• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Neomaxizoomdweebie

2018-19 Mid Season Grades

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Larkin - A

Nyquist - A

Green - A

Howard - A-

Athanasiou - B+

Cholowski - B

Bertuzzi - B

Nielsen- B-

Blashill - B-

Rasmussen - C+

Jensen - C+

Hronek - C

Abdelkader - C

Glendening - C

Mantha - C

Daley - C-

Helm - C-

De La Rose - C-

Kronwall - D+

Witkowski - D+

Ehn - D

Megan - D

Frk - D-

Bernier - D-

Ericsson - F

Vanek - F

Holland - F

 

 

 

Edited by Jonas Mahonas

Share this post


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

Larkin - A

Nyquist - A

Green - A

Howard - A-

Athanasiou - B+

Cholowski - B

Bertuzzi - B

Nielsen- B-

Blashill - B-

Rasmussen - C+

Jensen - C+

Hronek - C

Glendening - C

Mantha - C

Daley - C-

Helm - C-

De La Rose - C-

Kronwall - D+

Witkowski - D+

Ehn - D

Megan - D

Frk - D-

Bernier - D-

Ericsson - F

Vanek - F

Holland - F

 

 

 

Abby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helen St James begs to differ with NO one below a C-minus. She must be grading on a curve...lol

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2019/01/01/detroit-red-wings-midseason-grades-heres-how-they-fared/2452547002/ 

Ansar Khan has more a realistic report card. 

https://www.mlive.com/expo/sports/g66l-2019/01/3d724403557729/red-wings-midseason-grades-dyl.html

Edited by AtlantaHotWings
added...

Share this post


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

Abby?

C.

 

See edit.  I have a genuine dislike for Abdelkader as a hockey player, as I think he does the least with the most size/ability .  That being said, he just needs to be put on the 3rd line instead of first.  His constant lack of impact on games or negative impact needs to be mitigated by the coach, seeing as Abdelkader isnt capable of doing it himself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AtlantaHotWings said:

Damn....this s pretty telling about Green's value to the team:

 

Mike Green: A

GP: 23 G: 3 A: 13 PT: 16

Green has been an offensive spark plug when healthy. Problem is, he missed the first nine games with a virus and won't return until mid-January at the earliest due to a foot injury. The team is 13-8-2 with Green and 2-11-5  without him. He leads team defensemen in points and all players in plus-minus rating (plus-10) and average ice time (21:56).

Share this post


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

Damn....this s pretty telling about Green's value to the team:

 

Mike Green: A

GP: 23 G: 3 A: 13 PT: 16

Green has been an offensive spark plug when healthy. Problem is, he missed the first nine games with a virus and won't return until mid-January at the earliest due to a foot injury. The team is 13-8-2 with Green and 2-11-5  without him. He leads team defensemen in points and all players in plus-minus rating (plus-10) and average ice time (21:56).

Pretty much why I couldn't believe why some people didn't want to re-sign him... like, he's far and away our best Dman, why would you willingly purge that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Pretty much why I couldn't believe why some people didn't want to re-sign him... like, he's far and away our best Dman, why would you willingly purge that?

His health is one big reason not to re-sign him.  An older player that's not bound to get any healthier.  Was a risky move bringing him back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GMRwings1983 said:

His health is one big reason not to re-sign him.  An older player that's not bound to get any healthier.  Was a risky move bringing him back.  

If we were a cup contender, I see where you are coming from. The way I look at it, there is no risk because if he's hurt and doesn't play, it doesn't actually "hurt" us.

I like him being here because his skill set will help these kids develop (someone has to create offense from the back end to help out these young forwards). Plus, you have to think his offensive abilities are something the kids on D are picking his brain about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Pretty much why I couldn't believe why some people didn't want to re-sign him... like, he's far and away our best Dman, why would you willingly purge that?

Yep. I was one of the crazy people who wanted to re-sign him instead of trading him.

Share this post


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

If we were a cup contender, I see where you are coming from. The way I look at it, there is no risk because if he's hurt and doesn't play, it doesn't actually "hurt" us.

I like him being here because his skill set will help these kids develop (someone has to create offense from the back end to help out these young forwards). Plus, you have to think his offensive abilities are something the kids on D are picking his brain about.

Plus the term is great.  2 years is no biggie.

Share this post


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

If we were a cup contender, I see where you are coming from. The way I look at it, there is no risk because if he's hurt and doesn't play, it doesn't actually "hurt" us.

I like him being here because his skill set will help these kids develop (someone has to create offense from the back end to help out these young forwards). Plus, you have to think his offensive abilities are something the kids on D are picking his brain about.

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Plus the term is great.  2 years is no biggie.

Yep and yep. It was basically a no-risk signing. There was a decent argument to be made for bringing him back and there was a decent one to be made for moving on from him (personally, I vacillated between the two right up until the extension was announced), but, halfway into the season, we can safely say bringing him back was the right call and moving on from him -- and not bringing in a similarly talented veteran replacement -- would not have worked out like we would've hoped.

Now, in fairness to people who were firmly in "DO NOT WANT" camp, Green has overachieved a bit this season and I don't think anyone could've predicted we'd be virtually incapable of winning without him in the lineup.

Share this post


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

Yep and yep. It was basically a no-risk signing. There was a decent argument to be made for bringing him back and there was a decent one to be made for moving on from him (personally, I vacillated between the two right up until the extension was announced), but, halfway into the season, we can safely say bringing him back was the right call and moving on from him -- and not bringing in a similarly talented veteran replacement -- would not have worked out like we would've hoped.

Now, in fairness to people who were firmly in "DO NOT WANT" camp, Green has overachieved a bit this season and I don't think anyone could've predicted we'd be virtually incapable of winning without him in the lineup.

And at the same time while we are typing, Green has been injured twice already this year.  He has fulfilled what the Do Not Want camp predicted.

Share this post


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

And at the same time while we are typing, Green has been injured twice already this year.  He has fulfilled what the Do Not Want camp predicted.

That too, I s'pose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Green was never signed with the expectation of playing 82 games. He was signed because he brings to the team exactly what they're missing with him gone.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position on Green was to not have him back.  Do I think he's the best Dman when healthy, yes?  I think he makes the team better, but I didn't think it made sense to have him back because the team isn't good enough to go anywhere, what's the point of keeping him?  He won't be around when we project the team to be good enough, so it didn't make much sense to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

My position on Green was to not have him back.  Do I think he's the best Dman when healthy, yes?  I think he makes the team better, but I didn't think it made sense to have him back because the team isn't good enough to go anywhere, what's the point of keeping him?  He won't be around when we project the team to be good enough, so it didn't make much sense to me.  

Gets the puck to forwards. Helps them develop offensively. Worth having around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

My position on Green was to not have him back.  Do I think he's the best Dman when healthy, yes?  I think he makes the team better, but I didn't think it made sense to have him back because the team isn't good enough to go anywhere, what's the point of keeping him?  He won't be around when we project the team to be good enough, so it didn't make much sense to me.  

What's the point in having any vets on the team? Why keep Kronwall? Why keep Nielsen? Why re-sign Vanek? Because like it or not, teams do need veterans to teach the kids on and off the ice. Green is a great vet to have teach guys like Cholowski and Hronek. I'll admit, I didn't like the Nielsen or Daley signings, even taking into account their "veteran leadership", but I thought Green was a good signing at the time, and still do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this