• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

joesuffP

Jeff Blashill

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Quote - Following Wednesday’s game, coach Jeff Blashill said he needs better consistency from Andreas Athanasiou. “His first half was really good. I didn’t like the second part of the second period. He’s got to make sure he plays complete for the whole time. He’s got to make sure he’s on it. He wasn't winning as many battles, he wasn't as engaged, skatingwise, and he wasn't on the puck."

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2016/11/03/detroit-red-wings-injuries/93244294/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

We'll, I guess we know who's going to GR when Jurco comes back...wtf is Blashill's problem with AA? He's been one of his better guys.  If AA gets this criticism, wtf does Z or Abby or disney.com or Tatar get? Wtf man!? I'm beginning to hate Jeff Blashill. 

3

Why is the rest of the team allowed to get away with not playing 60 minutes, but AA can't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

Why is the rest of the team allowed to get away with not playing 60 minutes, but AA can't?

My theory is he can't pronounce AA's name correctly and that makes him mad, so he doesn't want to play the kid. That and the Darren Helm Jr. thing, along with a healthy dose of "Babcock had a whipping boy I should too."

Edited by DickieDunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole team is weak on the puck offensively and defensively. I think that's the biggest issue and why they're the worst possession team in the league. They need better puck support if they're going to be so weak and frail. That's when the wings looked good. Two men on the puck out numbering them and being relentless. They just stopped doing that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dabura said:

"I would’ve liked to use [Athanasiou] in that situation, but I didn’t like his second half of the game at all. And I told him that, so I have no problem saying that." -- Jeff Blashill, re: why he didn't use Athanasiou in the OT on Wednesday night. (Said this morning on 97.1. Credit to a WIIM poster for pointing this out.)

It's at this point that I say, "Get bent."

Now, that being said...

I agree. At the end of the day, the problem at the root of all of our problems is Ken Holland.

And one of the issues with Holland is he won't fire Trashill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D used to move up in the neutral zone and cause turnovers, re enter the zone quickly now they just sit back and try not to make mistakes. Sometimes it will cause headaches like that game against the Rangers but it's better than watching this dribble. Getting dominated in every area of the game is unacceptable I don't care what the roster is like

 

The AA situation is especially terrible because now he's creating tension with a young player that's part of our future. He'll do the exact same thing with Mantha. At this point he is just relying on Babcock's old methods because he's clueless

Edited by joesuffP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dabura said:

"I would’ve liked to use [Athanasiou] in that situation, but I didn’t like his second half of the game at all. And I told him that, so I have no problem saying that." -- Jeff Blashill, re: why he didn't use Athanasiou in the OT on Wednesday night. (Said this morning on 97.1. Credit to a WIIM poster for pointing this out.)

It's at this point that I say, "Get bent."

Now, that being said...

I agree. At the end of the day, the problem at the root of all of our problems is Ken Holland.

Well I am 1000% positive that AA would've shot the puck instead of standing there like a deer in headlights like Helm did that lead to the loss... I do not like Blashill. 

When AA is an RFA,  I can see him taking a stance much like Trouba.

I wouldn't blame him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

A line that isn't capable of possessing the puck for any significant amount of time is not effective. Players that are constantly defending because they can't gain possession of the puck are not effective players. 

"A minute or three" of ice time absolutely does make a difference, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. You take a single shift away from a player, and the entire outcome there after is entirely different (for better or worse).

Yup, I often "fantasize" about the OMG line being awful. That's why I think they're so bad, because I want them to be bad......

Possession metrics are valuable because there is a general correlation with winning. But it is not an absolute correlation. You don't win a game because you out-possess the other team. A poor possession line is usually unlikely to be effective over a given period, but that doesn't mean they can't be. 

We are the worst possession team in the league, but we're tied for the 9th best record, and have the 7th best goal differential. Overall, we've been effective despite our poor possession. Our 4th line has been awful in possession, despite that, they haven't been getting scored on much and have chipped in a few goals. They have been effective.

Will they continue to be? Probably not, or least not as effective as they have been. But it's unlikely that any 4th line we put together will be much better. 

What is an extra few shifts going to do that the other 15 or so in a game don't? It's not like anyone we have is out there dominating every shift. AA has poor possession numbers as well (and like most of our team, he's still been effective despite that). Same goes for Helm. Sheahan not much better. Tatar is 2nd on the team in icetime, and our best possession player, but he hasn't been scoring. The team has scored at a better rate with Ott, Glendening, and even Miller on the ice, and allowed fewer against as well.

The idea that giving AA a bunch more time or calling up Mantha is going to make any real difference is a fantasy.

15 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

...wtf is Blashill's problem with AA? He's been one of his better guys.  If AA gets this criticism, wtf does Z or Abby or disney.com or Tatar get? Wtf man!? I'm beginning to hate Jeff Blashill. 

AA was criticized because someone specifically asked about AA. People make way too big a deal out of criticisms aimed at players they like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not an "absolute" correlation in the sense that the best possession team ranks 1st, 2nd best ranks 2nd, and so on, but generally speaking the better possession teams are the more successful teams. From a game to game basis, I'll agree. Teams can win games getting badly outplayed and vice-versa, but never does a team get out-played every game, and win the majority of those games, unless you have a Carey Price (which we don't). Same goes for lines. A line can get badly outplayed in a game or two and come out on the positive goal differential, but more often than not, that line that constantly gets outplayed, and does nothing but defend, is going to lose games for the team...

Small sample size. We are the worst possession team in the league, and we also have the 3rd highest PDO. Winning games at that rate is unsustainable. Something needs to change...

Whether or not our 4th line has been a detriment to this teams success yet, it's only a matter of time before they start costing the team more games with those awful possession numbers.

You may not think that giving those minutes to Athanasiou, Mantha, or whoever would help, but I do. We won't know unless it's tested (it won't be), but what's the harm in trying? Obviously what we're currently doing isn't working / isn't going to continue to work. You really don't think a 4th line of Sheahan - Helm - Glendening is any better than Miller - Glendening - Ott? Miller and Ott should not have a place on this team. Disagree if you want, but I stand by that statement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

No it's not an "absolute" correlation in the sense that the best possession team ranks 1st, 2nd best ranks 2nd, and so on, but generally speaking the better possession teams are the more successful teams. From a game to game basis, I'll agree. Teams can win games getting badly outplayed and vice-versa, but never does a team get out-played every game, and win the majority of those games, unless you have a Carey Price (which we don't). Same goes for lines. A line can get badly outplayed in a game or two and come out on the positive goal differential, but more often than not, that line that constantly gets outplayed, and does nothing but defend, is going to lose games for the team...

Small sample size. We are the worst possession team in the league, and we also have the 3rd highest PDO. Winning games at that rate is unsustainable. Something needs to change...

Whether or not our 4th line has been a detriment to this teams success yet, it's only a matter of time before they start costing the team more games with those awful possession numbers.

You may not think that giving those minutes to Athanasiou, Mantha, or whoever would help, but I do. We won't know unless it's tested (it won't be), but what's the harm in trying? Obviously what we're currently doing isn't working / isn't going to continue to work. You really don't think a 4th line of Sheahan - Helm - Glendening is any better than Miller - Glendening - Ott? Miller and Ott should not have a place on this team. Disagree if you want, but I stand by that statement...

Getting a bit off the original topic. To re-clarify: You started out saying Blashill's system and approach was fine, with player usage his only problem, and suggested it must be Holland dictating usage. 

But the player usage isn't what you think it is, or all that different from most teams, nor has our 4th line been causing any problems for us. Not this year, and not last year. So regardless of what you believe might happen in the future, or what the stats say is likely to happen, it is not what has happened and does not explain Blashill's mediocre results.

Sheahan-Glendening-Helm was a line for a while last year. They were not that good. Better than what I'd expect from Miller-Glendening-Ott maybe, but not enough better to make any real difference. Maybe Mantha could step in and be a star right away, have an Ovie-level impact. But I'd say the odds of that are extremely small, and anything less than that just isn't going to make any real difference either. 

No doubt something needs to change, but that something goes so far beyond Miller and Ott that it is silly to even mention them, much less constantly harp on them like they're the biggest issue. Even if the OMG line stays together all year, and continues to be a wreck possession-wise, it will likely be less of a problem and cost fewer games than we have already suffered because of Tatar and Abdelkader not scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Tough live is one thing, needing to pepper every ounce of praise with a pound of criticism and calling out a kid for the same mistakes you ignore in your vets is flat out stupid.

 

5 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Well I am 1000% positive that AA would've shot the puck instead of standing there like a deer in headlights like Helm did that lead to the loss... I do not like Blashill. 

When AA is an RFA,  I can see him taking a stance much like Trouba.

I wouldn't blame him.

Come on guys, this is a bit extreme. His comments were

"I would’ve liked to use [Athanasiou] in that situation, but I didn’t like his second half of the game at all. And I told him that, so I have no problem saying that."

It's not like he called AA a pile of hot garbage. If AA cant handle being told that he had a bad second half, then he needs to develop a thicker skin. I haven't heard AA complain so I am sure he is just fine, but if he were to do what Lefty is implying, that is weak for something so small.

I'm not defending his approach to vets, and I am not defending him as a coach, but in this instance it is really not a big deal. A reporter likely asked him about AA specifically and that was his answer.

I also 100% agree with kickazz earlier in this thread when he said not to categorize Zetterberg as one to be "called out". All you can ask of your players is to give it their all. A guy like AA is young and needs guidance to help with his development. Zetterberg is a guy that when he messes up, it is likely due to the fact he can't get his body to do what it once did because of everything he has put his body through for this team.

He gets a damn pass as long as he is doing his best with what he has left.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on guys, this is a bit extreme. His comments were
"I would’ve liked to use [Athanasiou] in that situation, but I didn’t like his second half of the game at all. And I told him that, so I have no problem saying that."
It's not like he called AA a pile of hot garbage. If AA cant handle being told that he had a bad second half, then he needs to develop a thicker skin. I haven't heard AA complain so I am sure he is just fine, but if he were to do what Lefty is implying, that is weak for something so small.
I'm not defending his approach to vets, and I am not defending him as a coach, but in this instance it is really not a big deal. A reporter likely asked him about AA specifically and that was his answer.
I also 100% agree with kickazz earlier in this thread when he said not to categorize Zetterberg as one to be "called out". All you can ask of your players is to give it their all. A guy like AA is young and needs guidance to help with his development. Zetterberg is a guy that when he messes up, it is likely due to the fact he can't get his body to do what it once did because of everything he has put his body through for this team.
He gets a damn pass as long as he is doing his best with what he has left.


For the most part we're not talking about Zetterberg, we're talking about everyone else, particularly the superstars on the OMG line who do no wrong.

But the idea that he shouldn't be criticized for his play because of his past is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

 


For the most part we're not talking about Zetterberg, we're talking about everyone else, particularly the superstars on the OMG line who do no wrong.

But the idea that he shouldn't be criticized for his play because of his past is ludicrous.

My original Zetterberg comments were not directed at you, the part directed at you was the part about AA.

With that being said since you think it's "ludicrous" not calling out Z....... what's actually ludicrous is criticizing a player because he is not the player he used to be when has done what Z has done for the organization. The is a classic example of spoiled Red Wing fans. Its that "what have you done for me lately" cynical and callus attitude.

If Zetterberg makes a bonehead play, or is not giving full effort, sure I get it, fans can criticize. But to be upset or wanting him to be called out because he cant score like he used to, or he isn't as fast as he used to be etc. is ridicules. All you can ask out of Z is to put his best effort forward. It's not even like he can retire, that would hurt us even more. Best case for Z, is he plays a couple more years, then at some point he realizes his body cant go anymore and he goes on LTIR. I don't believe he would even be eligible for that right now. (Yes I realize to do this we would have to trade Franzen's contract). I know you are waiting to say that.

As far as Blashill not criticizing Zetterberg through the media. I have no problem with it. A new coach shouldn't be criticizing a player like Zetterberg publicly. Do it behind closed doors if it's needed. What is it going to solve other then making DickeDunn happy? Its not an AA situation where it could be used as a motivator.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking one comment and blowing it out of proportion. Blashill doesn't even dis AA in that comment, in my opinion.

Here's other quotes from Blashill on AA:

"Double A is a good player who’s growing. Double A will prove whether or not if he can an elite player, but when he left the American League he was not yet an elite player, so to think all of a sudden he’s going to come here and be an elite player I think is asking a lot of him.

I have thought he’s shown flashes of elite and that’s why we’ve used him in the minutes that we’ve used him."

http://windsorstar.com/sports/hockey/given-the-opportunity-athanasiou-delivers-for-wings

The underlining assumption in these words are that Blashill thinks he can be elite so that's a good review. I think he should be played more, but I don't buy that there's a conflict at all. Many on here were sure that AA would be in the AHL and he's been playing on top lines so that should be taken into account when thinking of AA's usage - i.e. we should at least give them credit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

Generally when a young player sis showing flashes of elite play, good coaches don't cut their minutes or bench them.

 

Can you imagine if Babs treated the kids that way in Toronto? There would be rioting. 

If this team is gonna lose games, let the kids take their lumps. They can learn from it. This "rebuild on the fly" bulls*** does not work if you're not willing to make trades for elite talent. If you're gonna hang on to every prospect you have, at least tank a season so you can get a great one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many issues with this team. Only some of these issues are Blashill. He is still just the coach and has to play the players provided for him by Holland. Now where Blashill does deserve some heat is the always changing lines. Ok maybe he is trying to milk production out of a group that doesn't have the talent. That is true to some extent. But it also takes time-game time for a line to develop chemistry. The younger the players the more this is true. Here are jsut some of the things I see:

1. To many C's being used as wingers. Z, Larkin, AA, Helm, Sheahan, Neilsson, are all netural C's. Not every C can be a winger. For years we heard Holland and Bab's take about "Helm being the best #3 C in the NHL". Since those days Helm has rarely played as the #3 C. he has been used as a winger and top 6 forward. Z moving to winger is a good idea at his age and long history of injury, but Larkin and AA need to play C now to develop as stars at the position. They are our future.

2. 75%+ of all goals in the NHL are scored from within 15ft of the goal. We have no one that can work that area effectively. Abby is the only one that can do it and he is only average. To work in that area you need the will, size, strength, and skill. Watch our PP. Last night we had a F group of Z, Nyquist and Tatar on the ice together. The biggest of the 3 is Z. Think about that. So we spend our entire PP skating around with the puck 40ft+ from the net. Anyone wonder why we can't score on a regular basis? 

3. Blashill is a young NHL coach. As with any job it takes time to learn what that involves. If he is our future, then we should be playing the players that are our future. Larkin, Mantha, AA, DD, Sproul, Oullett, and Marchenko should be in every lineup that they are healthy. Fill in the rest with the vets. Later this year I expect Svechnikov to join that group.

4. What are we/who are we as a team? We have the highest payroll/smallest amount of cap space available in the NHL. That says we should be a team in SC contention. We all know that isn't the case. So what are we as a team? If we are rebuilding, why did we spend all of our cap? This adds to the confusion of the coaches, players, and fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drop in individual players production since he took over is enough evidence for me personally. Nyquist and Tatar were 30 goal scorers entering their prime and now can barely break 20. Every player has taken a huge step back. Who is excelling under Blashill. A new system is implemented some players are going to respond to it better or worse that is expected but when every single player is much worse then you have to wonder if theirs some flaws in coaching. At this point this team hasn't identified a strength in two years. They're bad at everything. That is unacceptable from a coaching stand point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, joesuffP said:

The drop in individual players production since he took over is enough evidence for me personally. Nyquist and Tatar were 30 goal scorers entering their prime and now can barely break 20. Every player has taken a huge step back. Who is excelling under Blashill. A new system is implemented some players are going to respond to it better or worse that is expected but when every single player is much worse then you have to wonder if theirs some flaws in coaching. At this point this team hasn't identified a strength in two years. They're bad at everything. That is unacceptable from a coaching stand point

No they were not. Neither has ever scored 30 or more goals in a season at any professional level. Nyquist scored 28 in his best season but had a 18%+ shooting % to do it which is not sustainable. Tatar had 29 in his best season and a 13.7% shooting %. 12% is typical of the top goal scorers. In other words, both way over performed for 1 year and everyone thought that would be the new norm. This includes Holland. The fact is both guys are 20ish goal scorers per year and 3rd line guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now