Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

[kipwinger 8,492]

Yeah, that "defense wins championships" thing may be true in football or baseball where there's a clear distinction between the offense and defense (though I'm not even sure it works there), but in more fluid games like hockey, basketball, or soccer its much less true. Not to say defense doesn't matter, but what constitutes "defense" as opposed to "offense" is a little murkier.

Defensemen can really help generate a ton of offense by gaining possession of the puck and advancing it quickly and effectively. Likewise, the offense makes the whole process of defending much easier if they can hold the puck in the opposition's end and sustain o-zone pressure.

[kickazz 5,459]

The 4 scoring line idea I think is a good one if only to get Jurco and others in the lineup over Miller.

I do think there would be potential problems with the matchup game, though. If we don't have a shutdown line, who are we putting out against Crosby and other top lines, especially if there's a D zone faceoff. If it's Larkin's line, they may do okay and get some chances, but I think it would effectively negate a fair amount of their offence if that's the regular match-up. If we roll the 4 lines pretty evenly we risk matchups like kickazz's line of Jurco-Sheahan-Mantha up against OV-Backstrom-Oshie. So how would we handle matchups?

Sidenote: I know people are sentimental about the Grindline, but Glendening is outproducing all except McCarty in the comparable points of their careers (3 years in). They each had about 3 boom years when they produced 30-40 pts, but that was the norm for their careers,

You wouldn't put that line against top line. You would put Nielsen against the top line because that's what Nielsen did when he played for the Islanders. That's what Zetterberg did in his prime. This whole 4th line against top line stuff only started like 3 years ago when Datsyuk and Zetterberg started aging. Otherwise Zetterberg's line was always the designated shutdown line. Nielsen is the new Zetterberg but not as elite.

As far as grindline. You're comparing a 24-27 year old Glendening to a 20 year old Kris Draper who only played a total of 20 games in his entire first three years combined. If you compared the them at the same age range, Draper was the better producer with around 2 minutes less ice time per game. The other one was Kirk Maltby, who was also a better producer. But anyways, I don't know why Glendening is coming up lol. We're talking about an entire 4th line vs another 4th line.

In 1998, the Grind line combined for a total of 72 points in the season, around 30 some goals. Maltby scored 14 goals and McCarty scored 14 the following year. All with 12-13 minutes per game of ice time. That's what made the grind line so good. That's what made them famous.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,492]

That ancient saying doesn't work in hockey anymore. Without Crosby, Kessel and to a lesser extent Malkin Pittsburgh would not have won the championship. Crosby was the number 1 reason they won the Stanley cup.

Having a third line made up on bona fide top six players didn't hurt either.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

The best defense is a good offense

[kickazz 5,459]

The best defense is a good offense

That works in hockey

----------------

Anyways, obviously we don't have the talent we did with Mike Babcock's prime years so it's tough for us to have good matchups like we used to. But you would think with the addition of Nielsen, they would use him for what he does. He's one of the centers in the leagues that attracts tough matchups. He's not known for scoring 80 points a year like Crosby. He's known to be a defensive shutdown center that scores around 50 points or so.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

You wouldn't put that line against top line. You would put Nielsen against the top line because that's what Nielsen did when he played for the Islanders. That's what Zetterberg did in his prime. This whole 4th line against top line stuff only started like 3 years ago when Datsyuk and Zetterberg started aging. Otherwise Zetterberg's line was always the designated shutdown line. Nielsen is the new Zetterberg but not as elite.

As far as grindline. You're comparing a 24-27 year old Glendening to a 20 year old Kris Draper who only played a total of 20 games in his entire first three years combined. If you compared the them at the same age range, Draper was the better producer with around 2 minutes less ice time per game.

Fine, here's a better way to show my point:

Draper's first 7 years in the league (or 10 if you count the 30 games in the Peg) - up until he was 29 - he only once had equal or more than Glendening's 21pts this past year. It was 23 pts when he was 26.

Maltby in his first 8 years in the league - up until he was 28 - only once had equal or more than Glendening's 21 pts this past year. It was 23 pts when he was 25.

Kocur only once in his career outproduced Glen's 21 pts.

Our 4th line as significant offensive contributors really only happened 01-04 when Drapes and Maltby were in their early 30s.

Glendening's doing fine for production if you compare him to these guys.

Edited August 8, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[kickazz 5,459]

This is a biased argument though. You are comparing Glendening who started playing a full season at age 25 and Draper who never actually played a full season in the NHL until his 6th season.Draper played like 20 games in the first 3 years and in his 4th, 5th and 6th years he only played 39, 36 and 52 games respectively. Not to mention Draper's ice time was 1.5 - 2 minutes less (around 12-13 minutes a night) than Glendenings. Draper played limited minutes for 10 years in the NHL. Only in 2001 did his icetime go upto like 15 minutes a night (a bit more than what Glendening gets now which is 14.5 minutes a night). And when he got the higher ice time his scoring went upto 30, 35 points.

It would likely be better to compare them when Glendening hits 32 years old and see if he could do what Draper did. Which until now, no other 4th liner in recent decades has. In his peak, Draper scored 24 goals, 40 points , had the best faceoff percent and won a Selke trophy.

But I will say it's a risky argument to compare Glendening to Draper. One of them was a Selke trophy winning, top league faceoff guy who had 20 + short handed goals in his career. The other only matches the points due to higher ice time.

As far as Kocur. He was a fighter. Not much else.

My original point was Grind line vs our current 4th line rather than individual players. So line wise grind line still produced more and actually was successful in shutting down Eric Lindros's line. Wheras our current fourth line can't exactly do that. In fact our current 4th line had to be split up where Glendening was paired with Datsyuk to try and shutdown Johnson last year and this year we rolled with Sheahan - Glendening - Abdelkader.

So it took Blashill one top 6 forward, one 3rd liner and one 4th liner to try to stop Kucherov/Drouin/Johnson. Which is my original point anyway. Take a look at the temporary 4th line of Sheahan - Glendening - Abdelkader that was used in the playoffs. That's not solely a shutdown line. That line has two scorers and a shutdown centerman. That's a scoring line on paper (probably a mid to low tier scoring line). The unfortunate issue was the philosophy still rode on eating up shots rather than creating some offense. But hey at least it's a start.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

Tl;dr

We didn't use our usual 4th line to try and shutdown Johnson and Kucherov this year OR last year in the playoffs. We use a line that consisted of 2 "scorers" and 1 "shutdown" forward. So why not roll that way all season long?

Tatar - Datsyuk - Glendening against the Johnson line.

Abdelkader - Glendening - Sheahan against Kucherov/ Johnson/ Drouin.

Not our usual Miller - Glendening - Plug.

Now I'm not saying we put Glendening on the top line. What I was saying was, can we make a defensively responsible scoring line as our 4th line? I would say yes we could. But there's also the Nielsen line that could be used for tough matchups, so that could be a better option too.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[NerveDamage 4,176]

That ancient saying doesn't work in hockey anymore. Without Crosby, Kessel and to a lesser extent Malkin Pittsburgh would not have won the championship. Crosby was the number 1 reason they won the Stanley cup.

interesting, leaving Murray out of the picture...

all I'm saying is I remember, in some games, watching SJ putting a lot of pressure on Pit trying to come back and tie a game and being shut down, even when they did score and tied it, and one would think things would get more interesting, minutes later Pit would ante it up and score what would end up being the gwg. that last game of the series was pretty obvious, SJ had the puck for a good portion of the end of the game but couldn't even enter the O-zone with puck possession and PIt would just clear the zone, SJ would regroup on their end and try again hitting that wall.

I know that in order to do this you can't be chasing the puck and be ahead in the scoreboard (Offense). Pit was better in faceoffs and shutdown the 3rd PP in the league whilst having the 5th best PK unit.

Ok so this is how they ranked in the season

Pit vs SJ

4th overall 11th

3rd O 4th they're pretty even here both good and solid offense. mind you SJ (9.11) had a better shoot% than Pit (7.2)

6th D 10th Both aren't top 5 D but Pit had a clear advantage

16th PP 3rd wait SJ is ranked way higher in pure offense stat

5th PK 21st and where D matters most you can see it clearly lopsided

and I agree with Kip about the HBK line, I konw you say it was mostly Crosby (and Kessel) but that 3rd line took away a lot of games before the finals.

if you take a look at the playoffs leaders Kessel lead with 10 G 22 pts and +5, Bonino 14 A and Murray with a 2.08GAA. meanwhile Sid had 6 G 19 pts and -2. I still don't get how he took the Conn Smythe from under Kessel, yet... I don't know how these things work

So I'm not saying D solely win championships but when it comes down to it, man, it sure does help. just take a look at LAK vs NYR and Chicago vs Tampa 1st D vs 1st O... remind me kick, who almost swept that series 4-1?

and if anyone thinks that AA Mantha Jurco, heck, even Helm or Z would make up for what we're lacking with E and how bleak our D looks then they're out of their minds.

Edited August 8, 2016 by NerveDamage

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

This is a biased argument though. You are comparing Glendening who started playing a full season at age 25 and Draper who never actually played a full season in the NHL until his 6th season.Draper played like 20 games in the first 3 years and in his 4th, 5th and 6th years he only played 39, 36 and 52 games respectively. Not to mention Draper's ice time was 1.5 - 2 minutes less (around 12-13 minutes a night) than Glendenings. Draper played limited minutes for 10 years in the NHL. Only in 2001 did his icetime go upto like 15 minutes a night (a bit more than what Glendening gets now which is 14.5 minutes a night).

It would likely be better to compare them when Glendening hits 32 years old and see if he could do what Draper did. Which until now, no other 4th liner in recent decades has. In his peak, Draper scored 24 goals, 40 points , had the best faceoff percent and won a Selke trophy.

I don't see where the bias is on my side. I can't really argue the TOI aspect because they don't have those stats from Draper's first 8 years. I'm not arguing that Draper didn't reach greater heights - just the amount of production from Glendening compared to these 4th liners through the majority of their careers.

Also, you have a couple things wrong:

Glendening only played 52 games when he was 25

Glen this past year 14:35

www.hockeyreference.com

I'll try to make the comparison as close as possible:

Glen Draper

Age: 25 Age:25

GP: 56 GP: 76

Pts: 7 Pts:13

Age: 26 Age:26

GP: 82 GP: 64

Pts: 18 Pts: 23

Age: 27 Age: 27

GP: 81 GP: 80

Pts: 21 Pts: 18

ATOI:14:35 ATOI: 12:43

Draper had the advantage of being in the league for more years, better linemates, better team

Glendening had the advantage of more TOI (only the one year, since Draper's stats aren't know the other 2 years)

[kickazz 5,459]

Because Murray didn't have much to do in the series. San Jose had what? like 19 shots on him in game 6? Pittsburgh's offense piledrived the hell out of San Jose throughout the series. 40+ shots in like 3 games. Absolutely wrecked them.

I don't see where the bias is on my side. I can't really argue the TOI aspect because they don't have those stats from Draper's first 8 years. I'm not arguing that Draper didn't reach greater heights - just the amount of production from Glendening compared to these 4th liners through the majority of their careers.

Also, you have a couple things wrong:

Glendening only played 52 games when he was 25

Glen this past year 14:35

www.hockeyreference.com

I'll try to make the comparison as close as possible:

Glen Draper

Age: 25 Age:25

GP: 56 GP: 76

Pts: 7 Pts:13

Age: 26 Age:26

GP: 82 GP: 64

Pts: 18 Pts: 23

Age: 27 Age: 27

GP: 81 GP: 80

Pts: 21 Pts: 18

ATOI:14:35 ATOI: 12:43

Draper had the advantage of being in the league for more years, better linemates, better team

Glendening had the advantage of more TOI (only the one year, since Draper's stats aren't know the other 2 years)

Right so by these numbers then Draper was the better producer. Out of the 3 years you listed Glendening produced more only once but he also averaged the ice time of a 3rd/2nd liner while like your chart says Draper had like 12:43 TOI and only scored 3 less points.

So Draper is the better producer so far lol. I mean not by much though but nonetheless Glendog isn't better not yet at least. Far as linemates, Kocur was not one to rely on for help with scoring. Maltby was a good linemate. But doesn't that support my original point? Make the 4th line more of a scoring and defensive line. Rid the Drew Millers.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[NerveDamage 4,176]

to all that contradict my post, yeah, I know it's cliche as hell, just look at the past Stanley Cup Champions the higher ranked deffensive team has won the stanley cup

LAK vs NJD (29th O, 1st D vs 15th O, 8thD)

CHI vs BOS (2nd O, 1st D vs 13th O, 3rdD)

LAK vs NYR (26th O, 1st D vs 18th O, 4thD)

CHI vs TBL (17thO,2nd D vs 1st O, 12thD)

[kickazz 5,459]

and I agree with Kip about the HBK line, I konw you say it was mostly Crosby (and Kessel) but that 3rd line took away a lot of games before the finals.

You said offense wins games, defense wins championships. From what I saw with Pittsburgh, Murray and HBK won games but Crosby won the championship. Although one shouldn't take what I said literally but in the San Jose series, Crosby took it to another level. Hence why he won the Conn Smythe instead of Murray or any of the HBK.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[NerveDamage 4,176]

You said offense wins games, defense wins championships. From what I saw with Pittsburgh, Murray and HBK won games but Crosby won the championship. Although one shouldn't take what I said literally but in the San Jose series, Crosby took it to another level. Hence why he won the Conn Smythe instead of Murray or any of the HBK.

yeah and championships are not one single game, or a few games of a series, for Pitssburgh their playoff run started after the trade deadline,

Love how you avoid my other points, usual kick, when you're right you're right and when not..., wait what are we talking about?

[kickazz 5,459]

Who needs to play D when the puck is in the offensive zone? Lol.

offense wins games defense wins championships

Look.

The original point made by the other poster was "who needs to play D when the puck is in the offensive zone" to which you responded "offense wins games defense wins championships". Now you're saying the best defensive teams won the championships. But to make the original posters point stronger. He's right.

Look at the last Stanley cup wins possession numbers. LA, Chicago, Boston and Ptitsburgh are all ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th in possession year in and year out. Which supports the original posters "who needs to play D when the puck is in the offensive zone".

yeah and championships are not one single game, or a few games of a series, for Pitssburgh their playoff run started after the trade deadline,

Love how you avoid my other points, usual kick, when you're right you're right and when not..., wait what are we talking about?

Wow you're actually getting offended over this and attacking me lol.

Ok I'm done.

For the record I wasn't the only one to point against out your statement of "offense wins games defense wins championships"

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Because Murray didn't have much to do in the series. San Jose had what? like 19 shots on him in game 6? Pittsburgh's offense piledrived the hell out of San Jose throughout the series. 40+ shots in like 3 games. Absolutely wrecked them.

Right so by these numbers then Draper was the better producer. Out of the 3 years you listed Glendening produced more only once but he also averaged the ice time of a 3rd/2nd liner while like your chart says Draper had like 12:43 TOI and only scored 3 less points.

So Draper is the better producer lol.

Alright, truce. I'm not going to try to convince you. I wasn't even arguing that Glendening is the better producer than Draper - Just that he's in line with the production of our Grind Lind, other than their few outlier years.

Just take another look at Draper, Maltby, Kocur's McCarty's stats and you'll see each only has a few years when they each contributed significant offence. I didn't even need to bring Glendening into it. Usually those players were 20 pts or lower.

[kickazz 5,459]

Alright, truce. I'm not going to try to convince you. I wasn't even arguing that Glendening is the better producer than Draper - Just that he's in line with the production of our Grind Lind, other than their few outlier years.

Just take another look at Draper, Maltby, Kocur's McCarty's stats and you'll see each only has a few years when they each contributed significant offence. I didn't even need to bring Glendening into it. Usually those players were 20 pts or lower.

If anything your points made me realize Glendening needs better wingers and the 4th line could be even better. So in a way you convinced me of something. Helm- Glendog - Sheahan. I still think that would be one of the best in the league.

Edited August 8, 2016 by kickazz

[NerveDamage 4,176]

Look.

The original point made by the other poster was "who needs to play D when the puck is in the offensive zone" to which you responded "offense wins games defense wins championships". Now you're saying the best defensive teams won the championships. But to make the original posters point stronger. He's right.

Look at the last Stanley cup wins possession numbers. LA, Chicago, Boston and Ptitsburgh are all ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th in possession year in and year out. Which supports the original posters "who needs to play D when the puck is in the offensive zone".

Wow you're actually getting offended over this and attacking me lol.

Ok I'm done.

I'm not offended by this, just found it funny how you respond to only bits and pieces here and there. I know my argument might be flawed, and as I've said before I'm not that savvy ont he sport and stat, just tried to explained better my point. Anyways Sorry if I attacked or offended you.

[kickazz 5,459]

I'm not offended by this, just found it funny how you respond to only bits and pieces here and there. I know my argument might be flawed, and as I've said before I'm not that savvy ont he sport and stat, just tried to explained better my point. Anyways Sorry if I attacked or offended you.

I don't see why I needed to respond to the other points? You yourself in the post said "I'm not saying D solely wins championships". Which is exactly what the rest of us were saying. Defense is not as important as "the saying" makes it out to be. Everything wins you championships, from coaching, to defense to offense. So what would have been the point of me responding to all that? The only thing I responded to was when you mentioned how I didn't talk about Murray. And I told you why I didn't talk about Murray. He just wasn't as essential in the final games as Crosby was. You don't need to get personal about it and say "typical kick does this and that" or "funny how you only respond to bits and pieces". There's PMs for all that.

Edited August 9, 2016 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

In other news. Zetterberg will be used as a Wing and Larkin will be used as a Center.

The line will be Zetterberg - Larkin - Abdelkader according to Khan.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/08/red_wings_outlook_henrik_zette_1.html

The good news is Z will be a wing. But on the other hand he will still be on the first line. Not sure how I feel about that.

Edited August 9, 2016 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I'd do this,

Zetterberg Nielsen Abdelkader matched up with other top lines

Mantha Larkin Tatar

Nyquist AA Jurco

Sheahan Helm Glendening as a defensive line, their job is to hit and agitate

[NerveDamage 4,176]

I don't see why I needed to respond to the other points? You yourself in the post said "I'm not saying D solely wins championships". Which is exactly what the rest of us were saying. Defense is not as important as "the saying" makes it out to be. Everything wins you championships, from coaching, to defense to offense. So what would have been the point of me responding to all that? The only thing I responded to was when you mentioned how I didn't talk about Murray. And I told you why I didn't talk about Murray. He just wasn't as essential in the final games as Crosby was. You don't need to get personal about it and say "typical kick does this and that" or "funny how you only respond to bits and pieces". There's PMs for all that.

well this took a wrong turn somewhere, I understood the convo heading towards who cares about D when you have a killer offense that has the puck on the other end so there's no need to worry.

I know we like our team but I believe is way more important to have a solid D, hence my first and subsequent comments trying to explain my point. (which wasn't Murray at all, that was collateral damage). And that's the problem I've seen with our team lately, a surplus of offensive players and lacking where I think our main concern should be. But I guess we have to work with what we've got. I just refuse to believe altering that 4th line like that will make up for pur lack of D

Once again, Sorry, I'll be more careful with my phrasing, when posting so there's no need for latter pm's explaining privately what was said publicly. It's better to avoid saying inappropriate things at all.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

In other news. Zetterberg will be used as a Wing and Larkin will be used as a Center.

The line will be Zetterberg - Larkin - Abdelkader according to Khan.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/08/red_wings_outlook_henrik_zette_1.html

The good news is Z will be a wing. But on the other hand he will still be on the first line. Not sure how I feel about that.

Good article, gives us hope to see more of Z and not diminished to a 3rd line roll as some purport him to be

[LeftWinger 4,934]

I Throw Up At The Thought that Pittsburgh has more Cups than us post lockout...😳

I'll take that line, as long as the other scoring line is Tatar-Nielsen-Vanek

[kickazz 5,459]

It's people like this guy who give hockey and hockey fights a bad name. Damir Ryspayev of the KHL. Move info on what will happen to this guy soon.