Jeff Blashill

[krsmith17 7,191]

The Wings can call up Mantha if they make a really tough decision and waive Miller or Ott... They could also call him up if they put Vanek on LTIR. I'd prefer the former, but those are two possible ways to get Mantha up with the Wings...

[e_prime 1,936]

2 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

The Wings can call up Mantha if they make a really tough decision and waive Miller or Ott... They could also call him up if they put Vanek on LTIR. I'd prefer the former, but those are two possible ways to get Mantha up with the Wings...

Not that tough.  Even for Mr. Miller-Slappy.

[krsmith17 7,191]

Yeah, there was a touch of sarcasm there in that statement... 

[e_prime 1,936]

I figured. 

[Buppy 1,720]

12 hours ago, kickazz said:

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. 

Maybe it's defeatist, maybe just realistic. I don't believe any amount of line juggling or minor changes are going to make a mediocre roster a good one. 

No, it's not complicated to say things on the internet. 

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

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...

I was referring to the ice time/player usage thing. 

You say yourself, "win a few more games". I don't think that is a big difference. Sure, in one specific circumstance a small difference could have a big impact, but it's still a small difference. If you think that's twisted and absurd, so be it.

[kliq 3,755]

Here is my stance on the Wings, as of today we do not have a better top line then most teams as we definitely do lack "superstars". As guys like Larkin mature that could change, but as of November 6th, 2016 it is what it is. So IMO for us to be better then most other teams, what we need to do is utilize our depth. As much as the cynics like to call our team garbage (which its not) we do have a lot of players in that next tier. Guys like Nyquist, Tatar, AA, Larkin, Nielson Zetterberg, Abby, Helm etc. could easily fit into most teams lineups in a top 6 or top 9 role. When you role out the OMG line, you are essentially giving up on getting a goal every time that line is out there. Lets get that line out, turn it into a scoring threat and try to beat teams with our balance.

Having a 4th line of Glendenning/Sheanhan/Jurco, and then putting Mantha on the 2nd or 3rd line IMO gives us a much better chance of scoring. While Jurco is hurt, bring up someone like a Tyler Bertuzzi who can give that line a bit of a spark. With Nielson and Helm anchoring the PK now from the forward position, I dont think we need Miller as much as we used to.

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

Maybe it's defeatist, maybe just realistic. I don't believe any amount of line juggling or minor changes are going to make a mediocre roster a good one. 

No, it's not complicated to say things on the internet.

And it's not complicated in coach interviews either. Because most of what I've said has been talked about by Zetterberg, Blashill and others in their interviews. And don't get me started on the things Babcock said with his "you just have to shoot the puck" attitude. Or "I put D and Z together to get them going" when asked about his insane line juggling. 

You're acting like things posters here  say hasn't been alluded to by management or coaches as if we're just talking out of our asses. Some of what I've said has already been a work in progress with the exception of icing a better 4th line (they don't seem to budge on that at all). Didn't you point out yourself that AA's minutes have increased the last few games? Also we just found out they've decided to go with Howard for the upcoming game naturally because he's been good. Additionally Zetterberg's ice time was low in the first two games which leads me to believe they tried to reduce his ice time but then after the first two losses in the season they reverted to giving him more ice time upto around 18-19 minutes. Then when we hit our new skid they increased his ice time even more to 20+ minutes a night. If my prediction holds and his ice time continues to be high he will likely hit another wall by the time February comes around. Lots of small issues that can be cleaned up. 

A few things have been attempted, a few changes have been tried, a few things have been open for discussion, but a lot of things just revert to their old ways for whatever reason.

Also, just to let you know, posters don't just sit here and come up with crap because they feel like it. Yeah maybe some people do. But  a lot of us actually read and study what we see from other teams/coaches. Why do some of us think the 4th line of Glendening/Miller/Ott shouldn't be out there? Well, there was that article that came out with about Dave Tippett looking at "defense differently" and thinking of possession as the new defense. That's just an example. We read, we try to understand and learn from different systems and we make our own judgement about how things should be. And then we come here and talk about it. We learn from hockey minds themselves, no different than a student learns from a professor in a recorded lecture online. Dave Tippett is just an example. There's also coaches such as Babcock who believe "shooting the puck" gives you an advantage over the course of a game. I learned that from Babcock too and agree with it. I even use that strategy whenever I play pickup games for fun. Tippett hasn't won a cup and Babcock has only won it once. Nonetheless they stick to their belief systems as should any fan on these forums. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

I was referring to the ice time/player usage thing.

You say yourself, "win a few more games". I don't think that is a big difference. Sure, in one specific circumstance a small difference could have a big impact, but it's still a small difference. If you think that's twisted and absurd, so be it.

The ice time / player usage is again something that can't be proven right or wrong because there are no game logs from the AHL. 

How do you not see winning a few more games over the course of a season as a big deal? I'm very confused about this... Why does every coach / general manager stress how important it is to bank points early on in the season?

Do you think Boston would have liked one more point last season? The parity in this league is growing every year, and the difference between missing the playoffs completely and having home ice advantage in the first round is miniscule. Like I said before, if there are any improvements you can make to make your team even slightly better, you do it. To say otherwise is foolish...

[Buppy 1,720]

37 minutes ago, kliq said:

...When you role out the OMG line, you are essentially giving up on getting a goal every time that line is out there. Lets get that line out, turn it into a scoring threat and try to beat teams with our balance.

Having a 4th line of Glendenning/Sheanhan/Jurco, and then putting Mantha on the 2nd or 3rd line IMO gives us a much better chance of scoring. While Jurco is hurt, bring up someone like a Tyler Bertuzzi who can give that line a bit of a spark. With Nielson and Helm anchoring the PK now from the forward position, I dont think we need Miller as much as we used to.

Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isn't likely to be much of a scoring threat. Nor is it really accurate to say that the OMG line isn't ever going to score. 

We have never needed Miller, but we should stop acting like he, or the 4th line in general, is the biggest (or even a significant) problem with our team.

27 minutes ago, kickazz said:

And it's not complicated in coach interviews either. Because most of what I've said has been talked about by Zetterberg, Blashill and others in their interviews. And don't get me started on the things Babcock said with his "you just have to shoot the puck" attitude. Or "I put D and Z together to get them going" when asked about his insane line juggling. 

You're acting like things posters here  say hasn't been alluded to by management or coaches as if we're just talking out of our asses. Some of what I've said has already been a work in progress with the exception of icing a better 4th line (they don't seem to budge on that at all). Didn't you point out yourself that AA's minutes have increased the last few games? Also we just found out they've decided to go with Howard for the upcoming game naturally because he's been good. Additionally Zetterberg's ice time was low in the first two games which leads me to believe they tried to reduce his ice time but then after the first two losses in the season they reverted to giving him more ice time upto around 18-19 minutes. Then when we hit our new skid they increased his ice time even more to 20+ minutes a night. If my prediction holds and his ice time continues to be high he will likely hit another wall by the time February comes around. Lots of small issues that can be cleaned up. 

A few things have been attempted, a few changes have been tried, but a lot of things just revert to their old ways for whatever reason.

Yeah, it's always easy to say things. Far harder to actually be right about what you're saying, and harder yet to be right often and impactfully enough to make any difference. 

Is there really a linear relationship between minutes played and Zetterberg's fatigue level? Cut his ice time by 5 minutes, is he actually going to be any better at the end of the year? Was it even fatigue that caused his slow-down? He's had plenty of slumps before, some early, some late. How does cutting his ice time impact the team in the meantime? In the end will it be a net positive? 

You're right, there are a lot of small issues that can be cleaned up and improved, but no one truly knows exactly how to do that. All you can do is try something that seems like it will work. And that's what we are doing. Some things work, some things don't. Things will keep changing, whether intentionally or not. You seem to be making an assumption that all your ideas are perfectly right, and since we haven't made every change you would make in exactly the same way we're not trying to "clean up". 

In the end, a good coach is going to be right more often than not, and will get a little more out of the roster. I don't know that Blashill is a good coach, but I don't think I'd say he's a bad coach either. I think the results he's gotten are about what we should expect. And I don't think that any level of coaching or minor roster tweaks are going to produce much change.

[kickazz 5,459]

17 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isn't likely to be much of a scoring threat. Nor is it really accurate to say that the OMG line isn't ever going to score. 

We have never needed Miller, but we should stop acting like he, or the 4th line in general, is the biggest (or even a significant) problem with our team.

Yeah, it's always easy to say things. Far harder to actually be right about what you're saying, and harder yet to be right often and impactfully enough to make any difference. 

Is there really a linear relationship between minutes played and Zetterberg's fatigue level? Cut his ice time by 5 minutes, is he actually going to be any better at the end of the year? Was it even fatigue that caused his slow-down? He's had plenty of slumps before, some early, some late. How does cutting his ice time impact the team in the meantime? In the end will it be a net positive? 

You're right, there are a lot of small issues that can be cleaned up and improved, but no one truly knows exactly how to do that. All you can do is try something that seems like it will work. And that's what we are doing. Some things work, some things don't. Things will keep changing, whether intentionally or not. You seem to be making an assumption that all your ideas are perfectly right, and since we haven't made every change you would make in exactly the same way we're not trying to "clean up". 

Bold part about Zetterberg. We won't know unless we try. But that's two years in a row now where he ended his seasons pretty badly and lost a lot of his speed some point into the season. I'd say there is a correlation to how much he's played vs his fatigue. He hit a wall in 2015 and then after a summer off he came out to start off the 2015 season leading the league in points and was around a PPG average for the first 25 games or so. And visually speaking he looked a lot faster and quicker on ice in the beginning of the 2015 season than he did at the end of the 2014/2015 season. Maybe it's not just ice time that needs reduction, maybe it's having actual games like the back-to-backs off. And it's common knowledge that fatigue has a direct correlation to body usage as far as physiology is concerned. In Zetterberg's case it could be that and a multitude of things that we don't hear about. Could be mental, or it could be due to his postoperation something termed "chonic postoperative fatigue/ chronic fatigue syndrome" that's been researched by clinicians recently. 

Bold part about my assumptions. I've already stated that it's a risk benefit ratio. If something seems like it could help in theory then try it, if it doesn't work, at least you tried. It never hurts to be wrong as long as you learn something out of it. There's a lot of issues I think within our control and I know for a fact has been brought up by the media or by coaches or players themselves. So I know that they're thinking about it as well. It's not like my thoughts are wild dreams and fantasies. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by kickazz

[kliq 3,755]

10 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isn't likely to be much of a scoring threat. Nor is it really accurate to say that the OMG line isn't ever going to score. 

We have never needed Miller, but we should stop acting like he, or the 4th line in general, is the biggest (or even a significant) problem with our team.

 

I am not saying that the 4th line is our main problem, what I am saying is it is one of a few problems that can be fixed very easily. When you have a ton of little problems, what you need to do is attempt to fix them all. If you have an attitude of, "meh, what's the point, wont do anything" you have zero chance of getting better. Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isnt going to light it up, but I think they can play better then the OMG line, and having Mantha in the top 9 instead of Sheahan will also make us a bit better.

[Buppy 1,720]

37 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

The ice time / player usage is again something that can't be proven right or wrong because there are no game logs from the AHL. 

How do you not see winning a few more games over the course of a season as a big deal? I'm very confused about this... Why does every coach / general manager stress how important it is to bank points early on in the season?

Do you think Boston would have liked one more point last season? The parity in this league is growing every year, and the difference between missing the playoffs completely and having home ice advantage in the first round is miniscule. Like I said before, if there are any improvements you can make to make your team even slightly better, you do it. To say otherwise is foolish...

Yeah, sorry my world view doesn't conform perfectly to yours. One of these days maybe I'll try to plug my mind into the hive so we can all just get along.

You're confusing "big deal" and "big difference". I already admitted that a small difference can have a big impact in certain circumstances. In other circumstances they have no impact. What difference would 1 point have made to Washington, Pittsburgh, Rangers, Florida, TB, Wings, Islanders, Philly, Carolina, Ottawa, NJ, Montreal, Buffalo, Columbus, Toronto, Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Anaheim, SJ, Nashville, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, or Edmonton? In some cases, even 5, 10, or 27 points wouldn't have mattered. And beyond that, you're acting like I am as sure as you are that Mantha would make us better. 

What I think is more like: Maybe 20% chance we end up in a circumstance where a small difference will matter, maybe 10% chance that Mantha would have enough of an impact to make that difference, and maybe 5% chance that he actually makes us worse.

Not something I think is worth getting worked up about. Sorry if that offends you.

[krsmith17 7,191]

You seem like the only one getting "worked up"... I'm not expecting you to see things exactly like I or the countless others that are disagreeing with you. That's why we're debating. You seem to be doing a lot of back peddling to me. No, one extra point probably wouldn't have meant s*** to most of those teams, but did any of those teams know that the wouldn't need an extra point (or a half dozen extra points) in November? Do you think if they were told that making a simple change back then would have gotten them into the playoffs or home ice advantage, they wouldn't have done it? You have to be the only one that doesn't think that adding Mantha in place of Miller would be a good idea... Seriously, is there anyone else that thinks that is a bad idea, or a nonsensical idea?...

50 minutes ago, kliq said:

I am not saying that the 4th line is our main problem, what I am saying is it is one of a few problems that can be fixed very easily. When you have a ton of little problems, what you need to do is attempt to fix them all. If you have an attitude of, "meh, what's the point, wont do anything" you have zero chance of getting better. Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isnt going to light it up, but I think they can play better then the OMG line, and having Mantha in the top 9 instead of Sheahan will also make us a bit better.

Exactly this. No one is saying that the 4th line is the only issue with this team, or even that it is necessarily our biggest issue. It is however, something that could easily be upgraded from within. Even if there are 100 other issues with this team, and the 4th line is the smallest issue, you still make the change if you can (and we can)...

[frankgrimes 1,836]

3 hours ago, kliq said:

Here is my stance on the Wings, as of today we do not have a better top line then most teams as we definitely do lack "superstars". As guys like Larkin mature that could change, but as of November 6th, 2016 it is what it is. So IMO for us to be better then most other teams, what we need to do is utilize our depth. As much as the cynics like to call our team garbage (which its not) we do have a lot of players in that next tier. Guys like Nyquist, Tatar, AA, Larkin, Nielson Zetterberg, Abby, Helm etc. could easily fit into most teams lineups in a top 6 or top 9 role. When you role out the OMG line, you are essentially giving up on getting a goal every time that line is out there. Lets get that line out, turn it into a scoring threat and try to beat teams with our balance.

Having a 4th line of Glendenning/Sheanhan/Jurco, and then putting Mantha on the 2nd or 3rd line IMO gives us a much better chance of scoring. While Jurco is hurt, bring up someone like a Tyler Bertuzzi who can give that line a bit of a spark. With Nielson and Helm anchoring the PK now from the forward position, I dont think we need Miller as much as we used to.

Not only do the Wings not have superstars, they don't even have stars. Sure, Larkin has the potential to become a star but that's in the future. Asking him to play top 6 center was asking for too much too soon. Also there is no hindsight on the Nielsen contract, it was a bad contract the minute the ink to sign it touched the paper. This is nothing against Nielsen but he always was a second line center behind a superstar center named Tavares. You can ask a second line center to play first line center for a few games here and there due to injuries but acquiring someone and then asking him to play over his capabilities is just bad and stupd, there is no ******* way around that.

Also being a realist doesn't mean that someone is a  cynic if that were the guys, I guess wingitinmotown, insiders, experts and former players are all cynics. This team is a hot mess there is only 1 player who has the potential to become a star and that's Larkin, then you have a young inconsistent goalie, only one ******* 1! solid defenseman in Danny Dekeyser...plus Green, Kronwall with 2 bad knees, plus Smith and 2 third pairing prospects. Plus the team is near the cap with a roster, were 80 % wouldn't have made the 2002 team, yep that's just brilliant management.

Funny thing is, people are calling Ott bad well the guy makes 800k and has been the best off-season edition which speaks volumes to the rest of the transactions and before people are mentioning Vanek let's wait what he can do when he comes back. I hope he continues to impress so someone would overpay for him. Also the Wings don't have to waive Ott they could just send him down and have + 800k in cap space and his experience, grittyness would be a valueable asset to the GR team.  I really do feel bad for whoever the next GM of this team is going to be because he has to do a lot of house cleaning and as this team gets worse I think the chance of the captain being interested in that job dwindles.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

10 minutes ago, frankgrimes said:

Funny thing is, people are calling Ott bad well the guy makes 800k and has been the best off-season edition which speaks volumes to the rest of the transactions and before people are mentioning Vanek let's wait what he can do when he comes back. I hope he continues to impress so someone would overpay for him. Also the Wings don't have to waive Ott they could just send him down and have + 800k in cap space and his experience, grittyness would be a valueable asset to the GR team.  I really do feel bad for whoever the next GM of this team is going to be because he has to do a lot of house cleaning and as this team gets worse I think the chance of the captain being interested in that job dwindles.

Actually we would have to waive Ott because he's on a one-way contract. He would easily clear though, so he would end up in Grand Rapids. Ott is better than Miller though in my opinion, and he also makes more. So if we're waiving a player, it would be Miller for me, but I'd be okay with either if it meant improving our team...

[Buppy 1,720]

43 minutes ago, kliq said:

I am not saying that the 4th line is our main problem, what I am saying is it is one of a few problems that can be fixed very easily. When you have a ton of little problems, what you need to do is attempt to fix them all. If you have an attitude of, "meh, what's the point, wont do anything" you have zero chance of getting better. Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isnt going to light it up, but I think they can play better then the OMG line, and having Mantha in the top 9 instead of Sheahan will also make us a bit better.

Don't over-generalize. That I disagree that one specific issue needs any attention, or that one specific solution is the right one, should not taken as thinking that nothing anywhere needs attention now or in the future.

For one, I don't think our 4th is a problem at all, and I would even say they have been a net positive for the team thus far. I think replacing one of them with Jurco (or even worse, Bertuzzi) is likely to do more harm than good. 

Secondly, I don't think that replacing Sheahan with Mantha is all that likely to be an improvement. 

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You seem like the only one getting "worked up"... I'm not expecting you to see things exactly like I or the countless others that are disagreeing with you. That's why we're debating. You seem to be doing a lot of back peddling to me. No, one extra point probably wouldn't have meant s*** to most of those teams, but did any of those teams know that the wouldn't need an extra point (or a half dozen extra points) in November? Do you think if they were told that making a simple change back then would have gotten them into the playoffs or home ice advantage, they wouldn't have done it? You have to be the only one that doesn't think that adding Mantha in place of Miller would be a good idea... Seriously, is there anyone else that thinks that is a bad idea, or a nonsensical idea?...

Exactly this. No one is saying that the 4th line is the only issue with this team, or even that it is necessarily our biggest issue. It is however, something that could easily be upgraded from within. Even if there are 100 other issues with this team, and the 4th line is the smallest issue, you still make the change if you can (and we can)...

Not getting worked up at all. You're the one calling me twisted, absurd, and foolish; incredulous that I don't think Mantha for Miller is a slam dunk move.

Sure, every team wants to get as many points as possible. But the fact is in the vast majority of circumstances, it's not going to matter. Maybe it's taboo to acknowledge that fact, but it is a fact. And for the record, if I thought Mantha was such a certain upgrade I'd be all for it. I'm not, so I don't care.

It's obvious that we disagree on Mantha. No need to pursue that any further. To turn the topic back to Blashill, I don't think player usage has been a problem this year. He might be a good coach just stuck with a mediocre roster. Or maybe a mediocre coach with one. I think we can get better production and possession from our scorers, but I think that's something the players themselves need to do better, more than something systemic. I don't think Blashill is a problem.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

As much I as I don't think he has the chops to be an NHL coach, Trashill is only part of the problem.  The issues start at the ownership level being content to keep the streak going until the new barn opens, down to Holland and his over reliance on vets and determination to lock them all up and worry about the cap later, then finally coaching and the insistence on using the OMG line late in games when they should be sitting.  Like I said before the season, they have no top line caliber forwards or top pair caliber defensemen, and a lot of the games that they won were because their goalie stood on his head.  The winning streak and Helm's hot start, which was never going to be close to sustainable, as well as Vanek's better than expected play, masked some of the issues, but in the end, water finds its level.  I don't see this team making the playoffs unless Holland breaks from his career long pattern and actually makes an in season trade that sends a roster player or three out to bring in some real upgrades.

[e_prime 1,936]

Buppy, and no offense to you and your opinion, but I'll add "stubborn" to that list.

Mantha over Miller may not be a "slam dunk move," but "for the record" putting Mantha in for Drew Miller will generally and probably specifically in the "vast majority of circumstances" increase the likelihood for positive results when it comes to scoring goals.

...and again, I will reiterate:  If you are a coach and you put forth a game plan to win games, and you expect results and when you are not getting them, you continue to play them, you ARE part of the problem.  Mediocre roster or not. Systems or not. Call their asses out for poor play.  Bench them.  Coach the damn team.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

I've been one that disagreed with Blash's usages, but tonight:

- Glendening: 9:36, Ott: 9:28, Miller: 6:40

- And Z didn't lead the forwards in ice time. Nyquist did, with Larkin, Neilson also having more.

- Also, Ericsson and Marchenko rightfully had the least time on D

[joesuffP 1,746]

There's a serious lack of creativity with this team. When teams stand us up at the blue line and for us to dump it in we have no game. Games like this make me think the roster is truly trash and not a coaching issue. Are these players really that bad? The only thing I can fault Blashill on in this game is motivation? I'm not sure. Makes me think our drafting in the last 10 years has been terrible. Sheahan, Helm, Abby and every single player on D are plugs on good teams. Abby had the so much time to show what he can contribute and I like him as a player but if he came through on a good team he wouldn't have been getting this pay day. Holland paid these guys for how valuable they were to the wings mediocre teams not how they are valued around the league

Edited November 7, 2016 by joesuffP

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, e_prime said:

Buppy, and no offense to you and your opinion, but I'll add "stubborn" to that list.

Mantha over Miller may not be a "slam dunk move," but "for the record" putting Mantha in for Drew Miller will generally and probably specifically in the "vast majority of circumstances" increase the likelihood for positive results when it comes to scoring goals.

...and again, I will reiterate:  If you are a coach and you put forth a game plan to win games, and you expect results and when you are not getting them, you continue to play them, you ARE part of the problem.  Mediocre roster or not. Systems or not. Call their asses out for poor play.  Bench them.  Coach the damn team.

 Right, mediocre roster or not, stagnancy isn't going to help in this league. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

there are three ways to get elite talent.  Get lucky later in the draft, like the Wings did several times leading up to Datsyuk and Zetterberg, make a trade for a Seguin type, or draft in the top 5.  They haven't gotten lucky in a long time, and Holland refuses to make a trade, and management seems intent on keeping The Streak going at all costs.  In other words, buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

[kliq 3,755]

41 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

there are three ways to get elite talent.  Get lucky later in the draft, like the Wings did several times leading up to Datsyuk and Zetterberg, make a trade for a Seguin type, or draft in the top 5.  They haven't gotten lucky in a long time, and Holland refuses to make a trade, and management seems intent on keeping The Streak going at all costs.  In other words, buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

This isn't all directed at you Dickie, but I'm sick of people making it sound like drafting top 5 is a lock to get an "elite" guy. It really only gives you a 50/50 shot.

Ill take a 4 year sample size to make my point:

2008: Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian, Pietrangelo , Schenn - I think most would agree that 3 have become "elite" talents.

2009: Tavares, Hedman, Duchene?, Kane, Schenn -  I think most would agree that 2 maybe 3 have become "elite" talents.

2010: Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Johanson, Niederreiter - I think monst would agree 2 have become "elite" talents.

2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larsson, Strome - I am not sure any would be considered "elite"

 

So out of 20 guys, 7 or 8 have become "elite". I admit that some of these guys I dont know well so I could be wrong, but the narrative created by many is "tank, draft top 5, draft a "McDavid" type player, its simple", but in reality its not that easy and most teams that draft top 5 or top 10 are getting guys that amount out to the same level as guys like Tatar, Nyquist etc.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

1 minute ago, kliq said:

This isn't all directed at you Dickie, but I'm sick of people making it sound like drafting top 5 is a lock to get an "elite" guy. It really only gives you a 50/50 shot.

Ill take a 4 year sample size to make my point:

2008: Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian, Pietrangelo , Schenn - I think most would agree that 3 have become "elite" talents.

2009: Tavares, Hedman, Duchene?, Kane, Schenn -  I think most would agree that 2 maybe 3 have become "elite" talents.

2010: Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Johanson, Niederreiter - I think monst would agree 2 have become "elite" talents.

2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larsson, Strome - I am not sure any would be considered "elite"

 

So out of 20 guys, 7 or 8 have become "elite". I admit that some of these guys I dont know well so I could be wrong, but the narrative created by many is "tank, draft top 5, draft a "McDavid" type player, its simple", but in reality its not that easy and most teams that draft top 5 or top 10 are getting guys that amount out to the same level as guys like Tatar, Nyquist etc.

It's not a lock, nobody said it was, but the odds drastically decrease as you go down the draft.  The top 2 are generally locks, outside the occasional bust, 3-5, a little worse, 6-10 worse yet, then the odds drop at a growing rate the further down you go.

[kliq 3,755]

40 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

It's not a lock, nobody said it was, but the odds drastically decrease as you go down the draft.  The top 2 are generally locks, outside the occasional bust, 3-5, a little worse, 6-10 worse yet, then the odds drop at a growing rate the further down you go.

A lot of people imply it is, not you I admit, but others do.