Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 06:08 PM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Next Seasons Needs/Team Future

Today, 02:47 PM

 

I have mixed feelings about your post.  Sure, fans overreact when their team looks as bad as we have the last couple of games.  And obviously, the sky is not falling.  You're right, we've made the playoffs a whole bunch of times and in general we're lucky we never have to watch a bottom feeder. 
 

But you also make it seem like we should pat ourselves on the back for making the playoffs as if that's some victory in and of itself.  It would be...for the Lions.  But given that the Red Wings ALWAYS make it, there's some expectation that periodically they'll challenge for a Cup, or make it to the finals, or even make it to the conference finals...none of which we've done since 2009. 

 

If it's an overreaction to assume that everything about the team sucks and the Wings are terrible, its an equally bad under-reaction to assume that nothing is wrong with the team, and if not for a few less injuries we'd have been competing for Cups these last few years.  

 

I guess all I'm saying is that if you look at it objectively, there is some reason to worry that the team is trending in the wrong direction (e.g. barely making the playoffs, stinking up their first round series' against Nashville and now Boston, blowing 3-1 series leads, etc.)

We should pat ourselves on the back. Making the playoffs last season and even more so this season, is a victory. We should be proud of our playoff performance last year, even if we did "blow" a 3-1 lead. Even if we lose in 5 to the PT winners, a team that won a Cup a few years ago and went to the finals last year, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

Having some pride in what we've been able to accomplish during the beginning of our transition is not the same as assuming nothing is wrong with the team. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes being content with marginal achievements. Saying, "we did well this year, all things considered", is in no way, shape, or form a statement that we should never try or expect to improve.

 

You say "trending in the wrong direction", but by definition you have to go down before you can head back up. To suggest that we should already be getting back to the top is saying we never should have fallen in the first place, or at least that our floor should have been a top 7 overall finish and a 2nd round loss. The expectations most people have for this team are ridiculously unrealistic. We've barely even declined (at least relative to what "decline" means for the rest of the league), and by the look of our kids this year we may already be moving back up (at least in the short-term). It's actually pretty damn impressive, and it's a shame more people can't appreciate it.


In Topic: 2014 draft thoughts.

Today, 10:50 AM

BTW not sure how we let this happen, but Goodrow signed with the SJS.

Second-tier scorer as an over-ager in junior. Also didn't get a contract from Carolina or the Rangers. I see no reason to care. We already have Tvrdon covering the "looks like he could be pretty good but probably won't" spot.


In Topic: Round 1 Line Combinations

16 April 2014 - 02:22 PM

 

Personally I think that Dats, Abby, Alfie could play the Bergeron line even.  I also think the Kid Line would give the Krejci line fits because of it's speed and because Sheahan and Jurco are the biggest and strongest options we've got to play against Lucic and Iginla.  If we could get a wash out of those two and free up a Franzen, Legwand, Nyquist line to play against their third line, I think we could beat them.  And it goes without saying that Miller, Helm, and Glendening would eat their fourth line alive/provide for defensive relief with defensive zone starts for the kids/augmenting the Kindl-Lashoff pairing. 

 

Your thoughts?

If Dats and Alfie can play like Dats and Alfie (or better yet even, slightly younger versions of themselves) I'd say so, and Abby might be able to keep the worst of Marchand in check. The speed of the kids probably would cause some problems, I just don't think they have the defensive chops to keep up. If they got enough help it might work. Mule-Leggy (or Helm)-Gus should be able to beat their 3rd line.

 

No matter how we juggle the lines I think we should be able to get the better of their bottom 6. So if we can beat or break even with their top 6, it should offset their advantage on defense. Then it's a matter of Jimmy vs Rask.

 

Typed out, that last line looks more disheartening than it does in my head.


In Topic: Round 1 Line Combinations

16 April 2014 - 10:37 AM

 

It’s sad that we’re allf****** around with forward line combos. 

 

The forward lines currently match up well with the Bruins IMO. I actually think we have the edge. 

 

But unless you have the option to insert either a) Jesus or b) Optimus Prime into the lineup on defence, their are no defensive pairings that can collectively shut down the Bears.  

Well, we don't have those options, so there's nothing to really talk about on defense. Our defense is plan is: Limit the exposure of Kindl-Lashoff, try not to get anyone in the top 4 hurt, and hope Smith doesn't go full retard.

 

 

Alrighty the wings aren't going to be able to match up with Boston. So we will have to have great play from our centers. I see Glendening against Bergeron and Datsyuk against Krejci. After that Kid line against Kelly line. I really think that's where the series will be decided. Whomever gets the best of that matchup will win it. If I had my druthers I would line them up like this.

Abdelkader Datsyuk Jurco
Nyquist Sheahan Tartar
Miller Glendening Legwand
Franzen Helm Alfredsson

Kronwall Smith
Dekeyser Quicney
Lashoff Kindl

Don't think there's much chance of getting Bergeron away from Datsyuk. I'd want Glendening against Krejci anyway. Lucic and Iggy are both hotheads, so I think Glenny could get to them. With Miller and Helm I think we'd have a decent chance of neutralizing them.

 

I like our kid line (either the Nyquist or Jurco option) against their 3rd or 4th (though I do worry a little about Campbell and Thornton douching it up). I think they could at least make up any shortfall from above and possibly even give us an edge.

 

I'd like to see Datsyuk given enough firepower to beat Bergeron/Chara, as I think whatever we put out against Kelly-Soderberg-Eriksson will be able to hold their own. The other option is to concede the Bergeron matchup and try to exploit Soderberg. But the Bergeron line scores so well I think we need to make it as tough for them on defense as we can.

 

Regardless, it's a hell of a challenge. We're going to need a lot of guys at their best, and probably less than the best from the Bruins.


In Topic: ROW vs Point based system

15 April 2014 - 11:12 AM

 

Hi.  I think the point people (like myself) are trying to make is that there is too much value put into the shootout, and unfairly so, as a magical one point appears especially if you lose.  I'm not counting the SO win as a loss, but there shouldn't be 3 points awarded in the shootout.  Have you ever tried explaining to a non hockey person (one who is an other sports fan) the NHL point system?  I've gotten looks like I'm retarded and don't know what I'm talking about... that magical 3rd points is ridiculous.  The ROW is a guide of what happens after 65 minutes of play...

 

The point system needs to be altered so that Regulation wins mean more then a shootout win. And you can't count regulation losses, that doesn't make sense when you are looking at regulation and overtime wins.  Who cares about regulation losses, no league in any sport factors in regulation losses, it's inconsequential, it's about the wins.

 

I like the Olympic point system (it's not perfect, but magic points don't appear, and there's always 3 points to play for in a game): 3 points for a regulation time win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout defeat, 0 points for a regulation time defeat.  It keeps it honest.

 

It will make regulation play that much more meaningful and balance out the standings more appropriately.

I agree a 3 point system would be better, but that's not what was originally suggested.

 

For the record, in the Olympic system:

Det: 30-9-15-28 = 123 points

NJ: 26-9-18-29 = 114 points

 

If you go 3 for ROW - 2 SOW - 1 SOL - 0 ROL:

Det: 34-5-9-34 = 121 points

NJ: 35-0-13-34 = 118 points

 

If, as you originally proposed, you only count ROW then everything that is not a ROW counts as a loss. That would be fine if every game was actually a ROW or ROL. But we have games that are tied after OT. Those should be considered. When you do, you see NJ didn't actually get screwed like you originally claimed.