Post-Game Talk: Holland > Nill

[BinCookin]

Agree a lot with this. Babcock should have won more than 1 cup with the Wings. We all knew that talent we had when Nick was here. And losing a 3-1 lead to Chicago is embarrassing.

You make it seem like winning a cup is easy, even if you have a good team.

Why doesn't pittsburgh win every year with Crosby and Malkin? Right?


Also saying "Babcock" sucks because he blew a 3-1 series lead is just dumb.
WHo was the coach that got them that 3-1 series lead??

Players earned the wins, Babcock the losses?

We lost that series 3-4; we won the previous series 4-3.

We argued all year that we should not have even made the playoffs and that our team sucked.

I am sure some people here think Coaching does nothing, and that any of us could coach a team right? WRONG.

I understand the Cleary Hate. And hope we don't resign him. But I have to agree with Vladdy that the Cleary hate is OUT OF CONTROL. Around here, he is blamed for everything to the point of others mistakes are not even being counted.

Bottom line our team needs some work. GM, Coach, and Players are all included in the result of our team right now.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Didn't we also have a 3-2 vs the Pens?

yeah and 2-0.

You make it seem like winning a cup is easy, even if you have a good team.

Why doesn't pittsburgh win every year with Crosby and Malkin? Right?


Also saying "Babcock" sucks because he blew a 3-1 series lead is just dumb.
WHo was the coach that got them that 3-1 series lead??

Players earned the wins, Babcock the losses?

We lost that series 3-4; we won the previous series 4-3.

We argued all year that we should not have even made the playoffs and that our team sucked.

I am sure some people here think Coaching does nothing, and that any of us could coach a team right? WRONG.

I understand the Cleary Hate. And hope we don't resign him. But I have to agree with Vladdy that the Cleary hate is OUT OF CONTROL. Around here, he is blamed for everything to the point of others mistakes are not even being counted.

Bottom line our team needs some work. GM, Coach, and Players are all included in the result of our team right now.

you mean henkka, right?

because vladdy would never think that

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I think Bowman was even worse at playing older players. If I remember right.

Those older players were actually still good.

You make it seem like winning a cup is easy, even if you have a good team.

Why doesn't pittsburgh win every year with Crosby and Malkin? Right?

Implying that Bylsma is an exemplary coach.

 

[Johnz96*]

Those older players were actually still good.



Implying that Bylsma is an exemplary coach.

Crosby and Malkin are better than most teams best forwards but we also had 3 D-men who were better than most team's best D-man and a much more solid cast around them.
We had guys in the bottom 6 that are solid first liners ffs.

 

[Vladdy84]

Crosby and Malkin are better than most teams best forwards but we also had 3 D-men who were better than most team's best D-man and a much more solid cast around them.
We had guys in the bottom 6 that are solid first liners ffs.

Bylsma's also gotten his team in the playoffs when Crosby and Malkin were injured for huge chunks. Pens haven't won a cup lately cause Flower goes putrid or they run into the Bruins.

 

[Johnz96*]

Bylsma's also gotten his team in the playoffs when Crosby and Malkin were injured for huge chunks. Pens haven't won a cup lately cause Flower goes putrid or they run into the Bruins.

Flower was hung out to dry. Crosby gets all pissy takes unnecessary risks to try and avenge them on the scoreboard, loses control of his team and they all play like ****.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Hey, Pens fans gripe over Bylsma almost as much as we gripe about Cleary, that's all I'm saying.

And let's not sit here and pretend like we're as deep as the Pens are. Pens have a much more appropriate breadth of players while we have "will he or won't he top six/top 4 material" floating around on all four lines combined with aging vets, confused D prospects, and a few broken toys. Our most reliable guys for what they are (when they're on the ice) are Hank, Pav, Helm, Miller, Kronwall, Ericsson mostly, and Dekeyser. Alfie will be gone either this season or next, and we're still waiting to see exactly what Nyquist and Tatar turn out to be.

The Penguins, meanwhile, have a REAL top six, and a comparable D I suppose.

 

[Johnz96*]

Hey, Pens fans gripe over Bylsma almost as much as we gripe about Cleary, that's all I'm saying.

And let's not sit here and pretend like we're as deep as the Pens are. Pens have a much more appropriate breadth of players while we have "will he or won't he top six/top 4 material" floating around on all four lines combined with aging vets, confused D prospects, and a few broken toys. Our most reliable guys for what they are (when they're on the ice) are Hank, Pav, Helm, Miller, Kronwall, Ericsson mostly, and Dekeyser. Alfie will be gone either this season or next, and we're still waiting to see exactly what Nyquist and Tatar turn out to be.

The Penguins, meanwhile, have a REAL top six, and a comparable D I suppose.

And that is Babcock and Holland's fault, using useless slugs more than he does them. They should have been slotted in the top 6 long ago at the very least at the start of the season. They are definitely a lot better than players that have gotten more time there this year and would have been even better now, if they were afforded the opportunity then.
The only reason you consider Dupuis and Jokinen REAL top 6 is because they have had the opportunity there and have p[roved that they are. If I asked you during the 2010-11 if you think Jokinen and Dupuis are REAL top 6 the Wings should trade for, I think you're answer would have been different.
One thing is certain we have p;layers who are certainly not REAL top 6 playing there more often than guys that could be stars, given the opportunity.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

My implication was that Babcock isn't that great of a coach, at least when it comes to line selections.

 

[Johnz96*]

Hey, Pens fans gripe over Bylsma almost as much as we gripe about Cleary, that's all I'm saying.

And let's not sit here and pretend like we're as deep as the Pens are. Pens have a much more appropriate breadth of players while we have "will he or won't he top six/top 4 material" floating around on all four lines combined with aging vets, confused D prospects, and a few broken toys. Our most reliable guys for what they are (when they're on the ice) are Hank, Pav, Helm, Miller, Kronwall, Ericsson mostly, and Dekeyser. Alfie will be gone either this season or next, and we're still waiting to see exactly what Nyquist and Tatar turn out to be.

The Penguins, meanwhile, have a REAL top six, and a comparable D I suppose.

If they never left we would still be waiting to see what Fil and Hudler turn out to be.

 

[InjuredChoker]

And that is Babcock and Holland's fault, using useless slugs more than he does them. They should have been slotted in the top 6 long ago at the very least at the start of the season. They are definitely a lot better than players that have gotten more time there this year and would have been even better now, if they were afforded the opportunity then.
The only reason you consider Dupuis and Jokinen REAL top 6 is because they have had the opportunity there and have p[roved that they are. If I asked you during the 2010-11 if you think Jokinen and Dupuis are REAL top 6 the Wings should trade for, I think you're answer would have been different.
One thing is certain we have p;layers who are certainly not REAL top 6 playing there more often than guys that could be stars, given the opportunity.

jokinen scored 30 goals the season before and 52 points in 70 games that year. he was definitely top 6 winger though i wouldn't have necessarily traded for him; i considered wings to have bigger needs than player like jokinen at the time.

 

[Winger98]

If they never left we would still be waiting to see what Fil and Hudler turn out to be.

though if it meant giving hudler twenty minutes a night, I'm not sure I'd ever want to see what he could be.

 

[Johnz96*]

though if it meant giving hudler twenty minutes a night, I'm not sure I'd ever want to see what he could be.

Well you can catch some Flames' games to see.
He has 1 point less than the Red Wings leading scorer playing on a rebuilding team who have all of their top 11 scorers (except Hudler) miss significant time and leading them in +/-.

 

[Winger98]

Well you can catch some Flames' games to see.
He has 1 point less than the Red Wings leading scorer playing on a rebuilding team who have all of their top 11 scorers (except Hudler) miss significant time and leading them in +/-.

I actually liked the guy, but I still wouldn't want him getting that sort of playing time if I was expecting a cup run. Despite the points, he disappears because of physical limitations. We screwed up in not shifting Tatar or Nyquist immediately into that vacated roster spot, though.

 

[Johnz96*]

I actually liked the guy, but I still wouldn't want him getting that sort of playing time if I was expecting a cup run. Despite the points, he disappears because of physical limitations. We screwed up in not shifting Tatar or Nyquist immediately into that vacated roster spot, though.

Hudler only ever disappeared when Babs buried him in the bottom 6 (most often the 4th line and often without PP time) and he did it often, for no reason.
In the top 6 he was always a very consistent producer (even though when he was on the top 6 he would still often get less ice-time than some bottom 6ers) even when he was made an unlikely net front presence, especially when he had the very rare opportunity to play with Datsyuk. They had some serious chemistry together.

 

[SoupNazi]

Hudler only ever disappeared when Babs buried him in the bottom 6 (most often the 4th line and often without PP time) and he did it often, for no reason.

How do you know that something that might have gone on in practice or behind closed doors, where you couldn't see it, wasn't the reason?

 

[Johnz96*]

How do you know that something that might have gone on in practice or behind closed doors, where you couldn't see it, wasn't the reason?

Babcock likes 'heavy' bodies and having to use Datsyk and Zetterberg, who don't have 'heavy' bodies as much as he does because they are 2 obviously 2 of the best in the game leaves him highly deficient of 'heavy' bodies, so he has to overcompensate by using useless slugs over very good hockey players.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

I think that if Pav and Z were coached by Babcock as rookies, they would probably be starring for other teams right now and the Wings would have got nothing for them.

Datsyuk's transformation from flashy but secondary player to 2-way beast coincided exactly with Babcock's arrival as coach.

 

[SoupNazi]

Babcock likes 'heavy' bodies and having to use Datsyk and Zetterberg, who don't have 'heavy' bodies as much as he does because they are 2 obviously 2 of the best in the game leaves him highly deficient of 'heavy' bodies, so he has to overcompensate by using useless slugs over very good hockey players.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Winger98]

Hudler only ever disappeared when Babs buried him in the bottom 6 (most often the 4th line and often without PP time) and he did it often, for no reason.
In the top 6 he was always a very consistent producer (even though when he was on the top 6 he would still often get less ice-time than some bottom 6ers) even when he was made an unlikely net front presence, especially when he had the very rare opportunity to play with Datsyuk. They had some serious chemistry together.

Since 07/08, Hudler was consistently 7-9 in TOI, and top6 in PPTOI among forwards. If he was consistently buried, he wouldn't have come in that high. And outside of this season, Hudler's best years here were pretty in line with what he did last year with more TOI. I don't see how Hudler was misused here.

And the guy did disappear. When he spent the year with Flip and Z, I never looked at that line and thought Hudler was making it go. Every line Hudler was on here, he was a passenger, and depended on his linemates to drive the play. Part of that, I'm sure, is how the wings style has evolved. Asking Hudler to go down and scrum along the boards to kick the puck to the line for a point shot is not going to play to his strong suit. Part of it is that Hudler's too small and slow to be a real force.

Hudler has some top notch skills, but the guy's a complimentary player, and not a guy I would want to give 19-20 minutes a night to.

 

[vladdy16]

If Hudler was still here we'd have the kind of depth that would allow you to avoid slumps and overuse of a particular player.

Hudler required the coach to adjust his philosophy and the coach was unwilling to do so, now we have a hole in our lineup. We would have championship calibur depth if the red wings ever embraced 26 and 51 as a part of their future, even if not in a conventional top 6 role.

Now days, with 1:30 left in a huge game, an offensive zone faceoff and a timeout in his pocket, the coach turns to glendenning and cleary.

 

[Winger98]

If Hudler was still here we'd have the kind of depth that would allow you to avoid slumps and overuse of a particular player.

Hudler required the coach to adjust his philosophy and the coach was unwilling to do so, now we have a hole in our lineup. We would have championship calibur depth if the red wings ever embraced 26 and 51 as a part of their future, even if not in a conventional top 6 role.

Now days, with 1:30 left in a huge game, an offensive zone faceoff and a timeout in his pocket, the coach turns to glendenning and cleary.

Babcock made mention that we offered Flip a 7 year deal before free agency hit. I think the Wings were more than willing to keep him around. With Hudler, would you want to pay him the $4m he signed in Calgary for to be "depth" (~13-15 mins a night) for us? That's fine if you do, but I find that a bit steep for a guy to play those kind of minutes.

 

[Johnz96*]

Babcock made mention that we offered Flip a 7 year deal before free agency hit. I think the Wings were more than willing to keep him around. With Hudler, would you want to pay him the $4m he signed in Calgary for to be "depth" (~13-15 mins a night) for us? That's fine if you do, but I find that a bit steep for a guy to play those kind of minutes.

He wouldn't sign that deal even if it was for more money per year. He doesn't want to be a depth player, nor is he one.
As far as coaching using players that should be depth over players that are much better is idiotic.

 

[vladdy16]

Firstly I think the coaches and/or management wavered on hudler and filppula way too much for way too long, and that was the main factor in making it more difficult to retain those players than say kronwall. To me it was obvious that those two filled a generation gap in our organization, and in today's NHL you're better off building with what you have, than turning to the scrap heap. Even 2 years removed from Hudler's departure, cap space isn't an issue, but indecisive roster space is.

To answer your question directly though, yes I'd gladly pay 4m for the unique skillset Hudler brings, and leave it to my coach to hide his weaknesses. I'd even make a Quincey deal to bring him back. Being a plus player on the worst team in the league is no small feat, and being a productive player, playing with 18 year olds isn't either.

There's nothing wrong with a 3rd line being a scoring line, and I think ice time is more about putting a player in a position to succeed and do what he does best, rather than how he ranks in total minutes.

 

[Perd Hapley]

He wouldn't sign that deal even if it was for more money per year. He doesn't want to be a depth player, nor is he one.
As far as coaching using players that should be depth over players that are much better is idiotic.

Who was consistently used over Hudler that shouldn't have been? Just because he's more skilled than some players doesn't make him more effective, for example if you replace Holmstrom with him on Datsyuk and Zetterberg's line the year we won the cup that line becomes significantly worse even though Holmstrom wasn't as skilled as Hudler. He isn't good enough to play 20 minutes a night on a team wanting to compete for a cup but could be effective on a third scoring line getting easy matchups and lots of powerplay time.

Good on him for playing well in Calgary but that doesn't change the fact he isn't fast or physical enough to be a leader on a team that wants to compete. He seemed to want a bigger role and was in Babcock's doghouse anyway so it was a good time for him to have a new start elsewhere.