• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

joesuffP

Jeff Blashill

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Buppy said:

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.

Regarding what I was saying about Holland dictating usage, it was a theory based on what I seen from Blashill in the minors. It could be way off base, and I'll admit that. But the fact is, we don't know and probably never will know how much Holland is involved with those sorts of things.

Maybe Blashill isn't using his 4th line any more than Babcock or any other coach, but does that make it okay? I don't think so. I don't like to see our 4th line used as much as they are or in the situations (end of games) they are. You're okay with their usage. That's fine...

If there's any upgrade you can make to your lineup, I don't care how small, you make it. Small improvements are still improvements. So if taking Miller out, moving Sheahan down and calling Mantha up, makes your team better, you do it. No one is expecting Mantha to come up and have an "Ovi-level impact", or anything close to it... He wouldn't need that sort of impact to improve the team. If he can come up and score 10 goals and 30 points (lowball in my opinion), that's an upgrade over Sheahan in that role, and Sheahan would be an upgrade in Miller's role...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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

I think the league got used to both of those players and their tendencies.  They're not complete players like Datsyuk and Zettereberg were and are easy to knock off the puck.  Blashill is not responsible for Nyquist and Tatar not blossoming.  

I am, however, disappointed in Marchenko and DeKeyser not seemingly improving.  It's easy to blame the coach, but I'm thinking this forum just likes to overrate our prospects too much.  

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


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

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.

Actually, shooting percentages above 13 are quite common among top goal scorers. 46 out the 64 30g seasons the last three years in fact. But even if you believe they're only 20ish goal players, they wouldn't be 3rd liners.

10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Regarding what I was saying about Holland dictating usage, it was a theory based on what I seen from Blashill in the minors. It could be way off base, and I'll admit that. But the fact is, we don't know and probably never will know how much Holland is involved with those sorts of things.

Maybe Blashill isn't using his 4th line any more than Babcock or any other coach, but does that make it okay? I don't think so. I don't like to see our 4th line used as much as they are or in the situations (end of games) they are. You're okay with their usage. That's fine...

If there's any upgrade you can make to your lineup, I don't care how small, you make it. Small improvements are still improvements. So if taking Miller out, moving Sheahan down and calling Mantha up, makes your team better, you do it. No one is expecting Mantha to come up and have an "Ovi-level impact", or anything close to it... He wouldn't need that sort of impact to improve the team. If he can come up and score 10 goals and 30 points (lowball in my opinion), that's an upgrade over Sheahan in that role, and Sheahan would be an upgrade in Miller's role...

It's a theory based on what you thought you saw, largely it seems to avoid accepting the possibility that Blashill isn't the upgrade you thought he'd be.

I am ok with how our 4th line is used. Based on actual usage, actual performance, and what could reasonably be expected from the alternatives, everyone should be. I don't really care if you or anyone else accepts our 4th line or not, but if people are going to throw out crazy theories or inaccurate facts, I'll call them on it.

The truth is that it's not the big deal you make it out to be. The best we could reasonably expect is a small improvement, which wouldn't make any real difference. It could also be a small downgrade (which also wouldn't make any real difference). But people act like there's no chance at all that the team could actually be worse. Like it's such an absolute certainty that not only would he make us better, but so meaningfully better that they genuinely believe our team management is stupid for not calling him up.

10g would not likely be an upgrade over Sheahan or Helm. Nor would I expect our 4th line to be any better with one of them than it has been so far. I too would actually expect a bit better than that from Mantha, but if he did perform like that (or worse), which is certainly possible, it probably makes us worse.

Furthermore, injuries happen almost every year. I'd be surprised if we make it through the year healthy enough that Mantha doesn't get in 25 or so games anyway. 

Share this post


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

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.

This is a very deceiving point. This isn't MLB where you have teams at the top spending $100 million more then the teams spending 20th. In the NHL the top 20 teams payroll wise are essentially separated by 5 million. We drop 1 player and all of a sudden we rank like 20th. Not to mention, because we are using LTIR for relief, most lists still count Franzen which makes us look worse. I really don't think our payroll is causing confusion to the coaches, players, and fans.

Share this post


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

If there's any upgrade you can make to your lineup, I don't care how small, you make it. Small improvements are still improvements. So if taking Miller out, moving Sheahan down and calling Mantha up, makes your team better, you do it. No one is expecting Mantha to come up and have an "Ovi-level impact", or anything close to it... He wouldn't need that sort of impact to improve the team. If he can come up and score 10 goals and 30 points (lowball in my opinion), that's an upgrade over Sheahan in that role, and Sheahan would be an upgrade in Miller's role...

I 100% agree with you. Being a GM/coach, all you can do is give your team the highest probability possible to win. If taking out Miller and putting in Mantha changes your probability of winning a game from 49% to 53%....you do it. Over the long term, statistics always play out the way they should, and doing things that lower your odds will play out accordingly. You make a few moves like this (ie. Putting in Mantha for Miller, Jurco when healthy for Ott, adding a guy like Trouba etc.) the next thing you know, you go from being a team hovering around 6th-10th seed and could end up hovering around 3rd-6th.

Share this post


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

It's a theory based on what you thought you saw, largely it seems to avoid accepting the possibility that Blashill isn't the upgrade you thought he'd be.

I am ok with how our 4th line is used. Based on actual usage, actual performance, and what could reasonably be expected from the alternatives, everyone should be. I don't really care if you or anyone else accepts our 4th line or not, but if people are going to throw out crazy theories or inaccurate facts, I'll call them on it.

The truth is that it's not the big deal you make it out to be. The best we could reasonably expect is a small improvement, which wouldn't make any real difference. It could also be a small downgrade (which also wouldn't make any real difference). But people act like there's no chance at all that the team could actually be worse. Like it's such an absolute certainty that not only would he make us better, but so meaningfully better that they genuinely believe our team management is stupid for not calling him up.

10g would not likely be an upgrade over Sheahan or Helm. Nor would I expect our 4th line to be any better with one of them than it has been so far. I too would actually expect a bit better than that from Mantha, but if he did perform like that (or worse), which is certainly possible, it probably makes us worse.

Furthermore, injuries happen almost every year. I'd be surprised if we make it through the year healthy enough that Mantha doesn't get in 25 or so games anyway. 

It was a theory based on what I thought I saw? So you have the time on ice log for the Griffins 2, 3, 4 years ago do you? I remember watching a lot of games and noticing how little he used his 4th line (Grant - Aubry - Parkes / Campbell) 5-on-5, and what seemed like Nyquist,  Sheahan, Tatar, Pulkkinen, etc. being out there every other shift. I must have been "fantasizing" though...

You keep saying that "small improvements don't make any real difference", which is flat out wrong... Any and every improvement makes a difference. +/- 10 goals in a season can be the difference in a team making or missing the playoffs. No I'm not saying Mantha would be the reason we would make the playoffs, but I do think he makes us a better team, and would improve our chances of making it. 

The NHL eventually got away from the need for enforcers, and eventually the same will be true of the shutdown, grinding 4th liners... There are already some teams that are leaning toward having 4 balanced scoring lines, and I think we'll see more and more of that in the coming years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kliq said:

I 100% agree with you. Being a GM/coach, all you can do is give your team the highest probability possible to win. If taking out Miller and putting in Mantha changes your probability of winning a game from 49% to 53%....you do it. Over the long term, statistics always play out the way they should, and doing things that lower your odds will play out accordingly. You make a few moves like this (ie. Putting in Mantha for Miller, Jurco when healthy for Ott, adding a guy like Trouba etc.) the next thing you know, you go from being a team hovering around 6th-10th seed and could end up hovering around 3rd-6th.

But the question then becomes: "Does Mantha change your probability of winning, and to what degree?". 

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

It was a theory based on what I thought I saw? So you have the time on ice log for the Griffins 2, 3, 4 years ago do you? I remember watching a lot of games and noticing how little he used his 4th line (Grant - Aubry - Parkes / Campbell) 5-on-5, and what seemed like Nyquist,  Sheahan, Tatar, Pulkkinen, etc. being out there every other shift. I must have been "fantasizing" though...

You keep saying that "small improvements don't make any real difference", which is flat out wrong... Any and every improvement makes a difference. +/- 10 goals in a season can be the difference in a team making or missing the playoffs. No I'm not saying Mantha would be the reason we would make the playoffs, but I do think he makes us a better team, and would improve our chances of making it. 

The NHL eventually got away from the need for enforcers, and eventually the same will be true of the shutdown, grinding 4th liners... There are already some teams that are leaning toward having 4 balanced scoring lines, and I think we'll see more and more of that in the coming years...

Do you have the ice time logs?  You say yourself, "seemed like". And I wasn't just talking about the Griffins. You also admitted to being surprised that our 4th line was being used as little as it is. Your ideas are based on how things seemed to you, rather than actual data.

And it doesn't make any real difference. Not in terms of how good a team we are. Sure, maybe, if we happen to be on the playoff bubble again, a small difference could mean being in or out of the playoffs. But that isn't really a big difference. I even think our streak is important, but I'm not going to say there's some big difference between 8th or 9th place. Would you be so upset if you thought we were going to be a 12th place team, and Mantha would push us up to 11th? If we're good enough to be on the bubble, we are good enough to get in. There will be 1000 different things over the season that could make a difference between being in or out. Literally one play (like giving up a breakaway with a minute left in a tied game) could make a difference. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape about any one of them.

And it's a two-way street. He could actually make us worse. I know it's pretty much impossible for you to imagine anything worse than Miller or Ott, and I even understand that, and maybe in terms of individual comparison it's not worth talking about, but in terms of net impact on the team there is a very real possibility that we would be worse. But not only are you convinced that Mantha would make us better, you're also convinced that being that whatever-amount-better will actually mean something. But whatever. I guess I shouldn't try to talk you out of fandom.

Personally, I think we should be a lot more concerned with Blashill getting the most out of what he has than whether or not some kid would be a marginal upgrade.

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been seeing a lot of "well this isn't as big of a deal as people are trying to make it out to be" style of attitude around here.

That's the EXACT kind of attitude that has brought the Red Wing's to the level they're at. "Oh it's not a big deal, we still have Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Lidstrom. "Oh it's not a big deal we still have Datsyuk and Zetterberg".

But it is a godam big deal now because the sum of the all the little parts has added up and we don't have anyone to rely on. 

We don't have star power. And we're not going to be getting it for a while. So how about we start working on the basics and work to make every little thing better? How about we ice a good 4th line without Drew Miller. How about we have more optimal line combinations instead of being stubborn about it for 6 games straight? How about we bench a D-man or two? How about we play the hot hand between Mrazek or Howard? How about we lessen Zetterberg's ice time? How about we increase AA's ice time? How about we stop having Glendening take the most important faceoff with 1 minute left and a 1 goal lead? How about we stop the dump and chase hockey that clearly hasn't worked in a while?

I just listed maybe 8 or 9 things off the top of my head on a LONG list of things. EVERY single issue on the list has to be addressed because unfortunately we don't have a superstar to negate all those problems like we once did. 

When you fix every issue that's possible within your control it can add up to make a big difference. And if it doesn't, oh well at least you tried. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't have the time on ice logs from the Griffins games, and yes I did say "seemed", because I don't know for sure, hence it being a theory... People can have an opinion without having numbers to back up that opinion. Why do you get so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? 

This has to go down as one of the worst debates I've had on here, and there have been some doozies... You know what? F*** it! Who cares who's in our lineup because any one player isn't going to make any difference. Let's scratch Green and call up Lashoff. It's not going to make a difference anyway.

Mantha over Miller would make us a better hockey team because he's a MUCH better hockey player. But let's not make that sort of change to the lineup because it will only make us a little better. It doesn't really matter much if we finish 8th or 9th... No big difference there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIke I said, the "kids" back in the early 90's were played every night and were allowed to lose and grow and learn to play together....that was when Devellano and Murray were here, then Bowman.  We're seeing how much Holland values his "kids" and we're seeing what Blashill thinks of icing a team of kids and letting them learn and grow. I don't care what your pay check is, if you aren't playing up to professional status, you sit. Sorry, this is a business and fans pay YUGE amounts of cash to see a team play well, win or lose, the want to see a competitive team, not this dump and chase, clear off the boards, throw to an open wing and ***** foot passes around instead of shooting type game we are seeing. This is garbage hockey, and the garbage coaching is hindering the development of the like of Larkin, AA, Sproul, etc...

I seriously thought we were getting a good coach that would change the philosophy here....nope.

29 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No I don't have the time on ice logs from the Griffins games, and yes I did say "seemed", because I don't know for sure, hence it being a theory... People can have an opinion without having numbers to back up that opinion. Why do you get so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? 

This has to go down as one of the worst debates I've had on here, and there have been some doozies... You know what? F*** it! Who cares who's in our lineup because any one player isn't going to make any difference. Let's scratch Green and call up Lashoff. It's not going to make a difference anyway.

Mantha over Miller would make us a better hockey team because he's a MUCH better hockey player. But let's not make that sort of change to the lineup because it will only make us a little better. It doesn't really matter much if we finish 8th or 9th... No big difference there...

I agree, but Mantha on the 4th line won't.  We all know there has to be a piano mover on every flipping line so there is no way Mantha would help us if he is inserted on the 4th because Abby and Sheahan have to be top 6.  Then Blashill will say how much Mantha isn't working hard enough and how he didn't like 10 minutes of his play...all while outplaying most of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the league got used to both of those players and their tendencies.  They're not complete players like Datsyuk and Zettereberg were and are easy to knock off the puck.  Blashill is not responsible for Nyquist and Tatar not blossoming.  
I am, however, disappointed in Marchenko and DeKeyser not seemingly improving.  It's easy to blame the coach, but I'm thinking this forum just likes to overrated our prospects too much.  

Ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buppy said:

But the question then becomes: "Does Mantha change your probability of winning, and to what degree?".

Do I think Mantha can be the difference in winning 10 more games or winning the Cup? No. But in a league where last year the 9th seed Boston had 93 points, and second in our division TB had 97 points, do I think having a guy like him could be the difference in not making the playoffs versus not making the playoffs? Yes I do.

 

7 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

They're not complete players like Datsyuk and Zettereberg were and are easy to knock off the puck.  Blashill is not responsible for Nyquist and Tatar not blossoming.

If any mistake was made, it was not by Nyquist and Tatar not becoming D and Z. The mistake was fans thinking they were the next D & Z. Both are good players, not elite. Top 6, not top 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kliq said:

Do I think Mantha can be the difference in winning 10 more games or winning the Cup? No. But in a league where last year the 9th seed Boston had 93 points, and second in our division TB had 97 points, do I think having a guy like him could be the difference in not making the playoffs versus not making the playoffs? Yes I do.

I guess regardless we're not making the playoffs... :confused:

Share this post


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

I've been seeing a lot of "well this isn't as big of a deal as people are trying to make it out to be" style of attitude around here.

That's the EXACT kind of attitude that has brought the Red Wing's to the level they're at. "Oh it's not a big deal, we still have Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Lidstrom. "Oh it's not a big deal we still have Datsyuk and Zetterberg".

But it is a godam big deal now because the sum of the all the little parts has added up and we don't have anyone to rely on. 

We don't have star power. And we're not going to be getting it for a while. So how about we start working on the basics and work to make every little thing better? How about we ice a good 4th line without Drew Miller. How about we have more optimal line combinations instead of being stubborn about it for 6 games straight? How about we bench a D-man or two? How about we play the hot hand between Mrazek or Howard? How about we lessen Zetterberg's ice time? How about we increase AA's ice time? How about we stop having Glendening take the most important faceoff with 1 minute left and a 1 goal lead? How about we stop the dump and chase hockey that clearly hasn't worked in a while?

I just listed maybe 8 or 9 things off the top of my head on a LONG list of things. EVERY single issue on the list has to be addressed because unfortunately we don't have a superstar to negate all those problems like we once did. 

When you fix every issue that's possible within your control it can add up to make a big difference. And if it doesn't, oh well at least you tried. 

No, the attitude has nothing at all to do with where the Wings are at. We are what we are because eventually all good things come to an end. The whole system is designed very specifically to cause this situation. Literally, not one single team - in any sport - at any time in history - in any system - has stayed great forever. GMs can't just s*** out star players when they want to, no matter how badly the team needs one. That's not how the world works. Deal with it.

It's easy to sit on a message board posting ideas you think would be better, making judgements in hindsight based on pure speculation and often false facts. But the truth is there is no right way. There is no secret formula. It's a game of educated guesswork. You list a bunch of things you think will make it all better, and 10 other fans would say 10 different things. 

Optimal line combos? What exactly are those? You say we should have changed line combos, and in another thread someone else is saying there's too much line juggling. Play the hot hand, you say? Who is that in the next game? You think Howard will be hot forever? Does he have a fire icon next to his name somewhere so we know we should start him? Why is "next game" any less likely than any other to be the one where he goes cold? Lessen Z's icetime when he's still probably our best player, and producing atm? More time to AA? His average icetime is up about 3 minutes his last 5 games. He's played 5 games with 12:59 TOI or more, has 1g and a -3 and the team is 1-3-1 in those games. Stop the dump and chase? How much do we dump and chase, how effective is it and what can we do with our personnel that works better? Stop having Glendening take those faceoffs? Sure, Helm took one last game and we still lost. 

Let's face facts, we're all just a bunch of assholes who really don't know s***, acting like we have all the answers while we vent because our team isn't as good as we want it to be. We don't have the answers. There likely isn't an answer at this time. The team is just not that good. 

 

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

No I don't have the time on ice logs from the Griffins games, and yes I did say "seemed", because I don't know for sure, hence it being a theory... People can have an opinion without having numbers to back up that opinion. Why do you get so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? 

This has to go down as one of the worst debates I've had on here, and there have been some doozies... You know what? F*** it! Who cares who's in our lineup because any one player isn't going to make any difference. Let's scratch Green and call up Lashoff. It's not going to make a difference anyway.

Mantha over Miller would make us a better hockey team because he's a MUCH better hockey player. But let's not make that sort of change to the lineup because it will only make us a little better. It doesn't really matter much if we finish 8th or 9th... No big difference there...

So if I were to say we shouldn't play Mantha because it seems to me like he's not even scoring in the AHL, you wouldn't point out that the "fact" I'm basing that opinion on is incorrect?

I know you're joking about Lashoff, but you know what? It actually wouldn't make much difference, and that's actually a situation where we could be certain that we'd be worse. I'd bet some fans would actually welcome a move like that, in the hopes of getting a higher draft pick. And there is some merit to that philosophy.

What you seem to be missing is that I am not as convinced as you are that Mantha would make us better. Why are you getting so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? Nor am I convinced that we are particularly likely to finish 9th. Probably won't win our division, or finish as one of the top few teams in the conference, or the bottom few. Anywhere in between maybe. So a relatively small chance that we'll be in a position that a relatively small improvement will be the difference in making the playoffs or not, and uncertainty that Mantha would actually be a small improvement.

To me we have much bigger issues to worry about, primarily whether or not Blashill can get the best (or at least better) out of the rest of the roster. If he can, I think we'll be in good shape for the playoffs. If not, I doubt Mantha would help even if he did make us a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had (24) 19 year old Mario Lemieux clones in the minors each with 176 pts in the previous year in Grand Rapids and Toledo, we still wouldn't bring one of them up to replace Drew Miller.  The management of this team is just as blind as half the fan base.  For some reason, Drew Miller has snowed over Holland, Blashill, and a bunch of fans into thinking he's an irreplaceable piece to the Stanley Cup winning formula.  After he was re-signed this summer, I just gave up on this year.  It's pointless to watch a professional team that doesn't play its best players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

If we had (24) 19 year old Mario Lemieux clones in the minors each with 176 pts in the previous year in Grand Rapids and Toledo, we still wouldn't bring one of them up to replace Drew Miller.  The management of this team is just as blind as half the fan base.  For some reason, Drew Miller has snowed over Holland, Blashill, and a bunch of fans into thinking he's an irreplaceable piece to the Stanley Cup winning formula.  After he was re-signed this summer, I just gave up on this year.  It's pointless to watch a professional team that doesn't play its best players.

Good one, Bill. If Mantha was 1/100th the player Lemieux was, he would have been on the team 4 years ago. Miller's a plug, and no one has ever suggested otherwise. That he's playing ahead of Mantha says more about what some think of Mantha than it does about anyone's opinion of Miller.

I could flip that around and say Mantha has snowed over a bunch of fans into thinking he's the next big thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buppy said:

No, the attitude has nothing at all to do with where the Wings are at. We are what we are because eventually all good things come to an end. The whole system is designed very specifically to cause this situation. Literally, not one single team - in any sport - at any time in history - in any system - has stayed great forever. GMs can't just s*** out star players when they want to, no matter how badly the team needs one. That's not how the world works. Deal with it.

It's easy to sit on a message board posting ideas you think would be better, making judgements in hindsight based on pure speculation and often false facts. But the truth is there is no right way. There is no secret formula. It's a game of educated guesswork. You list a bunch of things you think will make it all better, and 10 other fans would say 10 different things. 

Optimal line combos? What exactly are those? You say we should have changed line combos, and in another thread someone else is saying there's too much line juggling. Play the hot hand, you say? Who is that in the next game? You think Howard will be hot forever? Does he have a fire icon next to his name somewhere so we know we should start him? Why is "next game" any less likely than any other to be the one where he goes cold? Lessen Z's icetime when he's still probably our best player, and producing atm? More time to AA? His average icetime is up about 3 minutes his last 5 games. He's played 5 games with 12:59 TOI or more, has 1g and a -3 and the team is 1-3-1 in those games. Stop the dump and chase? How much do we dump and chase, how effective is it and what can we do with our personnel that works better? Stop having Glendening take those faceoffs? Sure, Helm took one last game and we still lost. 

Let's face facts, we're all just a bunch of assholes who really don't know s***, acting like we have all the answers while we vent because our team isn't as good as we want it to be. We don't have the answers. There likely isn't an answer at this time. The team is just not that good.

There are answers. You're taking a very defeatist approach and being very narrow minded here. Lessening Z's icetime isn't for the benefit of one game it's for the entire season so he can be as effective towards the end and in playoffs when it actually matters. Playing the hot hand means if player x is doing well, keep it going as long as you can. Eventually he might hit a bump, in that case switch (that's the beauty of having two starting goaltenders, BTW Howard IS starting next game so I'm assuming they're hoping his good play results in a win). Optimal lines would be not having Sheahan on the top line for a bunch of games in a row when it's clearly forced and not working. Glendening took the faceoff when he was 20% on the faceoffs all night and lost that faceoff which led to the eventual game tying goal. Helm taking the faceoff was a smart decision last game because he was 54% on the faceoffs that night. In life you look at the risk benefit ratio and if something is beneficial you go with it regardless of the outcome. Even if AA's increase in ice-time didn't result in us winning more games it was still the right decision to do since he was making the most out of his ice time with limited minutes. Nothing I listed was extraordinary. They were simple things that almost everyone has been wondering whether it's fans, beat writers, journalists, bloggers, players themselves (seriously you do realize AA was probably wondering why his icetime wasn't increasing right? Not to mention he probably thought he deserves it and probably felt like he would bring a lot to the table with it because that's the natural human mentality). 

It's not that complicated. But people seem to think it is. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How times are changing. I seem to remember how happy some guys here were when Babcock moved on and some even claimed that it would be a seemless transistion and now not even 2 years later he is the scapegoat for failed longterm thinking? Maybe the grass isn't always greener, especially when you have to replace the best coach in hockey over just money! It shouldn't have mattered how much the Wings would have had to pay it, financially Mr. I could have easily matched Toronto's offer maybe not in years but in actual annual salary. So what if Babs would have made 10 million a year? But I also think Babs liked Toronto's vision under Shanahan better than the Wings treading water for a meaningless streak.

Anyhow to those that think Blashill should be fired...ok then who is going to replace him? From all the available coaches Hartley would seem to be the best choice, fine...but then what? Wings missed out on bringing koala back or interview more than 1 coach for the job, which wouldn't have hurt. Would have been interesting to see how outsiders are viewing things here and there.

Coaches can only work with what has been given to them by their GM and Holland hasn't given Blashill - or his successor - a roster with a lot of options. The defense is a joke it was before this season and it shows during the season, going into this season without trading for a defenseman was a huge mistake but that's not on Blashill. Oh man the guy can't even call up Mantha because this Wings edition is so close to the cap? That's not on Blashill, that's on Holland. I'm not saying Blashill is perfect, far from it, but like I said when the Wings hired him I'd wait 2 years and then see were things are headed. Keep in mind he has an inferior roster and is going up against coaches that have years, some even more than a decade worth of coaching knowledge this is not the AHL, it's the NHL. I too would like to see more TOI for AA, Larkin but the fact of the matter is neither has set the world on fire and oh well cutting Z's TOI should be a nobrainer if the Wings want to avoid him falling of a cliff come march.

John Cooper (sadly) is the exception not the norm just another brilliant decision by the guy who should have been the GM since 2012.  So expecting great results from a guy who doesn't have the horses for it and still has to learn the ropes of the NHL is a bit unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buppy said:

So if I were to say we shouldn't play Mantha because it seems to me like he's not even scoring in the AHL, you wouldn't point out that the "fact" I'm basing that opinion on is incorrect?

I know you're joking about Lashoff, but you know what? It actually wouldn't make much difference, and that's actually a situation where we could be certain that we'd be worse. I'd bet some fans would actually welcome a move like that, in the hopes of getting a higher draft pick. And there is some merit to that philosophy.

What you seem to be missing is that I am not as convinced as you are that Mantha would make us better. Why are you getting so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? Nor am I convinced that we are particularly likely to finish 9th. Probably won't win our division, or finish as one of the top few teams in the conference, or the bottom few. Anywhere in between maybe. So a relatively small chance that we'll be in a position that a relatively small improvement will be the difference in making the playoffs or not, and uncertainty that Mantha would actually be a small improvement.

To me we have much bigger issues to worry about, primarily whether or not Blashill can get the best (or at least better) out of the rest of the roster. If he can, I think we'll be in good shape for the playoffs. If not, I doubt Mantha would help even if he did make us a little better.

How is that even close to being the same scenario? I can prove that Mantha is scoring in the AHL, he's 2nd in the league in scoring, 1st in goals per game. Can you prove that Mantha wouldn't be a better option than Miller? 

Inserting Lashoff for Green wouldn't make much of a difference? Now you're just talking out of your a**... For one game, no it might not, but over the course of a season, yes it absolutely would. Same goes for inserting Mantha over Miller. If we did it for one game, it may or may not make a huge difference, but over the course of a season, we win a few more games, which could be the difference in a few seeds in the standings / missing or making the playoffs... 

Why should we even bother trading for a defenseman? In your twisted thinking, adding a player like Trouba wouldn't make a difference anyway. Absurd. I'm done with this conversation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buppy said:

Good one, Bill. If Mantha was 1/100th the player Lemieux was, he would have been on the team 4 years ago. Miller's a plug, and no one has ever suggested otherwise. That he's playing ahead of Mantha says more about what some think of Mantha than it does about anyone's opinion of Miller.

I could flip that around and say Mantha has snowed over a bunch of fans into thinking he's the next big thing. 

 

 

If Mantha is so damn unimportant, why hasn't he been already traded for a dman while Holland has had the chance? He has basically been labeled as untouchable by management, but yet they refuse to play him. Like they always do, they will wait until they ruin him by forcing him into playing a style that doesn't fit him, and then he will be lost for nothing when he has little to no value. It's simply how prospects are treated in this organization this day and age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

If we had (24) 19 year old Mario Lemieux clones in the minors each with 176 pts in the previous year in Grand Rapids and Toledo, we still wouldn't bring one of them up to replace Drew Miller.  The management of this team is just as blind as half the fan base.  For some reason, Drew Miller has snowed over Holland, Blashill, and a bunch of fans into thinking he's an irreplaceable piece to the Stanley Cup winning formula.  After he was re-signed this summer, I just gave up on this year.  It's pointless to watch a professional team that doesn't play its best players.

You're giving yourself away bro. But I know you still got my back!

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