#/Analysis of Larkin: Stacking up to 1C's very well

[Frk It]

Pulkkinen - gone.
Jurco - gone.
Mrazek - gone.
Ouellet - gone.
Sproul - gone.
Smith - gone.
Marchenko - gone.

This reflects on Blashill how? These guys were all either later round picks, or guys who had a pretty significant flaw as a player.

Other youngish players like Tatar and Nyquist also regressed on his watch.

Because of Blashill? Or because they went from playing with two PPG centers, to only 1 (who had a bad back).

Dekeyser regressed on his watch.

Eh, he had 1 year where he looked like anything. And if you looked closer at this stats that year, they suggested regression was coming.

The idea that Blashill is coaching NHL games to develop kids doesn't square with the facts.

Who are the guys he's developed? Larkin. Mantha. Bertuzzi. Athanasiou.
And I'd bet Mantha and Athanasiou would have a few things to say about Blashill's work with young players.

The success of helping Larkin develop into what we have is probably keeping him around more than anything, so have to give him some credit there. He has grown exponentially under Blashill, although I'm sure some of that is just self-motivation and willpower on the part of Larkin.

 

[NickH8]

Under Cooper:
Namestnikov: gone
Koekoek: gone
Drouin: gone
Connolly: gone
Conacher: gone

Under Quenneville:
Kahun: gone
Hartman: gone
Forsling: gone
Nordstrom: gone

Under Cassidy:
Forsbacka-Karlsson: gone
Donato: gone
Khokhlachev: gone

You can play this game with any coach.

 

[NickH8]

"Blashil is to blame for all of our bust under his tenure"
"Blashil deserves no credit for the development of Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Bertuzzi, and Hronek"
This is crap logic.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

FWIW, I’m pretty sure Blashill and Mantha have developed a pretty strong relationship over time that Mantha himself has credited for helping him become a better player.

Previous immaturity of young players is not a supporting argument for a coach being bad at the job he was brought in to do.

Like saying Yzerman is a shit GM because Drouin and Gusev don't like him, LOL.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You assume I name those guys as if they were all going to make it.
I don't assume that one way or the other.

But several of them had promising careers and promising starts in the NHL.

Did they really though?

Pulkkinen was never anything but a 4A player.
Jurco was a BABCOCK **** up, not a Blashill one. Jurco looked like he could be something, hurt himself and never got back.
Mrazek has never been anything more than an erstwhile inconsistent goalie. Him making the conference finals last year is indicative of Carolina being a good team, not him being a good goalie.
Ouellet was never fast enough for extensive NHL action
Sproul was basically a defensive black hole. He never improved. There was nothing promising about his career once that became apparent in the AHL.
Smith was promising, but it was him being a rock-headed neanderthal that derailed him. When he didn't have to think or have time to think (playoffs), he was good. When he was given any responsibility to make a play or run a PP, he was worthless.
Marchenko was also never fast enough for extensive NHL action.

There was literally one player in this list of guys that you could argue as being "ruined" by a coach and it's not even the current coach of the Wings.

Mantha, AA, Larkin, and Bertuzzi have vastly improved under Blashill.

Tatar was basically the same player throughout his time in Detroit (sloughing off right before the trade happened because he was playing 2nd line minutes with a guy who wasn't Zetterberg or Datsyuk)
Nyquist was literally on his way to a 60-70 point season before the trade to San Jose.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Pulkkinen - gone.

If you are going to lead with Pulkkinen as evidence that Blashill is a bad development coach then I am going to have trouble taking you seriously.

Everyone knoew that Pulkkinen was going to be a very long-shot prospect because his only major asset was his scoring. Once he played in the NHL it was clear the guy did not have the skating chops (or even a quick enough release on his shot) to be a meaningful player.

 

[MBH]

Did they really though?

Pulkkinen was never anything but a 4A player.
Jurco was a BABCOCK **** up, not a Blashill one. Jurco looked like he could be something, hurt himself and never got back.
Mrazek has never been anything more than an erstwhile inconsistent goalie. Him making the conference finals last year is indicative of Carolina being a good team, not him being a good goalie.
Ouellet was never fast enough for extensive NHL action
Sproul was basically a defensive black hole. He never improved. There was nothing promising about his career once that became apparent in the AHL.
Smith was promising, but it was him being a rock-headed neanderthal that derailed him. When he didn't have to think or have time to think (playoffs), he was good. When he was given any responsibility to make a play or run a PP, he was worthless.
Marchenko was also never fast enough for extensive NHL action.

There was literally one player in this list of guys that you could argue as being "ruined" by a coach and it's not even the current coach of the Wings.

Mantha, AA, Larkin, and Bertuzzi have vastly improved under Blashill.

Tatar was basically the same player throughout his time in Detroit (sloughing off right before the trade happened because he was playing 2nd line minutes with a guy who wasn't Zetterberg or Datsyuk)
Nyquist was literally on his way to a 60-70 point season before the trade to San Jose.

Pulkkinen, Jurco, Mrazek and Ouellet (to a lesser extent) all had fine starts to their career.

Go ahead and look up Tatar's stats.
Forget it. I'll do it for you.
Tatar, 13-14 through 15-16.
With Datsyuk 783 minutes 11G 9A 20 points
With Sheahan 1274 minutes 26G 17A 43 points

Goals/60 and Points/60
With Datsyuk 0.84 and 1.53
With Sheahan 1.22 and 2.02

So it's really tough to credit Datsyuk or Z for Tatar's production, or later downfall.

And CF%, if you're wondering.
With Sheahan. 57.75
With Datsyuk. 64.13

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Gallant did a shitty job coaching Vegas in their first season, because Tatar sucked there.

... Jesus, just stop.

 

[MBH]

If you are going to lead with Pulkkinen as evidence that Blashill is a bad development coach then I am going to have trouble taking you seriously.

Everyone knoew that Pulkkinen was going to be a very long-shot prospect because his only major asset was his scoring. Once he played in the NHL it was clear the guy did not have the skating chops (or even a quick enough release on his shot) to be a meaningful player.

I presented an entire list. You can pick and choose one guy or whatever.
But while Pulkkinen lacked in elements of his game, before he got benched in his season here, he was productive.
After TORCHING the AHL like no other goal-scoring prospect we ever had, Pulkkinen had 6-5-11 through 23 games, playing 12:52 a night.
He was plus 2.
The Red Wings were 13-7-3 or something.
The line of Tatar-Larkin-Pulkkinen was ridiculously good. Pulkkinen was having a really good year.

He got hurt.
When he got back, Blashill buried him.
For who? Brad f***ing Richards?

 

[MBH]

Gallant did a ****ty job coaching Vegas in their first season, because Tatar sucked there.

... Jesus, just stop.

Tatar sucked here that year too.

 

[MBH]

It's amazing how much defense Trashill gets.
He's terrible.
First coach in Red Wings history to miss the playoffs 3 straight years.
Alienates young players so veterans can drive the team to the basement.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

By the way, in 14/15, which was Tatar's best season with Detroit, he played on a PP unit with BOTH Datsyuk and Sheahan. It was his best PP year. His best ES year didn't come until 16-17.

Who was the coach in 16/17, again? I can't remember...

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Pulkkinen, Jurco, Mrazek and Ouellet (to a lesser extent) all had fine starts to their career.

Go ahead and look up Tatar's stats.
Forget it. I'll do it for you.
Tatar, 13-14 through 15-16.
With Datsyuk 783 minutes 11G 9A 20 points
With Sheahan 1274 minutes 26G 17A 43 points

Goals/60 and Points/60
With Datsyuk 0.84 and 1.53
With Sheahan 1.22 and 2.02

So it's really tough to credit Datsyuk or Z for Tatar's production, or later downfall.

And CF%, if you're wondering.
With Sheahan. 57.75
With Datsyuk. 64.13

Maybe the difference between the two was Tatar with Datsyuk was a line one player. And faced line one opponents.
Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco was a third line that would face weaker lineups.

I mean, look at your CF%. Tatar and Datsyuk controlled the puck a lot more than the Kid Line did.

Tatar's issue was that he was a fantastic third line player, a great second line player, and a meh top line guy. He just never had the next rung up in talent. Much like most of the guys the Wings had. They're good when played at their capabilities but get exposed more and more as they go further up the lineup. THAT was the issue with Tatar and Nyquist. Hell, you want to get into DeKeyser? That's the issue with him too. He's never been a top pairing guy so when the Wings played him like one, predictably his play dropped off.

Teams were finding out that if you didn't give Pulkkinen time to shoot, he was worthless.
Jurco had the back injury and had Babs make him grind because he was big.
Mrazek is, was, and always will be a headcase. It's not coaching with him. They didn't "ruin" him. He's the same goalie he's always been. Even when he was a "Vezina caliber" guy in his first year here, he'd give up some of the worst goals you ever saw. Teams just realized that they could do that more and more to him.
Ouellet? Ouellet was a complete non-entity. 12 points in 66 games and he was okay defensively. I mean, he wasn't bad... but he was the 6th or 7th D and was 100% replaceable.

 

[MBH]

Notice how many others were in agreement with me the first time I pointed it out?

But everybody must be the problem but you...

Ah, so if "everyone agrees with you," that entitles you to get insulting?
Anyway, I'm out. Too much hostility in this thread.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

We're a bottom five team.
All glory to the Red Wings.

I praised the hiring of Yzerman and the jettisoning of the old GM.
I'm happy about Tyler Wright being gone.

I'm happy about the progress of Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, AA, Hronek and others.

After 10-years of head-in-the-sand leadership, I'm enjoying Yzerman's bold style and direction.
I think Blashill needs to go.

If you think that's "trash everything," you and I have different interpretations of what "trash everything" means.

Notice how I can reply to you without being insulting?

Naw, this is very reasoned. There is enough reason to support moving on from Blashill if you so chose... but it's not because he's been a bad coach. It would be more "refresh the deck because we're changing everything else" than anything. Blashill has done good work with a lot of young players and a lot of the ones you've pointed out as failures are guys who either did not have very high ceilings and/or had massive flaws that needed to be fixed that just didn't get fixed. And to this point really haven't gotten fixed because what guys went on to do something great out of your list? Mrazek was roughly equivalent in play to McBackup in the playoffs for Carolina. He might be the best, but he's also been kicking around the league on basically league minimum deals for the last couple years. Teams generally don't do that for guys that they feel give them any stability in net.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I presented an entire list. You can pick and choose one guy or whatever.
But while Pulkkinen lacked in elements of his game, before he got benched in his season here, he was productive.
After TORCHING the AHL like no other goal-scoring prospect we ever had, Pulkkinen had 6-5-11 through 23 games, playing 12:52 a night.
He was plus 2.
The Red Wings were 13-7-3 or something.
The line of Tatar-Larkin-Pulkkinen was ridiculously good. Pulkkinen was having a really good year.

He got hurt.
When he got back, Blashill buried him.
For who? Brad ****ing Richards?

He was having a decent year. Being on pace for 39 points is decent, but using a 23 game sample size and seeming to assume that it would continue on if he stayed healthy is optimistic at best.

After he came back he was given the ice time he deserved because even when he was productive he showed major flaws in his game and it was clear he had to improve if he wanted to be a consistent threat on offense. He didn't. His NHL career ended shortly because of that. If you watched the games these flaws were terribly obvious, and it was a discussion point just about every damn night.

Assigning him getting less ice time than Brad Richards as a major factor in his lack of development is incredibly disingenuous.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Ah, so if "everyone agrees with you," that entitles you to get insulting?
Anyway, I'm out. Too much hostility in this thread.

Appreciate the attempt at playing the, "Poor me" victim, but character analysis is not the same thing as an insult.

 

[kliq]

It's amazing how much defense Trashill gets.
He's terrible.
First coach in Red Wings history to miss the playoffs 3 straight years.
Alienates young players so veterans can drive the team to the basement.

You just criticized someone for throwing insults, yet you are calling Blashill...Trashill, literal name calling. Do you not see the irony?

I have a feeling you will ignore this because it kills your point, but criticizing a coach for not making the playoffs 3 years in a row is only a valid argument if you feel the team had a playoff caliber roster. If a playoff caliber team misses the playoffs, 100% agree that it is on the coach (considering no major injuries).

Did you feel the Wings had a playoff caliber roster in those three years?

If yes, please explain why.

If not, why use this against Blashill?

 

[Gniwder]

It's amazing how much defense Trashill gets.
He's terrible.
First coach in Red Wings history to miss the playoffs 3 straight years.
Alienates young players so veterans can drive the team to the basement.

Misses playoffs 3 years straight and still gets an extension. That's pretty much an admission by the GM that the roster is crap. While Blash is the first coach to miss the playoffs 3 straight seasons, the team has gone on longer streaks, and changing the coach won't fix that without a better roster. Stevie is obviously working on it.

I too have an issue with the vets (Abby, Helm, LGD) getting too much ice time, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, and will judge him based on what he accomplishes with the youngsters this season.

The other issue I have with Blash is the PP. He needs to fix it or find an assistant that can. He has a little more talent for 2PP lines this season, so no excuse to finish at the very bottom of the league.

 

[Henkka]

Maybe the difference between the two was Tatar with Datsyuk was a line one player. And faced line one opponents.
Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco was a third line that would face weaker lineups.

I mean, look at your CF%. Tatar and Datsyuk controlled the puck a lot more than the Kid Line did.
.

As it was.

This is exactly how it goes.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

You just criticized someone for throwing insults, yet you are calling Blashill...Trashill, literal name calling. Do you not see the irony?

I have a feeling you will ignore this because it kills your point, but criticizing a coach for not making the playoffs 3 years in a row is only a valid argument if you feel the team had a playoff caliber roster. If a playoff caliber team misses the playoffs, 100% agree that it is on the coach (considering no major injuries).

Did you feel the Wings had a playoff caliber roster in those three years?

If yes, please explain why.

If not, why use this against Blashill?

He already ignored several of my posts where his argument was shot down. So yeah, no surprise if he ignores that one too.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Alright Gang, I know it can be difficult at times and we have seen this pattern in the past before...

But I would ask everyone to please respect the rules and post on the topic itself and not the poster.

If you're having an issue or think something is out of line, please report the post so it can be handled. I know this can be frustrating but honestly it is all I can really ask.

It never hurts to go with the line we were all taught when we were five. If you don't have something nice to say...

 

[newfy]

Not gonna wade through all the crap in this thread because I have a feeling its not worth reading given whose involved BUT...

Anyone who watched Larkin last year knew he played like a solid first line center. He won a lot of match ups against big name players, produced and did stufft hat doesnt show up on the score sheet. He was likely a top 20 center in the league last year (at the very least). I wanna see him do it again this year before I full on call him a bonafide first line center though

 

[SCD]

The following is a quote from The Atheletic regarding special skills in the NHL.

Dylan Larkin’s compete

It is true that almost every NHLer works hard. Then you have a smaller group, the guys who work harder amongst those hard-working guys. Then there are the guys who compete so hard night in night out in borders on weird. That’s the company Larkin keeps and it’s the stuff that captains are made from.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

The following is a quote for The Atheletic regarding special skills in the NHL.

Dylan Larkin’s compete

It is true that almost every NHLer works hard. Then you have a smaller group, the guys who work harder amongst those hard-working guys. Then there are the guys who compete so hard night in night out in borders on weird. That’s the company Larkin keeps and it’s the stuff that captains are made from.

Yesa. The only issue is that Larkin will ALWAYS be a step behind the McDavids of the world. He'll be a really good 1C, but he's not going to be top 5. So much of his success is predicated on playing harder... but that playstyle is hard to keep going for an entire season and playoff run. Larkin is kind of in the same mold as a Ryan Kesler or Ryan O'Reilly. He can function as a 1C, obviously, but optimally, he's your AMAZING 2C. Or, he's your shutdown type C on the top line that still gets you 60-70 points and you have a 2C who racks up points. Basically, if Larkin is your 1C, he's really a 1A and you need to have a 1B.