Tanking is what you do when you are too incompetent to do anything else. I don't support incompetent business. That is like saying I am going to buy a car I know will be a lemon because I hope the car company will someday get lucky and produce a car that is quality. I would not support a franchise that sucks on purpose hoping to hit the lottery. I don't like losers.
Hypothetical: 1st round vs 3rd round exit
- Thread starter Dotter
- Start date
Tanking is what you do when you are too incompetent to do anything else. I don't support incompetent business. That is like saying I am going to buy a car I know will be a lemon because I hope the car company will someday get lucky and produce a car that is quality. I would not support a franchise that sucks on purpose hoping to hit the lottery. I don't like losers.
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
Shaman464
No u
The playoffs for the Wings haven't been the best hockey there is lately. It's been the most predictably disappointing hockey there is.
It is exactly like that. NHL hockey is a product. I choose to support the Redwing's product because they choose to pursuit excellence through competence. If they chose to pursuit excellence through dumb luck and incompetence I would not support their product.
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
A car needs to be reliable. Your comparison makes no sense.
Nobody would buy a car that isn't reliable. Lot's of fans still watched the Sabres tank. The Toronto Maple Leafs are a huge joke, and yet people keep lining up to pay 300 dollars for the privilege to watch a dumpster fire.
The market would not support a car that is unreliable.
NHL fans understand that the best method for seeing their team find talent is through the lottery.
Last edited:
Shaman464
No u
How have they been excellent? The NHL is bar none the easiest league to make the playoffs in, and they have made it clear that is their goal for the near future: Make the playoffs. Then fans will try to push the false narrative that 'anything can happen'. Well sure, but the statistics tell you that hell freezing over is as likely. Until they either commit to a proper rebuild or they actually ice a team that can actually contend this team is committed to mediocrity.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Speak for yourself. I thought the Tampa series was very fun and made me very optimistic about the direction of this team. Boston series was disappointing, true. Anaheim-Chicago series were amazing. The simple fact that games are more meaningful make it more fun to watch for me. I know most people here would take 2 Cups and 18 missed playoffs in a 20 year stretch, but I'd much rather take 20 straight playoffs and 1 cup. Hockey is entertainment and every time you miss the playoffs you miss out on the best part of hockey. Even a 2nd or 3rd round exit means you get a couple of weeks of excitement. Maybe Wings fans of today don't really understand how boring it is to follow a team that misses the playoffs year after year.
Henkka
Registered User
yeah, if we're guaranteed to lose either way, not sure what seeing two more rounds of hockey really does for us. I mean, it's a lot more fun to watch our guys, no question, but a better pick is probably more helpful long term.
Voted Other. Win the Stanley Cup and draft Gretzky level players. You guys are off your game, this clearly seems like the best option to me. Also Holland does not suck.
Classicnamesup
MVP Backhand Slapper
You said Z and Dats cannot be found in later rounds anymore. They can and have. Holland doesn't turn these picks into gold anymore, our drafting seems to be on par with other teams in the league now rather then spectacular.
I am sick of first round exits and I don't care about the playoff streak. Win something in the playoffs or improve the team through the draft, do one or the other but doing neither is getting depressing.
Also, draft more Russians. I can't be the only one who sees these mid first round Russians becoming stars. Not sure if bias or what but all these guys become monsters and get picked in that range. We need more Russians, Svech is a great start.
I am sick of first round exits and I don't care about the playoff streak. Win something in the playoffs or improve the team through the draft, do one or the other but doing neither is getting depressing.
Also, draft more Russians. I can't be the only one who sees these mid first round Russians becoming stars. Not sure if bias or what but all these guys become monsters and get picked in that range. We need more Russians, Svech is a great start.
they way the league is set up having the 8th seed is best. still make the playoffs and have a shot at the cup but if you go out early you're picking 14-15 overall and have a shot at grabbing a franchise player. you always want to win playoff rounds cause you're closer to the cup but losing in the conference finals carries a penalty at the draft. still would be a memorable season winning two rounds though.
Only the gullible fans. I mean people watch the Lions too but I don't think it is because they understand that tanking is a recipe for success. I am glad Holland doesn't subscribe to your "luck of the draw" method of team building. I don't want to become Edmonton. They suck and I don't support things that suck.
Your post seems to imply that the team hasn't improved through the draft. Weird.
Last edited by a moderator:
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
The NFL and NHL are totally different beasts. Apples and oranges, and using an extreme outlier like the Lions or Oilers doesn't help your argument either.
What's funny is Ken Holland is a big believer in luck. Just get in the playoffs and anything can happen...lol. The gullible fans are the ones that actually believe that.
Last edited:
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
.Your post seems to imply that the team hasn't improved through the draft. Weird.
We have not drafted a single top 4 defenseman since 2001.....
Tanking by definition is an extreme outlier. You want the team to suck. I don't. We will have to agree to disagree.
I am not sure what your point is. Drafting can be hit or miss. Rather than believing we should suck for a decade in order to draft a defenceman I would rather hope one of the players we draft is a hit. We still don't know if any of the prospects we have will develop into a top 4 player but some believe they will and the team likely believed it when they drafted them. When Q is healthy this team is good enough to win.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Not sure how you're not sure what my point is.
You said we have improved through drafting. I pointed out how we have failed to draft and develop a single too 4 defenseman over the last 14 years.
We have done a great job at drafting forwards, but our d corps is not as strong, due largely to us not being able to draft talented blueliners. We have improved in some areas with drafting, but we also have suffered some big losses (Lidstrom and Rafalski) and not brought in any offensive talent until this offseason with Green to try and offset that. Meanwhile other teams have found some gems in the mid rounds with offensive defenseman.
Last edited:
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Ericsson was 2002. XO is not a bust yet and Marchenko may still develop into a defensive #3-4. Even Sproul is looking good this year.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
My mistake on the year. Was not implying XO or Marchenko were busts. Point is and remains that that is a LONG TIME to go without drafting a top 4 defenseman.
detredWINgs
Registered User
First of all, Holland may have done just that with the 5th rounder in Mrazek.
But thats not what we're arguing here. Your premise is that he'll draft one at 15 instead of 25.
And so what if he doesn't draft a Zetterberg or Datsyuk that late in the draft again. Based on your premise, all he needs to do is draft players outside of the top ~25. Its definitely not impossible to pick up extra picks after 25 either.
So, he could get Kuznetsov. Or Faulk. Or Toffoli. Or O'Reilly. Or Josi. Or another Tatar/Nyquist. Or any of Barrie, Savard, Vatanen, Hoffman, Benn, Klingberg, Gaudreau, Gibson, Saad, Kucherov, Weber, Subban, Simmonds, Carlson, Krug, Letang, et al.
Hell, the sweet spot for finding a stud defenseman seems to be outside the top 25. 5 of the top 10 defenseman in scoring right now were taken outside of the top 25. Out of the top 20, 12 were. Out of the top 30, 20 were. The trick isn't necessarily drafting high but drafting in volume. We drafted ****ton of forwards for a while, then honed in on centers, and we got lucky with Larkin. Do the same with defenseman and there are surely plenty to be found outside of the top 25.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Sure, but putting it like that makes it sound worse than it actually is. Our top 4 was fantastic all the way up to 2010-11 or so. Drafting d-men wasn't exactly a focus for us for a long time.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
I'd certainly argue it should have been. Rafalski and Lidstrom didn't hit 40 overnight. You can make all the excuses you'd like, but other teams have found some gems in the mid rounds with defenseman and we have nothing to show for ourselves in a pretty big time frame.
detredWINgs
Registered User
We've averaged 2 defenseman per draft in the last 8 years, but its 16/55 picks. That ratio is pretty accurate if you think you need 2x as many forwards as defenseman, plus a few goalies. The problem is where we're drafting them.
Since drafting Smith at 27 in 2007, we've drafted 3 defenseman inside the top 90: XO (48), Sproul (55), and Fournier (90).
We have drafted 4 defenseman in the last 8 years inside the top 100. The aforementioned 3 and then Nicastro at (91).
And we have drafted a whopping 9 defenseman in the past 8 years inside the top 150.
Meanwhile, 10 of the top 30 defenseman and 20 of the top 50 were drafted between 27 and 100.
In sum, its probably not the best drafting strategy to use just 3 picks on defenseman in the first 3 rounds in 8 years.
