Paul Woods tonight 12/29/16

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

1 hour ago, joesuffP said:

Are we really going to wait 7 years and hope Cholowiski, Saarijarvi or 2017 draft pick turn into a top pairing defensmen?

Probably yes unless they get lucky in the FA market or someone develops out of nowhere. This team just doesn't have the assets to acquire a true #1 dman without hindering itself further. To get a true #1 dman you are losing either Larkin or Mantha for sure no doubts and probably a high draft pick. You trade one of them but guess what you dont have another Larkin or Mantha in the system at all right now so you will be waiting 7 years and hoping someone develops anyways to fill that spot. What really hurts this team is Tatar and Nyquist going into the crapper. If they were still scoring 25-30 goals they would be the assets used to bring in a dman and it wouldn't hurt as much in the long run. What this team needs is for Howard to come back strong and Vanek to start scoring goals again. Those are the key chips come trade deadline to prevent this from being a wasted season.

To put it bluntly this team is not going to be even a outside contender for 5+ years. You might as well stockpile young talent in that time. Overpaying with youth to get a #1 dman for 5-6 years is nothing but a bandaid. We have had 4+ years of Holland trying to put bandages on this team to keep them in the playoffs but not really building anything for the long term (other than bad contracts ). Its time to take the bandages off and let this team bleed out. Just think if he would have started planning for the future a couple years ago instead of hindering this team for the sake of the streak things wouldn't look so bleak right now. I think the problem is Ken Holland just doesnt seem to know how to build a team from scratch. Hes never had to. He seems to be real good at guiding a front running team but in terms of building one not so much. 

Teams likes Toronto and Buffalo also have something else in common. They have a brighter future than the Wings right now because they embraced the suck and started buidling through the draft. 

1 hour ago, joesuffP said:

We get 6-7 years of good D from Dekeseyer

We can barely get a good game from Dekeyser nowadays let alone 6-7 years of good D

[DickieDunn 2,571]

A new coach fixes a lot if issues

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Richdg 267]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

A new coach fixes a lot if issues

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

That is a maybe. We had babcock and were barely any better than we are now in the standings. He is the best in hockey. The has less talent than when he was here. Yes Blashill has been subpar as a coach. But even if we get the next Babcock we are what? maybe 5 points better in the standings?

The team needs to face the trueth so that we can put together a plan for the next 3-5 years that will have us moving back towards winning SC again. It is going to take some time. That means we needs to play the under 25 guys 20+ mins per game and find out what they are.

[Buppy 1,720]

16 hours ago, joesuffP said:

...

We get 6-7 years of good D from Dekeseyer and Fowler, Green will be gone, prospects will be up and our high end forwards should be impact players. Could have a good team in 2-3 years if we make a nice FA signing plus some guys develop nicely on D. We won't be good if we plan on drafting and developing our #1 for 7-8 years. Mantha and AA will be 30 and played their entire careers without a defense. The core of the defense has to be in place as soon as possible

Teams like Colorado,Toronto and Buffalo all have one thing in common. Bad defense. Wasted a lot of their prospects potential because a team can't function and grow without a decent defense group. That's why the wings look like they are seemingly bad at everything

It could be argued that all three of those teams have a defenseman as good or better than Fowler. 

Not saying Mantha for Fowler would be a terrible move, but in general when rebuilding it's assets like Mantha that you want to keep. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

That is a maybe. We had babcock and were barely any better than we are now in the standings. He is the best in hockey. The has less talent than when he was here. Yes Blashill has been subpar as a coach. But even if we get the next Babcock we are what? maybe 5 points better in the standings?
The team needs to face the trueth so that we can put together a plan for the next 3-5 years that will have us moving back towards winning SC again. It is going to take some time. That means we needs to play the under 25 guys 20+ mins per game and find out what they are.

The difference in the standings isn't nearly as big as the difference in performance. Tatar, Nyquist, Dekeyser, Larkin, and the rest of the players in their early to mid 20s should be getting better. They're all regressing.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[DickieDunn 2,571]

It could be argued that all three of those teams have a defenseman as good or better than Fowler. 
Not saying Mantha for Fowler would be a terrible move, but in general when rebuilding it's assets like Mantha that you want to keep. 

Top pair D > second line winger

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[BringBack19 110]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Top pair D > second line winger

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Well so far Mantha is a first line winger. Analytics, eye test, and the fact he is on the first line support the fact that he is and projects to continue to be a first line power forward. He reminds me of a mix of Jamie Benn/Corey Perry. He probably won't develop to be that good, but he is on pace and has the talent to do so. 

I would like to see a change in management and coaching before the wings make any franchise changing moves. I would not put it past Holland to try a drastic move due to his seat warming up. If we miss the playoffs I could see big changes coming for not only a rebuild, but also to sell hope for the future in the new arena. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Top pair D > second line winger

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I can do that too...

Top line power forward > second pair defenseman

[LeftWinger 4,936]

I hate to admit it, but the only thing going to fix this team is a fire sale and let the kids develop and build a core and learn together how to win. We also need a head coach/GM with full control and not afraid to make bold moves. We need an impact coach who gets what he needs from his GM. Maybe get a guy who can be both. 

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

11 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

 

The difference in the standings isn't nearly as big as the difference in performance. Tatar, Nyquist, Dekeyser, Larkin, and the rest of the players in their early to mid 20s should be getting better. They're all regressing.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

 

Why is Tatar being lumped into these categories? Hasn't score 4 goals in the last 4 games?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

2 hours ago, Hockeymom1960 said:

Why is Tatar being lumped into these categories? Hasn't score 4 goals in the last 4 games?

Because 4 games doesn't wipe out a season and a half of inept play

[DickieDunn 2,571]

3 hours ago, BringBack19 said:

Well so far Mantha is a first line winger. Analytics, eye test, and the fact he is on the first line support the fact that he is and projects to continue to be a first line power forward. He reminds me of a mix of Jamie Benn/Corey Perry. He probably won't develop to be that good, but he is on pace and has the talent to do so. 

I would like to see a change in management and coaching before the wings make any franchise changing moves. I would not put it past Holland to try a drastic move due to his seat warming up. If we miss the playoffs I could see big changes coming for not only a rebuild, but also to sell hope for the future in the new arena. 

Mantha probably doesn't play on the top line for a good team.  That's kind of like arguing Mike Maroth was an ace pitcher because he was the best on the 119 loss Tigers team.  But let's go with him being a top line winger.  Top pair D are still more valuable and harder to find so I still move him for one without thinking twice.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I can do that too...

Top line power forward > second pair defenseman

Mantha with 13 points in 21 games is a top line winger just because he's being used there on a team near the bottom of the standings.

Folwer isn't a top D despite being used there on a playoff team with stats that back up his status.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

31 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Mantha with 13 points in 21 games is a top line winger just because he's being used there on a team near the bottom of the standings.

Folwer isn't a top D despite being used there on a playoff team with stats that back up his status.

 

It's not so much that I don't think Fowler is a top pair defenseman, I just find it funny that you're labeling Mantha as a 2nd line forward, when he's playing top line now as a 22 year old rookie...

Mantha has all the tools to become an elite power forward. No one in our system has the same combination of size, skill, speed, hands, toughness.

Personally, I'm not trading him for anything short of a true number one defenseman (not a number two)...

[joesuffP 1,746]

20 hours ago, Buppy said:

It could be argued that all three of those teams have a defenseman as good or better than Fowler. 

Not saying Mantha for Fowler would be a terrible move, but in general when rebuilding it's assets like Mantha that you want to keep. 

Umm what? How? Do your research on fowler before just repeating what LGW has told you

[Richdg 267]

Just because a player is listed as a #1 or #2 etc.... doesn't mean that is what they really are. Go back a few years. Kronwall was our #3 Dman behind Nicky and Rafalski. They both retire, and Kornwall became the #1. But was he really a true #1 Dman? No. Good yes, but not a true #1. To be fair I have a really high standard for guys being a #1. There are maybe 10-12 of those guys in the NHL, that is it. Then there are another 15-20 guys that are strong #2's.

Getting a top 10 player at any position makes your team better. Mantha is not yet but neither is Fowler. Arguing which is better and which you prefer is like asking who would you rather have, Gretzky or Orr? I would prefer Gretzky but I can see why some would take Orr.

At this point in time we don't need to move 22 year olds for 25+ year old players that are UFA's in 1.5 seasons and have big cap hits. Heck we might be able to pick Fowler up this summer for much much less as teams try to not loose guys to the GK's.

[joesuffP 1,746]

Fowler isn't a #1 guys despite being a #1 on a great team with one of the deepest defense groups in the league and having great stats while playing big minutes every night in all situations. Oh and he's only 25.... but that Jacob Trouba with career highs of 25 points and can't outplay Winnepeg's # 3 defensmen. Now that's our man

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

To be fair Trouba is three years younger. For a defenceman, the difference between 22 and 25 is alot.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Just because a player is listed as a #1 or #2 etc.... doesn't mean that is what they really are. Go back a few years. Kronwall was our #3 Dman behind Nicky and Rafalski. They both retire, and Kornwall became the #1. But was he really a true #1 Dman? No. Good yes, but not a true #1. To be fair I have a really high standard for guys being a #1. There are maybe 10-12 of those guys in the NHL, that is it. Then there are another 15-20 guys that are strong #2's.
Getting a top 10 player at any position makes your team better. Mantha is not yet but neither is Fowler. Arguing which is better and which you prefer is like asking who would you rather have, Gretzky or Orr? I would prefer Gretzky but I can see why some would take Orr.
At this point in time we don't need to move 22 year olds for 25+ year old players that are UFA's in 1.5 seasons and have big cap hits. Heck we might be able to pick Fowler up this summer for much much less as teams try to not loose guys to the GK's.

Define a #1 D.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Richdg 267]

13 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Define a #1 D.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Sure. First they have to be great defensively. The first and primary job of all defensemen is to prevent goals from being scored. Second do they run the backend of their team?They are the one directing traffic, calling out who takes who. Third are they a physical presence? Clearing the crease, getting the loose pucks in the corner, making F's pay for daring to go in front of the net, etc.... Fourth do they score? I care more about the goals scored from the BL than the assists. Can a Dman get to 12-15 goals scored each season. Fifth, are they durable? do they play 75+ games each year? No player helps his team from the training room. Sixth, do they show the leadership needed?

Now some of those things are very subjective. But some are not. Let's actually talk some different examples.

Letang. he might be the best offensive Dman in the NHL. Do I consider him a #1? No. Not even close. he doesn't play D at all and offers 0 from the physical standpoint.

Keith and Seabrooke. Keith by far gets the most press-he is the more offensive guy, but IMHO Seabrooke is the better Dman. To me Seabrooke is the #1 and Keith is the #2. But there is no doubt about the fact that they are the best pair in the NHL.

Burns and Buflyglein (Spelling). same size, same age, both are great offensively. But Buff is a #2 at best. he doesn't play D very well. Burns however is good at D and why I would consider him a true #1 Dman.

Others that are true #1 in my opinon: Webber, Subban and Doughty. Soon to be joined by Ekblad and Jones.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

By your standard was Lidstrom a #1? He wasn't physical at all. How about Coffey, he won a certain trophy a couple times and wasn't close to a shut down defender

Regardless you seem to be defining a #1 as elite level. I think that's far too narrow.

If a guy can be trusted to play a lot of minutes in all situations, and it's not just because he plays on a crap team, he's a #1. Kronwall absolutely was a #1 before his knees were shot, even when he was behind Lidstrom. There were only 10 or 12 guys better than him league wide, especially when you realize he put up a decent point total playing second pair minutes on the second PP unit.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, joesuffP said:

Umm what? How? Do your research on fowler before just repeating what LGW has told you

Barrie, Ristolainen, Reilly.

[joesuffP 1,746]

4 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Barrie, Ristolainen, Reilly.

This is objectively wrong

[Richdg 267]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

By your standard was Lidstrom a #1? He wasn't physical at all. How about Coffey, he won a certain trophy a couple times and wasn't close to a shut down defender

Regardless you seem to be defining a #1 as elite level. I think that's far too narrow.

If a guy can be trusted to play a lot of minutes in all situations, and it's not just because he plays on a crap team, he's a #1. Kronwall absolutely was a #1 before his knees were shot, even when he was behind Lidstrom. There were only 10 or 12 guys better than him league wide, especially when you realize he put up a decent point total playing second pair minutes on the second PP unit.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

 

Kronwall was never a #1 Dman. He was a #2 at best. his D has always been average at best, but his O has been very good in the past.

But again these are my opinions. Others may not take such a strict look at guys. I do. But that gets us back to the point. With so few true #1's in the league, how many teams will give them up? None. Of the much larger group of #2's how many are available? Only a couple. Holland missed on them this summer, let's hope and pray he doesn't do so again this summer when everyone believes more moves will happen.

I would love to see a top 4 of DD, Shattenkirk, Fowler, and Trouba. That would be one of the better BL groups in the NHL. Do I think that will happen? Nope.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

So the 10th or 12th best defenseman in the league wasn't a #1.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Richdg 267]

31 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

So the 10th or 12th best defenseman in the league wasn't a #1.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

That is your opinion, which is fine. Offensive Dmen are ALWAYS overrated. You brought up Coffey a couple of posts ago. Yes one of the all-time great offensive Dmen. HOFer. But Bowman fired him twice. Why was that? If he is so good and makes a team so much better then why would the best coach of all time chase him out of town twice? Because there is more to it than just points. A defenseman has to play defense.