If you HAD to keep one, who?

cjm502

Bingo Bango!
Jun 22, 2010
1,791
992
Mid Michigan
I would keep Blash undoubtedly. I think Blash is an average coach and Holland has turned in to a bottom 5 GM. I rip on Blash but he is intelligent and has unique perspective on a lot of things. On the other hand, Holland is nothing but complacent.
 

lilidk

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
9,589
3,424
outside Red Wings fans Holland is well respected . For 2 decade we have elite franchise until we got Blashill . it is very hard to replace Bowman and Babckok and Blush just cannot do it .
Did you watched Olympics ? Marco Sturm will be a very good Head coach
 

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
Blashill is a good coach on a bad team (though he's still learning at the NHL level). He's found success at all his previous coaching levels. I have no doubt if he had better players he'd be perceived much more favorably.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,975
2,695
Clearly Lidstrom is not just some guy, I'd argue is the the best D-man off all time. My point is that I would argue that most teams that win a cup had someone who was acquired from a previous regime. I give Holland credit for 2008, it takes more then an elite D-man to win a cup (almost 2).

Sure, I will give you that Holland has built a Stanley Cup roster. What Holland has not done, however, is build a Stanley Cup champion roster from the position this team is at today: lacking anything mildly resembling a true number one defensemen (hell, even a legit top-pair defensemen), either on the big club's roster or in the prospect pipeline. We are not asking Holland to do something he has done already (which appears to be the reasoning behind your pick of Holland). We are asking him to do something substantially more difficult.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
That's not what I said, but Lidstrom being there made everything else much easier.

You said "I don't believe he's ever built a team from the ground up." I am saying that I think he did, because 95% of that team was acquired by Holland. I think just Lidstrom, Draper, Maltby and Holmstrom were there before he became GM.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Sure, I will give you that Holland has built a Stanley Cup roster. What Holland has not done, however, is build a Stanley Cup champion roster from the position this team is at today: lacking anything mildly resembling a true number one defensemen (hell, even a legit top-pair defensemen), either on the big club's roster or in the prospect pipeline. We are not asking Holland to do something he has done already (which appears to be the reasoning behind your pick of Holland). We are asking him to do something substantially more difficult.

This is going off topic.

I see a higher likelihood of Holland finding a #1 D-man in the draft and building this team up like yes, I think he has done before, then I see Blashill turning into an elite NHL coach. I dont feel like debating Holland's merits, this is done in almost every single thread.
 

Hatter of the Beach

I’m the real hero
Jun 26, 2017
3,197
3,683
Parkland Estates, Florida
Holland.

Ever since the Frans Nielsen/Helm signings, Holland has shown a marked improvement in both thinking process and quality of moves made. I really can't disagree with any of the moves made in the past 20 or so months, outside of not being able to trade Green, and that was primarily bad luck. His return for Tatar was insane, and last deadline as a whole was good. The fact we will have 4 picks within the top 38 or so is a testament to that. Yeah, the Mrazek situation was unfortuante, but the seeds for that were done in the summer of 2016, aka before Holland "woke up".


Blashill to me isn't as bad as a coach as he's made out to be, but I do think it's clear the players do not respect him that much and have tuned him out. I also do think he is coaching to save his job more than the future of this team, which is understandable, but ultimately the wrong move for the organization. The season is lost, playing Zetterberg 23 minutes a game is asinine. Have some of the growing pains happen NOW.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lomekian and kliq

Goalie guy

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
3,063
444
Taylor MI
Blash and its a easy choice! There is some strange delusion around here we are in MID rebuild?? No we are starting to rebuild and I don't want Holland to half ass start it and leave let a new GM come in and do the rebuild. Even if we thought Holland could do the job he will not be around long enough to see through, all ready talk of him heading out west as it is.
 

Hatter of the Beach

I’m the real hero
Jun 26, 2017
3,197
3,683
Parkland Estates, Florida
I really have to disagree with the concensus about Blash.

Look at the young players who were semi promising going into his tenure; Sheahan, Tatar, Nyquist, Smith, Dekeyser, Mrazek.

No superstars in that list, but at the time, all considered to have either second line/second d paring potential down the road or in Mrazek's case a NHL starter.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PLAYERS has failed to live up to those expectations, and every single one of them regressed under Blashill. Is it possible they weren't as good as they initially seemed? Of course, but for ALL OF THEM to fizzle out and flat out regress in what was supposed to be their prime is on Blashill. He is the only common denominator, and these aren't minor regressions we're talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mantha39

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,132
26,425
I really have to disagree with the concensus about Blash.

Look at the young players who were semi promising going into his tenure; Sheahan, Tatar, Nyquist, Smith, Dekeyser, Mrazek.

No superstars in that list, but at the time, all considered to have either second line/second d paring potential down the road or in Mrazek's case a NHL starter.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PLAYERS has failed to live up to those expectations, and every single one of them regressed under Blashill. Is it possible they weren't as good as they initially seemed? Of course, but for ALL OF THEM to fizzle out and flat out regress in what was supposed to be their prime is on Blashill. He is the only common denominator, and these aren't minor regressions we're talking about.
I don't disagree. But for me in terms of what's causing the most damage to the organization being good again, Holland is a bigger factor.

So I guess I'm cheating a bit in that I'd want Holland replaced and then once the team starts to get more talent on the roster, fire Blashill.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
I really have to disagree with the concensus about Blash.

Look at the young players who were semi promising going into his tenure; Sheahan, Tatar, Nyquist, Smith, Dekeyser, Mrazek.

No superstars in that list, but at the time, all considered to have either second line/second d paring potential down the road or in Mrazek's case a NHL starter.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PLAYERS has failed to live up to those expectations, and every single one of them regressed under Blashill. Is it possible they weren't as good as they initially seemed? Of course, but for ALL OF THEM to fizzle out and flat out regress in what was supposed to be their prime is on Blashill. He is the only common denominator, and these aren't minor regressions we're talking about.

Ok, but a bad coach isn't even necessarily a bad thing for a re-building team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Run the Jewels

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
Blashill is a good coach on a bad team (though he's still learning at the NHL level). He's found success at all his previous coaching levels. I have no doubt if he had better players he'd be perceived much more favorably.
Hasn’t Blashill done awful internationally?

My feeling is he’s solid in terms of what he tries to get the team to do. But awful at in-game coaching, awful at managing individual players, awful at a lot of what seperates the great coaches from the rest. Like players, doing well at lower levels is far from a guarantee for NHL success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
Hasn’t Blashill done awful internationally?

My feeling is he’s solid in terms of what he tries to get the team to do. But awful at in-game coaching, awful at managing individual players, awful at a lot of what seperates the great coaches from the rest. Like players, doing well at lower levels is far from a guarantee for NHL success.

The problem is this team's best players are either too old or too young. You basically have to wear two different coaching hats. There's no Lidstrom-Rafalski pairing you can just throw on the ice for half a game and not think about it. Can't be an easy position for any coach.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Hasn’t Blashill done awful internationally?

My feeling is he’s solid in terms of what he tries to get the team to do. But awful at in-game coaching, awful at managing individual players, awful at a lot of what seperates the great coaches from the rest. Like players, doing well at lower levels is far from a guarantee for NHL success.

I'm not sure he's even that solid at what he's trying to get the team to do. Blashill has his system, he knows how he wants to play, but this team just doesn't have the pieces for it. Blashill doesn't seem either able or interested in putting a system in place these guys can do well with. No one is expecting miracles here, but this team has the talent to be more competitive than they've been the past couple of years. I know a lot of us are fine with the team cratering and picking higher, but I don't think where they are drafting is necessarily reflective of their abilities.
 

Eastopia

Custom Title User
May 26, 2012
1,906
41
I'd keep Holland for sure. A lot of the criticism he's been getting the last few years are for things I think he does because the owners have told him to just make it to the playoffs and if I'm right then changing our GM isn't going to solve anything. Keeping a guy whom I still consider to be one of the best in the league isn't such a bad thing if he wants it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 21 Savage

lomekian

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
1,871
891
London
Nice to see the first page of this thread being regular posters saying what one could have written as their opinions in advance!

As for the dilemma, its hard to get too exercised over retaining either.

Holland is a GM with an excellent track record in recent years, and there is no reason to suggest he would be bad at a rebuild, now he has started to embrace it. However, it seems unlikely that he will be here all that much longer, and most organisations benefit from new blood near the top from time to time. It's all a question of what other younger and potentially better candidates are available.

Blash? He's a below average NHL coach on all evidence to date. Most players have regressed under his stewardship, or at least stagnated. Just when there seems to be some cohesion to his work, we have one or two bad results and he starts making changes for their own sake. I have sympathy...he's got his dream job at a bad time and is desperately trying to keep it. But he's given no evidence since leaving GR of being particularly convincing strategically or effective in the short term. BUT, and its significant, he is currently coaching us to a better pick than this roster should get.

I think both will be gone in the next couple of years if not by the end of this summer, but if I had to keep one it'd be Holland, simply because we are starting to have enough good young players (particularly after the coming draft) that we need a coach who can provide a more stable and coherent development environment.

I actually hold KH in higher esteem than most, but that doesn't mean I think he should be wings GM for any longer than it takes to find a convincing candidate ready to buy into the organisation's draft first strategy.
 

SoupNazi

Serenity now. Insanity later.
Feb 6, 2010
26,340
14,035
Holland, easily, because I've soured quite a bit on Blash.
 

Run the Jewels

Make Detroit Great Again
Jun 22, 2006
13,819
1,751
In the Garage
Hello, here from HFSabres. But there was a question I found of who you would keep if you were presented with the choice between Blashill or Holland, and you HAD to pick one, and say why!


Interested in hearing feedback. Thanks!
Blashill for three reasons:
He doesn't hand out awful contracts.
He's not responsible for our recent drafts.
He'll help the tank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: odin1981

The Flying Octopus

Registered User
Sep 18, 2017
1,303
995
Birmingham
Hello, here from HFSabres. But there was a question I found of who you would keep if you were presented with the choice between Blashill or Holland, and you HAD to pick one, and say why!


Interested in hearing feedback. Thanks!

You can't keep both, but if you HAVE to, its KH. Track record for me, trumps most things, but not all things. However, going along with your post, KH is the obvious choice. Theres multiple discussions on here that refer to both men. There's a lot of cons about each, such as player regression, players not listening to the coach, to bad contracts, complacency, and a country club like atmosphere. IMO, I don't think either will be let go, based on my knowledge I've gathered from people who have contracts with the club, based on quotes in the media (look close), and for the simple fact that Chis Illitch & Blashill are known drinking buddies. Chris, has a passion for sports, however, its a financial passion. There's no need for him to make major changes with a fanbase he knows will always support, IE Tigers. It's a lose-lose question, and once answered, the response from many may not be so kind.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Blashill for three reasons:
He doesn't hand out awful contracts.
He's not responsible for our recent drafts.
He'll help the tank.

That sounds good in theory, but a bad coach is not what you want if you plan on developing young players. We can get all the high draft picks we want, but if our coach is doing a bad job, the picks mean nothing.
 

Wingsfan 4 life

Registered User
Oct 9, 2016
1,711
428
Of the two, I'd keep Holland quite easily. Much easier to find a competent replacement coach than a competent replacement GM. Especially for a rebuilding team.
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,046
Blashill easy. Because I don know if he is a bad coach or a good one.

I do know holland ruined this team and isn't capable of accepting the fact that we need to rebuild.

You must have missed when we traded Tatar and Mrazek for picks.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->