• Recently Browsing   1 member

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm so confused. The Wings do or do not promote kids to the big club? Jurco was rushed but Larkin was not? So much doublespeak I feel like I'm watching a political debate.

The argument for Jurco has been he was mismanaged and put on 4th line where he doesn't belong. Not sure if I agree with that anymore, because maybe management wanted him as a 4th line player and that's why they put him there? Generally for players that are supposed to be top 6 players, you don't want to develop them on a 4th line. If Larkin was going to make the roster only to play on the 4th line, it would probably be better for him to play in GR as a first or second line center. But idk maybe management doesn't see a difference between top 9 or top 12.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get a better understanding of what you're saying, you think in order for a kid to make the roster, he's not only going to have to outperform, but far exceed exceptions of someone already on the roster? As in, AA can't just be slightly better than Sheahan, he's going to have to be much much better? Or am I misinterpreting your post?

So let me ask you this. Hypothetically speaking all our main roster players end up starting on opening night. Would you have guessed Larkin being on opening night? This would have been the starting roster if Larkin wasn't a part of the equation. 15 forwards. Actually we had more forwards last year by the looks of it.

Abdelkader - Datsyuk - Zetterberg

Nyquist - Richards - Tatar

Helm - Sheahan - Franzen

Miller - Glendening - Ferraro

Andersson

Jurco

Pulkinnen

Larkin

This year it perhaps would be

Abdelkader - Larkin - Zetterberg

Tatar - Nielsen - Vanek

Helm - Sheahan - Nyquist

Miller - Glendening - Ott

Jurco

AA

Mantha

So actually, AA (and Mantha) might in reality have a better shot of making the roster than I originally thought. Assuming they are open to moving Sheahan to 4th line and letting AA play 3rd line. And that is assuming AA meets management's level of expectations in camp.

Nevermind edited out comment about Helm's Injury

I still think Larkin would have been preferred over Ferraro

Edited by NerveDamage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, Helm was injured at the time he couldn't have been in the lineup at the start of the season.

Helm (shoulder) skated on a regular line on Monday; could play on Tuesday.
Helm was expected to miss 3-4 weeks with a separated shoulder. He has nearly reached the end of his timetable, which suggests that he could be back tomorrow vs. the Lightning. If Helm is set to return, the Red Wings will need to make a roster move.

You're misreading my posts entirely. I can't sit here and explain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Jurco was rushed and no Larkin was not. They're not even close to the same in terms of where they were in their development. Jurco, like Nyquist and Tatar should have spent more time down in Grand Rapids. Although I initially wanted Larkin to start the season down there, he clearly was ready for the jump. It's not even close to being the same situation though. Also, if Larkin were put in the bottom 6, he likely wouldn't have been as hot out of the gate either. Likewise, if Jurco were given a bit more of an opportunity in the top 6, I think he would be a hell of a lot better off today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Jurco was rushed and no Larkin was not. They're not even close to the same in terms of where they were in their development. Jurco, like Nyquist and Tatar should have spent more time down in Grand Rapids. Although I initially wanted Larkin to start the season down there, he clearly was ready for the jump. It's not even close to being the same situation though. Also, if Larkin were put in the bottom 6, he likely wouldn't have been as hot out of the gate either. Likewise, if Jurco were given a bit more of an opportunity in the top 6, I think he would be a hell of a lot better off today...

Ooooooh..

I don't know if I have energy for it, but you bring another good topic to debate about. I'd take the opposite stance on this but maybe we should leave it for another day lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Jurco was rushed and no Larkin was not. They're not even close to the same in terms of where they were in their development. Jurco, like Nyquist and Tatar should have spent more time down in Grand Rapids. Although I initially wanted Larkin to start the season down there, he clearly was ready for the jump. It's not even close to being the same situation though. Also, if Larkin were put in the bottom 6, he likely wouldn't have been as hot out of the gate either. Likewise, if Jurco were given a bit more of an opportunity in the top 6, I think he would be a hell of a lot better off today...

I agree with part of this, and disagree with part of it. Jurco did get rushed up to the big club, and he surely would have benefited from more time in GR. However, I don't think he needed top six time. His first (partial) season he played almost exclusively on the third line and produced pretty well. If he continued to produce at that same clip from the 3rd line we wouldn't even be discussing him right now. Everybody would be fine with his production. It's the fact that he can't seem to replicated even 3rd line production, with 3rd line minutes, that go him demoted and eventually scratched. Jurco needs to produce moderate point totals in moderate minutes before he should be given any more responsibility. So far he hasn't shown he can do that consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get a better understanding of what you're saying, you think in order for a kid to make the roster, he's not only going to have to outperform, but far exceed exceptions of someone already on the roster? As in, AA can't just be slightly better than Sheahan, he's going to have to be much much better? Or am I misinterpreting your post?

...

More or less, depending on what you consider "far exceed" or "much much better". I'm saying I don't think they'd want to risk losing a player, and potentially regretting it if we're hit by injuries, if they'd only expect to gain a few goals over the course of a full season. I think they'd have to expect a real impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you kip, but I was referring to if Jurco had been given the same opportunity (not saying he should have) as Larkin in the beginning. I do believe that if he were thrown on a line with Datsyuk and Tatar (or similar linemates) a year or two ago, he would be a much better player today. Again, I'm not saying he should have been gifted that sort of opportunity, but I haven't seen anything of him on the 3rd line yet that has said, he's not cutting it, he should be demoted or scratched, but yet, that's what continues to happen.

I hate that they tried to mold a pure skill player into a "grinder", playing with scrubs, just because he has size... How well would Tatar or Nyquist have done in their first couple seasons if they were given the same sort of treatment? Not too well would be my bet...

I do still think Jurco can be a very good middle 6 winger, I just don't think he will get that sort of opportunity here unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS. No one is trying to turn Jurco into a grinder. He's played where he's played because all the spots that would be a better fit for his skills have been filled by better players. That's it.

He's not even expected to play any differently. He (and everyone) is expected to compete defensively no matter where they are in the lineup. He (and everyone) is expected to compete offensively. He doesn't play against top competition, and his deployment isn't especially defensive. He doesn't kill penalties. The only thing different about him playing on the 4th line is that he has less pressure to produce.

He's a spare part as a player, and he's used as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurco is where he is because of mismanagement, not because of lack of skill. He is expected to play differently because he's on the 4th line playing with scrubs. Jurco's issue has nothing to do with physical ability and everything to do with mental stability, aka confidence. Anyway, this has been argued to death, so that's it for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS. No one is trying to turn Jurco into a grinder. He's played where he's played because all the spots that would be a better fit for his skills have been filled by better players. That's it.

He's not even expected to play any differently. He (and everyone) is expected to compete defensively no matter where they are in the lineup. He (and everyone) is expected to compete offensively. He doesn't play against top competition, and his deployment isn't especially defensive. He doesn't kill penalties. The only thing different about him playing on the 4th line is that he has less pressure to produce.

He's a spare part as a player, and he's used as such.

He went from being a highly skilled goal scorer to playing safe dump it in never take a chance defense only hockey. Do you really believe the coaches aren't telling him to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurco is where he is because of mismanagement, not because of lack of skill. He is expected to play differently because he's on the 4th line playing with scrubs. Jurco's issue has nothing to do with physical ability and everything to do with mental stability, aka confidence. Anyway, this has been argued to death, so that's it for me...

Well he'd have a 3rd line spot if not for your boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurco plays with Glen and Miller who dump and chase only because theirs no room for him in the top 9. Crappy situation for a young guy but the other forwards are just better than him theirs no denying that. Don't think he was told to remodel his game it's just the way the fourth line plays. I'm sure Blashill would be thrilled if Jurco started playing more aggressive and creative offensively

Edited by joesuffP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's just the way the fourth line plays". This right here is my biggest issue. The 4th line shouldn't necessarily have to play that way, but the guys we have on our 4th line do. We could go with a 4th line of players sitting / sent down, Jurco - Athanasiou - Mantha, and actually generate some offense, but instead we'll have the "shut-down" line of Miller - Glendening - Ott...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He went from being a highly skilled goal scorer to playing safe dump it in never take a chance defense only hockey. Do you really believe the coaches aren't telling him to do that?

Highly skilled goal scorer in the AHL maybe lol.

"It's just the way the fourth line plays". This right here is my biggest issue. The 4th line shouldn't necessarily have to play that way, but the guys we have on our 4th line do. We could go with a 4th line of players sitting / sent down, Jurco - Athanasiou - Mantha, and actually generate some offense, but instead we'll have the "shut-down" line of Miller - Glendening - Ott...

Oh but that's what the coaches want and their word is a gold mine. None of us have any idea what we're talking about. We just read WIIM and are clueless about hockey. Clearly what Blashill did was the recipe for success. Dump and chase all day baby that's where it's at, just look at the last 7 years of Stanley cup winners.

Wait a minute lol.. LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston... Well teams are all ranked 1-4 in possession that DON'T rely on dump and chase... Whoops!

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurco is where he is because of mismanagement, not because of lack of skill. He is expected to play differently because he's on the 4th line playing with scrubs. Jurco's issue has nothing to do with physical ability and everything to do with mental stability, aka confidence. Anyway, this has been argued to death, so that's it for me...

Not lack of skill in the sense that he couldn't potentially be better, or do more if given more of an opportunity. But it is lack of skill in the sense that he's just not better than the guys who have played above him. Helm and Sheahan are both better offensively than Jurco, as well as better all-around. Everyone else that's played above him is far better offensively.

He went from being a highly skilled goal scorer to playing safe dump it in never take a chance defense only hockey. Do you really believe the coaches aren't telling him to do that?

I'm saying that hasn't happened at all.

For one, he went from being a decent-but-hardly-exceptional highly skilled goal scorer in the QMJHL, to a mediocre scorer in the AHL for a year, then a pretty good scorer in the AHL the next year, to a mediocre scorer in the NHL. Funny to see you of all people talking about junior scoring as if it translates to the NHL.

He may get stuck playing with defensive players sometimes, but he's not used in the same way at all. He wasn't given near the same defensive responsibility that Glendening, Miller, and Andersson got.

And though I've said this often enough to doubt that anyone will pay attention, he spent a lot of time this season playing with players at least as or more skilled than he is.

207 combined minutes with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, and Larkin. 262 combined minutes with Richards, Helm, Sheahan, Pulkkinen, and AA. 272 combined with Andersson, Miller, and Glendening. Close to two thirds of his total ice time with at least one somewhat skilled player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's just the way the fourth line plays". This right here is my biggest issue. The 4th line shouldn't necessarily have to play that way, but the guys we have on our 4th line do. We could go with a 4th line of players sitting / sent down, Jurco - Athanasiou - Mantha, and actually generate some offense, but instead we'll have the "shut-down" line of Miller - Glendening - Ott...

Maybe. No doubt we are in a pretty good spot in terms of skill depth. Though I do doubt that a skill 4th line would contribute much more offense, and maybe not enough more to make up for the loss of defensive play. I would like to see us give it a try though.

...

Oh but that's what the coaches want and their word is a gold mine. None of us have any idea what we're talking about. We just read WIIM and are clueless about hockey. Clearly what Blashill did was the recipe for success. Dump and chase all day baby that's where it's at, just look at the last 7 years of Stanley cup winners.

Wait a minute lol.. LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston... Well teams are all ranked 1-4 in possession that DON'T rely on dump and chase... Whoops!

Do you realize that we ended up as one of the better possession teams last year? Not much worse than PIT really. Better than Chicago. Carolina and Toronto were 2nd and 3rd. Looking back over a span of 4+ years, only LA and Chicago have really been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize that we ended up as one of the better possession teams last year? Not much worse than PIT really. Better than Chicago. Carolina and Toronto were 2nd and 3rd. Looking back over a span of 4+ years, only LA and Chicago have really been better.

Yeah. I know exactly how our possession is. We've always been a possession driven team with Babcock's "shoot the puck" mentality. We were one of the top possession team in 2015 when we took Tampa to game 7. Our possession dipped under Blashill this last year. Which is fine, rookie coach.

When I quoted Krsmith and made the statement it was because weeks ago a member was trying to justify sitting and shot blocking over possession style hockey.

Anyways, it's funny you mention Toronto though. For years Toronto was one of the worst possession teams and just this past year they were around top 10 on possession. It only makes sense since their new coach happens to be our old coach.

As for the bold part. You just said it yourself. Only LA and Chicago have really been better. And they've also happened to combine for 5 Stanley cups in the last 7 years.

I don't understand, aren't you one of the "pro possession-style hockey" people?

Also are you looking at CF%?

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I know exactly how our possession is. We've always been a possession driven team with Babcock's "shoot the puck" mentality. We were one of the top possession team in 2015 when we took Tampa to game 7. Our possession dipped under Blashill this last year. Which is fine, rookie coach.

When I quoted Krsmith and made the statement it was because weeks ago a member was trying to justify sitting and shot blocking over possession style hockey.

Anyways, it's funny you mention Toronto though. For years Toronto was one of the worst possession teams and just this past year they were around top 10 on possession. It only makes sense since their new coach happens to be our old coach.

As for the bold part. You just said it yourself. Only LA and Chicago have really been better. And they've also happened to combine for 5 Stanley cups in the last 7 years.

I don't understand, aren't you one of the "pro possession-style hockey" people?

Also are you looking at CF%?

Yes, CF%. Seems likely to be the best indicator of actual possession time.

I would consider myself to be "pro-possession", but I also believe it's only one part of a very intricate whole. Also, the difference between good and bad possession is not that large, really. Not enough that we should consider possession to be a replacement for "traditional" defense.

To illustrate, last season we were near the top of the league in corsi against. Only LA and NJ allowed fewer. But we were the worst shot-blocking team in the league, and our opponents also missed a lower-than-average % of shot attempts against us (suggesting we were allowing higher quality shot attempts, and/or more second chances). The result is that we were only middle-of-pack in actual shots against as well as goals against. We were pretty good at possession, but poor defensively, and the result was mediocrity.

Then of course we also had our struggles offensively as well. Average or below pretty much everywhere.

We need to improve our traditional defense and we need to improve both the quantity and quality of our offensive production. And it all ties in together; improve in one area and it will help in others. But I don't think it's as simple as just "play skilled kids".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.