Jump to content


Dano33's Photo

Dano33

Member Since 10 Nov 2006
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:59 PM
-----

#2584348 Losing Streak affecting Babcock's Decision?

Posted by Echolalia on 24 March 2015 - 05:02 PM

 

I'm going to address two of your points...

 

1.  "I firmly believe Quenneville is the beneficiary of the skill on his team, and he doesn't bring much to the table". 

 

Who's better, Toews, Kane, and Keith or Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstom?  If you answer the latter, as I suspect you will, then your argument applies even more to Babcock then it does to Quenneville.  Babcock's best teams were better than Quenneville's best teams, or Sutter's best teams.  Yet they won more Cups with theirs.  

 

Babcock's 2005 roster was WAY better than anything Quenneville has ever coached.  It's better than anything ANY of those guys have ever coached.  He had four 80+ point players.  And he lost in the 1st round.  So don't act like he's been given some hard road and the rest of these guys had a cake walk based on their rosters. 

 

2.  "But I'm not willing to say Quenneville is one of the best coaches in the league based on four solid postseasons and ignore the rest of his career". 

 

The rest of his career where he had more wins and more playoff appearances than he had in Chicago?

 

Quenneville's got over 700 wins.  He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games.  Chicago is not an anomaly.  It's more of the same.  True Chicago's where he won his cups, but that's true of Babs and Detroit too.  He didn't win anything until he had Dats, Z, and Lids to work with.  In fact, he missed the playoffs 50% of the time he wasn't with the Wings. That's right, Babs missed the playoffs with a team that went to the finals the year before...just like Sutter. 

 

Cherry picking three players from a team of 20 players isn't an effective defense of saying one team is better than the other.  It also doesn't discredit anything I've said.  I think the Wings were the best team in the league in 2008 and 2009 skill-wise. I think since then, its been the Blackhawks.  Both teams have experienced success in those periods, as expected they would given their makeup on paper.

Babcock's 2005 squad was a solid team and they underperformed when the got to the playoffs.  The same way Quenneville's Chicago teams underperformed when they were eliminated in the first round two years in a row after winning a Cup, and the same way Quenneville's Blues underperformed earlier in his career.  I would say its the same way Sutter's team is currently under-performing, but if the reigning Cup champs end up missing the playoffs altogether, I think that's taking it to a new level, and I certainly don't think that is something that would be on the resume of one of the best NHL coaches in the league.  We'll have to see what happens on that one.

Also, forgive me if I don't jump up in disbelief of Quenneville's 700 wins.  The guy has been coaching playoff caliber teams his whole career dating back to 1996-1997.  That's almost 20 years of opportunity to work with.  Also your comparison to his time with the Blues and Blackhawks ("He had as many wins in St. Louis as he does in Chicago in roughly the same amount of games") is flat out wrong.  307 wins with St. Louis in 593 games coached =/= 266 wins with Chicago in 454 games coached.  That comes out to 51.7% wins vs 59% wins, which isn't a small margin.  That amounts to an extra six games won per 82 games, or a 12 point gap in an 82 game season.  So while they were both playoff-caliber teams, his time in St. Louis definitely isn't "more of the same".  Its quantifiably worse.  And the contrast between the two teams in the playoffs is even more apparent.  34 wins, 34 losses in seven playoff appearances with the Blues.  57 wins, 37 losses (and two aforementioned Cups) in six playoff appearances with the Hawks.  Definitely not more of the same.  But considering those Blues teams only made it past the second round once in seven seasons (eight if you include the year he was fired) it does further support the notion that Quenneville is unable to achieve any level of success with teams that aren't totally stacked and favored to win the Cup.  In short, Quenneville's teams don't exceed expectations.  They either meet their expectations, or they fall short.

And yes, Babcock has missed the playoffs 50% of his time not with the Wings (n=2, ie one time in his career).  Its also worth mentioning the skill level of that squad was marginal at best.  The year the Ducks went to the finals they went as a 7th seed, and unlike Sutter's Kings, the Ducks weren't a Cup favorite that for whatever reason barely squeaked into the playoffs.  The Ducks went as team that higher seeds thought of as a stepping stone to get to the next round.  Then they swept the defending Cup champion Red Wings team in the first round.  Then they beat the top seed in the West, the Dallas Stars 4-2.  Then they swept Minnesota in the Conference finals, before finally losing in seven games to New Jersey in the SCF.  The next season (and after losing their top-scorer Kariya when he bolted for Colorado in the offseason) they played closer to their skill set and missed the playoffs.  And just a side note: the Mighty Ducks team Babcock inherited ended the season in 13th place the year before he took them to the finals.  But that's neither here nor there.  The real beef I have isn't with how you perceive Babcock.  Its how you perceive Quenneville and Sutter.  Two guys who I think are somewhere between average and above average, but not cream of the crop.

 

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I'm on a study break and wanted it to last as long as possible lol




#2584950 3/24 GDT : Coyotes 5 at Red Wings 4 (OT)

Posted by Detroit # 1 Fan on 24 March 2015 - 09:27 PM

Was Jimmy Howard elected to the all-star team this year?

 

He's not as bad as people make him out to be, but for the sake of conversation, who cares? He played great in the 1st half. Anyone who disagrees with that is probably just a Howard hater. Since then? He's been pretty bad outside of a couple games, notably the one against the Rangers where he stole 2 points. I think people just want some consistency from Jimmy is all.




#2583766 Losing Streak affecting Babcock's Decision?

Posted by number9 on 22 March 2015 - 12:05 AM

Yes. Every great coach was a rookie once. I don't see how that precludes someone from being in the discussion. Further I don't think this team is right on the cusp of greatness. It'll be a year or two before we are an elite team again. When our young guys enter their primes. At which point blashill wouldn't be a rookie anymore. He would, however, still be the coach who has won with these guys, developed these guys, built report with these guys, and (hopefully) brought a fresh perspective to their abilities, and dynamic.

 

I agree with you on all those points. But I'm willing to send Blashill out just like we sent Yzerman, Nill, and a multitude of other coaches out. Why take on something unproven when you already have something great? I'm not gonna throw away a top 5 coach to gamble on a guy just cause he was successful in a lesser league. If Dave Lewis was our coach I'd partial, but he's not.

 

Jeez number9 your like the wise grandpa of the forums who also happens to be a d*ck lol I like you tho!

 

Appreciate the brown nosing, but I don't know or like you back dude sorry.


Because we are a team full of guys who, because of our late round picks, were selected for their hockey smarts and skill level. And not because of their physically dominant traits. And because he's a coach who consistent wants to subordinate offense for "heaviness", and shot suppression. He'd be a great coach for teams like Columbus, LA, or Anaheim. But not for a team full of guys who learned how to play the game in a European, puck possession, type system.

 

Where as I'd say he brings the perfect coaching balance to a team full of euros




#2582496 Mrazek to start how many games?

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 16 March 2015 - 01:08 PM

Exactly. I mean would people really not have a problem with Petr if he played the next 20 games and went oh lets say 4-16?

Even if you put all other things aside (scoring and defensive support), I think there he would be s*** on pretty hard if he were to put up that kind of a record.

But like it or not, that's the W-L he would have to go in order to end up with Howard's current 20-20 record. 

 

I just don't understand why people would rather lose with Howard than win with Mrazek. It doesn't make sense.

This phrase obviously sticks out and you must have meant it to provoke a response: "I just don't understand why people would rather lose with Howard than win with Mrazek. It doesn't make sense." Come on! You know things are not as simple as that. Mrazek will be a great goalie, but he's still getting used to the league and developing. It's not being "a Howard apologist" or Howard diehard or whatever to be reticent to put our trust in Mrazek in this year's playoffs. He's got us wins, but has also been pulled a couple of times and had a string of bad games. He hasn't been absolute lights out and that's what he would have to be to supplant an established number 1 goalie. It's definitely not "lose with Howard than win with Mrazek" in the playoffs. We really don't know how Mrazek would perform in that situation. 

 

A more measured response to Mrazek's success is to allow him Gus's spot as backup and get him some more games this year. I don't think anyone would be against Mrazek playing the next game after a solid win. Then we'll hope Howard can get back into the form he was in earlier in the season. That would be the best situation for the team come playoff time. He was being talked about for the Vezina and had a top GAA at some point. We're not talking about Joey MacDonald here. (Sorry, Joey - was trying to think of a low level goalie) Then let's see how they play for the rest of the season. If Mrazek goes full Hammond and Howard struggles mightily, then maybe it's time for this discussion. It's not right now from what we've seen.




#2570983 Next Number to be retired

Posted by kickazz on 15 February 2015 - 04:11 PM

People tend to forget Zetterberg's 2008 playoff performance when he literally shut down the top 2 players in the world (Crosby/Malkin) AND set the franchise record for most points in a playoff season AND won the Conn Smyth. Z may no longer be a top 10 player but he sure as hell was the top player of his position that year and arguably the top 3 player of his position in the latter part of last decade. Add the cherry on top, he's the captain of one of the most successful franchises in NHL. They could not have set it up for him any better. If he doesn't make the rafters after those feats + his commitment of a lifelong contract on this franchise, then I highly doubt we will see any more jersey retirements anytime in the future. And I really don't even need to make a case for Datsyuk. The only thing holding his situation back is if he parts ways from Detroit. MAYBE. 

 

Additionally people tend to forget that Federov did everything he did on an extremely stacked roster - a pre salary cap era. Don't get me wrong Federov was an outright beast of a player. But his feats were supportable by Yzerman, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Russian 5, and much much more. Who did Pav or Hank have to support their feats? an aging Lidstrom? 

 

And even if we forget all these numbers. Z and Pav are adored by fans and the management. Babcocks called Z "the coaches son" type of player after he signed his major contract in 2009. If anything Z/Pav have a better shot at it than number 91; they're on excellent terms with the franchise and fans. But I do wish Feds gets it as well. 




#2570143 2/11 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Penguins 4

Posted by Alan O'Bricke on 11 February 2015 - 09:26 PM

Most of the comments here are embarassing. I wish a lot of people would either play hockey at a somewhat high/competitive level, or shut up a bit.

What has everyone here been crying for forever?
"Let the kids play"
"Get rid of Franzen"
"Bench Cleary"
Etc, etc.

Guess what? All of those are happening and still no one is happy. Hockey has ups and downs, you are not going to win every game and sometimes you're going to get smoked. It's a curve, especially with teams like Detroit who have players who are still learning what it takes. You don't figure out the NHL in a couple games, in a stretch of games or sometimes even in a season. It takes time. They're learning.

You think Pittsburgh is in a different class than Detroit(someone said this)? They have more talent, arguably, but they don't have leadership, heart, compete level and usually no work ethic. Have you watched all the games PIT has collapsed in? Have you taken a look at their record against their division?

I get that this is an internet forum and the point is to discuss hockey and the game at hand, but it doesn't HAVE to be a hyperbole tabloid styled bitchfest. It could be real discussion with thought, not ripping your favorite team to shreds because they didn't "punch Cindy in the face!"


#2557492 Are the Wings a Contender?

Posted by krsmith17 on 18 December 2014 - 06:36 AM

:lol: Very fitting name...




#2555160 Matt Martin hit on Keith Ballard.. DIRTY

Posted by cnot19 on 09 December 2014 - 10:47 PM

I am gonna go ahead and drastically disagree with you about suspending him "a lot of games"
I only saw it once quickly but I think it's clean. Ballard ducked and spun away from martin I didn't see anything suspension worthy


#2550108 Smith and Ericcsson?

Posted by kipwinger on 20 November 2014 - 09:13 AM

Why does there seem to be some sort of weird, pathalogical, need to assign blame to each and every little thing that happens to this team?  Smith went back out because he wanted to play, the coach probably wanted him to play, and the folks signing his checks want him to play.  A cut on his hand is a minor injury.  The kind that hockey players sustain CONSTANTLY throughout a season.  Think about all the times that you see blood in the course of a hockey season.  All of those are cuts, and all of those have the potential to get infected.  Most don't.  This one did.  It's not anyone's fault.  It just happened. 




#2549618 Wings great Gordie Howe resting after 'serious stroke'

Posted by jimmyemeryhunter on 17 November 2014 - 11:24 PM




#2525591 SC winners and the draft.

Posted by brettq on 24 June 2014 - 09:50 PM

 

Been wondering about what it will take to get the RW's back to the top of the mountain. So I looked back to see what the past 20 winners had in common. From 1994 through 2014 there have been 20 SC won. Looking at the draft status of the talent on each of those teams.

Everyone of those teams had at least 1 guy on the team that was drafted in the top 10. About half of those top 10 picks were traded to the team that won the SC. 14 of the 20 SC winners had 4 or more guys on their roster that were top 10 picks. 1 team had 1 top 10 pick (us in 08), 5 had only 2 guys that were top 10 picks.

 

The makeup of those top 10 picks was a bit surprising. Only 1 was a G-MAF with Pitt. Most were in fact forwards. Very few were Dmen, and most of them are in the HOF. Stevens, Murphy, Leetch, etc.....

 

So what if anything can be learned from this? No not every top 10 pick turns out. A few were busts. Most however became stars in this league. Be it for the team that drafted them or later on. Every team had a top 10 pick on their team that they drafted but the 08 RW's. That means every team that won a SC over the last 20 seasons, has some crappy years to get a top 10 pick. That also means they had better drafting position overall.

Looking back at our SC winning teams we had 5 top 10 picks in 97 and 98. We only had 2 left in 02 and only 1 in 08. Currently we have 1 top 10 pick-Weiss. 2 if/when Alfie comes back. neither will be around much longer.

 

So what do I see from this? You win with talent. To get the top talent you have to have some guys that were drafted in the top 10. To get top 10 picks, you have to have some bad seasons, or make a trade for guys picked top 10 by other teams.

 

I'm not sure what bothers me most about your posts... The topic for discussion is non-stimulating, your logic is fragile, and your writing style is annoyingly conversational and hard to follow.

 

If you're going to develop a theory around the need for top-10 picks to be on your team in order to win a cup, then at least make an effort. This is pretty half-assed.

 

Besides, by looking back the past 20 years, you're comparing the salary cap era and the pre-salary cap era. 

 

You're also comparing a North America-centric draft era to an ever increasing global system. Do you think Datsyuk would have gone at 171 if he were available in the 2014 draft? Maybe you could start a new topic about that.

 

Are you suggesting we tank it for a couple years? Relive the 80s? Get the next Yzerman? Are you saying we should package our prospects for a top-10 pick with a s***ty contract? Pay an inflated rate for a top-10 FA? I don't get what you're saying.

 

If you're going to try to be thought-provoking and philosophical with your threads, please spend more than 5 minutes writing them. 




#2520402 A cap/salary question for you all.

Posted by wingsfan4795 on 14 May 2014 - 01:51 PM

You're bored, aren't you


#2491343 21 games to make it 23 years

Posted by barabbas16 on 05 March 2014 - 08:36 PM

Commitment to winning or commitment to being mediocre, same difference it seems.

 

I want this team to commit to winning a Stanley Cup. Barely making the playoffs every year and then not going anywhere isn't success in my mind. And if the team can't realisitically compete for a cup that season, I want the team to put itself in a position to compete for it in the future. If that means cutting some veterans and letting the youth get a chance to learn the NHL game, so be it. If that means that a streak is sacrificed so the team doesn't throw away picks and prospects for bandaides, so be it. This move by Holland does not make this team a Cup contender, it makes it first round fodder, and it makes it a less viable team in the near future as well.  

 

Yes, I think we fully understand your line of thinking.  A commitment to losing now is a commitment to winning later.  And, you think that automatically will turn Detroit into the new Pittsburgh and Chicago.  The main problems that I have with that are that (as has been pointed out to you already), top draft picks do not always lead to Stanley Cups or even general success.  There are more examples of teams that drafted high for multiple seasons and it didn't work out that well for them than the other.  And, I don't think losing purposefully for any reason is respectable and I can not and will not buy into it.  I don't root for my team to lose - that's what fans of the other teams do.




#2321662 Who is your favorite player from a team besides the Wings?

Posted by MotorCityMadness on 24 July 2012 - 07:35 PM

Ryan Callahan of the NY Rangers...great work ethic, blocks shots, hits, scores, and lays it all on the line every night


#2302044 LA Kings as a model?

Posted by blueadams on 18 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that the LA Kings are the model franchise of the NHL. But they are, (IMO) clearly, the best team in hockey right now. They had a rough regular season, as a lot of new pieces needed to gel. But they are 11-1 in the playoffs, and that's incredible.

IF we wanted to mold our team after theirs - as good a team to pick as any IMO - how would we do it?





*I'm penciling players into our lineup to mirror theirs (not where they'd actually be in ours).

Top Six:

D. Brown(0.66PPG, 6-0, 204, 27)---A. Kopitar(0.93PPG, 6-3, 225, 24)---J. Williams(0.72PPG, 6-1, 191, 30)
D. Penner(0.26PPG, 6-4, 242, 29)---M. Richards(0.59PPG, 5-11, 199, 27)---J. Carter(0.62PPG, 6-4, 199, 27)

Z. PARISE(0.84PPG, 5-11, 195, 27)---P. Datsyuk(0.96PPG, 5-11, 197, 33)---V. Filppula(0.81PPG, 6-0, 193, 28)
T. Bertuzzi(0.54PPG, 6-3, 235, 37)---H. Zetterberg(0.84PPG, 5-11, 195, 31)---J. Franzen(0.73PPG, 6-2, 220, 32)

...Datsyuk's smaller, but he more or less matche Kopitar. Zetterberg more or less matches Richards. Franzen more or less matches Carter. Filppula more or less matches Williams. Bertuzzi's not as physical, but he more or less matches Penner. THE ONE element our top six is REALLY missing is a Dustin Brown-type player. ZACH PARISE's not the same kind of player (better in some regards, worse in others), but he's the closest thing there is, and signing him goes a long way to close the gap.





Bottom Six:

D. King-(0.52PPG, 6-3, 234, 22)---J. Stoll(0.27PPG, 6-1, 213, 29)---T. Lewis(0.10PPG, 6-1, 194, 25)
J. Nolan(0.15PPG, 6-3, 227, 22)---B. Richardson(0.14PPG, 5-11, 191, 27)---K. Clifford(0.15PPG, 6-2, 208, 21)

*?????*---*?????*---G. Nyquist(0.39PPG, 5-11, 170, 22)
*?????*---*D. Helm(0.38PPG, 5-11, 195, 25)---*J. Abdelkader(0.27PPG, 6-1, 215, 25)

Cleary(0.44), Miller(0.31), Eaves(0.10), Emmerton(0.14), Mursak(0.12), Sheahan(0.00); UFA: J. Hudler(0.62), T. Holmstrom(0.32); GR: Conner(0.38), F. Brunnstrom(0.20), Andersson(0.00)

...I think Helm matches Richardson. Even though he's smaller, I think Nyquist more or less matches Lewis. Even though he's not as physical, I think Abdelkader more or less matche Clifford. But King and Nolan, there is absolutely no one on this team that even close to matches up to either. If we want to match up against the Kings in that regard, we'll need to look outside the organization. And really, we don't have a third line center with offensive abilities like Stoll either.





Defense:

R. Scuderi(0.11PPG, 6-1, 219, 33)---D. Doughty(0.47PPG, 6-0, 212, 22)
W. Mitchell(0.32PPG, 6-3, 208, 35)---S. Voynov(0.37PPG, 5-11, 199, 22)
A. Martinez(0.24PPG, 6-1, 206, 24)---M. Greene(0.18PPG, 6-3, 232, 29)

B. Smith(0.50PPG, 6-2, 195, 23)---R. SUTER(0.58PPG, 6-1, 198, 27)
N. Kronwall(0.44PPG, 6-0, 190, 31)---*N. Lidstrom(0.49PPG, 6-1, 193, 42)
I. White(0.42PPG, 5-10, 191, 27)---J. Ericsson(0.16PPG, 6-5, 220, 28)

J. Kindl(0.24PPG); RFA: K. Quincey(0.36); UFA: B. Stuart(0.26PPG); GR: D. Janik(0.11PPG)

...IF we signed Suter, I think he would match their top point producer, Doughty. I think Lidstrom more than matches their number two point producer, Voynov. And I think Ericsson more or less matches their biggest defender, Greene. Our next three guys - Kronwall, White and Smith - IMO, are all more talented than their next three guys - Mitchell, Martinez and Scuderi. But also significantly smaller in all three matchups. And that's just something that we're not going to be able to change any time soon. So we'll have to go with talent.





Goaltending:

J. Quick(26)
J. Bernier(23)

J. Howard(28)
J. MacDonald(32)

...Jimmy's no Quick, but who is? He's about the closest thing we could ever hope for. Probably could use a more reliable backup as well, but I have no idea who that would be.





Summary:

...We're never going to be as young as the King's. That's just not going to happen. And we're never going to be quite as big as them, especially on defense. But if we added Parise. If we added Suter. If we added a third line scoring center. If we added a couple of power forwards. We could come very, very close to mirroring this excellent team. And, IMO, we might actually have a slight edge talent-wise.





Potential Lineup:

CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR ROSTER
My Custom Lineup
FORWARDS
Valtteri Filppula ($3.000m) / Pavel Datsyuk ($6.700m) / Zach Parise ($7.000m)
Johan Franzen ($3.955m) / Henrik Zetterberg ($6.083m) / Todd Bertuzzi ($2.075m)
Gustav Nyquist ($0.875m) / Two-Way Center? ($3.000m) / Power Forward? ($3.000m)
Justin Abdelkader ($0.866m) / Darren Helm ($1.000m) / Power Forward? ($3.000m)
Cory Emmerton ($0.533m) / Jan Mursak ($0.550m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Nicklas Lidstrom ($6.000m) / Ryan Suter ($7.000m)
Niklas Kronwall ($4.750m) / Ian White ($2.875m)
Brendan Smith ($0.875m) / Jonathan Ericsson ($3.250m)
Doug Janik ($0.513m) /
GOALTENDERS
Jimmy Howard ($2.250m)
Joey MacDonald ($0.550m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $70,000,000; CAP PAYROLL: $69,699,962; BONUSES: $37,500
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $300,038