Coaching Search Thread a.k.a. the Jeff Blashill Thread

[marcaractac 3,963]

You say those things as if they're a fact, when in reality they aren't. Our defense contributed more offense than most other playoff teams. We were above average amongst playoff teams. They scored lot more than non playoff teams. Our defense generated offense just fine. It scored more than Chicago's defense did, as a matter of fact. And Tampa. And I think New York too (but I've have to look it up again).

We were 25th in the league in even strength scoring. The five teams below us were non playoff teams. The five above us were non playoff teams. You really think that was our team "maxed out"? You really don't think they could have improved in any way?

What are you even arguing anyway? That if we're better next season it will have almost nothing to do with our new coach? You just said a huge part of the teams' success last season was a result of Babcock. So coaching matters a lot, but only if that coach is Babs. Otherwise, coaching matters very little and any new successes will be the result of internal growth? You're seriously losing me.

That's a whole lot of words to be putting in my mouth. It's quite clear you either don't understand a word I say, or just haven't bothered reading. Or perhaps you just like to come up with your own interpretations of what others say so you can keep arguing about it? Have fun!

[kipwinger 8,524]

That's a whole lot of words to be putting in my mouth. It's quite clear you either don't understand a word I say, or just haven't bothered reading. Or perhaps you just like to come up with your own interpretations of what others say so you can keep arguing about it? Have fun!

When you say things like "The Wings were gonna be better this season whether it is Babs or Blash behind the bench" it implies that coaching (in this instance) is incidental to the outcome. Which is a position you support in the case of Blashill (who you've said won't drastically affect the play of the team), but not in the case of Babcock (whom you've credited with a considerable amount of the teams' current level of play).

I'm just confused what your position actually is? Seriously.

[marcaractac 3,963]

When you say things like "The Wings were gonna be better this season whether it is Babs or Blash behind the bench" it implies that coaching (in this instance) is incidental to the outcome. Which is a position you support in the case of Blashill (who you've said won't drastically affect the play of the team), but not in the case of Babcock (whom you've credited with a considerable amount of the teams' current level of play).

I'm just confused what your position actually is? Seriously.

Nope. You're just making assumptions. Picking and choosing what to respond to so you can keep a meaningless debate going.

Babs got everything he could out of the team. Blash will get everything he could out of the team. Why? They are both good at what they do. They are both demanding coaches. They are both good motivators. They have both won at every level they have coached. If Blash coached the team this past season, the result may have been very similar as it was. It wouldn't be magically better because of a different coach. But the expectations will be higher this time. Blashill's job is to make sure the team meets said expectations. Which is to improve upon this year. Why is that the expectation? Because the team is more experienced. They have grown since last fall. The expectations won't be higher because he is a new coach.

So no. Coaching is not incidental to the outcome. And at no point have I ever said or alluded to that. You picked that one out of thin air all on your own. Is it because of the prancing thing? (joking, by the way). The coaches job is to have a team play the way they are capable of. Babs did a great job at it, so should Blash. If Babs message was lost and the players were tuning him out, and we went and got blown out in 4 games or missed the playoffs? Yes, I'd expect a new coach to have a much bigger impact. But this is a very unique coaching change. It will be business as usually. Small changes, nothing drastic. They aren't gonna reinvent the wheel. They are make that ***** spin.

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

Theres no way it can be a huge difference.

He's been running the same systems, he knows the kids on the team well, and the vets that are here have been here long enough to not have to worry about how they get along with blash, who knows the respect they've earned.

The kids aren't going to play worse for him, so its just a different voice.

Kind of....

They do legitimately sound the exact same.

Edited May 28, 2015 by jimmyemeryhunter

[marcaractac 3,963]

Theres no way it can be a huge difference.

He's been running the same systems, he knows the kids on the team well, and the vets that are here have been here long enough to not have to worry about how they get along with blash, who knows the respect they've earned.

The kids aren't going to play worse for him, so its just a different voice.

Kind of....

They do legitimately sound the exact same.

This sums up with what I've been trying to say in much less words. I'm an engineer. I suck with words. I can explain the s*** out of things with drawings though

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

This sums up with what I've been trying to say in much less words. I'm an engineer. I suck with words. I can explain the s*** out of things with drawings though

That's kind of why I want him to come in and throw some curve balls...

Play Andersson at defense if they bring him back...

Why not?

Edited May 28, 2015 by jimmyemeryhunter

[marcaractac 3,963]

That's kind of why I want him to come in and throw some curve balls...

Play Andersson at defense if they bring him back...

Why not.

LGW would have a meltdown

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

LGW would have a meltdown

Ha.

He'd basically be doing the same thing he did last year anyways, he'd just be lining up in a different spot.

Tell him to earn his offense, then well move him up to a forward.

Edited May 28, 2015 by jimmyemeryhunter

[WingedWheel91 271]

Mike Babcock is a better NHL coach today than Jeff Blashill.

But today, Jeff Blashill might be a better coach for the Detroit Red Wings.

The following players listed in Bold are players Jeff Blashill developed in Grand Rapids or at Western Michigan before they played in the NHL.

TATAR - DATSYUK - HELM

NYQUIST - ZETTERBERG - ABDELKADER

JURCO - SHEAHAN - PULKINNEN

MILLER- GLENDENNING - FERRARO

KRONWALL - ERICSSON

DEKEYSER - QUINCEY

SMITH - MARCHENKO

MRAZEK

Here's the important part: Every single name on that list (besides Pulkinnen) came to the NHL and made an impact immediately.

This isn't a fluke, or a system that condones itself to certain players - this is the result of a head coach who had the ability to make players better, and develop them into NHL caliber players. If you have the time, take a look at what Gustav Nyquist, Tomas Jurco, and Riley Sheahan did last year immediately following their promotions from the Grand Rapids Griffins. All of them averaged a significantly higher point per game average then, as opposed to this year playing only for Mike Babcock.

I don't know if its utilization or motivation, but these players seemed to be at there best when they most recently played for Blashill - and when that wore off, Babcock didn't get the same results.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Nope. You're just making assumptions. Picking and choosing what to respond to so you can keep a meaningless debate going.

Babs got everything he could out of the team. Blash will get everything he could out of the team. Why? They are both good at what they do. They are both demanding coaches. They are both good motivators. They have both won at every level they have coached. If Blash coached the team this past season, the result may have been very similar as it was. It wouldn't be magically better because of a different coach. But the expectations will be higher this time. Blashill's job is to make sure the team meets said expectations. Which is to improve upon this year. Why is that the expectation? Because the team is more experienced. They have grown since last fall. The expectations won't be higher because he is a new coach.

So no. Coaching is not incidental to the outcome. And at no point have I ever said or alluded to that. You picked that one out of thin air all on your own. Is it because of the prancing thing? (joking, by the way). The coaches job is to have a team play the way they are capable of. Babs did a great job at it, so should Blash. If Babs message was lost and the players were tuning him out, and we went and got blown out in 4 games or missed the playoffs? Yes, I'd expect a new coach to have a much bigger impact. But this is a very unique coaching change. It will be business as usually. Small changes, nothing drastic. They aren't gonna reinvent the wheel. They are make that ***** spin.

So do you think that systems' play, player usage, special teams' schemes, etc. have much affect on the overall product? Is the coach's main job just to get the team to play up to it's potential?

I mean, surely you'd agree that coaches have their own strategies, tactics, etc. And that how they employ these strategies makes a big difference.

I think people often misinterpret the fact that because Babs and Blash ran the same system, they are very similar coaches. Which isn't really accurate. Systems' play is important, but not THAT important. Most professional defensive "systems" is the 4-3. Most teams use it. But it would be inaccurate to think that anybody who uses a 4-3 is essentially the same "kind" of coach. And that the only real differences (or similarities) reside in the varying degrees of ability inherent in the players.

Babcock and Blashill have the same system. But they're very different coaches. The systems play just creates options, or challenges, for the coach to take advantage of or mitigate in a number of different ways depending on the context of the game. And those decisions are completely dependent on the coach and his tendencies.

For example: Look at how Babs' used Glendening in the playoffs. The system would be the same whether he uses Glendening 2 minutes, or 20. But usage makes a ton of difference outside of the system. By using his line more, you're better defensively, but not offensively. Plus, you possess the puck less (the Glendening line had pretty bad possession numbers). What's the best way to protect a lead? Lock down defensively and suppress shots, or possess the puck and keep it 200 feet away from your net? That's a coach's decision that I'd imagine Babs and Blash would fundamentally disagree on. And one that could have considerable impact on the teams' success next year, regardless of the fact that the roster and system will be largely the same.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Theres no way it can be a huge difference.

He's been running the same systems, he knows the kids on the team well, and the vets that are here have been here long enough to not have to worry about how they get along with blash, who knows the respect they've earned.

The kids aren't going to play worse for him, so its just a different voice.

Kind of....

They do legitimately sound the exact same.

Running the same system doesn't really mean all that much. As I've noted above. Almost all football coaches run the same offensive and defense systems. But it would be wrong to assume that there's not much difference in coaching because of that.

Same with hockey. Almost all teams have the same penalty kill (and now powerplay) systems. But it would be wrong to think that the only difference between the PK or PP is the quality of the players on the ice. That's one variable. But far from the only one. If that really was the case, special teams rates wouldn't vary much under new assistant coaches (like they did for Detroit this season). Since everybody already knows the systems, what more could they learn from a new coach?

Was I not supposed to talk about hockey on the hockey forum?

[marcaractac 3,963]

Running the same system doesn't really mean all that much. As I've noted above. Almost all football coaches run the same offensive and defense systems. But it would be wrong to assume that there's not much difference in coaching because of that.

Same with hockey. Almost all teams have the same penalty kill (and now powerplay) systems. But it would be wrong to think that the only difference between the PK or PP is the quality of the players on the ice. That's one variable. But far from the only one. If that really was the case, special teams rates wouldn't vary much under new assistant coaches (like they did for Detroit this season). Since everybody already knows the systems, what more could they learn from a new coach?

Was I not supposed to talk about hockey on the hockey forum?

This was just my less boring way of bowing out of a debate that has devolved into repeating the same things over... and over... and over.

I do have a question though. If the Wings do worse this season, whose fault is it?

Edited May 28, 2015 by marcaractac

[kipwinger 8,524]

This was just my less boring way of bowing out of a debate that has devolved into repeating the same things over... and over... and over.

I do have a question though. If the Wings do worse this season, whose fault is it?

I didn't really think of it as a debate. I thought we were discussing the impact of a coaching change. Which is a pretty relevant thing to discuss given that we've just gone through a coaching change. If you didn't want to talk about Blashill's potential affect on the team, why bother posting anything in the "Coaching Search aka Jeff Blashill" thread at all?

The next coach's. If an individual player improves, he gets the credit. When our powerplay improved over last season, the credit belonged to Jim Hiller. When our PK improved, the credit belonged to Granato. If the team overall had improved, the credit would have belonged to Babs. The same is true if they regress.

One of the points I've made all season is precisely tied to this. We had improvement by a ton of individual players. We had improvement in goaltending (in the playoffs anyway). We had improvement on the PK, and on the PP. We had improved health.

And yet we had the same exact outcome. Who's fault is it?

Edited May 28, 2015 by kipwinger

[marcaractac 3,963]

I didn't really think of it as a debate. I thought we were discussing the impact of a coaching change. Which is a pretty relevant thing to discuss given that we've just gone through a coaching change. If you didn't want to talk about Blashill's potential affect on the team, why bother posting anything in the "Coaching Search aka Jeff Blashill" thread at all?

Because I DID want to discuss the coaching change. Which I have. But a discussion becomes pointless once it just turns into having to repeat the same thing over and over. Hence why I brought a different question into the mix:

If the Wings do worse this season, who is to blame? Assume injuries are a non factor and we go into the season with the EXACT same team.

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

Running the same system doesn't really mean all that much. As I've noted above. Almost all football coaches run the same offensive and defense systems. But it would be wrong to assume that there's not much difference in coaching because of that.

Same with hockey. Almost all teams have the same penalty kill (and now powerplay) systems. But it would be wrong to think that the only difference between the PK or PP is the quality of the players on the ice. That's one variable. But far from the only one. If that really was the case, special teams rates wouldn't vary much under new assistant coaches (like they did for Detroit this season). Since everybody already knows the systems, what more could they learn from a new coach?

Was I not supposed to talk about hockey on the hockey forum?

Its more about deployment.

Instead of going 1-3-1 while protecting the lead, hell send two forecheckers to try to get the puck.

The systems are basically the same anywhere you go, because they teach all the options.

But he had his guys playing in different roles because he didn't have to worry about the wear and tear of his aging best players.

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

For how amazing he was on defense, he scored fifteen goals, That's not a low number for a fourth liner, ha.

He got so Much better so fast.

I will laugh so effin hard if he turned into our first line c once pav retires.

If he wasn't playing most of the year with miller and Andersson, he may have had a decent stat line...

Especially considering how often he was out against other teams first line.

Glendening? He scored 12 goals, if you're including playoffs it's 14 goals. Either way still impressive for a guy on the 4th line thaat couldn't buy a goal the previous year

[marcaractac 3,963]

Glendening? He scored 12 goals, if you're including playoffs it's 14 goals. Either way still impressive for a guy on the 4th line thaat couldn't buy a goal the previous year

All hail Backhand Jesus

[gowings00 545]

A couple of points that should be encouraging even to the most cynical of fans.

1. For two straight years we have looked horrible in the first 10-15 minutes of almost ever game. A new voice in the locker room Will Improve our teams starts. If only because we simply can't be that bad again.

2. Blashill will breathe new life into some dead/stagnant players. Will it be Weiss (if he's still here) Franzen, Jurco? No idea, but I'm convinced a few will come alive.

3. Our goalie situation will be much better this year. Competition will bring out the best in both resulting in a more consistent year between the pipes. Blashill has confidence in Mrazek and should make him feel comfortable.

4. I think we have a good enough team (make the playoffs) that Blash can make some mistakes, test some lines and learn NHL matchups and we will still have enough points.

5. I have to believe that Kenny will finally upgrade the Blue Line (of course I say this every year) with some serious talent which should push Big E back down to the 2nd pairing. Thus making it easier for Blashill. On the other hand, I think Blashill will be a better evaluator of which kids are ready to replace our current veteran crop and therefore able to see who is expendable.

[HockeytownRules19 902]

Olczyk also endorses Blash

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2015/05/30/detroit-red-wings-jeff-blashill/28212857/

[Internet.Unknown 422]

Olczyk also endorses Blash

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2015/05/30/detroit-red-wings-jeff-blashill/28212857/

Why, does Blash not encourage subtle interference?

[chaps80 1,591]

So Blash shouold be the Wings new coach, especially with pretty well every other experienced coach on the market being signed. Wonder when it will become official?

[marcaractac 3,963]

So Blash shouold be the Wings new coach, especially with pretty well every other experienced coach on the market being signed. Wonder when it will become official?

When the Griffins playoff run is complete.

[chaps80 1,591]

When the Griffins playoff run is complete.

Makes sense. lol

[frankgrimes 1,836]

So Blash shouold be the Wings new coach, especially with pretty well every other experienced coach on the market being signed. Wonder when it will become official?

How about Tippet the Yotes haven't re-signed him yet at least interview some other guys for the job. Yeah by all accounts it looks like it's Blashill's to lose also Julien hasn't exactly received a vote of confidence from Charlie Jacobs and that guy is experienced.

[RedWingsRox 614]

So now that the Griffins are done ... big presser tomorrow?