Implementing the roster for the upcoming season

[jkutswings]

All you have to do is look at the logjam in the stats and you know that parity is real. The biggest difference in Chi and LA is elite coaching. They have good rosters relative to the rest of the league but they aren't nearly as good as the better pre-cap teams.

You're talking about two different things.

In terms of how teams compete over an 82 game regular season, the standings are closer now than they were a decade or two ago. Travel is more balanced, the salary cap tightens things up, and on and on.

But in terms of the playoffs, and championships in particular, there are most definitely still haves and have nots. Whether a particular team (CHI, LA) now runs into enough cap trouble to end their window or not, the overall dynamic is still present (this year's champ will be one of 4-6 teams, as opposed to any underdog having a legit shot).

 

[Frk It]

All you have to do is look at the logjam in the stats and you know that parity is real. The biggest difference in Chi and LA is elite coaching. They have good rosters relative to the rest of the league but they aren't nearly as good as the better pre-cap teams.

I'd say the difference is elite talent moreso than elite coaching, but I know you're a big supporter of coaching. They do have that too though

 

[jkutswings]

I'd say the difference is elite talent moreso than elite coaching, but I know you're a big supporter of coaching. They do have that too though

I'm sure Toronto will be a Cup contender any day now.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I'd say the difference is elite talent moreso than elite coaching, but I know you're a big supporter of coaching. They do have that too though

Most teams have a few super stars and you need them to win. However hockey is a team game and a bunch of talented guys doing their own thing will always lose to a cohesive unit. When you are dealing with a roster full of professional athletes it takes an elite skill set to get them playing as a cohesive unit. I would argue that coaching is as or more important than roster given the parity of a cap league.

 

[Actual Thought*]

You're talking about two different things.

In terms of how teams compete over an 82 game regular season, the standings are closer now than they were a decade or two ago. Travel is more balanced, the salary cap tightens things up, and on and on.

But in terms of the playoffs, and championships in particular, there are most definitely still haves and have nots. Whether a particular team (CHI, LA) now runs into enough cap trouble to end their window or not, the overall dynamic is still present (this year's champ will be one of 4-6 teams, as opposed to any underdog having a legit shot).

The playoffs are largely determined by structure and goaltending. Teams that play with solid structure and make few mistakes while taking advantage of their opponent's mistakes win in the playoffs. Coaching is a huge factor. This isn't to say the players don't matter. They do but there is a reason you can't pencil in Edmonton or Pittsburgh for this year's cup. There are only a handful of coaches in the league capable of guiding their team to a cup even if they have players capable of doing it.

 

[Frk It]

Most teams have a few super stars and you need them to win. However hockey is a team game and a bunch of talented guys doing their own thing will always lose to a cohesive unit. When you are dealing with a roster full of professional athletes it takes an elite skill set to get them playing as a cohesive unit. I would argue that coaching is as or more important than roster given the parity of a cap league.

But even within the parity of a cap league, you can strike gold and get high draft picks in the right draft, and then it buys you a window where you have some elite talent under age 30 and can do some damage.

Now, maybe a team like Pitt is an example of having young elite talent but underachieving. Maybe they would have done better with better coaching?

I don't know. I don't think coaching is irrelevant. But I do think the roster of the team has a greater impact than anything else, and even in a cap league you can have teams that are easily more talented than the rest. I think Chicago for the last 5 years or so is a great example of that. Very rarely have I felt like they didn't have easily the best roster. I think that is the reason for their success more than coach Q's motivational speeches before the game, and line combinations.

 

[Actual Thought*]

But even within the parity of a cap league, you can strike gold and get high draft picks in the right draft, and then it buys you a window where you have some elite talent under age 30 and can do some damage.

Now, maybe a team like Pitt is an example of having young elite talent but underachieving. Maybe they would have done better with better coaching?

I don't know. I don't think coaching is irrelevant. But I do think the roster of the team has a greater impact than anything else, and even in a cap league you can have teams that are easily more talented than the rest. I think Chicago for the last 5 years or so is a great example of that. Very rarely have I felt like they didn't have easily the best roster. I think that is the reason for their success more than coach Q's motivational speeches before the game, and line combinations.

If that is what you think a coach does than I think that may be why you underestimate their importance. At the pro level you are well beyond ra ra speeches. That's why I found the Blashill video to be so funny. He will get laughed out of the room if he tries that crap with a bunch of millionaires.

Yes I think players are important but team play is most important.

 

[Frk It]

If that is what you think a coach does than I think that may be why you underestimate their importance. At the pro level you are well beyond ra ra speeches. That's why I found the Blashill video to be so funny. He will get laughed out of the room if he tries that crap with a bunch of millionaires.

Yes I think players are important but team play is most important.

As it should be, that speech was very much tailored to it's audience, which was 17-19 year old kids trying to become pros down the line.

But I don't even see what about that video wouldn't work at any level. What he said is applicable to everyday life, and honestly Babcock preached almost the exact same thing. Greatness is a daily choice, and you have to work towards it everyday or you will get passed. Babcock said the same thing countless times.

I also don't think that's all coaches do, obviously, but executing everything a coach wants is still up to the players as they are the ones on the ice.

 

[Actual Thought*]

As it should be, that speech was very much tailored to it's audience, which was 17-19 year old kids trying to become pros down the line.

But I don't even see what about that video wouldn't work at any level. What he said is applicable to everyday life, and honestly Babcock preached almost the exact same thing. Greatness is a daily choice, and you have to work towards it everyday or you will get passed. Babcock said the same thing countless times.

I also don't think that's all coaches do, obviously, but executing everything a coach wants is still up to the players as they are the ones on the ice.

Major league athletes have basically all made that choice already. That is how they get there. I never heard any of that Ra Ra stuff from Babcock. He was always pretty cut and dry. Blashill may make the adjustment and be great. I just think there might be reason to pump the breaks a little when it comes to assuming he is an upgrade. That assumption requires a wild underestimation of Babcock.

 

[Frk It]

Major league athletes have basically all made that choice already. That is how they get there. I never heard any of that Ra Ra stuff from Babcock. He was always pretty cut and dry. Blashill may make the adjustment and be great. I just think there might be reason to pump the breaks a little when it comes to assuming he is an upgrade. That assumption requires a wild underestimation of Babcock.

Sure. I don't think it should be assumed either. Blashill is pretty much just like a young player that is a high profile prospect. A lot to be excited about, but they have to make the jump.

It should give you a big vote of confidence that the guy you idolize (Ken Holland) picked him though. And that he really didn't even bother to interview anyone else. And that Blashill has had a lot of success everywhere he has been.

 

[Actual Thought*]

Sure. I don't think it should be assumed either. Blashill is pretty much just like a young player that is a high profile prospect. A lot to be excited about, but they have to make the jump.

It should give you a big vote of confidence that the guy you idolize (Ken Holland) picked him though. And that he really didn't even bother to interview anyone else. And that Blashill has had a lot of success everywhere he has been.

I have little doubt he will be a good coach. I have a lot of doubt he will be an elite coach.
I do not idolize Ken Holland. I respect him. I give him the respect he deserves because he has earned it. It doesn't mean he is perfect or he is never wrong. It doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes or that sometimes things don't go as expected.

 

[SoupNazi]

I have little doubt he will be a good coach. I have a lot of doubt he will be an elite coach.
I do not idolize Ken Holland. I respect him. I give him the respect he deserves because he has earned it. It doesn't mean he is perfect or he is never wrong. It doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes or that sometimes things don't go as expected.

For what it's worth, Babcock hasn't done much to show himself to be an elite coach over the past few years, either. A good coach? Yes. Elite? Not really.

 

[Frk It]

For what it's worth, Babcock hasn't done much to show himself to be an elite coach over the past few years, either. A good coach? Yes. Elite? Not really.

I can't say I agree.

Getting a team with the defense we had in 12-13 past the Ducks and to game 7 with Chicago was definitely impressive. And getting the injury depleted 13-14 team into the playoffs was also impressive imo.

The issue the last few years has been the roster (specifically the defense) and not the coaching. Babcock did a great job with what he was given.

 

[Actual Thought*]

For what it's worth, Babcock hasn't done much to show himself to be an elite coach over the past few years, either. A good coach? Yes. Elite? Not really.

I can't say I agree.

Getting a team with the defense we had in 12-13 past the Ducks and to game 7 with Chicago was definitely impressive. And getting the injury depleted 13-14 team into the playoffs was also impressive imo.

The issue the last few years has been the roster (specifically the defense) and not the coaching. Babcock did a great job with what he was given.

There you have it. Babcock teams over achieved almost every season. It shocks me that so many think we are better off without him. We can only hope Blashill is half as good. I remember the Dave Lewis years and I don't want to revisit them.

 

[SoupNazi]

I can't say I agree.

Getting a team with the defense we had in 12-13 past the Ducks and to game 7 with Chicago was definitely impressive. And getting the injury depleted 13-14 team into the playoffs was also impressive imo.

The issue the last few years has been the roster (specifically the defense) and not the coaching. Babcock did a great job with what he was given.

There you have it. Babcock teams over achieved almost every season. It shocks me that so many think we are better off without him. We can only hope Blashill is half as good. I remember the Dave Lewis years and I don't want to revisit them.

He was outcoached by McLellan twice, and Trotz once in the years prior. Some of his personnel and line decisions were outrageous (keeping Tatar on the bench at the beginning of the season a couple of years ago, for example), and, most famously, "tie goes to the veteran." And we know who Dan Cleary's biggest fan is. We can talk about his successes all we want, but his failures are aplenty, too.

And I think comparing Blashill to Dave Lewis is premature and a little outrageous.

 

[Frk It]

There you have it. Babcock teams over achieved almost every season. It shocks me that so many think we are better off without him. We can only hope Blashill is half as good. I remember the Dave Lewis years and I don't want to revisit them.

Well with what I said being said, Babcock was here a long time. A very, very long time.

He was ready for a new challenge, and the players were probably ready for a new voice by the same token.

Wish him well but I think we have a great successor lined up, we will see. This organization is very good at replacing players and coaches and not missing a step.

 

[jkutswings]

Quenville was a non-factor with St Louis, but now looks like a genius with all the talent in Chicago. And Babcock will never get near another Cup again with that dumpster fire north of the border.

A great example of coaching making a difference is when Scotty arrived here. He took a team that was already making the playoffs regularly, but couldn't put it all together, and HELPED get them to the mountaintop.

But you put Bowman on the 2015-16 Hurricanes or Maple Leafs, and they're still nowhere near a contender.

The gap between the most and least talented NHL players is much wider than the gap between the most and least talented NHL coaches. Much, much wider.

 

[loudernow*]

Sure. I don't think it should be assumed either. Blashill is pretty much just like a young player that is a high profile prospect. A lot to be excited about, but they have to make the jump.

It should give you a big vote of confidence that the guy you idolize (Ken Holland) picked him though. And that he really didn't even bother to interview anyone else. And that Blashill has had a lot of success everywhere he has been.

So did Boucher. IIRC, he won the Memorial cup and was A coach of the year. He was a young guy at TB who ran an uptempo style similar to Blashills.
Boucher had a great first season in TB, then slid the next two seasons.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

There you have it. Babcock teams over achieved almost every season. It shocks me that so many think we are better off without him. We can only hope Blashill is half as good. I remember the Dave Lewis years and I don't want to revisit them.

Babcock teams have overachieved twice in his career. The glorious run with the Ducks when Giggy played out of his mind and the 13-14 team making it when completely banged up.

Outside of that he meets expectations or has come up short sometimes.

They were better than the Ducks and he was a key reason they fumbled a 3-1 lead against Chicago, I will not site that year as a overachieving year for Babcock like Frk It just did.

I don't care what he has accomplished with Team Canada since our cup. He squandered some talented teams and foot on the throat situations. Certainly some of that is on the players, in fact the lions share should be put on the players as they are the most important factor. But Mike Babcock hasn't been elite for a little while now, he is a good to very good coach that is all. He is far from irreplaceable and he has not been meeting the expectations of his God like status for a while. I understand why people North of the Border still hold him in high regard though honestly again there he is merely meeting expectations not losing with the most talented team that can be assembled...

Babcock got owned by his understudy McLellan twice in the playoffs on matchups and adjustments both between games and in game. Trotz made him look absolutely silly. Yes the Wings got banged up in the second half of the season, but the problem in that series was Trotz coached circles around Babs as far as I am concerned. He mystically gave up the Zetterberg on Toews matchup in the second round years later. Either great adjustments by Q can be credited but in Game 6 Babcock with last change curiously came up completely wanting.

Since winning the Cup, Babcock coached teams have thrown up a 3-2 lead to Tampa, a 3-1 lead on Chicago, and a 3-2 lead on the Pens in the Finals. That doesn't look elite to me at all, he got stomped in elimination games over the last half a decade. Often choosing to play don't lost hockey and getting exactly the result a tight game where anything can happens comes down the pike on the wrong side. If there is anything that bothers me more than Babcock's refusal to go out on his shield I cannot think of it. Glad to see a new era, we weren't going anywhere with Saint Babs anymore.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

So did Boucher. IIRC, he won the Memorial cup and was A coach of the year. He was a young guy at TB who ran an uptempo style similar to Blashills.
Boucher had a great first season in TB, then slid the next two seasons.

Actually Boucher ran a very complex system 1-3-1 trap, it had transition elements but was fairly unique. Took them to the Eastern Conference finals, unfortunately the NHL got what they needed on tape after the first year and figured out how to unlock and crush that system. It was also incessantly boring and hard to defend if the results weren't there, was not surprised at all that reversed on him in quick order.

Cooper runs a system much more similar to what Blashill runs.

Quenville was a non-factor with St Louis, but now looks like a genius with all the talent in Chicago. And Babcock will never get near another Cup again with that dumpster fire north of the border.

A great example of coaching making a difference is when Scotty arrived here. He took a team that was already making the playoffs regularly, but couldn't put it all together, and HELPED get them to the mountaintop.

But you put Bowman on the 2015-16 Hurricanes or Maple Leafs, and they're still nowhere near a contender.

The gap between the most and least talented NHL players is much wider than the gap between the most and least talented NHL coaches. Much, much wider.

I agree with this. I also think systems can become stagnant under the same coach after a while. Something both Bowman and Phil Jackson have talked a lot about in the past.

 

[Frk It]

They were better than the Ducks and he was a key reason they fumbled a 3-1 lead against Chicago, I will not site that year as a overachieving year for Babcock like Frk It just did.

Explain how we were a better team than the Ducks that year.

In 12-13 our defense was comprised of Kronwall, Ericsson, Lashoff (played in the playoffs), Colaiacovo, Quincey, Smith, Dekeyser (as a rookie). You're telling me a team with that defense was better than the Ducks? Ok, I don't see that. Not for a second.

And you're looking at it like we choked against Chicago. I look at it like we overachieved to even push them to 7 games. How do you close out a series with that defense?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Explain how we were a better team than the Ducks that year.

In 12-13 our defense was comprised of Kronwall, Ericsson, Lashoff (played in the playoffs), Colaiacovo, Quincey, Smith, Dekeyser (as a rookie). You're telling me a team with that defense was better than the Ducks? Ok, I don't see that. Not for a second.

And you're looking at it like we choked against Chicago. I look at it like we overachieved to even push them to 7 games. How do you close out a series with that defense?

Take a look at the Ducks defense, not a good group and they were really in trouble once Abdelkader ended Lydman's career. Perry went MIA as he often does against the Wings and our superstars were better. I thought they would win the series going in, it helped that the Ducks were more of a paper tiger back then than what they have evolved into mostly because of continued youth growth and the big Kesler acquisition.

DeKeyser was awful in the first two games before breaking his thumb, mercifully for him in Game 2 as he was getting terrorized. He didn't play from there on out.

The Hawks were more talented, but blowing a 3-1 lead is blowing 3-1 lead. You would like to think the best coach in hockey could win 1 out of 3 games. He couldn't and that is fine if you want to put it on the players again they deserve more of the blame anyway. But if you want to talk about the greatness of Babcock, I haven't seen it for a while for our team.

I think Babcock came in at a perfect time, we were highly skilled team that needed to concentrate a little more defensively, put more grime into their game and had offensive stalwart defenseman that could overcome his philosophy in hockey at times. We evolved into more the kind of team he went on the miracle run with the Ducks with a bang it out off the glass, clog the neutral zone and sag team. We needed to do more of that when he came in, we need to do far less of it now.

The D has been a problem, we all know that. But if you're going to worship at the alter of Babcock, I am perfectly allowed to ask why a coach who is so remarkable has struggled so often here lately.... I mean I thought the man was a genius. When has he shattered expectations with the Wings? Can think of one year... Even that took considerable injuries to really come into being and I give him props for making the post-season. But to say he has exceeded expectations, not mine he hasn't, he has delivered at them, very little remarkable about that in my opinion. It makes him a very good coach, he will take a team you assemble exactly where you think it will go for the most part. A lot of coaches won't do that, just wholeheartedly disagree with the notion he has been punching above his weight for a while here.

Also for the record his performance with the Ducks and the injury season where they got hammered by the Bruins after making the post-season are very easily negated by 2006 when he got upset by the Oilers, the Nashville series and the finals loss to the Pens, at least for me it does, he hit below my expectations in those years.

 

[DJB]

With a new coach nobody really knows.

All we've really heard is that Datsyuk and Zetterberg will likely be back together once he's healthy and that Green will likely play with Dekeyser.

After that its anyones guess.

Fair enough, much appreciated.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I personally thought the Ducks sucked that year. I fully expected Detroit to beat Anaheim, and everyone here thinks i'm always negative.

 

[InjuredChoker]

what was bad about the nashville series?

wings dominated the play almost the whole time, they just couldn't solve rinne, half of the top was MIA and half of the defense sucked.

getting into game 7 against tampa was overachieving for me. tampa had better roster on almost every area.