Ansar Khan: I reckon this is the plan...

[lomekian]

I think if there were questions from one team, it'd be easy to disregard. When it's questions from multiple teams, at multiple points in his career, you sort of start to think there might be some fire to all that smoke.

And it becomes less easy to risk when the player is old, declining, and no longer a key piece of literally anything the team is actually doing. It'd be one thing if he were the piece putting the team over the top, but at this point, he might be the only piece that's preventing the team from being the Avalanche.

I don't see any reason to resign a guy with any amount of term whatsoever if the only difference he makes is between the worst and second or third worst record in a given year. Especially on a team that doesn't, in any way whatsoever, lack leadership, intelligence, and veteran presence.

Well I disagree on the first point because of the teams, coaches and situations involved. And frankly, people used to slate Franzen re his work-rate, but his absence has shown how good he was offensively, how smart defensively and how his intelligence was more useful than the effort of quite a few others.

I can certainly live with Vanek floating a bit if he continues to be effective, make others effective and help teach our younger players when to slow and when to go.

I take your point about standings etc, but I do think in this ridiculous parity league, things can change very quickly. I certainly wouldn't make him a primary priority, but for 2-3 years on the same cap-hit after having traded him away for a 2nd+, I'll bite. At worst, he'll be another proven trade asset if things don't work out.

RE this roster, more intelligence is always good...I also think we don't have that many guys with genuine positional and creative intelligence to be honest. If we did his impact this year wouldn't have been so pronounced.

 

[Frk It]

Which is kinda what I'm saying. Everyone could see that Smith was terrible with Quincey, yet these professional scouts and coaches evaluated that this was a good position to put him in. People 'evaluated' from the very beginning that Smith should have been developed as an offensive defensemen since that was what he was known for when he was drafted, yet he was developed as a stay at home defenseman by Babcock. Would things have turned out differently had Babcock used him as an offensive defenseman? I don't know. But it could have.

In what way was Brendan Smith developed as a defensive defenseman?

 

[njx9]

RE this roster, more intelligence is always good...I also think we don't have that many guys with genuine positional and creative intelligence to be honest. If we did his impact this year wouldn't have been so pronounced.

I don't disagree, but I think this says a lot about the level of talent on the roster, and why I generally disregard talk about parity. I think this is, frankly, a bad team. It's poorly coached, to be sure, but it's not like Babcock was getting a ton of wins out of this roster, either. That, primarily, is why I think resigning a Vanek with any real term is ridiculous. If this were 2010, for instance, I think we'd probably be in agreement.

 

[Heaton]

In what way was Brendan Smith developed as a defensive defenseman?

He hasn't, but that's the role they forced him to play. All PK, no PP.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I think SOME fans are pretty good at talent evaluation. The majority find it hard to see beyond immediate cirucmstances.

Not sure the scouts had any say in our d-pairings. As we know, Babs is an excellent systemic coach who can get the most out of people more often than not, but he isn't immune to making odd judgements. I suspect with Smith, he saw there wasn't the talent to be a proper offensive d-man at the NHL level, and tried to mould him into something he liked more, but with his famous stubbornness refused to alter his plan, even when it was clear it wasn't working.

And I would never say fan evaluation is wrong all the time...that was someone else's point!

I was speaking in generalities on that point... and almost strictly in response to the "Wings fans are best scouts of Wings players" line.

For every Heaton that watches a billion games, there is a guy or five who watch maybe a game a year and have very faulty opinions on something.

It's kind of like advanced calculus. It's not enough to be "right" about an opinion or an evaluation but the reasoning has to be sound and the work has to be shown. Whereas a fan like Heaton who's watched thousands of games could look at Datsyuk and give a cogent response to what made him an excellent player, random HFboards poster 123 could say Datsyuk was awesome because he could dangle around people. Both would be right, but one is supported by something.

I just think the vast vast majority of fans aren't watching with the same level of focus on a player or players as a scout would. For instance, look at BinCookin's defensive ratings he's done. They've shown that until his injury this year, Ericsson was actually playing pretty decently on the bottom pairing, but you'd have people over and over saying "Nope, Ericsson sucks. He's garbage and he'll always be garbage."

 

[Heaton]

Since 2009? So in your view he's been rubbish since he first made the line-up, when making peanuts? Harsh, man!

Were he taking home $1m less a year and hadn't been forced to play too high in the line-up, no-one sane would be particularly critical.

My years are probably off. But it's been a few years.

And I would never say fan evaluation is wrong all the time...that was someone else's point!

I know who originally said it, I was just speaking to those who looked like they agreed with it.

That literally directly contradicts what you've just been saying to me! Its by far the only way we can evaluate his play. The very fact that most recognise that he's been fine as a #4 but not as a #2 suggests that we all try to evaluate his play beyond just the context of his immediate role. Of course, many chose to ignore his inappropriate elevation and injuries to lay into the guy, because, well, internet sports fans...

All I mean is that we can only evaluate what a player's actually done, not what they could have done under different circumstances. I'm sure Tatar and Nyquist would have looked great if they were playing with McDavid or Crosby. But we can only evaluate how they've played with who they play with.

We're in a situation now (slight exaggeration incoming) where no one can get blamed for anything because everyone has been bad. Can't blame Nyquist or Tatar for ****** seasons, EVERYONE has been bad. Can't expect anyone to be an answer, because everyone has been terrible. We're in a situation where a lot of people's mindsets are that we can't hold anyone accountable until we find our next core of elite players. I don't really like that line of thinking.

 

[Heaton]

I was speaking in generalities on that point... and almost strictly in response to the "Wings fans are best scouts of Wings players" line.

For every Heaton that watches a billion games, there is a guy or five who watch maybe a game a year and have very faulty opinions on something.

It's kind of like advanced calculus. It's not enough to be "right" about an opinion or an evaluation but the reasoning has to be sound and the work has to be shown. Whereas a fan like Heaton who's watched thousands of games could look at Datsyuk and give a cogent response to what made him an excellent player, random HFboards poster 123 could say Datsyuk was awesome because he could dangle around people. Both would be right, but one is supported by something.

I just think the vast vast majority of fans aren't watching with the same level of focus on a player or players as a scout would. For instance, look at BinCookin's defensive ratings he's done. They've shown that until his injury this year, Ericsson was actually playing pretty decently on the bottom pairing, but you'd have people over and over saying "Nope, Ericsson sucks. He's garbage and he'll always be garbage."

Completely understand, I was just taking issue with the original generalization. I don't feel I deserve any distinction that I'm more qualified than anyone, I just feel like there's plenty of people who have enough experience to give a fact based opinion on players.

 

[Frk It]

He hasn't, but that's the role they forced him to play. All PK, no PP.

I can understand the gripe on the lack of PP usage, but outside of the possession stats the guy has never generated much offense from a point production perspective.

What are you supposed to do with an offensive defenseman that doesn't provide offense? I guess you try and see if they can become a complete player to make up for it.

I mean two different coaches have healthy scratched him now, and left him off of their power play. Not sure if he was developed improperly or if he's just not that good. I mean the latter seems more likely.

 

[Bench]

We're in a situation now (slight exaggeration incoming) where no one can get blamed for anything because everyone has been bad. Can't blame Nyquist or Tatar for ****** seasons, EVERYONE has been bad. Can't expect anyone to be an answer, because everyone has been terrible. We're in a situation where a lot of people's mindsets are that we can't hold anyone accountable until we find our next core of elite players. I don't really like that line of thinking.

If everyone is bad, you can't single out anyone. It's the brilliance of strength in numbers. It's the sports equivalent of zebras running in a herd to confuse predators!

My favorite is the argument that "if the power play just improves..." then player X will have great numbers again. Except the problem is that player X is a big part of the power play issues.

Great players don't fall off a cliff with their scoring potential because of a shoddy power play strategy. If anything, great players mask any issues and minimize the impact of the coach. At it's core, scoring chances are generated by winning puck battles and puck movement. Oh and having some good shooters helps.

 

[Heaton]

I can understand the gripe on the lack of PP usage, but outside of the possession stats the guy has never generated much offense from a point production perspective.

What are you supposed to do with an offensive defenseman that doesn't provide offense? I guess you try and see if they can become a complete player to make up for it.

I mean two different coaches have healthy scratched him now, and left him off of their power play. Not sure if he was developed improperly or if he's just not that good. I mean the latter seems more likely.

I agree with you, my point is that when we drafted him and while Smith was in college he was touted as an offensive defensemen. While he was tearing up GR, he was an offensive defensemen. When he comes to the NHL that's flipped on it's head. I'm not saying there's any evidence that Smith has shown in the NHL that he would've been a good offensive defensemen, but from scouting reports to who he was in GR, everything looked to be offense. People were shocked when Babcock never had him on the PP.

I'm with you, he just isn't that good, but it still seems weird.

 

[Bench]

Smith's issues are between the ears. I don't think his decision making is fast enough or sound enough for the NHL level. It's one thing to be an offensive guy in college and the AHL and a whole new game in the NHL - we all know this and have seen this. And when the physical tools are there, it comes down to his mental acuity.

I never bought the narrative Babcock ruined Smith. Defenders produced well for Babcock when they were good. And when the team wasn't good, they struggled. What a coincidence.

 

[Frk It]

I agree with you, my point is that when we drafted him and while Smith was in college he was touted as an offensive defensemen. While he was tearing up GR, he was an offensive defensemen. When he comes to the NHL that's flipped on it's head. I'm not saying there's any evidence that Smith has shown in the NHL that he would've been a good offensive defensemen, but from scouting reports to who he was in GR, everything looked to be offense. People were shocked when Babcock never had him on the PP.

I'm with you, he just isn't that good, but it still seems weird.

Well, if a guy has a skill set that does not translate well, that would tie back to scouting IMO.

With Smith the things that blows my mind is, I have never seen a guy labeled an offensive defenseman that ices the puck as frequently as Brendan Smith does. He is not a good passer of the puck for anything other than short passes that are about 10 feet or less. It's actually amazing to me that he was able to put up the numbers in NCAA and AHL hockey he did with how erratic of a passer he is. I mean I know he is good at rushing the puck, and has shown an ability to be opportunistic with hopping up in the play, but the guy just isn't a great passer. I'm not sure if teams thought he would improve in that area as he got older, or what, but his stretch passes are god-awful.

 

[ElysiumAB]

Just yesterday, with a team that is 3W-10L in overtime, and 7-0 in the shootout, Blashill started OT with 3 F's on the ice. Who's gonna try to defend that?

Maybe he finally learned playing Dekeyser in OT is a terrible terrible idea. I take 3 forwards any day over that.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Completely understand, I was just taking issue with the original generalization. I don't feel I deserve any distinction that I'm more qualified than anyone, I just feel like there's plenty of people who have enough experience to give a fact based opinion on players.

I just said you because you're the handiest example of the exception to my general rule. I'd say someone else, but we have your "credentials", as it were, laid out.

I'm saying that the plenty of people with enough experience is a very small minority. I truly do believe in my 95% number. 5% of the NHL fanbase or of the Wings fanbase is a pretty damn big number.

And also I'm saying the people with the wherewithal to know what they're talking about and to cogently use statistics to back it up. Not "Howard gives up softies", but why he gives up softies, like he's out of position or not seeing the puck well. Or Mrazek is overcommitting to whoever the shooter is, so cross-ice passes have been murdering him.

 

[Heaton]

I just said you because you're the handiest example of the exception to my general rule. I'd say someone else, but we have your "credentials", as it were, laid out.

I'm saying that the plenty of people with enough experience is a very small minority. I truly do believe in my 95% number. 5% of the NHL fanbase or of the Wings fanbase is a pretty damn big number.

And also I'm saying the people with the wherewithal to know what they're talking about and to cogently use statistics to back it up. Not "Howard gives up softies", but why he gives up softies, like he's out of position or not seeing the puck well. Or Mrazek is overcommitting to whoever the shooter is, so cross-ice passes have been murdering him.

Fair enough. It's kinda funny, after going to many games over the years, you rarely hear the intelligent hockey discussion in the stands.

 

[Frk It]

Agree that the lack of improvement in his passing has been the biggest limiter of his development. But then then quality of passing under pressure is often the big issue for junior and AHL point getters. Smith is a guy who needs to play in a system somewhere between what Babs and Blash want him to do. He needs to rush with the puck, be opportunistic, be physical, but keep his passing game simple and ideally not be the net front d-man as he doesn't read play in tight spaces quick enough.

He's very good at what he's good at, but the imbalance of his skillset means he needs to be with the right partner to flourish rather more than most.

Not really sure what system you can work well in without an ability to hit medium to long passes consistently. I mean you can't rush the puck up ice every time. I guess maybe if his partner can do it that would help, and honestly I think we have had a very limited number of guys that can do this in Smith's time here. But even still, it's a pretty glaring hole in his game.

 

[jkutswings]

If everyone is bad, you can't single out anyone. It's the brilliance of strength in numbers. It's the sports equivalent of zebras running in a herd to confuse predators!

My favorite is the argument that "if the power play just improves..." then player X will have great numbers again. Except the problem is that player X is a big part of the power play issues.

Great players don't fall off a cliff with their scoring potential because of a shoddy power play strategy. If anything, great players mask any issues and minimize the impact of the coach. At it's core, scoring chances are generated by winning puck battles and puck movement. Oh and having some good shooters helps.

THANK YOU.

Sometimes it feels as if, with the coming of age of advanced stats, that suddenly even strength points per 60 minutes against opponents of a certain Corsi value is all that matters.

I care about how a player performs in all the scenarios they're placed in, including when they're facing uphill circumstances, because, as you stated, the really really good ones tend to find a way to still get it done.

 

[Pavels Dog]

If everyone is bad, you can't single out anyone. It's the brilliance of strength in numbers. It's the sports equivalent of zebras running in a herd to confuse predators!

My favorite is the argument that "if the power play just improves..." then player X will have great numbers again. Except the problem is that player X is a big part of the power play issues.

Great players don't fall off a cliff with their scoring potential because of a shoddy power play strategy. If anything, great players mask any issues and minimize the impact of the coach. At it's core, scoring chances are generated by winning puck battles and puck movement. Oh and having some good shooters helps.

Yeah if you run a team stacked with 2 of the top 5 players in the world (Crosby+Malkin) and one of the top 5-10 PPQBs in the world, you can afford to not have a great PP strategy. They've been among the best some years, and down around 20th/21st/24th in their bad years. Their great players kept that PP from falling into the bottom 5 and masked some issues. But we're talking about one of the best rosters in the league, and if they can be 24th because of bad coaching, what do you think happens to a roster that isn't among the very best?

How stacked with talent do we need to be before we realize that the talent isn't the reason we're currently on track for one of the worst powerplays of all time? Of course if you add McDavid and Karlsson to this team our PP numbers would improve. To maybe 25th. Maybe 20th. But should we complain about Nyquist because he's not Crosby or McDavid? Green, Z and Vanek aren't exactly garbage, their history of PP production is incredible. I guess this year they all got together, discussed things, and decided to play awful on the powerplay.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Yeah if you run a team stacked with 2 of the top 5 players in the world (Crosby+Malkin) and one of the top 5-10 PPQBs in the world, you can afford to not have a great PP strategy. They've been among the best some years, and down around 20th/21st/24th in their bad years. Their great players kept that PP from falling into the bottom 5 and masked some issues. But we're talking about one of the best rosters in the league, and if they can be 24th because of bad coaching, what do you think happens to a roster that isn't among the very best?

letang isn't a great PPQB.

when was pitts PP that bad? must have been closer to decade ago.

 

[Ezekial]

I'm with bench to a degree, the players need to perform.

But what was the giant disparity in skill from last year compared to the year before? Adding Mike Green?

 

[Brick Top]

Had he remained injury free and continued to develop his once good passing or been signed at $2.5m he'd be an unmitigated success.

Except that he didn't remain injury free (not his fault but still valid), didn't develop as a passer, and wasn't signed at $2.5m

His contract is undoubtedly a problem, because he's now topped out as a #4 or good #5 guy, but it remains to be seen if his contract is relevant the next time we have a good enough core to compete. So far, his contract looks ugly but hasn't really cost us doing anything that would be making a significant difference to this team

I think his deal was yet another example of the Holland pattern of overpaying and/or giving too much term to homegrown guys who are just average at best. My theory is that agents looked at the contracts Kenny was giving to guys who came up in the DRW system and asked for more than they could get elsewhere bc that was the track record.

 

[InjuredChoker]

I think his deal was yet another example of the Holland pattern of overpaying and/or giving too much term to homegrown guys who are just average at best. My theory is that agents looked at the contracts Kenny was giving to guys who came up in the DRW system and asked for more than they could get elsewhere bc that was the track record.

funny enough, i think ericsson, dekeyser and abdelkader have the same agent.

 

[Bench]

funny enough, i think ericsson, dekeyser and abdelkader have the same agent.

Wow. That guy's first born child is probably named Ken.

 

[Brick Top]

Wow. That guy's first born child is probably named Ken.

And I heard it was a girl but they went with Ken anyway out of obligation

 

[SirloinUB]

If everyone is bad, you can't single out anyone. It's the brilliance of strength in numbers. It's the sports equivalent of zebras running in a herd to confuse predators!

My favorite is the argument that "if the power play just improves..." then player X will have great numbers again. Except the problem is that player X is a big part of the power play issues.

Great players don't fall off a cliff with their scoring potential because of a shoddy power play strategy. If anything, great players mask any issues and minimize the impact of the coach. At it's core, scoring chances are generated by winning puck battles and puck movement. Oh and having some good shooters helps.

It actually works both ways though. And for some guys its completely valid.

All teams use complimentary pieces on the PP and these guys should not be considered the problem. So yes, in the instance of abdelkader, its reasonable to say his numbers would improve with a more functional pp. However, to expect him or other complimentary pieces to drive PP success is simply unrealistic.

You don't hold pp struggles against the complimentary pieces. These struggles should be held against the PP drivers (Green, Kronwall, Z, Nyquist and Vanek)