Jump to content


kipwinger's Photo

kipwinger

Member Since 31 May 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 09:05 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Rating the Defense through 6 games

Yesterday, 11:06 PM

 

Weird. I know there’s been a few hiccups (Ericsson in game 1 comes to mind) but I feel like the D to F puck movement has been much improved and has probably had an enhancing effect on team speed. If you look at analytics, the Wings have had really good possession stats through these first 6 games. Some of that has to be because of decent puck movement from the D. 

 

Not necessarily, a faster team will generally have better possession stats than a slow one (us a year ago) because your forecheck creates more turnovers and you get to more loose pucks.  It's basically a team wide version of the same theory that has Helm on the powerplay right now.  He's faster than everyone else so he gets to more loose pucks (i.e. keeps possession for the Wings).  Babs was commenting on how much faster our team is this year.  My guess is this attributes MUCH more to those possession stats than defense to offense transitions. 

 

Against Montreal it was really obvious.  ALL our decent scoring chances came as a result of the forwards mixing it up and making it hard for Montreal to get through the neutral zone.  Even Datsyuk's "goal" (which came from deep in our d-zone) was passed up by Zetterberg and not a dman.  Our defense is terrible at gaining possession in our zone, and getting the puck to the forwards competently (the aforementioned "turnover problem"). 


In Topic: Rating the Defense through 6 games

Yesterday, 09:19 PM

Our zone coverage has been really good.  Our passing and transition game from the back end has been horrible, to the extent that our beat writers were discussing our "turnover problem" by about game 3 of the season.  Two of our loses are directly attributable to massive defenseman turnovers that led to goals.  Also our defense has produced a combined 7 points, so anybody ready to pat them on the back for "creating offense" should think again.  So let's not sing kumbaya just yet eh boys?


In Topic: 10/21 GDT - Red Wings 1 at Canadiens 2 (OT)

Yesterday, 01:21 PM

Everyone that is crying that we didn't have enough offense is stupid. Yes, two goals won't win you MOST games but SOMETIMES it's enough to win a game. This is hockey, you guys know that it's not always going to be high scoring. We scored two goals yesterday in a very TIGHT game. You've never seen a hockey game end 1-0 or 2-0? It happens!! Yes of course we could have took advantage of the Power Play but we didn't. Bottom line is we scored more than they did and we should have won. You're not going to win many games when goals are taken away from you. Absolute bull call and took away a highlight goal away from one of the best players in the game. I seriously want to crush Montreal so bad the next time we play them.

 

You're right.  We are stupid.  I've changed my tune; from now on I'll form my impressions based on what should have happened. 


In Topic: 10/21 GDT - Red Wings 1 at Canadiens 2 (OT)

Yesterday, 10:41 AM

There might be more skill in theory (Debatable) but outside of Dats, Hank, and now Nyquist there is no consistant NHL scoring from the young kids right now. The kid line is at best mediocre NHL scorers right now. No true PP qn or big shot hurts the most.

 

Sure, the kids are playing mediocre right now, but that doesn't mean they're not skilled.  Guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Smith, and to a lesser extent Dekeyser were drafted (or signed) because of their speed and skill with the puck.  They certainly weren't brought on board to be bangers and grinders. 

 

The fact that they're not creating offense is a symptom, not a cause. 


In Topic: Weiss

Yesterday, 10:37 AM

 

Learn what the term maybe implies...before posting some of the usual "kipwingers always right know it all stuff"

 

Lol.  So your posting strategy is to say demonstrably false statements, but preface them with the word "maybe" in order to make it seem like you're not being intentionally misleading? 

 

That's a good way to add to the discussion. 

 

There is literally NOTHING to indicate that the "coaching staff expects more out of him" or that Babcock isn't playing him because he's "not performing".  There's every reason to believe that Babcock is impressed with his work ethic and attitude.  You know why we have every reason to believe that?  Because Babcock said it.  And I don't have to preface any of that with "maybe".