Preds fan, I'd want a little more.

Lol the only ones questioning Kronwall are Lidstrom spoiled Red Wings fans

Should I take your word for it? I don't read other teams' forums so I don't know what the consensus on Kronwall is. But the stats I found for him weren't cherry picked. Since he took over for Lidstrom, he's been pedestrian in the playoffs. I wasn't looking at the rest of his playoff career when he had less pressure on him and was a second pairing guy.

[number9 3,297]

I will say this, Suter is more of a defensive defensemen. I'm not sure if he'll ever score lots of points. Weber has been decent in the playoffs, but If I'm a Preds fan, I'd want a little more.

Should I take your word for it? I don't read other teams' forums so I don't know what the consensus on Kronwall is. But the stats I found for him weren't cherry picked. Since he took over for Lidstrom, he's been pedestrian in the playoffs. I wasn't looking at the rest of his playoff career when he had less pressure on him and was a second pairing guy.

You seem to be taking others words for it. Why not mine? Apparently to you questioning someones status = they must not have that status

Suter puts up around the same points as Kronwall every year. Yup Weber has been lackluster in the playoffs too, he crumbles under the pressure, doesn't that make him not a #1 to you now? It seems to for Kronwall

[Rhah 195]

Today I learned that apparently you have to score points to be considered a top defenseman in the league despite your position name having "defense" right in the title.

I would take zero point #1 shutdown defender in the league anyday over a chuck it at the net goon. Let the offense do the work and put your d guys who have good shots on the PP.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

You seem to be taking others words for it. Why not mine? Apparently to you questioning someones status = they must not have that status

Suter puts up around the same points as Kronwall every year. Yup Weber has been lackluster in the playoffs too, he crumbles under the pressure, doesn't that make him not a #1 to you now? It seems to for Kronwall

Well, as far as I know the only people who think Kronwall is a legit #1 are blind homers on LGW. See how that argument works both ways?

I'm just looking at his numbers. Yes, there's more to stats, and yes Weber has underachieved as well. You've already admitted you'd take Weber over Kronwall. He has more of an overall impact on the game. He logs big minutes. He's a leader. Suter is a shutdown specialist and logs huge minutes also. So it's not just stats.

[number9 3,297]

I will say this, Suter is more of a defensive defensemen. I'm not sure if he'll ever score lots of points. Weber has been decent in the playoffs, but If I'm a Preds fan, I'd want a little more.

Should I take your word for it? I don't read other teams' forums so I don't know what the consensus on Kronwall is. But the stats I found for him weren't cherry picked. Since he took over for Lidstrom, he's been pedestrian in the playoffs. I wasn't looking at the rest of his playoff career when he had less pressure on him and was a second pairing guy.

They don't have debates on Kronwalls status on other teams forums, just like we don't have debates about Suters status as a #1 around here. You're basing your entire argument on the irrational clamorings of LGW

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Today I learned that apparently you have to score points to be considered a top defenseman in the league despite your position name having "defense" right in the title.

I would take zero point #1 shutdown defender in the league anyday over a chuck it at the net goon. Let the offense do the work and put your d guys who have good shots on the PP.

Except we don't have any defensemen with "good" shots on the PP. Kronwall is supposed to be the guy.

And who is the chuck it at the net goon? Weber? He does more than chuck it at the net.

They don't have debates on Kronwalls status on other teams forums, just like we don't have debates about Suters status as a #1 around here. You're basing your entire argument on the irrational clamorings of LGW

So my OP was irrational and not based on reality or facts?

Right.

[number9 3,297]

Well, as far as I know the only people who think Kronwall is a legit #1 are blind homers on LGW. See how that argument works both ways?

I'm just looking at his numbers. Yes, there's more to stats, and yes Weber has underachieved as well. You've already admitted you'd take Weber over Kronwall. He has more of an overall impact on the game. He logs big minutes. He's a leader. Suter is a shutdown specialist and logs huge minutes also. So it's not just stats.

So if I question Zetterbergs status as a top 6 winger and praise Glendening as a legit top 6 winger you're going to listen and believe it? He's pretty much universally ranked by the media and around the league as one of the best D-men out there... as in top 20, top 15. Being a blind homer is suggesting Smith was great this year.

Yeah Idk how liking Suter and Weber means I can't also like Kronwall?

Except we don't have any defensemen with "good" shots on the PP. Kronwall is supposed to be the guy.

And who is the chuck it at the net goon? Weber? He does more than chuck it at the net.

So my OP was irrational and not based on reality or facts?

Right.

Yes because I was obviously referencing your OP (sarcasm)

You've already made the claim that LGW questions him, therefore it must be true. Now you're backpeddling to stats again.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

So if I question Zetterbergs status as a top 6 winger and praise Glendening as a legit top 6 winger you're going to listen and believe it? He's pretty much universally ranked by the media and around the league as one of the best D-men out there... as in top 20, top 15. Being a blind homer is suggesting Smith was great this year.

Yeah Idk how liking Suter and Weber means I can't also like Kronwall?

Has the love for Glendenning gone that far here?

There's a lot of posters here who agree with me, just like they disagree with me on this issue. I don't think one group is any more unrealistic than another just because we all read the same forum incessantly. The sports media doesn't follow the Wings as much as we do. We know this team better than the average hockey analyst who follows all the teams a little bit. And even then we disagree.

So if I question Zetterbergs status as a top 6 winger and praise Glendening as a legit top 6 winger you're going to listen and believe it? He's pretty much universally ranked by the media and around the league as one of the best D-men out there... as in top 20, top 15. Being a blind homer is suggesting Smith was great this year.

Yeah Idk how liking Suter and Weber means I can't also like Kronwall?

Yes because I was obviously referencing your OP (sarcasm)

You've already made the claim that LGW questions him, therefore it must be true. Now you're backpeddling to stats again.

No, I'm just saying there's a good reason to question his play. There's others who feel the same way. There are others who don't. That's called an argument. Something you love.

Edited May 6, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[number9 3,297]

Has the love for Glendenning gone that far here?

There's a lot of posters here who agree with me, just like they disagree with me on this issue. I don't think one group is any more unrealistic than another just because we all read the same forum incessantly. The sports media doesn't follow the Wings as much as we do. We know this team better than the average hockey analyst who follows all the teams a little bit. And even then we disagree.

Yet you make the claim that just because we question Kronwall (naturally, it's DRW discussion forum) and not Weber and Suter (Why would we? As you've already stated, we don't follow them closely enough) it must be true that Kronwall is not a #1 and they are. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Why would we ever question Suters status as #1 in the first place? This is a Red Wings forum.

Edited May 6, 2015 by number9

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Yet you make the claim that just because we question Kronwall (naturally, it's DRW discussion forum) and not Weber and Suter (Why would we? As you've already stated, we don't follow them closely enough) it must be true that Kronwall is not a #1 and they are. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Why would we ever question Suters status as #1 in the first place? This is a Red Wings forum.

So why can't we agree that Kronwall's stats in the playoffs the last three years suck and ignore the two players your brought up? Who cares about them?

Edited May 6, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[number9 3,297]

So why can't we agree that Kronwall's stats in the playoffs the last three years suck and ignore the two players your brought up? Who cares about them?

I'd be glad too drop them from the discussion. They were brought up as examples to articulate the fact that having sub par playoff stats for 3 years does not reflect a players status in the league or on their team. I think that point has been made clear.

I agree Kronwalls stats in the playoffs for 3 years have sucked. But mainly I disagree with using these stats to suggest he isn't a number 1, as made clear in my first paragraph. I think you also said yourself "It's not all about stats"

Edited May 6, 2015 by number9

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'd be glad too drop them from the discussion. They were brought up as examples to articulate the fact that having sub par playoff stats for 3 years does not reflect a players status in the league or on their team. I think that point has been made clear.

I agree Kronwalls stats in the playoffs for 3 years have sucked. But you said it yourself, it's not all about the stats. But mainly I disagree with using these stats to suggest he isn't a number 1, as made clear in my first paragraph.

Fair enough. I have no issue with that.

Kronwall does do other things besides score (or not score), but to me, he doesn't do them as well as Weber or Suter. He's not as good defensively and doesn't log as many minutes. We also don't have any other offensive defensemen. Those teams do. We need him to score more.

[number9 3,297]

Fair enough. I have no issue with that.

Kronwall does do other things besides score (or not score), but to me, he doesn't do them as well as Weber or Suter. He's not as good defensively and doesn't log as many minutes. We also don't have any other offensive defensemen. Those teams do. We need him to score more.

I thought we were dropping those guys?

*Obligatory Ericsson mention*

Babcock has also been forcing the team to play an 100% defense first style. Partly, I believe, because outside of Kronwall we have very few good D-men.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Why 20?

Because any less puts him in the top 10% of all the people in the world who do his job, therefore he's a #1 defenseman.

I'd be glad too drop them from the discussion. They were brought up as examples to articulate the fact that having sub par playoff stats for 3 years does not reflect a players status in the league or on their team. I think that point has been made clear. I agree Kronwalls stats in the playoffs for 3 years have sucked. But you said it yourself, it's not all about the stats. But mainly I disagree with using these stats to suggest he isn't a number 1, as made clear in my first paragraph. Fair enough. I have no issue with that. Kronwall does do other things besides score (or not score), but to me, he doesn't do them as well as Weber or Suter. He's not as good defensively and doesn't log as many minutes. We also don't have any other offensive defensemen. Those teams do. We need him to score more.

Not as good as Suter and Weber doesn't mean not a #1

[HIFI_canadian 18]

I still don't get why some people think Kronwall is a "#1" defenseman?

I thought he thought he played not only his worse playoffs but the entire season based on mental mistakes. I've never seen a defenseman who logs the most ice time with so many turn overs in the defensive zone.

[number9 3,297]

I still don't get why some people think Kronwall is a "#1" defenseman?

I thought he thought he played not only his worse playoffs but the entire season based on mental mistakes. I've never seen a defenseman who logs the most ice time with so many turn overs in the defensive zone.

Kronwall actually had less give-aways than Shea Weber, Myers, Chara, Hamonic, Byflugien, Klingberg, Subban, Burns, Karlsson, Wideman, Brodie, Karlsson, Yandle, Doughty, Markov, Trouba, Niskanen, Hjalmarsson, Lindholm, Hedman, Seabrook, Keith, Green, Mcdonagh, Girardi, Letang... and many more.

I still don't get why some people think Kronwall is a "#1" defenseman?

I thought he thought he played not only his worse playoffs but the entire season based on mental mistakes. I've never seen a defenseman who logs the most ice time with so many turn overs in the defensive zone.

The only number 1 D-men who turned the puck over less than him were OEL, Piertangelo, Giordano, Shattenkirk, Wisniewski, and Phaneuf.

And those are totals, not counting injuries/time missed that guys like Giordano sustained.

Edited May 15, 2015 by number9

[HIFI_canadian 18]

Kronwall actually had less give-aways than Shea Weber, Myers, Chara, Hamonic, Byflugien, Klingberg, Subban, Burns, Karlsson, Wideman, Brodie, Karlsson, Yandle, Doughty, Markov, Trouba, Niskanen, Hjalmarsson, Lindholm, Hedman, Seabrook, Keith, Green, Mcdonagh, Girardi, Letang... and many more.

The only number 1 D-men who turned the puck over less than him were OEL, Piertangelo, Giordano, Shattenkirk, Wisniewski, and Phaneuf.

And those are totals, not counting injuries/time missed that guys like Giordano sustained.

You're right. 52 for Kronwall, 58 for Ericsson (Shocker). I think most offensive defensemen lead in giveaways but what disappoints me the most is that Kronwall was suppose to develop this two-way game and sadly I feel he hasn't reached his full-potential of his two-way game.

[number9 3,297]

You're right. 52 for Kronwall, 58 for Ericsson (Shocker). I think most offensive defensemen lead in giveaways but what disappoints me the most is that Kronwall was suppose to develop this two-way game and sadly I feel he hasn't reached his full-potential of his two-way game.

Full potential? Is Kronwall the new Franzen already?

[kipwinger 8,522]

Full potential? Is Kronwall the new Franzen already?

And Tatar and Nyquist are the new Hudler and Filppula. It's science.

[number9 3,297]

And Tatar and Nyquist are the new Hudler and Filppula. It's science.

O god that means Blashil is the next Dave Lewis

[kipwinger 8,522]

O god that means Blashil is the next Dave Lewis

Or Dallas Eakins. Or Guy Boucher.

Nevermind the fact that he's been a much more successful coach than any of them, no matter what level he's been at. As long as it helps support that notion that Babcock is irreplaceable, Blashill might as well be the next Pierre McGuire.

I can't stand all these efforts to run our guys down. Because it's all a desperate attempt to come to terms with the fact that we've got a good team that's been underperforming. Kronwall HAS to be less good than he is. Tatar and Nyquist HAVE to top out as secondary players. The defense HAS to suck. Holland HAS to be cheap and incompetent. Because if those things AREN'T true (note: they aren't) then that means we've got a pretty good team which has been underperforming. And if THAT'S true, then Mike Babcock ISN'T a hockey messiah, who's getting every last piece of success out of a sinking ship. Instead, he's be the guy who keeps getting the same result regardless of the age, size, speed, toughness, skillness, etc. of his roster. And that would make a lot of people wrong, wrong, wrong.

And who likes to be wrong anyway?

[Mckinley25 677]

Kronwall is not a number 1 until he wins a Norris.

And Franzen isn't a soft Euro until he wins a Lady Bing.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

O god that means Blashil is the next Dave Lewis

[kipwinger 8,522]

THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL!!!!