Fundamental shift in the way the game is played?

[chaps80 1,591]

On 04/12/2016 at 2:02 PM, DickieDunn said:

Combination of poor coaching and lack of talent. No top end talent means secondary players playing roles they can't handle, third liners playing second line roles that they can't handle, etc. Blashill isn't an NHL coach, either. The team had absolutely no chemistry or coherent system.

Simple and to the point. 

[kliq 3,755]

6 hours ago, frankgrimes said:

Ya well then name me a better and available coach?

Options are Gallant, Hartley, Roy and oh yeah the former Edmonton coach.

Just for the record I would like Gallant as an assistant and advisor and if things go south with Blashill have him as a replacement because he really got wronged in Florida and the guy is not a bad coach.

For the record, I am not advocating Blashill to be fired. I believe that when a coach comes up from the AHL there are going to be growing pains just like with a player.

With that being said, I dont think blaming him for his mistakes is uncalled for either. At least he is making his mistakes at a time where we are not contenders, so at the end of the day they are really not that big of a deal. We are not talking Ausmus/Tigers 2014.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

For the record, I am not advocating Blashill to be fired. I believe that when a coach comes up from the AHL there are going to be growing pains just like with a player.

With that being said, I dont think blaming him for his mistakes is uncalled for either. At least he is making his mistakes at a time where we are not contenders, so at the end of the day they are really not that big of a deal. We are not talking Ausmus/Tigers 2014.

It's not uncalled for and it shows how tough and hard it is to be a successful coach in this league , guys like Cooper aren't the norm. Look at guys like Bednar, Eakins, Travis Green, Ralph Kruger (GM somewhere in football) all good successful AHL coaches who have trouble coaching an NHL team.

The question to me isn't if Blashill will learn and become better because I'm sure he will...but will he be able to out coach coaches on better teams? Who knows.

Also keep in mind firing a coach also means a GM basically admits he messed up. Gallant in Florida was chosen by Tallon so it's different. Gulutzan was hired by Treliving for example so his leash just like Blashills will be long.

Personally I would like to see Blashill going with the guys who are seen as the future good or bad and showcase the players with expiring contracts to contenders and Vegas.

I mean where is the harm in bringing in Gallant? An advisor who can help out Blashill is a good thing. There is no cap on coaches might as well use that and create a front office behemoth like Toronto.

[kliq 3,755]

7 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Problem is Holland has given everyone a no movement clause.  Doesnt matter if you showcase a player on the wings.  They cant be moved anywhere.

There is one player on the Wings with a no movement clause and that is Nielsen. The others have no trade clauses.

[Dabura 12,207]

On 12/4/2016 at 7:04 PM, grimace1970 said:

This seems to match what I think I've observed the past few years with this team.  I feel like part of it is Blash is continuing with Babs' game, and therefore several guys who play really good offensive hockey are squeezed - round-peg-square-hole - into a defense first, dump-and-chase type of game.  Maybe this is why so many guys have seemed like they were going to be huge, and fizzled.  But maybe everybody plays this way now, and if you can't learn to, you're going to have problems. It worked in the past, but now that everybody's doing it, we can't stand out.  I dunno. Probably not a clean answer to this question.  And I thought you guys were cool... 

No, I wouldn't say that's the case. Teams are being coached to play a slightly more passive kind of defense in their end, where you try to box out the other team's cycle and limit them to low-percentage shots from the perimeter, which you do your best to front/block -- but the Wings are taking that to an unholy extreme, i.e. they're waaayyy too passive. As for dump-and-chase hockey...I mean, dumping and chasing is a tactic that every team uses, but few teams these days lean on it as their go-to method of gaining the zone and establishing a forecheck and generating offense. As with the collapse defense, the Wings are leaning far too heavily on it and it's dumbing their game down and de-clawing their attack.

[Dabura 12,207]

On 12/4/2016 at 7:38 PM, DickieDunn said:

This defense corps cannot play a puck possession game. But I agree that Bans and now Trashill like dumb simple hockey

I don't know if this defense can drive a dominant possession game -- but I think they can drive a respectable possession game. Virtually any team can play a respectable possession game, if they're coached properly. Look at the Hurricanes. While they have some good talent up front and Justin Faulk on the back end, they're by no means loaded with top-end talent. And yet, they're one of the better possession teams in the league. Bill Peters clearly knows what he's doing. (There was a sequence earlier in the season where they managed to keep the puck in the Sharks' end for two straight minutes, at even strength. It was awesome. Like, I was laughing maniacally. Vintage Russian Five s***.)

I think we can all agree that the lack of top-end talent means that whatever this coaching staff and these players do, the team's ceiling is pretty much set at well below Serious Cup Contender status. But, at the same time, I think poor coaching is making this team look much more feeble than it actually is. I'm hoping the effectiveness of the Tatar-Zetterberg-Mantha line (by all measures, i.e. eye test and basic stats and underlying numbers) helps guide the team back to a more aggressive, possession-based style that embraces puck skill and playmaking. We need to be playing a game that plays to the strengths of our better players. Thus far, we're playing a game that plays to the strengths of our lesser players.

Also, Blashill needs to stop with the square-peg-in-a-round-hole bulls***. Glendening as a top-six winger? Piss off! Larkin centering Ott and Miller? Piss off! Putting the fourth line out for an o-zone faceoff after a commercial break, at home, in the third period of a close game? Piss off! Personnel choices matter. Slotting matters.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Dabura

[grimace1970 81]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 7:57 AM, Dabura said:

Teams are being coached to play a slightly more passive kind of defense in their end, where you try to box out the other team's cycle and limit them to low-percentage shots from the perimeter, which you do your best to front/block -- but the Wings are taking that to an unholy extreme, i.e. they're waaayyy too passive. As for dump-and-chase hockey...I mean, dumping and chasing is a tactic that every team uses, but few teams these days lean on it as their go-to method of gaining the zone and establishing a forecheck and generating offense. As with the collapse defense, the Wings are leaning far too heavily on it and it's dumbing their game down and de-clawing their attack.

First of all, you referred to the verb "to front" here, which should automatically render everything else you say null and void.

But seriously, this seems to be what I'm seeing: d-zone - box out, closest defender attacks the puck carrier hard, get the puck to the wall, scrum, pass TOWARD a teammate, if you're lucky it connects, dump it to center. Repeat. O-zone: dump in, go get the puck off the wall, scrum, pass TOWARD a teammate, promptly giving the puck away, and skate after the play. 

As you say, it seems like we're doing this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm seeing other teams doing it too.  I was thinking it must be coming from somewhere.  But I'm sure getting praised in the media for your grit in scrums rather than the accuracy of your passes or your puck possession game isn't doing much for the other two more desirable behaviors in this sentence...

 

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 8:42 AM, Dabura said:

Also, Blashill needs to stop with the square-peg-in-a-round-hole bulls***. Glendening as a top-six winger? Piss off! Larkin centering Ott and Miller? Piss off! Putting the fourth line out for an o-zone faceoff after a commercial break, at home, in the third period of a close game? Piss off! Personnel choices matter. Slotting matters.

Not sure if Blash's goal here is flexibility, but it certainly doesn't seem to be resulting in goals.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1. Cycle

2. Dangle

3. Snip

4. Celly

In that order. Works everytime. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Not sure if Blash's goal here is flexibility, but it certainly doesn't seem to be resulting in goals.

At least not for the Wings

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

1. Cycle
2. Dangle
3. Snip
4. Celly
In that order. Works everytime. 

Snip? Hair? Or are you a vet specializing in neutering dogs?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

6 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

At least not for the Wings

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk


Snip? Hair? Or are you a vet specializing in neutering dogs?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

D-Boss video. It's a thing. 

[Dabura 12,207]

On 12/8/2016 at 4:07 PM, grimace1970 said:

First of all, you referred to the verb "to front" here, which should automatically render everything else you say null and void.

THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!

But srsly. "Fronting," in this context, is establishing position in front of an opponent who's established position around your net. For a defenseman, this is somewhat of a risky, aggressive strategy -- but I maintain that, overall, our D-zone defense is way too passive.

On 12/8/2016 at 4:07 PM, grimace1970 said:

But seriously, this seems to be what I'm seeing: d-zone - box out, closest defender attacks the puck carrier hard, get the puck to the wall, scrum, pass TOWARD a teammate, if you're lucky it connects, dump it to center. Repeat. O-zone: dump in, go get the puck off the wall, scrum, pass TOWARD a teammate, promptly giving the puck away, and skate after the play.

This rings pretty true, I think.

We box out, but, in doing so, we box ourselves in. We get too deep in our end. We get too bunched together. Yes, we push the cycle out to the perimeter, but 1) that gives the cycle a lot of time and space to work the puck and try to make something happen (like methodically pulling our box apart just enough to work a give-and-go play to the inside), and 2) it makes breaking out of our end with possession and speed that much more difficult -- because we're deep in our end, we're bunched together, we're flat-footed/standing still, and we're encircled by the other team. This makes sense in a PK scenario, where you're outnumbered and you can throw the puck out of the zone and down the length of the ice without being called for icing. But if you're trying to drive up the ice with possession and push the opposition into their own end? That's tough sledding. It's a perpetual uphill battle. It's a big reason why we struggle to generate offense and a big reason why we collapse in third periods when the game is up for grabs. We don't play to win. We play to not lose.

You mention the closest defender attacking the puck carrier hard. My problem with the way we apply this pressure is the fact that we're barely applying actual pressure. It's a collapse defense, so, by design, we're hesitant to pressure. Even when one man does pressure hard, it's like a lesson in futility, as the man with the puck just has to make a pass to a man who's bound to be wide open, because we give the cycle so much time and space and respect. Other teams don't give us this time and space and respect when we're trying to work the puck around in their end, whether we're at even strength or on the power play. I'd like to see us pressure the cycle more aggressively, with the closest defender going harder after the carrier and a second player providing support and anticipating the carrier's pass, making it harder for the cycle to execute.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Teams are playing not to lose instead of playing to win.  That extra point for making it to OT is part of what drives it, along with the parity that goes along with it.  As long as your team looks like it's close to the playoffs, a coach is less likely to be fired, therefore they have their teams play in a way to get the maximum points with the least risk.  It's smart, it a way, but boring as #$^%.

[Dabura 12,207]

7 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Teams are playing not to lose instead of playing to win.  That extra point for making it to OT is part of what drives it, along with the parity that goes along with it.  As long as your team looks like it's close to the playoffs, a coach is less likely to be fired, therefore they have their teams play in a way to get the maximum points with the least risk.  It's smart, it a way, but boring as #$^%.

Not sure I agree that this is a league-wide thing. I mean, on one hand I agree that the loser point is incentivizing teams to play more conservatively in certain situations. But what the Wings are doing? I think it's largely a Wings thing. Our system is fundamentally broken. I believe that if the Wings are going to have any success this season, they can't be content to let the opposition dictate the terms of the game. They have to play a game that better suits the team's strengths. If this team keeps playing OMG Line hockey, they're going to keep getting the same results, if not even worse results.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news/la-kings-news-darryl-sutter-quotes-corsi-for-definition-sidney-crosby/1ty2k6440ww8213spqckr4u09n

Quote

Los Angeles Kings coach Darryl Sutter isn't worried about Marian Gaborik's ability to play in his supposed defense-first system — partially because it isn't defense-first at all.

Gaborik, acquired at the NHL trade deadline from the Columbus Blue Jackets, isn't known as a particularly good defensive player. When he's healthy, he's a goal-scorer, and that's fine with his new coach.

"The big thing in today’s game is you have to be able forecheck and backcheck, and you have to have the puck," Sutter said over the weekend (h/t Ryan Lambert). "You can’t give the puck up. We don’t play in our zone, so there’s not much defending."

The numbers back him up. LA takes 56.9 percent of all even-strength shot attempts in their games, an effective way to measure puck possession. That's more than any team in the league. Last season, the Kings were at 58 percent. That was more than any team in the league. In 2011-12, they were at 54.9 percent. That was less than only the Pittsburgh Penguins — and the Kings wound up winning the Stanley Cup.

So, Sutter would seem to be an authority on the topic: Don't mistake dominance for "defensive responsibility" or physicality. Having the puck is the most important part of the game.

“I’ve coached in three decades now and this stuff where they said Marian had to play in (former Minnesota Wild coach Jacques) Lemaire's system is a bunch of bullcrap," Sutter said.

"The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone (say) they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,” said Sutter.

 

[grimace1970 81]

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

Not sure I agree that this is a league-wide thing. I mean, on one hand I agree that the loser point is incentivizing teams to play more conservatively in certain situations. But what the Wings are doing? I think it's largely a Wings thing. Our system is fundamentally broken. I believe that if the Wings are going to have any success this season, they can't be content to let the opposition dictate the terms of the game. They have to play a game that better suits the team's strengths. If this team keeps playing OMG Line hockey, they're going to keep getting the same results, if not even worse results.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news/la-kings-news-darryl-sutter-quotes-corsi-for-definition-sidney-crosby/1ty2k6440ww8213spqckr4u09n

 

 

The "everybody's playing this way" thing resonated a little with what I think I've seen. So I immediately thought if the whole league is playing this way, maybe goals are down.  Looking at the chart below, the league is definitely among the lowest mean goals per game per team that it's ever been, and consistently since 2011, despite the constant meddling by the league to push goals back up.  Maybe this shows a more defensive game has been played roughly since we stopped being successful.  So maybe we're not doing defensive hockey as well as everybody else (perhaps not coincidentally, Lids left in '12, which more or less signaled the complete decomposition of our defense).  Definitely feels like we've had this problem for around 5 years or so...

Season	Goals Per Team	Season	Goals Per Team
1990	3.46	2003	2.57
1991	3.48	2005	3.03
1992	3.63	2006	2.88
1993	3.24	2007	2.72
1994	2.99	2008	2.85
1995	3.14	2009	2.77
1996	2.92	2010	2.73
1997	2.64	2011	2.66
1998	2.63	2012	2.65
1999	2.75	2013	2.67
2000	2.76	2014	2.66
2001	2.62	2015	2.67
2002	2.65	2016	2.64

4 hours ago, Dabura said:

THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!

But srsly. "Fronting," in this context, is establishing position in front of an opponent who's established position around your net. For a defenseman, this is somewhat of a risky, aggressive strategy -- but I maintain that, overall, our D-zone defense is way too passive.

 

I know man.  But I still cringe every time one of the Canada Hockey Night or NBC guys uses that word.  Was that a Melrosism? 

Edited December 10, 2016 by grimace1970

[chaps80 1,591]

I thought "fronting" was picking up drugs now and paying for them later. lol

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:56 AM, DickieDunn said:

Teams are playing not to lose instead of playing to win.  That extra point for making it to OT is part of what drives it, along with the parity that goes along with it.  As long as your team looks like it's close to the playoffs, a coach is less likely to be fired, therefore they have their teams play in a way to get the maximum points with the least risk.  It's smart, it a way, but boring as #$^%.

So you legitametly think teams play for the tie and overtime and not the outright win? is that what im hearing? 

[Dabura 12,207]

On 12/10/2016 at 11:18 AM, grimace1970 said:

The "everybody's playing this way" thing resonated a little with what I think I've seen. So I immediately thought if the whole league is playing this way, maybe goals are down.  Looking at the chart below, the league is definitely among the lowest mean goals per game per team that it's ever been, and consistently since 2011, despite the constant meddling by the league to push goals back up.  Maybe this shows a more defensive game has been played roughly since we stopped being successful.  So maybe we're not doing defensive hockey as well as everybody else (perhaps not coincidentally, Lids left in '12, which more or less signaled the complete decomposition of our defense).  Definitely feels like we've had this problem for around 5 years or so...

Season	Goals Per Team	Season	Goals Per Team
1990	3.46	2003	2.57
1991	3.48	2005	3.03
1992	3.63	2006	2.88
1993	3.24	2007	2.72
1994	2.99	2008	2.85
1995	3.14	2009	2.77
1996	2.92	2010	2.73
1997	2.64	2011	2.66
1998	2.63	2012	2.65
1999	2.75	2013	2.67
2000	2.76	2014	2.66
2001	2.62	2015	2.67
2002	2.65	2016	2.64

Personally, I don't think goals are down because the whole league is now playing decidedly "defensive hockey." I think goals are down because 1) NHL goaltending is, on the whole, probably better than it's ever been, and 2) we're living in The Age of Parity. Now, don't get me wrong -- I do think points are so valuable today that coaches are indeed stressing the importance of being responsible on the defensive side of the puck, maybe more than they were a few years ago (before The Parity Plan had really started to bear fruit). But I wouldn't describe today's game as defensive hockey. Are teams generally playing well defensively? I guess you could make that argument. But I'm with Darryl Sutter -- today's game isn't about defending. It isn't about trapping. It isn't about clutching and grabbing. It isn't about how well you play without the puck. Today's game, when you get right down to it, is about having the puck and doing good things with the puck. Unless you have lights-out goaltending that can compensate for fundamental shortcomings, you have to play a strong two-way possession game if you're going to have any real success. If we're talking defense, you need a defense that defends well and, just as importantly, drives possession well and generates offense well.

The Wings...man, they're just playing bad hockey, period. Everything they're doing, in all three zones, is bad. I think you're right in suggesting "we're not doing defensive hockey as well as everybody else" in the sense that our collapse/box-out scheme is an awful, ultra-defensive version of what other teams are employing. And losing Lidstrom and Rafalski and ending up with the current D group definitely has and continues to hurt us (in all three zones). But then, it's not just how we're defending in our end, and it's not just how our defense is(n't) driving possession and isn't generating offense, and it's not just the actual quality of our D group. I believe our struggles go beyond just those things. Hell, I believe our struggles go beyond the team itself. It's bigger. It's bad decisions made by management. It's Ken Holland's hubris. It's the organization's misguided, outdated ideological convictions. It's an organization-wide lack of accountability. It's an institutionalized complacency. It's fetishizing things that don't necessarily contribute to winning (e.g. being from Michigan, being "good in the locker room"). And, yes, it's also Blashill and the self-evident problems with the brand of hockey he's having this team play and the long list of questionable decisions he's made regarding personnel and usage. And, yes, it's also the players, who simply aren't playing well enough.

I think the Wings are living in a fantasy. I think teams are getting smarter, more calculated, more ruthless...while the Wings are getting dumber and more self-righteous.

On 12/10/2016 at 11:18 AM, grimace1970 said:

I know man.  But I still cringe every time one of the Canada Hockey Night or NBC guys uses that word.  Was that a Melrosism? 

LOL, probably!

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dabura

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, Dabura said:

Personally, I don't think goals are down because the whole league is now playing decidedly "defensive hockey." I think goals are down because 1) NHL goaltending is, on the whole, probably better than it's ever been, and 2) we're living in The Age of Parity. Now, don't get me wrong -- I do think points are so valuable today that coaches are indeed stressing the importance of being responsible on the defensive side of the puck, maybe more than they were a few years ago (before The Parity Plan had really started to bear fruit). But I wouldn't describe today's game as defensive hockey. Are teams generally playing well defensively? I guess you could make that argument. But I'm with Darryl Sutter -- today's game isn't about defending. It isn't about trapping. It isn't about clutching and grabbing. It isn't about how well you play without the puck. Today's game, when you get right down to it, is about having the puck and doing good things with the puck. Unless you have lights-out goaltending that can compensate for fundamental shortcomings, you have to play a strong two-way possession game if you're going to have any real success. If we're talking defense, you need a defense that defends well and, just as importantly, drives possession well and generates offense well.

The Wings...man, they're just playing bad hockey, period. Everything they're doing, in all three zones, is bad. I think you're right in suggesting "we're not doing defensive hockey as well as everybody else" in the sense that our collapse/box-out scheme is an awful, ultra-defensive version of what other teams are employing. And losing Lidstrom and Rafalski and ending up with the current D group definitely has and continues to hurt us (in all three zones). But then, it's not just how we're defending in our end, and it's not just how our defense is(n't) driving possession and isn't generating offense, and it's not just the actual quality of our D group. I believe our struggles go beyond just those things. Hell, I believe our struggles go beyond the team itself. It's bigger. It's bad decisions made by management. It's Ken Holland's hubris. It's the organization's misguided, outdated ideological convictions. It's an organization-wide lack of accountability. It's an institutionalized complacency. It's fetishizing things that don't necessarily contribute to winning (e.g. being from Michigan, being "good in the locker room"). And, yes, it's also Blashill and the self-evident problems with the brand of hockey he's having this team play and the long list of questionable decisions he's made regarding personnel and usage. And, yes, it's also the players, who simply aren't playing well enough.

I think the Wings are living in a fantasy. I think teams are getting smarter, more calculated, more ruthless...while the Wings are getting dumber and more self-righteous.

LOL, probably!

If you define "defensive hockey" as clutching, grabbing, trapping, or "traditional" defense like shot blocking, hitting, tight man-man coverage...yeah, defending today isn't about that. It's about good positioning, good player rotations, being quick to loose pucks, and moving the puck well once you do. It's about being disruptive. Of course, the better you are on offense the more it will help out your defense, but the same is true the other way.

When Sutter talks about possession, it's mostly hyperbole. He's exaggerating concepts far beyond the realm of reality to emphasize his points. The difference between even the best possession teams and the worst isn't nearly as much as some of what Sutter says would imply, and the vast majority of teams are separated by only a few percentage points. 

I think our struggles are perfectly normal for a mediocre roster. No doubt there are some things we could do better, but there isn't a single team that can't say the same thing. I think people are forgetting that there are two teams on the ice, and most of the flaws we see are probably not the result of flawed strategy, but the other teams simply being better at executing their strategy. I think we just became so used to seeing Wings teams that were better than the other team that we're having a hard time accepting that now we don't have the ability to dictate play like we used to.

[Dabura 12,207]

5 hours ago, Buppy said:

If you define "defensive hockey" as clutching, grabbing, trapping, or "traditional" defense like shot blocking, hitting, tight man-man coverage...yeah, defending today isn't about that. It's about good positioning, good player rotations, being quick to loose pucks, and moving the puck well once you do. It's about being disruptive. Of course, the better you are on offense the more it will help out your defense, but the same is true the other way.

When Sutter talks about possession, it's mostly hyperbole. He's exaggerating concepts far beyond the realm of reality to emphasize his points. The difference between even the best possession teams and the worst isn't nearly as much as some of what Sutter says would imply, and the vast majority of teams are separated by only a few percentage points. 

I think our struggles are perfectly normal for a mediocre roster. No doubt there are some things we could do better, but there isn't a single team that can't say the same thing. I think people are forgetting that there are two teams on the ice, and most of the flaws we see are probably not the result of flawed strategy, but the other teams simply being better at executing their strategy. I think we just became so used to seeing Wings teams that were better than the other team that we're having a hard time accepting that now we don't have the ability to dictate play like we used to.

Of course Sutter's being hyperbolic. So am I, to an extent.

I'm not really sure what "defensive hockey" is. I guess, to me, it implies a disproportionately large emphasis on defending. But if we're just talking about fundamentally good, structurally sound team defense, then, sure, teams today are playing "defensive hockey." Good team defense remains the engine of success. Good team defense drives possession and offense. Good team defense wins Cups.

...and I don't think the Wings are playing good team defense. We spend too much time in our end and lean far too heavily on our goaltending.

Sure, it's largely a talent issue. And, sure, there are two teams on the ice and each has a say in how the game is going to do down. And, sure, Wings fans have been spoiled by powerhouse Wings teams that made everything look so easy.

But I maintain that this team is playing bad hockey. I think it's poor execution of flawed strategy (the former following from the latter). Maybe the strategy itself isn't inherently flawed, but, to me, it isn't working for this team. (Obviously I have a long list of gripes that goes beyond just the team and the coaching staff, but I guess that's sort of outside the scope of the discussion. Still, it felt good to rant in my previous post.)

The ceiling for the 2016(-17) Wings is set at well below Serious Cup Contender status, but I firmly believe this team can and should be better than it's been thus far. I think we're seeing, among other things, a disproportionately large emphasis on defending, to the detriment of our overall ("200-foot") game. Like I've said, I'd point to our form of collapse defense as one of the big reasons why we're struggling as much as we are. It's hurting our transition game and our ability to generate offense.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Dabura

[Echolalia 2,961]

10 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Of course Sutter's being hyperbolic. So am I, to an extent.

I'm not really sure what "defensive hockey" is. I guess, to me, it implies a disproportionately large emphasis on defending. But if we're just talking about fundamentally good, structurally sound team defense, then, sure, teams today are playing "defensive hockey." Good team defense remains the engine of success. Good team defense drives possession and offense. Good team defense wins Cups.

...and I don't think the Wings are playing good team defense. We spend too much time in our end and lean far too heavily on our goaltending.

Sure, it's largely a talent issue. And, sure, there are two teams on the ice and each has a say in how the game is going to do down. And, sure, Wings fans have been spoiled by powerhouse Wings teams that made everything look so easy.

But I maintain that this team is playing bad hockey. I think it's poor execution of flawed strategy (the former following from the latter). Maybe the strategy itself isn't inherently flawed, but, to me, it isn't working for this team. (Obviously I have a long list of gripes that goes beyond just the team and the coaching staff, but I guess that's sort of outside the scope of the discussion. Still, it felt good to rant in my previous post.)

The 2016(-17) Wings don't have the horses to be a great team, but I firmly believe they can and should be better than they've been thus far. I think we're seeing, among other things, a disproportionately large emphasis on defending, to the detriment of our overall ("200-foot") game. Like I've said, I'd point to our form of collapse defense as one of the big reasons why we're struggling as much as we are. It's hurting our transition game and our ability to generate offense.

I have never seen a team play a swarm defensive scheme so aggressively.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Oh well if things are going south, maybe Tippet becomes available. He would be an established name with a very solid understanding of how to play defense and from the outside. Although I highly doubt changing the coach will improve an average roster without a number 1 center, number 1 defenseman by that much.

But a guy like that won't be available so easily so bringing him and Gallant in would be a smart move.

I may be one of the few but I feel bad for Blashill he has inherited such a bad team and is expected to get results, but on the other hand it's not his fault that some people had again rose colored dreams of a seamless taking over from Babs.

tldr: well compared to the walls of text from Dabura and Echo it's short anyhow: Blashill doesn't have much to work it but i would welcome Tippet with open arms

[kipwinger 8,529]

The Columbus Blue Jackets are 5th in the Eastern Conference, and having played only 26 games have the best win percentage in the league right now. 

Given that this is true, I have a pretty hard time believing that the Wings are as bad as they are because of a mediocre roster.  We also trail Ottawa and New Jersey as well.  We may not be a Cup contender, but this roster is capable of more than it's giving right now.  You cannot convince me that Columbus, New Jersey, and Ottawa have much (if at all) better rosters than we do.

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, Dabura said:

...

But I maintain that this team is playing bad hockey. I think it's poor execution of flawed strategy (the former following from the latter). Maybe the strategy itself isn't inherently flawed, but, to me, it isn't working for this team. (Obviously I have a long list of gripes that goes beyond just the team and the coaching staff, but I guess that's sort of outside the scope of the discussion. Still, it felt good to rant in my previous post.)

The ceiling for the 2016(-17) Wings is set at well below Serious Cup Contender status, but I firmly believe this team can and should be better than it's been thus far. I think we're seeing, among other things, a disproportionately large emphasis on defending, to the detriment of our overall ("200-foot") game. Like I've said, I'd point to our form of collapse defense as one of the big reasons why we're struggling as much as we are. It's hurting our transition game and our ability to generate offense.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I don't think the team is really doing as bad as is sometimes implied. Threads like this and some others make it sound like we're the worst team in the league. We have really only been notably bad at shot generation. By most metrics, we've been around the middle and even pretty good in some ways. Going back to last year, and even the last several years, the same is true. 

I'm not seeing what it seems you're seeing. I don't see any super-passive collapsing, and I don't think we're spending any inordinate amount of time defending in our own end. (And going by shot attempts against, we're not.) I think at times we get caught chasing, being too reactionary, and I see a bigger problem with our breakout being too easily disrupted, but I don't think that's a strategy. Overall, I don't think we can blame our offensive struggles on our defensive game.

Offensively I see our biggest problem being our ability to get into the zone and establish possession. Maybe (probably even) part of that is being overly cautious; being too quick to resort to a dump-in, defenders backing up as soon as it looks like the other team might get the puck, single forechecker most of the time, etc. But I think our poor passing, lack of an offensive leader, and lack of strong puck-handlers are bigger issues. 

38 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

The Columbus Blue Jackets are 5th in the Eastern Conference, and having played only 26 games have the best win percentage in the league right now. 

Given that this is true, I have a pretty hard time believing that the Wings are as bad as they are because of a mediocre roster.  We also trail Ottawa and New Jersey as well.  We may not be a Cup contender, but this roster is capable of more than it's giving right now.  You cannot convince me that Columbus, New Jersey, and Ottawa have much (if at all) better rosters than we do.

Every year, at pretty much any point in the season, there will be teams playing better or worse than what they should on paper. Being only a 3rd of the way through the season, that can still have a big effect on the standings. All the teams you listed missed the playoffs last year. I wouldn't be surprised if any or all of them miss this year. All of them, and plenty of others, have the same problem we do; the rosters just aren't that good. At the end of the year, or at any point during the year, some of them will be doing better than others. Who is doing what will often fluctuate during the year. It's the nature of parity.

No doubt we can be better, and of course we should be (and certainly are) trying to figure out ways to improve. Particularly the offense. Other coaching options and systemic changes are things we should be open to, but I wouldn't expect any great improvements. We're a bubble-team roster getting bubble-team results. 

[Dabura 12,207]

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I don't think the team is really doing as bad as is sometimes implied. Threads like this and some others make it sound like we're the worst team in the league. We have really only been notably bad at shot generation. By most metrics, we've been around the middle and even pretty good in some ways. Going back to last year, and even the last several years, the same is true. 

I'm not seeing what it seems you're seeing. I don't see any super-passive collapsing, and I don't think we're spending any inordinate amount of time defending in our own end. (And going by shot attempts against, we're not.) I think at times we get caught chasing, being too reactionary, and I see a bigger problem with our breakout being too easily disrupted, but I don't think that's a strategy. Overall, I don't think we can blame our offensive struggles on our defensive game.

Offensively I see our biggest problem being our ability to get into the zone and establish possession. Maybe (probably even) part of that is being overly cautious; being too quick to resort to a dump-in, defenders backing up as soon as it looks like the other team might get the puck, single forechecker most of the time, etc. But I think our poor passing, lack of an offensive leader, and lack of strong puck-handlers are bigger issues.

I dunno, I do see problems with our collapse scheme and I do think we're spending an inordinate amount of time defending in our end. (Maybe you and I are simply working with different standards/definitions.) I've never claimed that that's the only reason why we're struggling offensively, though. Overall, we're playing too passively, too conservatively. That's my #ScorchingHotTake. We're too willing to give the puck up and "Assume the defensive position!" I think this team can play a more assertive game. I think this team can play a more controlled game, a better possession game, a game that puts the other team under more duress.

We don't have top-end talent, but there's a good amount of skill on the roster. To me, the problems you're citing -- and I fully agree that they're problems -- can't just be chalked up to "Well, mediocre team is gonna mediocre." I see a team struggling to play a brand of hockey (or, "execute a strategy") that they're not comfortable playing, one that isn't working for them. Again, the lack of top-end talent is a major problem. But I don't think that (fully) explains why, for example, our passing game has gone to hell or why we're struggling to get into the zone and establish possession.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

It seems to me Blashills philosophy is having the forwards collapse in the D-zone to assist our overall weak Dmen. I'd like to see the opposite. Despite lacking top end talent we are pretty deep at forward. And plenty of our forwards have the wheels to be effective in a swarm style defense like Pittsburgh played on their road to the cup last year.

Tatar, Nyquist, Larkin, Helm, Glendening, and Athanasiou are all very quick, and the rest of our forwards aren't exactly slow either. They should be using their speed to pressure the puck carrier and overwhelm them. Don't let them setup. I think this would end up helping our Dmen more than collapsing in the zone simply because it plays to our natural strengths. If we were a bigger slower team I would disagree, but we are not a big slow team not counting Ericsson.

It seems like the rest of the league took a page out of Pittsburghs book, and the only who didn't notice was Blash. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by ChristopherReevesLegs