Post-Game Talk: Another OTL

[Frk It]

Still the powerplay is with no doubt a huge issue still and no one can produce a convincing argument that it isn't mostly due to coaching

Lack of elite talent. Lack of players that excel at cycling. Lack of defenseman that are dynamic offensively.

 

[jkutswings]

You're right, coaching is 10000x more important in professional sports than the boss/manager is in the average workplace.

Thinking that Blash isn't a problem because he's not telling the team to play bad is so ridiculous. The job of the coach is not just to tell the team to play great, it's to actually get them to play great. Or rather, to get them to perform at the peak of their ability, even if that ability isn't all that great.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I haven't complained much about Blash & Co. the last few weeks. Because the team has been playing better. Now did the players just magically become more skilled, or did the coaching staff start to get some things figured out and reach the players a bit more? I'd bet on the latter. Still the powerplay is with no doubt a huge issue still and no one can produce a convincing argument that it isn't mostly due to coaching, and performances like the last 2 games show that Blashill still has trouble getting the team energized at anything near a consistent rate.

That's just it, though. Blashill is A problem, not THE problem.

Put Babcock or Quenville, or whomever you like on this team. Would they be better? Yes. Would they have any shot at a championship whatsoever? Heck no.

If you want a change to stop seeing dumb decisions behind the bench, I'm ok with that. But thinking that coaching will fix the big picture just ain't so.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

You're right, coaching is 10000x more important in professional sports than the boss/manager is in the average workplace.

Thinking that Blash isn't a problem because he's not telling the team to play bad is so ridiculous. The job of the coach is not just to tell the team to play great, it's to actually get them to play great. Or rather, to get them to perform at the peak of their ability, even if that ability isn't all that great.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I haven't complained much about Blash & Co. the last few weeks. Because the team has been playing better. Now did the players just magically become more skilled, or did the coaching staff start to get some things figured out and reach the players a bit more? I'd bet on the latter. Still the powerplay is with no doubt a huge issue still and no one can produce a convincing argument that it isn't mostly due to coaching, and performances like the last 2 games show that Blashill still has trouble getting the team energized at anything near a consistent rate.

So, every time a team goes through a winning or losing streak throughout a season, that's due to coaching?

Elite talent can perform at a higher level than non elite talent, but maybe just as important is that they can perform at a higher level more consistently than the non elite.

So let's say that we get Babcock or Quenville in here, what the hell are you going to talk about it when we still don't even sniff the 2nd round of the playoffs, if we make the playoffs at all.

Talent > Coaching in hockey.

Give me our 2008 roster with Jeff Blashill over this roster with Scott Bowman.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Lack of elite talent. Lack of players that excel at cycling. Lack of defenseman that are dynamic offensively.

We have 4 powerplay goals on the road. 4. The second worst team has 8. That's Vancouver. As much as I love the Sedins, at this point I wouldn't say Vancouver has much more talent than us. Essentially the same group of players had the best powerplay in the league two years ago, and a middle of the pack powerplay last year. Being dead last just isn't about the players, and even teams stacked with elite players can look horrible on a badly coached powerplay. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tampa.. the list is long with teams that have iced terrible powerplays with stacked teams.

That's just it, though. Blashill is A problem, not THE problem.

Put Babcock or Quenville, or whomever you like on this team. Would they be better? Yes. Would they have any shot at a championship whatsoever? Heck no.

If you want a change to stop seeing dumb decisions behind the bench, I'm ok with that. But thinking that coaching will fix the big picture just ain't so.

So no positive changes should be made unless that's THE change that will win you a championship? Right now I'm not even calling for Blash to be fired, but I am really tired of seeing the way coaching is undervalued here. We're better than Tampa right now. So I guess our team is just more skilled than Tampa's, right? Right? *crickets*

Give me our 2008 roster with Jeff Blashill over this roster with Scott Bowman.

Wait, you're telling me you'd rather have a situation where's there's ONE problem rather than a situation that has multiple problems? Shocking.
If you think we'd win the cup 08 with Blash though.. I don't know what to tell you. That team would just be one of many in a long line of really talented teams that didn't go all the way. And that Scotty Bowman coached roster? Might just be the kind of group that pulls an upset on a high-seed coached by a Blashill-level coach.

 

[guinness]

That's just it, though. Blashill is A problem, not THE problem.

Put Babcock or Quenville, or whomever you like on this team. Would they be better? Yes. Would they have any shot at a championship whatsoever? Heck no.

If you want a change to stop seeing dumb decisions behind the bench, I'm ok with that. But thinking that coaching will fix the big picture just ain't so.

Weren't there calls for Babcock's head at one point, so that he would be replaced with Blashill? Every coach is going to play their favorites, and Toronto had to get really, really bad to wind up with Matthews.

Granted, I don't watch much of the Wings anymore, but I just watched a team treading water yesterday, it's neither horrible or great, but the lack of execution and talent just aren't there, they don't have anyone that can really make crisp passes out of their zone and they aren't a dump and chase team with even what they have. You can't pick a turd up by the clean end.

While I think that's an issue with the FO (drafting, bad contracts), it's not like Stevie Y is lighting up the league this year in TB, and they have some better players IMO, both teams are lucky in playing in a bad division this year.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Right now I'm not even calling for Blash to be fired, but I am really tired of seeing the way coaching is undervalued here.

The reason you're tired of seeing coaching undervalued is because for every time that you post about Blashill, which is all of the time, three people respond to you.

Do me a favor and make a list in order of importance of what Detroit would need to become contenders. And if coaching is number one on your list, then just stop because we will never agree.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The reason you're tired of seeing coaching undervalued is because for every time that you post about Blashill, which is all of the time, three people respond to you.

Do me a favor and make a list in order of importance of what Detroit would need to become contenders. And if coaching is number one on your list, then just stop because we will never agree.

I've never said the Wings would be contenders with a coaching change, I've never said it's the most important thing, and I've barely said a word about Blashill's coaching for weeks now until this thread. Because the team has been playing better, other than the PP which still stinks.

Talent is the most important thing we need to become a contender, because coaching is more easily changed. That doesn't mean a coaching change should never happen unless you think it's the one and only missing piece towards winning cup after cup.

 

[Frk It]

I've never said the Wings would be contenders with a coaching change, I've never said it's the most important thing, and I've barely said a word about Blashill's coaching for weeks now until this thread. Because the team has been playing better, other than the PP which still stinks.

Talent is the most important thing we need to become a contender, because coaching is more easily changed. That doesn't mean a coaching change should never happen unless you think it's the one and only missing piece towards winning cup after cup.

Really should talk more about Torchetti and less Blash then, IMO.

 

[Dotter]

I don't know if Blashill is a bad coach, he hasn't had much to work with since being the head coach. Maybe he is great if he had a some good talent. Maybe he could take a team like Chicago and win a championship... maybe he could take a team like AZ 'Yotes and get them a top 5 draft pick.

He's not anywhere near as bad as Dave Lewis.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

This is the only place I've ever seen such a low opinion of the impact of coaching.

Just from experiencing having a bad boss in the workplace I know mine and everyone else's performance dropped sharply. Not because we became terrible at our jobs, but because no one wanted to go the extra mile for that boss. And it's not like we have to step in front of Shea Weber slapshots on our workdays.
That's also just the effort side of it. Systems, scouting and player deployment are also huge factors that a coaching staff control.

People ***** about coaching because they simply do not want to consider that this team is not as talented as they want it to be or initially thought it was. If coaching does not change a thing as many suggest, the issue must be our players. If it is in fact the players, it may not be realistic to think this team can maintain the streak or even re-build on the fly.

I won't go so far as to say that coaching never matters in the NHL game, but as I said earlier, people use it as a crutch to explain outcomes when they really don't have a firm grasp of what they are watching or want to actually take the time to articulate the dysfunction. Blash sucks! or How is Sheahan still on this roster! are pretty poor explanations of what is fundamentally wrong with this team. They are, however, convenient.

When we are at our worst, we do things that don't work in any system. Tell me right now, how many good PPs have you played on where all five players stood absolutely stationary after they gained possession of the puck? Our biggest issues today were our biggest issues under Babcock. When Nyquist can't complete an unobstructed eight foot pass from the half-wall to the point on the PP, that is on Nyquist, not Blash. When Tatar refuses to drop his shoulder and power to the net, that is on Tatar, not Blash. When DDK rifles wrist shots from the point into the shin pads of oncoming wingers, that is on DDK, not Blash. When AA half-***** a board battle, that is on AA, not Blash. When Larkin refuses to stop on pucks, that is on Larkin not Blash. When Sheahan and Mantha stop moving their feet, that is on Sheahan and Mantha, not Blash. When Big Rig can't connect on a simple re-group pass, that is on him, not Blash. When no one is willing to put in the work to chase the dump or support the puck, that is on the players, not the coaches. Hockey is a game of hundreds of small individual plays that largely defy systems. No one is gong to hold a player's hand when it comes time to make plays.

I understand your frustration regarding the power play. Our PP was bad last year under Ferschweiler and Blash went out and got a new PP coach like everyone asked. Here we are a year later getting even worse results under Torchetti. At what point is it ok to start questioning the players?

Perhaps I am just the boss you hate.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Weren't there calls for Babcock's head at one point, so that he would be replaced with Blashill? Every coach is going to play their favorites, and Toronto had to get really, really bad to wind up with Matthews.

Granted, I don't watch much of the Wings anymore, but I just watched a team treading water yesterday, it's neither horrible or great, but the lack of execution and talent just aren't there, they don't have anyone that can really make crisp passes out of their zone and they aren't a dump and chase team with even what they have. You can't pick a turd up by the clean end.

While I think that's an issue with the FO (drafting, bad contracts), it's not like Stevie Y is lighting up the league this year in TB, and they have some better players IMO, both teams are lucky in playing in a bad division this year.

I don't think Toronto can catch Montreal but the Leafs have a real shot at finishing second in the division. Andersen is making a big difference for them. 920 SV%, 2 shut outs.

 

[14ari13]

People ***** about coaching because they simply do not want to consider that this team is not as talented as they want it to be or initially thought it was. If coaching does not change a thing as many suggest, the issue must be our players. If it is in fact the players, it may not be realistic to think this team can maintain the streak or even re-build on the fly.

I won't go so far as to say that coaching never matters in the NHL game, but as I said earlier, people use it as a crutch to explain outcomes when they really don't have a firm grasp of what they are watching or want to actually take the time to articulate the dysfunction. Blash sucks! or How is Sheahan still on this roster! are pretty poor explanations of what is fundamentally wrong with this team. They are, however, convenient.

When we are at our worst, we do things that don't work in any system. Tell me right now, how many good PPs have you played on where all five players stood absolutely stationary after they gained possession of the puck? Our biggest issues today were our biggest issues under Babcock. When Nyquist can't complete an unobstructed eight foot pass from the half-wall to the point on the PP, that is on Nyquist, not Blash. When Tatar refuses to drop his shoulder and power to the net, that is on Tatar, not Blash. When DDK rifles wrist shots from the point into the shin pads of oncoming wingers, that is on DDK, not Blash. When AA half-***** a board battle, that is on AA, not Blash. When Larkin refuses to stop on pucks, that is on Larkin not Blash. When Sheahan and Mantha stop moving their feet, that is on Sheahan and Mantha, not Blash. When Big Rig can't connect on a simple re-group pass, that is on him, not Blash. When no one is willing to put in the work to chase the dump or support the puck, that is on the players, not the coaches. Hockey is a game of hundreds of small individual plays that largely defy systems. No one is gong to hold a player's hand when it comes time to make plays.

I understand your frustration regarding the power play. Our PP was bad last year under Ferschweiler and Blash went out and got a new PP coach like everyone asked. Here we are a year later getting even worse results under Torchetti. At what point is it ok to start questioning the players?

Perhaps I am just the boss you hate.

Or you dream of being a boss.

 

[Pavels Dog]

When we are at our worst, we do things that don't work in any system. Tell me right now, how many good PPs have you played on where all five players stood absolutely stationary after they gained possession of the puck? Our biggest issues today were our biggest issues under Babcock. When Nyquist can't complete an unobstructed eight foot pass from the half-wall to the point on the PP, that is on Nyquist, not Blash. When Tatar refuses to drop his shoulder and power to the net, that is on Tatar, not Blash. When DDK rifles wrist shots from the point into the shin pads of oncoming wingers, that is on DDK, not Blash. When AA half-***** a board battle, that is on AA, not Blash. When Larkin refuses to stop on pucks, that is on Larkin not Blash. When Sheahan and Mantha stop moving their feet, that is on Sheahan and Mantha, not Blash. When Big Rig can't connect on a simple re-group pass, that is on him, not Blash. When no one is willing to put in the work to chase the dump or support the puck, that is on the players, not the coaches. Hockey is a game of hundreds of small individual plays that largely defy systems. No one is gong to hold a player's hand when it comes time to make plays.

Yeah I can see we just have very different views about what the game of hockey is actually about.
I'd point you towards a team like Boston to see how a well-coached team with a lack of talent looks like.
Or Toronto last season, to see a team with league-worst talent that still played with a ton of good structure and energy. A lot of the things you mention are things that can be either a direct or indirect result of a systematic failure or the coach failing to get the players going. No one is saying coaching is the reason Big E isn't winning the Norris or we're not putting in dominating performances against the best teams in the league. Individual players can have a lack of effort, but when it's team-wide?
When we come out against a tired Arizona team and don't get a shot on goal for 15 minutes, I really, really struggle to say that's because of a lack of skill. When we again and again come out of the gate completely flat and get scored on in the first shift or two, I question whether the coach is able to get the team energized. When the team never comes out flying after an intermission, I again wonder whether the coach is reaching the players. A team full of Luke Glendenings wouldn't win anything, but they would certainly have periods where they're dominating because they're outworking the other team. I struggle to say we've outworked the other team more than a handful of times this season, if that.

 

[jkutswings]

Thus far this season, Blashill and the rest of the staff have done a bad overall job.

But at the moment, I'm happy with that being the case, because I think that a good to great coaching staff has this team closer to another token playoff appearance, which I want no part of.

Crash with Blash!

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Yeah I can see we just have very different views about what the game of hockey is actually about.
I'd point you towards a team like Boston to see how a well-coached team with a lack of talent looks like.
Or Toronto last season, to see a team with league-worst talent that still played with a ton of good structure and energy. A lot of the things you mention are things that can be either a direct or indirect result of a systematic failure or the coach failing to get the players going. No one is saying coaching is the reason Big E isn't winning the Norris or we're not putting in dominating performances against the best teams in the league. Individual players can have a lack of effort, but when it's team-wide?
When we come out against a tired Arizona team and don't get a shot on goal for 15 minutes, I really, really struggle to say that's because of a lack of skill. When we again and again come out of the gate completely flat and get scored on in the first shift or two, I question whether the coach is able to get the team energized. When the team never comes out flying after an intermission, I again wonder whether the coach is reaching the players. A team full of Luke Glendenings wouldn't win anything, but they would certainly have periods where they're dominating because they're outworking the other team. I struggle to say we've outworked the other team more than a handful of times this season, if that.

You honestly think that grown adult athletes need a pep talk from Rudy in order to show up on time? After multiple years of professional hockey (not to mention countless junior or college games) don’t you think that NHL vets should be able to figure this out for themselves? Way to absolve the best hockey players in the world of the most modest expectations and professional standards. If your players lack internal motivation at this level, your team is dead on arrival. Perhaps they don’t want to play that hard for Blash. Or perhaps they know exactly where they stand in this league and are frustrated by their own lack of talent. The teams that give up fastest on a coach and season are the ones with the least amount of talent. Whether our guys are mental midgets or just lack talent, Holland is ultimately responsible for the assembly of this team. I get that you refuse to hold him accountable for anything.

None of those rather specific gripes have anything at all to do with systems. They are the most basic prerequisites to any functional system. The Boston system you love so much is fundamentally a basic trap executed by a team with two (maybe three) forwards who are better than any forward on our team and two defensemen who pass the puck better than anyone on our team. The team with the better players consistently gets better results? Who would have thunk. The problem with over-explaining things with systems is that the vast majority of hockey does not fit neatly into systems. It is a game of perpetual reaction.

I can’t help but notice that our biggest issues transcend both the later years of the great Mike Babcock and the early (and likely short) tenure of Blashill. We couldn’t consistently start on time under Babcock. We got pushed to the perimeter all ****ing night long under Babcock. We couldn’t effectively move the puck out of our defensive zone in the later Babcock years. We got owned along the boards under Babcock. We couldn’t regroup under Babcock without resorting to chips and dumps. So why exactly are we surprised the Blash doesn’t have better answers.

I actually favor a coaching change. The sooner we see substantially similar results from his successor, the sooner we can move past coaching as the root of our problems. I favor anything that exposes our team for exactly what it is, both good and bad.

 

[14ari13]

Thus far this season, Blashill and the rest of the staff have done a bad overall job.

But at the moment, I'm happy with that being the case, because I think that a good to great coaching staff has this team closer to another token playoff appearance, which I want no part of.

Crash with Blash!

Tanking is easy man. Everyone can do it.