Pre-Game Talk: Blackhawks at Wings, Friday

[Actual Thought*]

We need consistent scoring for that to happen though.

I completely agree but I think over the course of the season goals will come.

 

[TatarTangle]

Based on what? Tell me the 5 teams in the league that are vastly superior to the Wings right now. Not last year, not on paper, this year, right now.

I'm all for being optimistic but you could head the Red Wings PR staff.

Boston, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Anaheim. Hell, Carolina has been playing some pretty good hockey so **** they might be better than the Red Wings RIGHT NOW.

Beating a team once does not make you a better team, I hate to break that to you.

*edit* Just to prove my point I might head over to General Discussion and make a thread titled

"Is Detroit elite?"

And it will quickly be closed due to mass hysteria

*edit* This isn't to say I think the Red Wings suck. They're a good club. But elite? Come on. Call a spade a spade.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I'm all for being optimistic but you could head the Red Wings PR staff.

Boston, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Anaheim. Hell, Carolina has been playing some pretty good hockey so **** they might be better than the Red Wings RIGHT NOW.

Beating a team once does not make you a better team, I hate to break that to you.

*edit* Just to prove my point I might head over to General Discussion and make a thread titled

"Is Detroit elite?"

And it will quickly be closed due to mass hysteria

Losing to a team once doesn't make you the better team either.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I'm all for being optimistic but you could head the Red Wings PR staff.

Boston, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Anaheim. Hell, Carolina has been playing some pretty good hockey so **** they might be better than the Red Wings RIGHT NOW.

Beating a team once does not make you a better team, I hate to break that to you.

*edit* Just to prove my point I might head over to General Discussion and make a thread titled

"Is Detroit elite?"

And it will quickly be closed due to mass hysteria

*edit* This isn't to say I think the Red Wings suck. They're a good club. But elite? Come on. Call a spade a spade.

I never said they were elite. I asked what the criteria for that determination was as well as what 5 teams are vastly superior. Flowah contends because we lost a shootout in Buffalo that we just aren't consistent. Inconsistent=bad. Yet the so called NHL elite have lost to us which by his definition would make even the elite teams inconsistent. Apparently they all display their inconsistencies against us.

 

[icKx]

Mark Lazerus ‏@MarkLazerus 1h1 hour ago
Kane said #RedWings are tough to play against, "especially the way they play — they clutch and grab and kind of hold on to you." #Blackhawks

Don't forget subtle interference!

You play for a great team Kane; shouldn't have to make a preemptive play to the refs.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Prediction: The goose gets loose.

 

[Flowah]

We have 3 regulation losses in 15 games. That means they win more than they lose.

I don't know what you are talking about with the switch stuff. This team right now is capable of beating any team in the NHL in a playoff series. We can roll 4 lines. We can shut down top lines with our 1st or 4th line. We have two elite 2 way forwards. We have good goaltending. The team plays structured and is capable of playing very fast. They are extremely well coached. They are plenty good enough to make a run and they should improve throughout the season.

Actually, we have more losses than wins. Non-regulation losses don't get counted as wins, they get counted as losses. 7 wins, 8 losses. Saying we only have 3 regulation losses and using that to say "they win more than they lose" is completely dishonest. Count up the ones in the "loss" column then count up the ones in the "win" column. We have more losses.

The switch stuff is exactly what so many NHL pundits talked about and you alluded to, though not by name. This idea that come playoffs, the Red Wings just flip a switch and can play well, despite being just average throughout the season.

I never said they were elite. I asked what the criteria for that determination was as well as what 5 teams are vastly superior. Flowah contends because we lost a shootout in Buffalo that we just aren't consistent. Inconsistent=bad. Yet the so called NHL elite have lost to us which by his definition would make even the elite teams inconsistent. Apparently they all display their inconsistencies against us.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you really think it's just a single loss that makes me say that? I have pointed out other losses as well. And as I pointed out, the Wings have more losses than wins. There are *plenty* of losses to point to when trying to discern how inconsistent the Wings are.

You know the simple answer is that we beat most of those teams. So this is where you make excuses for those teams because they lost to the lowly bubble team Red Wings. Apparently they are elite but inconsistent?

wat.

Out of the teams that I listed, we have played the Pens once, the Bruins twice, the Lightning once, the Habs once, the Kings once, the Ducks once. We have yet to play the Hawks or Blues. That's 7 total games. Of those games, we lost to the Ducks, the Habs, the Lightning, once to the Bruins. That means 4 out of 7 games, we've lost.

So no, once again, you are just plainly wrong on the facts. The "simple answer" is not that we beat most of those teams. The simple fact is that we've lost most of those games. We lost more of them than we won.

Do you think that consistency is an binary option? You're either inconsistent or you're consistent and there's no gray area? Let me assure you that there is, like most things in life. Better teams are more consistent. Take Kindl. What separates him from good players? If Kindl played like we saw he could a couple years ago every night, then he would be a great player. But he's not because he's shown that he has wild swings in his consistency. A better player would be more consistent. A great player would be even more consistent than that. Being able to be good night in and night out is what makes up most of the separation between good and bad players. Some of the greats are going to just have tools that other players don't have, but even most "bad" players can be good if they were able to play to their peak level every game.

As I've said over and over and over again, even a bad team can put it together for a game here and there. The best teams are the ones that are more consistent. The Wings aren't consistent enough. You don't have to be great 100% of the time to be elite, you just have to be great more than most other teams. AKA, more consistent.

If you could stop misconstruing my position, that would be lovely.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

If you want to argue that the Wings win more than they lose, by all means do. Once the playoffs start, that argument falls apart. You see exactly what kind of team you have.

Goal differential is your best tool to determine what kind of team you have. I definitely don't think Montreal is a good team.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I completely agree but I think over the course of the season goals will come.

I think its all up to the kids to be honest. Datsyuk and Zetterberg will get their lines going, if the Sheahan line can score on a consistent basis then I think this team will be vary dangerous.

 

[Flowah]

If you want to argue that the Wings win more than they lose, by all means do. Once the playoffs start, that argument falls apart. You see exactly what kind of team you have.

Goal differential is your best tool to determine what kind of team you have. I definitely don't think Montreal is a good team.

I mean, at this point it's undeniable that the Wings lose more than they win. It's just a fact. You look at both columns and it can't be denied.

If you thought I was using their record to speak to what kind of team they were, you're wrong. I was just pointing out that Capsized was plainly wrong. The Wings do NOT have more wins than losses. They have more losses.

Goal differential is better for judging yourself to other teams I agree. I've never said otherwise, ever. Or even Point% or Corsi.

Montreal is a fine team. I don't think they're as good as the Hawks or LA, but they're pretty good. They had a couple of blowout games over a small sample size and it's wrecked their goal differential. It's not like they're getting consistently outscored. They just got blown out a couple times.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I mean, at this point it's undeniable that the Wings lose more than they win. It's just a fact. You look at both columns and it can't be denied.

If you thought I was using their record to speak to what kind of team they were, you're wrong. I was just pointing out that Capsized was plainly wrong. The Wings do NOT have more wins than losses. They have more losses.

Goal differential is better for judging yourself to other teams I agree. I've never said otherwise, ever. Or even Point% or Corsi.

I was agreeing with you. My bad for not making that clear. I sorta just jumped into your conversation.

 

[Flowah]

I was agreeing with you. My bad for not making that clear. I sorta just jumped into your conversation.

No that was my bad, I completely flipped what you wrote. Nonethless, I'm leaving it up for others to see my mistake and hopefully so no one comes in thinking I was trying to restart that wins/losses argument again. I was only pointing out the *fact* that what Capsized claimed was completely untrue by any reasonable metric of counting wins and losses.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I wonder how many people who dustinguish between regulation and OT losses also distinguish vetween regulation and OT wins?

You would think they would have to inorder to maintain consistency with their arguement.

 

[Squirrel in the Hole]

I didn't know where else to put this piece on Weiss



Just in case some of you aren't sick of this back and forth crap with Weiss.

Buy him out. And forbid any Red Wings player from using the number 90 ever again.

 

[JPE123]

For Weiss it's put up or shut up time now. I have been patient but I'm over him and no longer expect any contribution from him

 

[InjuredChoker]

If you want to argue that the Wings win more than they lose, by all means do. Once the playoffs start, that argument falls apart. You see exactly what kind of team you have.

Goal differential is your best tool to determine what kind of team you have. I definitely don't think Montreal is a good team.

i think habs have a good team, gear goalie, but not a good coach.

 

[Henkka]

For Weiss it's put up or shut up time now. I have been patient but I'm over him and no longer expect any contribution from him

Wouldn't mind if he retires like Nathan horton.

 

[ap3x]

I wonder how many people who dustinguish between regulation and OT losses also distinguish vetween regulation and OT wins?

You would think they would have to inorder to maintain consistency with their arguement.

Why should you? No difference in the outcome, two points either way. Opposite to losing in OT and gaining a point more than in regulation.

 

[Henkka]

OT hockey is basicly not even same sport as playoff hockey. Playoff OT is played 5-on-5 and Wings are great 5-on-5.

Regular season OT is played 4-on-4 (with noting to lose mentality) and shootout after that.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I wonder how many people who dustinguish between regulation and OT losses also distinguish vetween regulation and OT wins?

You would think they would have to inorder to maintain consistency with their arguement.

I wonder how many times you are going to miss the point.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

I wonder how many times you are going to miss the point.

Good luck tonight.

 

[DanZ]

You know the simple answer is that we beat most of those teams. So this is where you make excuses for those teams because they lost to the lowly bubble team Red Wings. Apparently they are elite but inconsistent?

We also have a better points % than the Hawks, LA, and Bruins. Apparently, they are inconsistent too.

 

[DanZ]

I mean, at this point it's undeniable that the Wings lose more than they win. It's just a fact. You look at both columns and it can't be denied.

If you thought I was using their record to speak to what kind of team they were, you're wrong. I was just pointing out that Capsized was plainly wrong. The Wings do NOT have more wins than losses. They have more losses.

Goal differential is better for judging yourself to other teams I agree. I've never said otherwise, ever. Or even Point% or Corsi.

Montreal is a fine team. I don't think they're as good as the Hawks or LA, but they're pretty good. They had a couple of blowout games over a small sample size and it's wrecked their goal differential. It's not like they're getting consistently outscored. They just got blown out a couple times.

Who cares about shootout losses? They don't matter in relation to the end goal, winning a Cup. Take out those 3 shootout losses and we have 5 total losses and 7 wins.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Who cares about shootout losses? They don't matter in relation to the end goal, winning a Cup. Take out those 3 shootout losses and we have 5 total losses and 7 wins.

Why are people so focused on making it black and white?

We need to be better at getting that extra point, in the shootout or overtime. We lost in overtime against New York but stole a point and we lost against Montreal because we could only score one goal and quit skating once the Datsyuk goal was called back. We also failed to beat a team in regulation/overtime who is going to have one of the worst seasons in recent history. Those are issues that need to be fixed. I want to see the Red Wings of the first few games, not the most recent ones.

 

[WingedWheel1988]

Here is to hoping we win a game in 3 periods. I don't necessarily mind the OTL/ SOL points we are getting to keep pace but seriously we need to start splitting those games 50/50 at the very least.

Bold prediction is that Helm buries a breakaway tonight for a change.