I agree it would be good to bring up a pure scorer but I think if Holland planned on bringing up a kid he would end up skipping him for Mantha just to get a look at what he can do in the NHL
Mantha still has his hands full adjusting to the AHL. Pulkkinen has paid his dues in the AHL, is tearing it up down there, and is most likely not only to not be a liability on an NHL team, but potentially contribute. I can't possibly see Holland bring up Mantha over Pulkkinen given how the two have performed so far this year.
Our defense is the main issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider adding 26-year-old 20-goal scorers, especially if they're right shots. Like, this isn't a difficult concept. And it's not like we're adding a big-name defenseman anyway. It'll be a Petry, a Zidlicky. We could afford that and a Perron. Then we'd have a whopping three right-shooting impact players!
IF ONLY THERE WERE A HOCKEY STORE HE COULD GO TO! ALAS!
I disagree with this to a point (although I wouldn't mind swapping a left handed shooter for a right handed shooter). Adding 20 goal scorers is nice, but I don't think the issue with scoring comes down to who we have on forward, how our forwards are playing, or even the coaching schemes that they're playing under. The way I'm seeing our games play out, it all comes down to the fact that we don't have any real offensive threat aside from Kronwall from our defense. If you look at goals scored (or even points) from the blue line, the Wings are close to the bottom of the league, especially for a playoff team. Other teams know this and they're playing more aggressively down low in the defensive end instead of playing more tightly to our defenders, which gives our forwards less time and space to work with. (For the record I think this is more of the causative agent why the Wings are labeled as a perimeter offense team, and not the notion that we need more power forwards). And if we play it back to the blueline, they know as well as we do the puck likely isn't getting to the net. They can afford to give our defenders that extra second with the puck. I even think that our coaching staff has tried to adapt to this weakness by using our defense more as an outlet to get the puck from one side of the zone to the other, instead of forcing a shot through (I have no solid data or quotes to back this up, I've just noticed a lot more winger->defender->opposite winger/opposite defender plays than winger->defender-> shot on net plays this season. I could be entirely wrong on this). Anyway, if we spend the assets to get Perron, we're down those assets, we're down the roster player that Perron is replacing, we're down that chemistry the players have established until Perron gets comfortable, and there's no guarantee that Perron even gets comfortable in our system. And in light of how other teams defend against us, I'm not even confident saying that Perron is a 20 goal scorer here. Acquiring him certainly won't change how other teams defend against us, although it might make it easier to rip a one-timer from the half wall on the left side, or break out of our zone under pressure from the left side, which does have its values.
On the other hand, if we can somehow acquire someone who can, at the very least, put pucks on the net from the blue line with some consistency, I think we will see production go up throughout the entire team, because in addition to what the defender can make happen (goals, shots that are tipped in, etc) I think it will open up some space for our forwards as opposing wingers will have more to worry about from our blueline for them to cheat on their coverage.
So I guess my main beef is that I don't think acquiring Perron will make much of a difference in the trajectory of this team, and I'd rather see our assets go towards an offensive defensman, whom I do think can be a real difference maker.
It seems like the majority of LGW wants to see a trade go down just for the sake of seeing a trade go down. Then when other teams do make a trade, all of a sudden they're over the top and oh no who can stop them now?? The Pens have been aggressive buyers almost every year for the past five/six years, and somehow it hasn't translated to a whole lot of success in the playoffs. As for Perron, he's not the type of player the Wings should even be spending assets to acquire. All things considered, we have a good amount of talent spread throughout our forwards, everyone is buying into the system and filling their role well, and we've seen chemistry form from a variety of different line combos already. Why mess with that? If we're looking to make a trade, let's fill a void and go for a top four offensive-defensman. If we can't find one for a fair price, we always have plan B of continuing to develop our prospects to eventually fill a role. But getting worked up because the Pens, or Flyers, or Bruins, or whoever made a deal and all of a sudden they look better on paper isn't worth knocking Holland over. Especially when its only January.
Posted by Echolalia
on 11 December 2014 - 05:28 PM
I've still been waiting for someone to explain to me how it's totally acceptable to call out Ericsson for a giveaway that led to a goal, but if anybody brings up Howard doing the same thing they're just a "hater/basher".
I'm pretty sure it was the same game too. Ericsson in the 1st period, Howie later in the same game.
I'm sure you guys will head over there and tell them how it's all bulls*** cuz it's just a made up stat and all...
Anyway, anybody wanna answer my question? I'd seriously love to have an answer.
Of course its totally acceptable to call out anyone who gives the puck away and it leads to a goal. Everyone does it reguarly in the GDT, including when Howard does it. Hell, this whole thread was made to bash Howard in the shootout and here we all are. As far as I'm aware, nobody ever bashed on you or your posts for doing that. What people disagree with is relying on a "statistic" that is entirely subjective as an objective way to rate a goalie, especially when its clear that you're not interested in comparing him to the rest of the league, but rather trying to paint him in a bad light. "Bad pass" was never defined, neither were a handful of other statistics that you came up with. Who decides what pass is considered "bad" or not? You? And even if you came to some objective way to quantify a bad pass goal, there exists absolutely zero data on any other goaltender in the history of the NHL in these statistical categoreis, so any values that are obtained, whether objective or otherwise, still have no value because there's no way to define what's considered an acceptable range/poor range for bad pass goals or whatever else you were looking at. Maybe Howard actually has the best bad pass goals against in the league. But all you were interested in was counting how many times he let those goals in, and not determining how that value compared to other goalies. As for the next part of your post, wherein you bring up "really bad starts" from that website: Its a s***ty name for a statistic (and it also made me lol), but in the website they clearly quantify "really bad start" as "A performance where the goaltender failed to attain even an .850 save percentage." That's objective. Under their definition, nobody can argue whether Howard has a "really bad start" or not. The author of that post is also using his statistics to compare different starts of Howard throughout a season/career and then coming up with a conclusion after the values have been analyzed. What he didn't do is come to his conclusion first, then make up stats to try to support his predetermined conclusion.
ANYWAY I think Howard's problem is just as psychological as the rest of the Wings at this point. They all expect to lose, and teams that verse us in the SO expect to win. And it shows in their body language. We aren't seeing those creative dekes (or any dekes), and everyone is more comfortable just shooting the puck. I'm not a goalie so I don't know how to read a goalie's body language as well, but I imagine that Howard isn't playing the shootout with a lot of confidence right now. Maybe that means he's playing too tight to the net, or he's trying to react instead of predict too much, or vice versa. All I know is that he hasn't always been this poor.
Posted by Echolalia
on 08 December 2014 - 11:55 PM
From what I've read through the forums I don't believe there are many folks who think Zetterberg is completely healthy, myself included, although its a bit confusing that he wouldn't be resting if he wasn't 100% considering how conservative the Wings have been this season with regard to injuries. Having said that, Franzen and Nyquist are also both in cold spells, and when nobody on the line is taking charge, everyone's going to suffer all the more because of that.
But like you said, Babcock can hardly break the lines up, because production has been solid throughout the other three lines, and at the very least the Zetterberg line hasn't been a liability defensively, so if Z, Nyquist, and Franzen can break even, Babcock still has two (sometimes three) other lines to carry the offensive burden, at least for now. Perhaps when Abdelkader comes back he can be put into that line to get a spark going, or if Zetterberg is injured perhaps the team will be more inclined to rest Z up at that point.
Posted by Echolalia
on 08 December 2014 - 10:26 PM
I love hockey players (as we all do), and believe there are such things as good hockey names.
Ryan Callahan - solid red-blooded american hockey name
Vladimir Konstantinov - bad ass russian hockey name
Guy Lafleur - beautiful french-canadian hockey name
Justin Abdelkader - is the same sound I make when I vomit (don't get me wrong,I love the guy)
IDK I'm probably just weird.
I think the glory of the name usually follows the glory of the individual after a successful career. If Konstantinov was a soft lanky defensman who only played 10 games in the NHL, our heart-rates probably wouldn't rise today when we hear his name. Similarly, if Abdelkader had a career of taking down NHL heavyweights with one punch, and scoring goals, and wreaking havoc in the playoffs, I think his name would mean something quite different than it does to us now.