Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
You do need elite players. You have yet to disprove that. You also aren't telling us how we are going to get elite players so what worked for these teams can work for us.
An Analysis on Discontented Fandom
- Thread starter jkutswings
- Start date
You do need elite players. You have yet to disprove that. You also aren't telling us how we are going to get elite players so what worked for these teams can work for us.
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
One of the teams that made the Finals last season has the best player in the world for the past decade, and someone who has been the #2 centre in the world (until McDavid) backing him up.
The other team that made the Finals, while being relatively thin down the middle, had 4 dmen better than any dman wearing a Wings sweater. Their top 4 were all better than our top 1.
What point are you trying to make, exactly?
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,628
- 3,517
The year before going to the cup San Jose topped out at 70 points and had 5 players over 40 points and didn't make the playoffs.
The year before going to the cup topped out at 64 points and had 5 players over 40 points.
The year they went to the cup they topped out at 61 points and had 7 players over 40 points.
To me, that's pretty much as far away from "you need elite players" as you can get.
I want you people to call your shots ahead of time, or else it's just "they made it to the Stanley Cup, therefore they are elite" and you will never have a way of not being right.
The year before going to the cup topped out at 64 points and had 5 players over 40 points.
The year they went to the cup they topped out at 61 points and had 7 players over 40 points.
To me, that's pretty much as far away from "you need elite players" as you can get.
I want you people to call your shots ahead of time, or else it's just "they made it to the Stanley Cup, therefore they are elite" and you will never have a way of not being right.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
I want you to tell me how Brent Burns and Joe Pavelski aren't elite players. And how Thornton wasn't en elite player the year they went to the Cup.
Then point to me where our 3 elite players are, or how Holland is going to pull off a trade similar to the Burns or Thornton trade.
Joe Pavelski is 2nd in goals scored over the last 5 seasons in the NHL.
Brent Burns is 2nd in pts scored among defenseman over the last 5 seasons in the NHL.
Last edited:
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
Lots of changing goalposts here...
Look at every Stanley Cup finalist going back the last decade and look at who was driving those teams to the Finals.
Penguins: Crosby, Malkin, Kessel
Preds: Subban, Josi, Ekholm, Ellis, Rinne, Johansen (until injury)
Penguis: See above
Sharks: Thornton, Burns, Pavelski, Vlasic
Blackhawks: Kane, Keith, Toews, Hossa, etc
Lightning: Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov, Palat, Johnson
Kings: Doughty, Kopitar, Quick, Carter
Rangers: Lundqvist (list could end here, really), McDonagh
Shall I go on? Who exactly do you see anywhere in the pipeline in Detroit having those kinds of impacts?
I don't understand the argument being made. The Sharks don't have elite players (or Joe Thornton is only elite in hindsight)? The Preds are comparable to the Wings? Or is this just an attempt to find a hypocritical argument and "win" by exposing it?
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,628
- 3,517
I want you to tell me how a team with all those elite players hasn't won a playoff round in 3 out of the last 4 years.
If elite players are the key, and they are loaded with them...why the hell are they awfully similar to us, a terrible franchise?
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
They're not similar to us.
I don't really care why they haven't had better results with a clearly better roster than us. And we shouldn't expect to do what they have done recently (weird that you're arguing both for and against this simultaneously) since our rosters are not alike.
Last edited:
TheOtherOne
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2010
- 8,274
- 5,272
It's crazy, i feel like the 2 sides of this argument don't exist in the same universe and have no business in the same discussion.
Side A ascribes importance to the playoff streak. Look, we made history and hung on as long as we can with no high draft picks, accomplishing something few teams can claim historically. And now it's a new era, one in which we've missed the playoffs a whopping 1 time, and we can only wait and see how long it takes to get back on top.
Side B thinks they had the foresight to blow the team up years ago, and if only they had, we'd be in the mix next year with a one two punch of Matthews and McDavid.
The frustrating thing about this argument is that both sides can be right. But once you accept that the playoff streak mattered, all that is left is the fact that it has only been ONE year! Give it a little time before declaring it another Dead Wings era.
Wikipedia's Red Wings entry in 2057 is going to be like "the 98-16 team did have one of the longest playoff streaks in sports history, but historians all agree that they were hilariously mediocre in the last few years of it!"
Side A ascribes importance to the playoff streak. Look, we made history and hung on as long as we can with no high draft picks, accomplishing something few teams can claim historically. And now it's a new era, one in which we've missed the playoffs a whopping 1 time, and we can only wait and see how long it takes to get back on top.
Side B thinks they had the foresight to blow the team up years ago, and if only they had, we'd be in the mix next year with a one two punch of Matthews and McDavid.
The frustrating thing about this argument is that both sides can be right. But once you accept that the playoff streak mattered, all that is left is the fact that it has only been ONE year! Give it a little time before declaring it another Dead Wings era.
Wikipedia's Red Wings entry in 2057 is going to be like "the 98-16 team did have one of the longest playoff streaks in sports history, but historians all agree that they were hilariously mediocre in the last few years of it!"
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,628
- 3,517
I'm arguing before and against it because of my original question of it being a chicken and egg thing. Is Ryan Johansen an elite player because he's an elite player, or is he being called elite because he was one of the better players on the team that made the cup.
Should we trade 3 first round picks for him? I'd do that for an elite center. So is he elite every year, or does he magically fit into the category for this one year? Are we trading the farm for elite Tyler Johnson?
If we make it to the stanley cup this year, are you going to say "that's because Mantha, and nyquist are elite so I was right"
If you're pretending to know how to build a team, you have to call your shots ahead of time, and none of you were picking San Jose or Nashville the last two years.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
As I said a few pages back...
Subban, Josi, Pavelski, and Burns have been elite players for years. They were elite before their teams went on Cup runs. I think that was pretty clear, even though I know they are in smaller hockey markets.
As for the Wings, Mantha is about the only roster player I could see becoming an elite player. We are a few years away from any of that even maybe happening, IMO.
And if the Wings make it to the Cup on the backs of Mantha and Nyquist this year, I'll gladly admit I was wrong in thinking we are a few years away from even possibly having a few elite players, and I will drive to Michigan and buy all you guys a beer.
Last edited:
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
By 2057, the vaunted 'streak' will be barely more than a footnote. People aren't even talking about it anymore today, and we've only missed a whopping 1 time!
Go back and look at old threads/posts if you'd like to confirm, many on 'Side B' HAVE had the foresight. The most common refrain, one that has been echoed by many on here, including myself, was questioning the point or value of extending the streak if it meant a barely contested first round exit. Which is exactly what happened in the last years. And what do we have to show for it today?
That was our point, that the meaning of 'the streak' was being way overblown, and the organization should have taken steps to put themselves in a position to rebuild this team into one that actually chases things of tangible value. Things like Cups, Conference Championships, Division pennants, etc. Not this abstract 'streak', which is meaningless in the end. The fact that nobody cares about it anymore, just a year and change after it ended, proves this. It's not even the longest streak in NHL history, so when that topic is brought up it won't even be the one mentioned. Cups are remembered forever, though.
EDIT: And just one thing to add. The streak is talked about as one entity, but it's not. A good portion of that streak was spent near/at the top, trying and often succeeding in winning Cups. Making the playoffs to those teams didn't even register as an accomplishment. It was an expected milestone on the road to the true goal.
The last 7 years however were a totally different story, especially the last 5. Cups weren't the goal anymore, simply making the playoffs became the priority.
So 'the streak' should probably be split into two distinct eras. The era in which the team strove to win championships, and the era in which the front office considered it a success to simply be in the top half of the league. It's like they weren't even the same team.
Last edited:
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,628
- 3,517
2011-12 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
2012-13 Lost in Conference Semifinals
2013-14 Lost in First Round
2014-15 Did not qualify
2015-16 Lost in Stanley Cup Finals
2016-17 Lost in First Round
No matter how much you people want to believe it, "just making the playoffs" wasn't the goal, and wasn't the only possible result.
They tried. They failed. For now. It's ok.
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
I fail to see your point, why are you talking about the Sharks (with no direct reference to the Sharks) as a reply to a comment entirely about the Red Wings?
TheOtherOne
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2010
- 8,274
- 5,272
Yea i mean if that's your metric no-one gives a **** who won the cup 2 years ago. On the other hand every time a team gets a long playoff streak everyone will be saying "will they surpass the old wings record?"
And i did say both sides can be right. Maybe you did have foresight. Maybe you're right that we could be contenders again already. It doesn't matter. The argument changes depending on whether you value the streak. And that's purely opinion. You can't convince someone that it did or didn't matter. You have to choose one and then go from there.
Dotter
THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
I think it is a big part of it. I think they had very good prospects that didn't develop into what they were capable of... because the Oilers.
Imagine how much worse it would be if they didn't have character in the locker room. I don't know all the whispers you speak of, but I promise it's not coming from the heart and soul guys. Not many kids are as mature as a 19 year old Yzerman was.
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,395
- 1,206
People do care who won the Cup two years ago, people care who won the Cup 50 years ago. The team that wins will forever go down as the champion of that season. There's a stat for how many Cups a team has, there isn't one for how many streaks they've had. Number of Cup wins is an important stat when players get selected for the Hall of Fame, number of streaks/playoff appearances doesn't even register.
And no, they won't be asking if the 'old Wings record' will be surpassed because the Wings do not have the longest streak. Bruins with 29 seasons and Hawks with 28 are both longer. And you barely ever hear about those two, essentially never. The Blues had a 25 year streak from '79/'80-'03-'04, when's the last time you ever heard that mentioned? I learned about it just now when I googled it, and that one's still pretty recent.
I have never, nor can I think of anyone around here, who ever claimed that we would be contenders by now. We simply wanted the team to take the steps necessary to chart a new course because it was clear that the well had run dry, and that some leaner years would be necessary to actually get back to chasing things of value. But while we may not have been contenders yet, the makeup of this team would surely inspire a lot more confidence than it currently does.
The sentimental value of the streak may be subjective, but it's practical value is not. The practical (i.e. real) value of the streak was exposed the second it ended. That is, it had none. As soon as the articles mentioning that the Wings were eliminated, ending their great 25 year streak, were published, it was barely ever spoken of again. Nothing was gained from adding several first round exits to the streak, apart from padding the streak's numbers. But the team itself did not benefit, it simply enabled the consistent downward spiral because rather than trying to make a great team, they were trying to build a 'good enough' team. Warped priorities.
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,040
- 8,790
Teams try to build championship winners in several different ways, and every year all but one of them fail. So by your logic, it's not possible for any team to win another Cup, no matter how you try, because every strategy out there has an example of failure.
Instead, if you look at the overall trend of who HAS won a championship since the lockout - especially those teams with multiple Cups - you see a clear pattern:
You need elite talent, preferably at center and/or defense.
This roster has the swan song of Henrik Zetterberg...and a bunch of crickets.
TheOtherOne
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2010
- 8,274
- 5,272
I mean, everything that happens in hockey is written down for the record books. Last year's Cup, the streak, who got the second assist on the Bruins' 23rd goal of the season. You can quibble about their relative importance all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that certain people value the streak. And you're not getting anywhere without accepting that.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Half those guys weren't much to write home about in their days as prospects or even in some cases young NHLers.
Easy to think every star player is easy to spot years and years ahead of time. But that is rarely the case. We have potential in the pipeline and in young roster players. And if they don't start to emerge soon, we'll be drafting top 5. In that area of the draft even teams that are bad at drafting can find talent.
Red Stanley
Registered User
That's an entirely subjective point of view that's not as universally shared as you make it out to be. The streak obviously mattered to those who were a direct part of it and was in no way abstract, intangible or meaningless to them and A LOT of hockey fans, not just RW fans. It came with 4 championships, too.
While you have a very valid point. You also tend to forget the dim side of the the bright side that keeps on popping out here. Teams that finally got back into contention or made it to contention by drafting high, took years and years.
While I don't know much about Wings development program or who's running it but I'd rather we take that approach and throw money in that direction. That means getting guys that are good at training and developing young talent as oppose to chasing the luck of catching one at the draft. There are plenty of players with talent but lack the mentality. You find a way to get through in that and you'd be setting up your team for a much more sustained, long-term success. Datsyuk for intance, wasn't the player he bacame when he was drafted. On a different team and different setting, he might have not cracked the NHL etirely. Who knows. I do think that a trajectory can be adjusted and that's where I'd want to focus on.
Dotter
THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,245
- 14,755
Do you think what we are doing is not going to take years and years?
As if all teams aren't all already doing that? All teams are simultaneously trying to get an advantage like this, yet you can literally draw a line and see a very strong correlation between draft position and PPG output.
To a (minimal) degree, yes, in my opinion.
I think if we did a better job, we'd be in a better place today? Are they though? Do you think Grigorenko, for example, fell off because of lack of talent or maybe lack of development. It seems like the trend is more about chasing the most ready product as oppose to growing one. Then again, I'm not in the meeting and can't say exactly.
In my experience, and I think most, if not all can relate. You can be an all knowing teacher but if you don't know how to get through your students, you're not going to have much effect. So I think it's about finding people with such abilities. That said, I can't say for sure how good or bad we are at it. However, that's the area I'd try to chase success in the most. You can always improve.
