Jeff Blashill - Half Season Impression

[Actual Thought*]

Can you please explain this leap of logic? It's a freaking motivational quote used for motivation, for crying out loud. It's also a motivational quote he used in Grand Rapids as early as 2012.

Also, can you please respond to this quote?

It is a pretentious quote. There is no leap necessary. Anyone who can read can see that. The fact Blashill fails to recognize that is a clear indication of being rather shallow and dim. There are millions of motivational slogans. He thoughtlessly picked that one. I assure you that Kronwall noticed it immediately.

The veteran players age does not account for the obvious weakness of their system. They play perimeter hockey. They get hemmed in their zone. They have no transition game and their pp has taken a nose dive. I would argue the sharp decline from the vets is a response to coaching.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It is a pretentious quote. There is no leap necessary. Anyone who can read can see that. The fact Blashill fails to recognize that is a clear indication of being rather shallow and dim. There are millions of motivational slogans. He thoughtlessly picked that one. I assure you that Kronwall noticed it immediately.

You are talking out of your posterior.

He picked the quote because he had already been using it for two years with Grand Rapids. Are you saying he had to pick something other than what he chose because players might find it pretentious? Is that why Kronwall is playing poorly? Because Blashill put up a quote and he doesn't like it? It has nothing to do with the fact he is a year older and could be declining at this point in his career?

The veteran players age does not account for the obvious weakness of their system. They play perimeter hockey. They get hemmed in their zone. They have no transition game and their pp has taken a nose dive. I would argue the sharp decline from the vets is a response to coaching.

I would argue you are using narratives to make a point and ignoring statistical truths which hurt your argument regarding Blashill being such a terrible coach.

Here is a quote that you have now dodged responding to twice. I am curious why you fail to even acknowledge its existence. It isn't going to go away just because you ignore it.

What's surprising to me is you didn't think enough to compare this team to last season when we were apparently coached by god himself.

Last season we were 24th worst in 5v5 goals ahead of only NJ, Buffalo, Arizona, Carolina, and Edmonton. We're actually better this season. But it's terrible when it's 21st in the league with Blashill but nothing to worry about when we're 24th worst with Babcock. How about judging by the same standards? Too much to ask perhaps?

The very fact that Smith, Kindl, and Jurco need to be "revitalized" was because they weren't exactly thriving under Babcock. Now you think because Blashill can't turn them into winners that speaks to Blashill being bad.

Just to get this straight:
half a season with Blashill where Kindl/Smith/Jurco aren't good = Blashill sucks.
2+ seasons with Babcock where Kindl/Smith/Jurco aren't good = Babcock is way better than Blashill and we made a mistake letting him leave.

Good logic.

Meanwhile "every player has regressed." Tatar is on pace for 51 points which is pretty damn close to the 56 he had last season. Gus is on pace for 44 while he's in one of his worst slumps. He goes on a little run and he's right back to the 54 points he put up last season. Abby is on pace for 26 goals which is 3 more than last season and 43 points which is 1 less than last season.

So I'm not sure where you're getting this "everyone has regressed" business. Perhaps you mean our THREE OLDEST PLAYERS WHO ARE ALL PAST 35? Maybe that has more to do with their age than Blashill? Nah. Must be Trashill.

I mean, those are the actual numbers for the things you complained about. If you are bellyaching so much this season about the poor play of Kindl and Smith and Jurco, and you're upset about our 5v5 scoring, and you're upset about the "regression" of our players, why weren't you crying last season? It's pretty clear you have no factual basis for your complaints, just your biases.

 

[TheRatPoisoner]

Would have agreed with you on this at the beginning of the year, now I'm not so sure. The boys have shown stretches of brilliance, which suggests to me when the execute on their system, they get results. But then, like ya say, there stretch where they look awful and suck out a win because of goaltending. Dunno what the reason is for that, but I think you might be overstating the case for coaching being the sole cause. I'm more inclined to think it's a confluence of factors -- most notably, Kroner's declining play that bore out by most metrics; and Datstuk not being himself because of the early injury that sidelined him; (and as for people saying Hank is worse, I think he looks pretty much the same as last year).

If ya wanna blame the coaching staff for something, I'd be most open to listening to an argument as to why the PP is their fault. The guy who's running that is doing an awful job.

On day one our boy sees fit to have "Greatness is a Daily Choice" painted on the wall. This is one of the most transparently pretentious things ever done. It says that Blashill himself believes or is trying to convince himself that he makes the daily choice to be great and therefore is qualified to lead others to greatness. This despite the fact that many of them have already achieved much more in the greatness department than he has.

Contrast that with Babcock's "To Whom Much is Given Much is Expected" and you get a crystal clear picture of the intellectual difference between the two men. While these may just be slogans they both speak volumes about the individuals who placed them.

As for the whole quote thing, I really don't see that as an issue. Isn't Babcock's quote just a paraphrased bible verse or something like that? It does't take an intellectual heavyweight to regurgitate a quote. And I actually always thought of it as kinda bible-thumy, knowing that (I think I read this somewhere anyways) Babcock is a pretty religious dude. Or maybe that's me reading to much into there. Either way, what quote either of the guys decide to use seems equally inconsequential to me.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Blashill is better with defensive lines

He took Ericsson off the first pair. You know where we would be if Ericsson was on the first pair in some of those games? Outside of the playoffs. So yay trashill

 

[SpookyTsuki]

It is a pretentious quote. There is no leap necessary. Anyone who can read can see that. The fact Blashill fails to recognize that is a clear indication of being rather shallow and dim. There are millions of motivational slogans. He thoughtlessly picked that one. I assure you that Kronwall noticed it immediately.

The veteran players age does not account for the obvious weakness of their system. They play perimeter hockey. They get hemmed in their zone. They have no transition game and their pp has taken a nose dive. I would argue the sharp decline from the vets is a response to coaching.

Is it possible our players just suck most of the time?

 

[Frk It]

It is a pretentious quote. There is no leap necessary. Anyone who can read can see that.

Do you not realize this is 100% just an opinion? An opinion of a person who enjoys dragging Blashill through the mud more than anyone.

Quotes can be interpreted 1000 different ways. You're just choosing to interpret it in the worst light possible. I doubt any of the players are, because I doubt they have a vendetta against him like you do.

 

[skate skate skate]

2014-2015
First 41 games: 22-10-9 Pts: 53 ROWs: 21 GF: 116 GA: 103 PPG: 36 PPGA: 19
Next 41 games: 21-15-5 Pts: 47 ROWs: 18 GF: 119 GA: 108 PPG: 32 PPGA: 35

2015-2016
First 41 games: 21-13-7 Pts: 49 ROWs: 20 GF: 103 GA: 107 PPG: 23 PPGA: 26
Next 41 games: ?

So, by half point last year we had one more win, two more loser points (yeay) and 13 more goals, but same amount of even strength goals.
Really, the biggest difference is the power play, IMO. Man, is Hiller dearly missed

OT, but what the heck happened to our PK in the second half of last year? Let in almost double the amount of goals compared to the first half...

 

[SpookyTsuki]

2014-2015
First 41 games: 22-10-9 Pts: 53 ROWs: 21 GF: 116 GA: 103 PPG: 36 PPGA: 19
Next 41 games: 21-15-5 Pts: 47 ROWs: 18 GF: 119 GA: 118 PPG: 32 PPGA: 35

2015-2016
First 41 games: 21-13-7 Pts: 49 ROWs: 20 GF: 103 GA: 107 PPG: 23 PPGA: 26
Next 41 games: ?

So, by half point last year we had one more win, two more loser points (yeay) and 13 more goals, but same amount of even strength goals.
Really, the biggest difference is the power play, IMO. Man, is Hiller dearly missed

OT, but what the heck happened to our PK in the second half of last year? Let in almost double the amount of goals compared to the first half...

It's just because of that insane start. Think they broke records maybe. Didn't allow a single goal for a month I think

 

[Actual Thought*]

What's surprising to me is you didn't think enough to compare this team to last season when we were apparently coached by god himself.

Last season we were 24th worst in 5v5 goals ahead of only NJ, Buffalo, Arizona, Carolina, and Edmonton. We're actually better this season. But it's terrible when it's 21st in the league with Blashill but nothing to worry about when we're 24th worst with Babcock. How about judging by the same standards? Too much to ask perhaps?

The very fact that Smith, Kindl, and Jurco need to be "revitalized" was because they weren't exactly thriving under Babcock. Now you think because Blashill can't turn them into winners that speaks to Blashill being bad.

Just to get this straight:
half a season with Blashill where Kindl/Smith/Jurco aren't good = Blashill sucks.
2+ seasons with Babcock where Kindl/Smith/Jurco aren't good = Babcock is way better than Blashill and we made a mistake letting him leave.

Good logic.

Meanwhile "every player has regressed." Tatar is on pace for 51 points which is pretty damn close to the 56 he had last season. Gus is on pace for 44 while he's in one of his worst slumps. He goes on a little run and he's right back to the 54 points he put up last season. Abby is on pace for 26 goals which is 3 more than last season and 43 points which is 1 less than last season.

So I'm not sure where you're getting this "everyone has regressed" business. Perhaps you mean our THREE OLDEST PLAYERS WHO ARE ALL PAST 35? Maybe that has more to do with their age than Blashill? Nah. Must be Trashill.

I mean, those are the actual numbers for the things you complained about. If you are bellyaching so much this season about the poor play of Kindl and Smith and Jurco, and you're upset about our 5v5 scoring, and you're upset about the "regression" of our players, why weren't you crying last season? It's pretty clear you have no factual basis for your complaints, just your biases.

I never referred to Babcock as "God himself". He is a very good coach and being the coach that Blashill replaced it seems logical to make the comparison. The top teams in the league all have strong veteran coaches. Chicago/Q, LA/Suter, Dallas/Ruff, Washington/Trotz. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Last season we finished 10th in goals scored. PP goals count the same as 5 v 5 goals. You are cherry picking. How about judging by the same standards?

The notion that Babcock was holding back Smith, Jurco, and Kindl was floated here constantly last season along with the "fresh voice" and "He knows our players" arguments. These ideas have proven to be ridiculous as I often stated last season.

I get the "everyone has regressed business" as you put it from actually watching hockey. This team visits the offensive zone, is one and done, and then gets hemmed in its' own zone. They score 2.47 GPG and they get 28.4 SPG. Last year they were at 2.82 and 29.6 respectively.

They give up 30.7 SAPG vs 28.3 last season

These are actual numbers. Regression in every area.

They get less shots and give up more. They score less and get scored upon more. That is regression as a team despite improved goaltending.

3 players being 9 months older does not explain it away. I would argue that Kronner's season in particular has been adversely affected by Blashill's system and the horrible PP more so than being a few months older.
For example Steve Yzerman was 37 when he won the cup in 02. He dominated the playoffs and was the best player on a stacked roster even playing on one leg. Players aren't automatically washed up because they are over 12 years old. Defenseman typically play longer than forwards.

Do you not realize this is 100% just an opinion? An opinion of a person who enjoys dragging Blashill through the mud more than anyone.

Quotes can be interpreted 1000 different ways. You're just choosing to interpret it in the worst light possible. I doubt any of the players are, because I doubt they have a vendetta against him like you do.

Pretentious attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

By definition the posting of that quote is pretentious. Possibly less so in a room full of dreaming kids but very much so in a room of men who have accomplished much more than Blashill.

In itself is this quote the end all/be all? Of course not. Does it indicate a certain thoughtless nature? Absolutely. I don't have a vendetta nor is one required. I want the team to be successful. I don't wish to watch the final years of Hank/Pav/Kronner squandered by ineptitude. It isn't vendetta it is that I was never under the illusion that Blashill's fresh voice was going to improve the team in any way. Nothing has proven otherwise.

Blashill is better with defensive lines

He took Ericsson off the first pair. You know where we would be if Ericsson was on the first pair in some of those games? Outside of the playoffs. So yay trashill

Yet with superior goalie play we give up more goals and score less. Better? I don't think so.

I think the biggest issue is that most of us, myself included, over hyped Blashill and thought that it would be an automatic fix when he took over.

This. I never bought in to that and have been repeatedly flamed for suggesting Blashill is a downgrade. People sat around ripping everything Babcock did and now want to be apologists for Blashill.

 

[Frk It]

Pretentious attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

By definition the posting of that quote is pretentious. Possibly less so in a room full of dreaming kids but very much so in a room of men who have accomplished much more than Blashill.

In itself is this quote the end all/be all? Of course not. Does it indicate a certain thoughtless nature? Absolutely. I don't have a vendetta nor is one required. I want the team to be successful. I don't wish to watch the final years of Hank/Pav/Kronner squandered by ineptitude. It isn't vendetta it is that I was never under the illusion that Blashill's fresh voice was going to improve the team in any way. Nothing has proven otherwise.

By definition that is your OPINION of that quote. And ****ing yours only.

 

[Actual Thought*]

By definition that is your OPINION of that quote. And ****ing yours only.

Do you speak for the entire planet or just the Blashill apologists here? I am sure that many people who "dabble" in the english language would see the quote as pretentious. Unless they perceive merely landing the job as the achievement of greatness then there is no other way to interpret it. You are correct though. My opinion is that pretentious people suck.

 

[InjuredChoker]

wings pp from 11-14: 6.25 goals per 60.

wings pp this season: 6.33 goals per 60.

 

[Frk It]

Do you speak for the entire planet or just the Blashill apologists here? I am sure that many people who "dabble" in the english language would see the quote as pretentious. Unless they perceive merely landing the job as the achievement of greatness then there is no other way to interpret it. You are correct though. My opinion is that pretentious people suck.

I don't like pretentious people either, actually. But if it was "pretentious" I don't think it would be a daily choice. The fact that he says it is a choice daily means that it is a choice you have to keep making, even if you have already attained greatness. If you don't continue to choose to take step towards greatness daily you will get passed. Honestly, it's a different wording of a lot of stuff Babcock preached.

But the mantra on the door is just a mantra. Babcock could have had anything up there but it wouldn't have mattered because he was compelling, and captivating, and was a leader of men.

I don't even know why it's a big deal.

 

[PullHard]

I was thinking about making a Blashill report card thread marking roughly 1/2 way through his first season as a head coach

Here I was thinking Actual Thought would have to eat crow seeing as the team is in a playoff spot and although still flawed in many ways having a very respectable season, especially considering the team missed Datsyuk and has had a fair amount of injuries to depth players

But somehow being 4th in the east and 2nd in our division is really bad and Blash is a terrible coach

 

[Frk It]

How about an avatar bet?

We miss the playoffs, and I'll rock a "Blashill Sucks" avatar until opening night next season.

We make the playoffs, and you have to rock a "I Blashill" avatar until opening night next season.
Since we're so hopeless with this coach.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Oh my god is this really a debate?

Yes from now on let's base our entire hiring process on who picked the best quote to hang in their office.

Seriously who gives a ****.

And the prevailing opinion was that MAYBE players who have been playing poorly will take advantage of a chance to start anew under a fresh coach and system. Smith might be recently, we'll have to see more to be sure. Jurco is still young. Kindl it turns out is just terrible any way you spin it.

Nobody around here ever claimed that Blashill had magic beans that would turn these 3 guys into superstars within less than a season. Your premise is mind blowingly ridiculous.

 

[Bench]

So much talk about the quote. Goodness.

Detroit's hottest nightclub is Pretentious Quote. Located inside a crashing blimp, this Eurotrash utopia is the creation of beatnik doctor Soul Patch Adams. This place has everything: Zip lines, fish food, that fat Hawaiian guy that no one invited, and a naughty Canadian taskmaster named Dom Cherry. This weekend, they’re having a tournament of everybody’s favorite trivia game, “Courtney Love or Mike Ricci?†Look closely – the answer may surprise you.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I don't like pretentious people either, actually. But if it was "pretentious" I don't think it would be a daily choice. The fact that he says it is a choice daily means that it is a choice you have to keep making, even if you have already attained greatness. If you don't continue to choose to take step towards greatness daily you will get passed. Honestly, it's a different wording of a lot of stuff Babcock preached.

But the mantra on the door is just a mantra. Babcock could have had anything up there but it wouldn't have mattered because he was compelling, and captivating, and was a leader of men.

I don't even know why it's a big deal.

In any case the team is underachieving which I have a much bigger problem with. I laugh at his pretentiousness but I worry more about his actual ability. The negative goals differential is a serious problem by any measurement.

How about an avatar bet?

We miss the playoffs, and I'll rock a "Blashill Sucks" avatar until opening night next season.

We make the playoffs, and you have to rock a "I Blashill" avatar until opening night next season.
Since we're so hopeless with this coach.

I don't even have an avatar. It is so important to me that I would rock an "I Blashill" avatar right now.

If he actually won a playoff series I would gain a bit of respect for him. Hell if he just got the team to a level of competitiveness that they had in the Tampa series I would be pleased. I just don't see that happening.

So much talk about the quote. Goodness.

Detroit's hottest nightclub is Pretentious Quote. Located inside a crashing blimp, this Eurotrash utopia is the creation of beatnik doctor Soul Patch Adams. This place has everything: Zip lines, fish food, that fat Hawaiian guy that no one invited, and a naughty Canadian taskmaster named Dom Cherry. This weekend, they’re having a tournament of everybody’s favorite trivia game, “Courtney Love or Mike Ricci?†Look closely – the answer may surprise you.

This is pretty funny Bench.

 

[redwingsphan]

I think using your limited definition of the word most motivational quotes are pretentious, but it doesn't bother me. And I don't think it bothers most people. It's a stupid quote about not resting on your laurels. I don't think he's saying that he is great. But that in order for the team and himself to be great they need to focus on it everyday.

 

[RayMoonDoh]

Pretentious attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

Do you really not see the irony?

You're trying (failing, one might say) to convince people that a locker room quote is indicative of Blashill's ability as a hockey coach by inferring things about him that you have no factual backing for.

Then you say your interpretation is clear to anyone who can read or properly understand the English language, again, inferring that anyone who doesn't see things your way must be stupid.

 

[Flowah]

I never referred to Babcock as "God himself". He is a very good coach and being the coach that Blashill replaced it seems logical to make the comparison. The top teams in the league all have strong veteran coaches. Chicago/Q, LA/Suter, Dallas/Ruff, Washington/Trotz. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Last season we finished 10th in goals scored. PP goals count the same as 5 v 5 goals. You are cherry picking. How about judging by the same standards?

The notion that Babcock was holding back Smith, Jurco, and Kindl was floated here constantly last season along with the "fresh voice" and "He knows our players" arguments. These ideas have proven to be ridiculous as I often stated last season.

I get the "everyone has regressed business" as you put it from actually watching hockey. This team visits the offensive zone, is one and done, and then gets hemmed in its' own zone. They score 2.47 GPG and they get 28.4 SPG. Last year they were at 2.82 and 29.6 respectively.

They give up 30.7 SAPG vs 28.3 last season

These are actual numbers. Regression in every area.

They get less shots and give up more. They score less and get scored upon more. That is regression as a team despite improved goaltending.

3 players being 9 months older does not explain it away. I would argue that Kronner's season in particular has been adversely affected by Blashill's system and the horrible PP more so than being a few months older.
For example Steve Yzerman was 37 when he won the cup in 02. He dominated the playoffs and was the best player on a stacked roster even playing on one leg. Players aren't automatically washed up because they are over 12 years old. Defenseman typically play longer than forwards.

1. I'm cherry picking the numbers? No. I'm using the metric YOU identified in your OP. "The offence 5 v 5 is bad. Goals for is in the bottom of the league at 21st." You clearly have some issue with our 5v5 scoring this season but it's not any worse than last season so why didn't you call out Babcock last year for our bad 5v5 offense? Why only single out Blashill this year? Oh, because you have not even the semblance of objectivity.

2. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that the fresh voice argument was wrong. But guess what that means? That means those players are just irredeemable. That means you can't blame either Babcock or Blashill for them being bad. But you are anyway. Again, because you have not even the semblance of objectivity.

3. We'll see what the numbers end up being. The Wing's worst numbers were from the beginning of the season where we were without Green and Datsyuk and the system was still new. And even then we're looking at literally 1.2 fewer shots per game and 2.4 more shots per game respectively. Not exactly a huge difference from last season. But it's nice to see you've found some numbers that are actually worse from last year instead of the garbage from your OP.

4. Steve Yzerman is one of the best players to ever play and a clear cut above anyone on our team right now. Moreover he was literally surrounded by Hall of Fame players during the pre-cap era. That was possibly the greatest team ever assembled. Using that as an example is idiocy. You're using an outlier on multiple levels to argue that age doesn't affect players. The vast majority of players slow down noticeably when they are 35+. Outliers like Yzerman or Jagr don't negate that fact.

5. It depends on which 3 players. If it were Miller, Glendening, Smith, it wouldn't matter as much. When it's the top 3 players on your team, of course it has a much greater impact.

6. Of course them being older has an impact and there's no way getting older is making them any better. Datsyuk is falling down 20 times a game these days. He used to be impossible to knock down. His strength on his skates used to be one of his hallmark attributes. Kronwall is not only being tasked with #1 duties, something which people here complained about even under Babcock, but he's older and noticeably declining the past couple of years. And holy moly, the complaints about Z slowing down are like clockwork. The complaints about the effectiveness of those players as the pillars of our team have been made since before Blashill took over. Lots of posters saw it. They weren't the same players they were in 08 and they aren't able to carry that load. Even management saw it. The entire point of getting Richards was to see if he could lock down that 2C spot and allow Dats and Hank to play together and use their superior hockey IQ to play smarter not harder.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/when-nhl-players-peak-hockey-metrics-1.2646054

Forwards: Improve more quickly than they decline and typically begin "a significant decline in their early 30s."
Perform within 90 per cent of their peak from 24 to 32 years old.

Defensemen: Improve and decline more slowly than forwards and do so very symmetrically.
Perform within 90 per cent of their peak from 24 to 34 years old (two years longer than forwards).

Some players can buck the trend. Some players are ironmen. Some players can play into their 40's and still dominate. MOST PLAYERS are not like that. To expect it, and to blame a coach for their decline is again, idiocy.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Yet with superior goalie play we give up more goals and score less. Better? I don't think so.

Since we don't score but still win games. Yeah our d game is better. Goalies are apart of the dfence

If the wings didn't play line Montreal at the end of the game we probably have a +3 difference or so. Not great. But not terrible. Just like blashills performance

I will admit I thought he would rejuvenate the likes of kindl and smith

And honestly they played better. But they're still rotten bananas

 

[Bench]

The Wings haven't had a solid positive goal differential since 2012.

2012: +45 (4th in the league)
2013: +9 (12th)
2014: -8 (17th)
2015: +14 (15th)
2016: -5 (16th) ... as of 1/14/2016

By some freak coincidence, 2012 last time Lidstrom was on the team. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated. Probably something to do with Blashill.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

The Wings haven't had a solid positive goal differential since 2012.

2012: +45 (4th in the league)
2013: +9 (12th)
2014: -8 (17th)
2015: +14 (15th)
2016: -5 (16th) ... as of 1/14/2016

By some freak coincidence, 2012 last time Lidstrom was on the team. I'm sure it's entirely unrelated. Probably something to do with Blashill.

Wasn't blashill on the team in 2012? It's obviously the reason why they got lucky The other years were just unlucky

 

[Actual Thought*]

Do you really not see the irony?

You're trying (failing, one might say) to convince people that a locker room quote is indicative of Blashill's ability as a hockey coach by inferring things about him that you have no factual backing for.

Then you say your interpretation is clear to anyone who can read or properly understand the English language, again, inferring that anyone who doesn't see things your way must be stupid.

It isn't ironic at all. I said the quote was indicative of pretentiousness. I consider that a character flaw. I didn't say anyone was stupid. You came to that conclusion all on your own.

It is funny that my finding fault with the quote is what people want to debate. I haven't seen any argument as to how Blashill has improved the team. He is only a little bit worse isn't an argument. Players are 9 months older isn't a convincing argument either.