I didn't read every other post (sorry) so this might've got said already.. But, I've always thought/agreed that a good way to increase scoring would be to not allow teams that take penalties to ice the puck. Why reward teams for breaking a rule by allowing them break another rule? It never made much sense to me and would increase power play scoring.
When it comes to being a fan, I think the ability to view your team critically is important but in the end, I think you should support them and hope for the best. This is what I used to see around here.
Lately however...the hate for our goaltender is out of control, people complain about the GM in nearly every thread despite the fact that most experts believe him to be better than average, and people are calling to fire Babcock, who is arguably one of the best coaches ever.
Being critical is one thing but some fans seem to think that we should win every game, every year, and collect Stanley cups easily. They also seem to believe that we should be able to sign every desirable player ever and trade nobodies for superstars. It's frustrating because I don't feel like I can discuss the issues the team is facing because it will only be met with replies of "duh, everybody on the Red Wings sucks"
I guess people can be fans in many different ways and in the end, it's not for any of us to decide but imo a real fan is watching the games thinking "I love this team, win or lose, but I really hope they win"
Its hard to simply define what a "real fan" is, but here is what I think pisses people off and results in some fans questioning others.
Some fans want to win at all costs, and have absolutely zero empathy for the players. The kind of people who are legitimately angry at a player for getting a concussion, and think that a player should sacrifice his life after hockey for a win, which is ultimately to give that fan immediate gratification and IMO extremely selfish. These people I have an issue with, and do question.
I think its okay for a fan to be frustrated that a player is hurt, but when you are mad at the player for getting hurt, I believe a line is crossed, especially when insults are thrown at the player. No player wants to be hurt. Could you imagine if a person broke their leg at a factory job because something random and flukey happened, and their co-workers were mad at them for it, seems ridiculous...right? When I hear people say thing like "F U Datsyuk, if you cant play" it embarrassing.
Secondly, we are the luckiest fan base in all of hockey, I'm not going to list our resume as we all know it. We are now in a league that has been created to have parity. Some people still have the expectations of the late 90's, early 2000's, they want this team to be a top seed every year, and to ALWAYS be Stanley cup favorites. This is just not realistic anymore, and when fans don't get this, they attack the people in the organization. Personally I don't think this makes you not a fan, just a bit delusional. We cant outspend other teams by 20mil anymore.
A Lot of people hate the constant negativity. There are certain posters who if you go into their post history, every single thing they write is negative. I think this has more to do with a persons outlook on things in general then their fandom, or they are just trolling.....Tank It?
Lastly, there are the people who hate the fact that the Wings play a European style (Don't hit etc.) This I find funny, because this has been the Wings for years. If you have not accepted this by now, you probably are watching the wrong team lol.
Let's see how long this can go without being shut down. Seriously. Let's think of it as a challenge.
Personally, I think every fan has a right to be negative. I get mad at this team all the time. For me, the important thing is putting into perspective later on - weeding out the reactive stuff from the "this is actually an issue" stuff. Initially, I was upset with the way Detroit clinched, then I read the article where Babcock said he didn't think this team was even a contender in July. It's easy to think "wow, they p***** it away", but really... they made it. Who cares how? Los Angeles and Boston are out, and the Red Wings just keep rolling. Model of consistency. I lost my perspective in the mess that was March, but I'm appreciative that this team has been this good for this long.
I think we're always going to look at another fan who views aspects of this team differently and say, "that's not how to be a fan". It's just how it is...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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"
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!"
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
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.