Jeff Blashill

[marcaractac 3,963]

53 minutes ago, DatsyukianDekes said:

The team in it's first 8 games, albeit short window looked extremely good. They all hustled, wanted the puck, forechecked like crazy but after those 8 games the team has gone back to it's old ways, playing 20-30 minutes a night. 

Is it our coaching? system? players? I have no idea at this point. It's like guys are trying to play themselves off the team rather than win games. Perhaps playing inferior players has messed the lockerroom up.

 

The team looked dreadful in the first 8 games overall. I felt they played well in 2 or 3 of those 8 games tops. That game vs the Rangers stands out as an ugly one that Howard stole for us. 

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, marcaractac said:

The team looked dreadful in the first 8 games overall. I felt they played well in 2 or 3 of those 8 games tops. That game vs the Rangers stands out as an ugly one that Howard stole for us. 

After the Florida/TB games I thought overall we looked pretty good in those 8. We were first in the league in scoring and our goalies were playing great. I was at the Ottawa game and thought we looked awesome. To be fair though, I missed the NYR game.

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

3 hours ago, Echolalia said:

I dunno.  They were winning more back then but I personally don't think they looked particularly good during that span.

Aside from the TB and NYR game, they were the better team in most of those games.

[AtlantaHotWings 1,135]

3 hours ago, DatsyukianDekes said:

The team in it's first 8 games, albeit short window looked extremely good. They all hustled, wanted the puck, forechecked like crazy but after those 8 games the team has gone back to it's old ways, playing 20-30 minutes a night. 

Is it our coaching? system? players? I have no idea at this point. It's like guys are trying to play themselves off the team rather than win games. Perhaps playing inferior players has messed the lockerroom up.

Maybe they have toured the new facility and are upset that the locker room is better there?

 I lived through the Dead Wings era, The return to glory years, and now the Non effort era.

I have watched fewer games this year due to travel but when I have watched. My blood pressure goes up and I get angry so not worth it.

I will do my annual trip to the Joe but looking at the Fri/Sat games I feel there are min chances for a win...on a positive maybe ticket prices will stay down. 

[kipwinger 8,770]

12 hours ago, wings4thecup06 said:

Would you consider Hall a superstar? Definitely Karlsson and Lundqvist, and the Rangers have a better core than we do right now. 

 

But I agree. It's a coaching issue. And we've all seen Blashill's inability and lack of desire to play young players over veterans - see last year, Tatar and Nyquist's ice time cut, AA playing 4 mins in the playoffs, Sproul scratched for 7 or so games after being very effective.

I personally wonder if there's pressure over head from management to 'win or else' and thus the safest way to do that is to play veterans who at least are competent at this level. 

Granted I never saw the Wings in the deadwings era, but having watched this team for nearly 20 years now, I can't ever remember a time when we looked this bad.

• Guys don't seem to have energy or desire
• There's literally no forecheck
• We seem to be stuck offensively and play a dump and chase style half the time and rarely come up with the puck 
• The PP usage is baffling but I wonder if Blashill putting Sproul and Green together is just his way of trying to break us out of a funk by putting our best offensive D men on the same unit? 
• Another PP observation is zone entries. They are just lost without Datsyuk bringing the puck in and setting up everytime. 

Even then, the forecheck really does get me. As you're rightly saying, we are quick and have good speed, but no one seems to know how to utilise it. 

And with Howard playing like an all star, I would have assumed we'd be a bit better than this right now

For whatever reason, I get the impression that this team is trying to play a puck possession game, can't because they aren't skilled enough, so they dump and chase, yet don't have the tenacity or physicality to succeed there either.

 

 

 

I don't consider Hall a "superstar".  I don't even consider Lundquist one.  But I also realize it's an arbitrary distinction. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

On 11/22/2016 at 7:58 PM, kipwinger said:

I don't consider Hall a "superstar".  I don't even consider Lundquist one.  But I also realize it's an arbitrary distinction. 

Hall = Top 5 LW = Superstar
Lundy = Top 5 goalie = Superstar

[joesuffP 1,746]

How long does old Blashill got before he's canned? Seems like it's the first move Holland can make easily to save face for right now. Kind of hope the wings keep losing and we can get rid of this guy to at least shake things up

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

How long does old Blashill got before he's canned? Seems like it's the first move Holland can make easily to save face for right now. Kind of hope the wings keep losing and we can get rid of this guy to at least shake things up

If the season continues like this, I see the earliest being sometime around the draft and free agency. I doubt we will lose him mid-season. Holland and co I'm sure will give him all opportunities to right the ship before a canning.

The question is who we think will become available for hire. Hitchcock?

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

20 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If the season continues like this, I see the earliest being sometime around the draft and free agency. I doubt we will lose him mid-season. Holland and co I'm sure will give him all opportunities to right the ship before a canning.

The question is who we think will become available for hire. Hitchcock?

I think you're second question helps answer the first one as well. If things continue like this, it'll make a good coach becoming available all the more enticing. I would love Hitchcock. Isn't he retiring though?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Just now, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

I think you're second question helps answer the first one as well. If things continue like this, it'll make a good coach becoming available all the more enticing. I would love Hitchcock. Isn't he retiring though?

Without going back to look this up, I believe he signed a 1 year extension with STL for this season and said after this year he's done. Does that mean he's done in St. Louis or done altogether? Most took it to mean he's going to retire, but there's a lot of speculation that he has plenty of coaching left in him and he still wants to coach. He's always been described as a guy who loves his job.

[kylee 727]

Why won't we fire Blashill? Florida fired Gallant for much less. 

[marcaractac 3,963]

For a young team like the Wings, I think a coach like Ted Nolan would be a good fit. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 minute ago, marcaractac said:

For a young team like the Wings, I think a coach like Ted Nolan would be a good fit. 

I'll take Hitch or Gallant. Ted left his junior team to be the Sabres HC for one year as a favor to them and then went straight back to his junior team. He's lost any NHL moxy he once had.

[marcaractac 3,963]

6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'll take Hitch or Gallant. Ted left his junior team to be the Sabres HC for one year as a favor to them and then went straight back to his junior team. He's lost any NHL moxy he once had.

1

I beg to differ. Just look at what he did for Latvia in the Olympics. No doubt he can bring out the best in a less experienced team.

By no means am I saying he is a potential long-term solution, but I think he ould be great for this team right now.  

[Dabura 12,232]

5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Without going back to look this up, I believe he signed a 1 year extension with STL for this season and said after this year he's done. Does that mean he's done in St. Louis or done altogether? Most took it to mean he's going to retire, but there's a lot of speculation that he has plenty of coaching left in him and he still wants to coach. He's always been described as a guy who loves his job.

A few years old, but still a good read:

Systems Theory: Ken Hitchcock and the Nonstop Blues

Quote

There are details and intricacies to the system, but Hitchcock himself says his current system is rooted in the forecheck. The focus is on making the other team spend as much time in their own zone as possible. It's an interesting point that he says it's the system that was implemented with the 2010 Olympic team, and that Mike Babcock (another possession-minded coach) is in agreement with the system's core philosophies. His system's overarching model can be surmised in a quick point for each end of the ice: you have to play really, really fast defensively, and protect the puck like crazy offensively. He's mentioned "buzzwords" and "terminology" in the past, and I tend to think it's a pretty big part of the reason players are able to pick up his systems and execute them to perfection, almost regardless of the personnel at hand. He's able to communicate and distill what can be a very complex and intricate system into its core components — something more digestible.

Hitchock is trying to achieve defensive perfection and the results are fairly startling. Watch film of St. Louis' forecheck for hours on end until you want to pull your eyes out — I did — and it becomes clear the execution level is next to none. The precision and effort level is constant and unrelenting. The NHL season is a long one, and despite less games, the schedule is slightly more compressed this year. The Blues aren't tailoring their game plan to each team they play, they're bringing the attack, there's too little time between games to risk what Hitchock calls "information overload." Hitchock is a Civil War buff that has studied and recognized historic trends and strategies in extracting the last drop of potential and battle level out of his troops.

Borrowing from stereotypes developed in years past, it would be easy to think that a Hitchockian system would be slow, plodding and defensive — particularly given the Blues' propensity to let in less than two goals a night on a regular basis. But this edition of the Blues couldn't be farther from that notion. The pace that this team clicks along at is staggering and borderline exhausting to watch, let alone play at. The amount of full speed skating that the team engages in is unbelievable and unlike most other teams. They're incredibly aggressive on the forecheck, in engaging the body as well as on pinches. As stated, the execution is second to none, the amount of passes zipped right on sticks is staggering. The urgency, aggression, pace and support on the forecheck combined with their veracity on the backcheck simply wears opponents down and leaves little time to think or react.

Hitchcock is known for being an extremely demanding taskmaster whose coaching style and systems tend to lead to burnout and disillusionment among his players. What I like about him, though, is that he truly loves, loves, loves, loves, loves, loves, loves hockey. He's not just a student of the game -- he's an obsessive, fanatical nerd. Hockey -- anything and everything about it -- is his lifeblood. This is the "softer" side of his reputation and, to me, it's something that sets him apart from many other hockey minds. If Ken Hitchcock couldn't be a hockey coach...he would find a way to be a hockey coach.

[kickazz 5,459]

7 more years and we can hire Babcock again.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

12 minutes ago, Dabura said:

A few years old, but still a good read:

Systems Theory: Ken Hitchcock and the Nonstop Blues

Hitchcock is known for being an extremely demanding taskmaster whose coaching style and systems tend to lead to burnout and disillusionment among his players. What I like about him, though, is that he truly loves, loves, loves, loves, loves, loves, loves hockey. He's not just a student of the game -- he's an obsessive, fanatical nerd. Hockey -- anything and everything about it -- is his lifeblood. This is the "softer" side of his reputation and, to me, it's something that sets him apart from many other hockey minds. If Ken Hitchcock couldn't be a hockey coach...he would find a way to be a hockey coach.

I have pretty much have the exact same interpretation of him. Always respected and liked the guy. Also part of the reason why I don't think he's done after STL. He's just tired of being on the chopping block there, and so he's making the decision for them since they seem to keep flirting with the idea of firing him but can never pull the trigger. Get him on our bench please.

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

11 minutes ago, kickazz said:

7 more years and we can hire Babcock again.

Lol hes never going to make that full contract.

[kickazz 5,459]

Lol I remember reading this article a while ago

http://www.hockeyworldblog.com/2010/02/07/is-red-wings-coach-mike-babcock-on-the-hot-seat/

[xtrememachine1 795]

On 12/14/2016 at 1:46 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'll take Hitch or Gallant. Ted left his junior team to be the Sabres HC for one year as a favor to them and then went straight back to his junior team. He's lost any NHL moxy he once had.

I would take Hitch in a heartbeat.  He's been successful everywhere he's gone except Columbus.  He would fix up our defense real quick.

[LeftWinger 5,152]

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 2:22 PM, F.Michael said:

I must respectfully disagree...Babcock is probably one of a very few who's capable of turning that franchise around...Having Lou Lamoriello as your GM also helps.

You mean Having a GM that makes the necessary hard changes and cuts ties with vets, right? Wish we had that...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

You mean Having a GM that makes the necessary hard changes and cuts ties with vets, right? Wish we had that...

Lou has made plenty of terrible decisions over the years. IMO most overrated GM of all time. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

So Gallant is available. Hitch might be available.

Oh and Patty Wa is available........  

[Richdg 267]

I will defend Blashill just a little. He isn't the one putting together the roster. He can only play the hand he has been dealt. Yes he needs to be better at that. But Blashill isn't teaching Nyquist to fall down everytime someone thinks about checking him, nor is he telling Tatar to shoot over the top of the net and hit the glass everytime, nor is he teaching Sheahan to hit the GK in the belly button each time he shoots. The cold hard trueth is the talent level isn't good enough on this team. The young guys with talent are not yet ready and the old vets are declining at a faster rate than the youth is improving.

Blashill most likely gets a 3rd year unless Holland retires/gets fired. The the new GM will hire a new coach.

[kipwinger 8,770]

Since we're throwing around the names of coaches we're interested in, I'll play too.  Top of my list is Todd Richards.  He did a lot with a little in Columbus and got fired when he shouldn't have (the Gallant treatment, if you will).  His teams play relentless, aggressive, and fast paced.  And he did very well developing several young centers (Johansen and Jenner), which appeals to me with Larkin and AA needing to take over in that regard. 

I'd also be interested in Ralph Kruger, though admittedly I only know him from the World Cup and would need to do more digging before finally endorsing him.