Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 10:46 PM
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 12/21 GDT : Avalanche 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Today, 09:00 PM

On another note, I'm amazed this went by so quietly, but with his tenth game Dan Cleary just made himself a million dollar bonus.  


In Topic: 12/21 GDT : Avalanche 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Today, 08:40 PM

The goals against average dropped by almost a whole goal after he made those comments compared to the previous winning streak. Add that information to his comments and its not hard to see why I'd conclude that an emphasis was made to "tighten up defensively". That the offense dropped off at the same time could be spurious, but I don't know why you won't even entertain the thought. Look back over all the games played and you'll notice the lower the goals against, the less we are scoring as well. Did Babcock make a deliberate decision to sacrifice offense or defense? I don't know. But based on his remarks and the correlating drop in goals against AND goals for, I don't think its as outlandish a proposition as you're making it seem.

 

 

For starters, your theory hinges on a single quote from the coach and extrapolates that to a significant change in coaching strategy.  That's a big leap, especially considering Babcock rarely says anything particularly revealing about his actual strategy and already is intensely focused on defense.

 

Then there's the fact that the very game after that quote, the Wings put up 5 goals, then 3 goals the two games after that.  So did it take a full week for the team to finally implement Babcock's message from Dec 2nd and focus on offense at the cost of defense?  

 

It also requires believing that he wouldn't adjust the new defensive focus at all during a 6-game losing streak.  

 

I haven't seen all the games, but I haven't noticed anything remarkably different in how he's running things.  Majorly changing some offensive players ice times.  Sitting back in a 4-1 trap in the third period if they have the lead. Something.  The team has looked lackluster a lot of the time, but not in anything I can pin to a new strategy.  Babcock is already an extremely defensively minded coach, so how much more could he get players to clamp down without some obvious changes? 

 

It's not that I didn't entertain the idea, in doing so it just seemed a little thin for an explanation to the losses. 

 

EDIT: to simplify this long winded response, I could see focusing on defense at the cost off offense as a larger criticism for Babcock's strategy with the Wings. I just don't think it's specifically significant for this losing streak.


In Topic: 12/21 GDT : Avalanche 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Today, 06:08 PM

 

On Dec. 2nd, the the middle of our best stretch of hockey all season, Babcock said...

 

"We're a pretty good hockey club when we play with pace, " Babcock said recently. "When we don't play with pace, we're not. The thing I don't like about what's gone on lately is we're giving up too many goals. We want to get back to giving up no goals...I don't mind if we score goals but I'm not interested in giving them up."

 

http://www.mlive.com..._gameday_7.html

 

We had won four in a row prior to that night, and three in a row afterward, and seemed to be creating offense pretty consistently.  I don't know where that went. 

 

If you think that they've been fine all season that's cool, I don't want to argue with you.  But Babs certainly thought they were giving up too many goals.  Since that time we've failed to duplicate the offensive output we were seeing then, and we've failed to get a lot of points that we probably ought to have.

 

A coach saying he's not interested in his team giving up goals.  And? He also said they're a good team when they played with pace.  The Wings haven't been playing with a ton of pace lately.

 

My point was mainly that they didn't go on some big win streak where they played more wide open, then really clamped down defensively and suddenly started losing, which seems to be the narrative you were putting forth.  They've won the majority of their games when allowing two goals or less.

 

I think they'll be trying to find that balance between offense and defense all season.  They have a lot of young and relatively inexperienced players.  That inexperience often shows up as a lack of consistency throughout a season.

 

Add to that they're missing Weiss and have two key players on big cold streaks, and it's not that surprising they're not winning.  The two guys in question (Mule, Z) are veteran players who've been very good defensively while still managing to produce.  I don't see some recent defensive focus causing them to go cold.

 

But that version of events doesn't make the losing skid the coach's fault for implementing a strategy change during a win streak. 


In Topic: 12/21 GDT : Avalanche 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Today, 10:53 AM

Remember when we won all those games in a row but it wasn't any good because we were giving up too many goals as well?  And then we tightened up defensively and started losing a bunch?

 

Maybe we should go back to doing things wrong and winning again eh?

 

Of the Wings 17 wins, they only gave up more than 2 goals in 5 of them.

 

The Wings last streak was three games in a row and they gave up 2, 2, and 1 goal in that run.  


In Topic: 12/21 GDT : Avalanche 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Yesterday, 08:55 PM

Good to see Z get another shot for nof****** reason. Surprised cleary didnt go 3rd

 

No reason? 

 

He was what, the 7th shooter?  And after Kronwall.  It's not like they threw him out there first.