News Article: Ken Holland: Detroit Red Wings to extend Jeff Blashill's deal

[DetroitRed]

It's amazing how dense the average fan is. HF is the only place where I have seen what appears to be a relatively even split for and against (or indifferent about) Blashill, and that's probably realistic as to where it should be. Whether it be the fallout from Twitter or Reddit or WiiM, it has to be about 95-99% negative opinions of Blashill, and the worst part is it's not an open discussion. People who arrive with an optimistic mindset, or a hopeful mindset are immediately ridiculed. Using Barry Trotz as an example of how a coach can change things is true, but he also arrived in NY with a team that had a stronger defensive core, had established scoring, which is something Blashill has not had the luxury to experience.

Just look at the state of the coaching market right now and be honest, who would be a higher priority for a team looking for a coach? For a team that is projected to be a playoff contender, I get the Quenneville attraction. But beyond that, who? I have browsed a few articles/blogs that have mentioned Dan Bylsma as a top 5 option. Todd McLellan? Todd Nelson? Michel Therrien? Alain Vigneault? I have to imagine Blashill's resume is enough to place him higher than any of those coaches. The respect he has garnered from winning at every level through the AHL, that he has been selected as the HC of Team USA, he's gotta be near the top. Keeping Blashill is absolutely the safest bet, when you consider the most likely alternative is probably promoting Bylsma to HC.

Yeah... I mean, the idea of a kind of coach who is just a finisher who you bring in only after you have your stuff together, and who wont touch a non cup-contending team is not always the case for a coach who has been successful or who has even won a Stanley Cup. Take Mike Babcock going to the Leafs: He went there when Toronto did not have a playoff contender. I don't know that we can say for sure that a guy like Quenneville wouldn't be interested in going to a developing team like Babcock did, and helping sculpt that organization into a winner with his own hands, exactly how he likes.

Speaking of Babcock, he was another guy who some users in this Red Wings forum absolutely hated as a coach even when there was much less on the market in terms of coaches with a better coaching record then what there is now comparative to that of Blashill. That was something I always found hilarious.

Regarding Blashill, he seems like if you give him good team, he gets good results and if you give him a bad team he gets bad results. He just strikes me as an average coach at this level. He doesn't seem particularly tricky or smart compared to his NHL peers, doesn't stand out. And I think the truth has been that while there haven't been many, there has still been a coach or two per season we could've replaced him with who I like better in terms of coaching style and who has been a factor for winning teams.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Yeah... I mean, the idea of a kind of coach who is just a finisher who you bring in only after you have your stuff together, and who wont touch a non cup-contending team is not always the case for a coach who has been successful or who has even won a Stanley Cup. Take Mike Babcock going to the Leafs: He went there when Toronto did not have a playoff contender. I don't know that we can say for sure that a guy like Quenneville wouldn't be interested in going to a developing team like Babcock did, and helping sculpt the organization into a winner with his own hands, exactly how he likes.

Speaking of Babcock, he was another guy who some users in this Red Wings forum absolutely hated as a coach even when there was much less on the market in terms of coaches with a better coaching record then what there is now comparative to that of Blashill. That was something I always found hilarious.

Regarding Blashill, he seems like if you give him good team, he gets good results and if you give him a bad team he gets bad results. He just strikes me as an average coach at this level. He doesn't seem particularly tricky or smart compared to his NHL peers. And I think the truth has been that while there haven't been many, there has still been a coach or two per season we could've replaced him with who I like better in terms of coaching style and who has been more successful.

I think this Wings team requires a lot more polish than that Toronto team needed. Babcock essentially led them to Matthews year one, and they had finished their rebuild and started going all in from that point. We don't have a Marner or a Matthews level player on this team. We don't have a Morgan Rielly or a Frederik Andersen. It would be hard to convince me, if I were Quenneville, to commit to a team in the heart of a rebuild knowing I have 2 maybe 3 years before I am hopefully a true contender.

I respect that you think there are coaches who you think would be a better fit, but I just don't agree. Blashill is a new era coach, with the new era style that requires new era players. Not that he hasn't tried recently, but Kenny hasn't given Blashill enough of the type of players who excel in the NHL today.

 

[Mister Ed]

I respect that you think there are coaches who you think would be a better fit, but I just don't agree. Blashill is a new era coach, with the new era style that requires new era players. Not that he hasn't tried recently, but Kenny hasn't given Blashill enough of the type of players who excel in the NHL today.

New Era players, like Athanasiou, Larkin, Bertuzzi, Hronek are being bogged down by old school players, like Abdelkader, Vanek, Kronwall and Ericsson (some more than others). I agree with your statement! Holland needs to get even more players like Hirose and Kuffner in order for it to be a competing team in today's NHL (TM).

Thankfully, Vanek won't likely be back and Kronwall might retire.

 

[newfy]

i dont love blashill, but what is any coach supposed to do with this roster? they are horrendous

Yeah I agree with this. babcock got the richest coaching deal in NHL history and was getting similar results to Blashill when he was first hired. The younger players have developed pretty well under him. I kinda think he'll be a serviceable/solid coach when the team has talent but he might kinda be the Demers/Murray that gets the team back to being competitive and then Yzerman will find his Bowman that can take the team to the next level. Blash isnt perfect but if he had a good team I dont think he would be a bad coach

 

[jkutswings]

i dont love blashill, but what is any coach supposed to do with this roster? they are horrendous

I'm not ascribing this to you as an individual, but in general, people like to make something an EITHER/OR, when it's much more often a BOTH/AND (just in varying ratios).

This is far from a great roster, so accordingly I give Blashill a lot of leeway. And several of the younger players have shown growth and encouraging signs under his tenure, which definitely counts for something.

But he also makes some decisions, mostly in player utilization, that leave me in disbelief. Now maybe some of those decisions are at least in part due to influence from higher up the chain of command, but that's still a problem. For example, it's not Jeff's fault that Abdelkader is on the roster with the contract he has. But it absolutely IS his fault that Justin received the amount of first line duty that he did, despite playing the way he was. (Regardless of whether Blashill was fully on board with said deployment, or was out-voted, it's still an absence of proper coaching.)

So it's at least some of both, even if most of it is because of the hand he's been dealt.

 

[SirloinUB]

I'm not ascribing this to you as an individual, but in general, people like to make something an EITHER/OR, when it's much more often a BOTH/AND (just in varying ratios).

This is far from a great roster, so accordingly I give Blashill a lot of leeway. And several of the younger players have shown growth and encouraging signs under his tenure, which definitely counts for something.

But he also makes some decisions, mostly in player utilization, that leave me in disbelief. Now maybe some of those decisions are at least in part due to influence from higher up the chain of command, but that's still a problem. For example, it's not Jeff's fault that Abdelkader is on the roster with the contract he has. But it absolutely IS his fault that Justin received the amount of first line duty that he did, despite playing the way he was. (Regardless of whether Blashill was fully on board with said deployment, or was out-voted, it's still an absence of proper coaching.)

So it's at least some of both, even if most of it is because of the hand he's been dealt.

I definitely agree with the first bit and your comments about player utilization caught my attention.

I feel like every single fan base complains about player utilization at one point or another which leads me to a few different conclusions:

1) Apparently every NHL coach doesn't know how to best utilize their rosters
2) Alternatively they know something we don't that drives their roster decisions
3) Fans have unrealistic expectations of how players should be used.

I won't pretend to have the answer (maybe its a little bit of all 3) but I really believe complaints about player utilization are universal.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I definitely agree with the first bit and your comments about player utilization caught my attention.

I feel like every single fan base complains about player utilization at one point or another which leads me to a few different conclusions:

1) Apparently every NHL coach doesn't know how to best utilize their rosters
2) Alternatively they know something we don't that drives their roster decisions
3) Fans have unrealistic expectations of how players should be used.

I won't pretend to have the answer (maybe its a little bit of all 3) but I really believe complaints about player utilization are universal.

I think it's worth passively watching the opponent's GDTs for this exact reason. I remember when he had the home and home series with Philly and the second game was the one with the anticipated fallout from the Mantha-Giroux hit. I initially watched for the comments from Philly fans on Mantha, but what became apparent was how disgusted they were over the usage of their players, specifically Gostisbehere. Anywhere with a passionate fan base the anger is palpable.

Same applies for dislike or disappointment in certain players. The way that the masses dislike or wish that Abdelkader or Ericsson were gone is going to have an equivalent in other organizations.

 

[obey86]

I think this Wings team requires a lot more polish than that Toronto team needed. Babcock essentially led them to Matthews year one, and they had finished their rebuild and started going all in from that point. We don't have a Marner or a Matthews level player on this team. We don't have a Morgan Rielly or a Frederik Andersen. It would be hard to convince me, if I were Quenneville, to commit to a team in the heart of a rebuild knowing I have 2 maybe 3 years before I am hopefully a true contender.

I respect that you think there are coaches who you think would be a better fit, but I just don't agree. Blashill is a new era coach, with the new era style that requires new era players. Not that he hasn't tried recently, but Kenny hasn't given Blashill enough of the type of players who excel in the NHL today.

Disagree with how you see things happened in Toronto.

At the time Babcock took the job in Toronto:
1) Nylander had never played a game in the NHL.
2) Marner hadn't even been drafted by the Leafs yet.
3) Matthews was still 1+ year away from being drafted, let alone knowing the Leafs had the 1st pick.
4) Frederik Andersen wasn't on the team.
5) A 30 year old Dion Phaneuf was the Leafs best Dman.
6) Gardiner had a career high of 31 points.
7) Reilly had a career high of 29 points.

It's easy to look back now and say "Babcock stepped into a great situation in Toronto that no coach would have with the current group of Red Wings!" But really, he took a huge leap of faith that all of their subsequent moves would actually work out. When Babcock signed, he didn't know that Nylander was a good NHL player, that they would draft Marner and Matthews and they would both be good players, and that Rielly and Gardiner would improve as significantly as they have since he was hired. He stepped into a bad team, with a ton of unknowns, not that different from the current Red Wings team in all honesty.

 

[abbbaron]

Disagree with how you see things happened in Toronto.

At the time Babcock took the job in Toronto:
1) Nylander had never played a game in the NHL.
2) Marner hadn't even been drafted by the Leafs yet.
3) Matthews was still 1+ year away from being drafted, let alone knowing the Leafs had the 1st pick.
4) Frederik Andersen wasn't on the team.
5) A 30 year old Dion Phaneuf was the Leafs best Dman.
6) Gardiner had a career high of 31 points.
7) Reilly had a career high of 29 points.

It's easy to look back now and say "Babcock stepped into a great situation in Toronto that no coach would have with the current group of Red Wings!" But really, he took a huge leap of faith that all of their subsequent moves would actually work out. When Babcock signed, he didn't know that Nylander was a good NHL player, that they would draft Marner and Matthews and they would both be good players, and that Rielly and Gardiner would improve as significantly as they have since he was hired. He stepped into a bad team, with a ton of unknowns, not that different from the current Red Wings team in all honesty.

Here here.
The only certainty Babcock had in taking the Toronto job was (other than the fat paycheck) that they were committed to "doing things the right way" in their rebuild. That meant, among other things, consciously tanking for what ultimately was only one season, moving large contracts in order to make space-- both budget and roster-- and installing a new level of accountability throughout the organization.
I still haven't really seen that level of commitment in Detroit.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Disagree with how you see things happened in Toronto.

At the time Babcock took the job in Toronto:
1) Nylander had never played a game in the NHL.
2) Marner hadn't even been drafted by the Leafs yet.
3) Matthews was still 1+ year away from being drafted, let alone knowing the Leafs had the 1st pick.
4) Frederik Andersen wasn't on the team.
5) A 30 year old Dion Phaneuf was the Leafs best Dman.
6) Gardiner had a career high of 31 points.
7) Reilly had a career high of 29 points.

It's easy to look back now and say "Babcock stepped into a great situation in Toronto that no coach would have with the current group of Red Wings!" But really, he took a huge leap of faith that all of their subsequent moves would actually work out. When Babcock signed, he didn't know that Nylander was a good NHL player, that they would draft Marner and Matthews and they would both be good players, and that Rielly and Gardiner would improve as significantly as they have since he was hired. He stepped into a bad team, with a ton of unknowns, not that different from the current Red Wings team in all honesty.

I’m not saying they were a finished product. They had multiple high first round picks. They drafted Nylander for a reason, they had already laid the ground work to pick Marner. They had players drafted as high end talent. We might have one? Maybe 2?

 

[obey86]

I’m not saying they were a finished product. They had multiple high first round picks. They drafted Nylander for a reason, they had already laid the ground work to pick Marner. They had players drafted as high end talent. We might have one? Maybe 2?

Ok? And the Wings drafted Zadina for a reason, and had already laid the groundwork to draft top 5 in this coming draft (same spot Marner was taken). That's basically the exact same thing as the Leafs.

Again, how is the Wings current young/future group much different than what the Leafs had at the time?

** 2019 ~top 5 pick vs. 2015 #4 pick
** Zadina (9 NHL games, #6 pick) vs. Nylander (0 NHL games, #7 pick)
** Larkin (22 y/o, 70 point center) vs. Kadri (24 y/o, 50 point center)
** Cholowski (#20 pick, 20 y/o, ~20 point player), and Hronek (2nd round pick, 21 y/o, ~20 point player) vs. Rielly (#5 pick, 20 y/o, ~30 point player) and Gardiner (#17 pick, 24 y/o, ~30 point player)\
**Then you have Athanasiou (24 y/o), Mantha (24 y/o), and Bertuzzi (23 y/o) vs. JVR (25 y/o)

Leafs young defense obviously better/more proven, but they were still only both 30 point players at the time, hardly anything amazing, neither actually really truly broke out until Babcock's 3rd season with the Leafs. But then Larkin is significantly better (and 2 years younger) than Kadri was at the time and while JVR is better individually than any of AA, Mantha, and Bertuzzi - the Leafs didn't have any other comparables to those 3 players on the NHL roster age 25 or under.

 

[JustJokinenAround]

I'm not ascribing this to you as an individual, but in general, people like to make something an EITHER/OR, when it's much more often a BOTH/AND (just in varying ratios).

This is far from a great roster, so accordingly I give Blashill a lot of leeway. And several of the younger players have shown growth and encouraging signs under his tenure, which definitely counts for something.

But he also makes some decisions, mostly in player utilization, that leave me in disbelief. Now maybe some of those decisions are at least in part due to influence from higher up the chain of command, but that's still a problem. For example, it's not Jeff's fault that Abdelkader is on the roster with the contract he has. But it absolutely IS his fault that Justin received the amount of first line duty that he did, despite playing the way he was. (Regardless of whether Blashill was fully on board with said deployment, or was out-voted, it's still an absence of proper coaching.)

So it's at least some of both, even if most of it is because of the hand he's been dealt.

my biggest issue is he does not seem like the kind of coach you would ideally want in a rebuild where you are aiming to play younger players, he loves to kill his young players and play unproductive vets over them.

 

[Oddbob]

Coaching can and does make a difference regardless the team. We are bad, and maybe we would still be bad with another coach, but to just flat out say, another coach couldn't change things, I don't buy that. There are plenty of example in league history of a team doing poorly, and then changing the coach and now the new coach magically is winning. Take Vegas for example, with a different coach, they may have came out as the expansion team we all thought they would be, but obviously Gallant is good at getting players to buy in. That team had nothing but 30 pt forwards and lesser d-men, and somehow they have found a way to win. Now they have a better roster, but with a worse coach than Gallant, they could have easily been the bottom dweller most of us expected.

We all know our roster sucks right now, but there are a number of teams who have nothing special rosters who are doing quite nice. The Islanders were expected to fall to the the bottom losing Tavares, but a good coach has them competing much higher than they probably should be. Arizona has a poor roster and half their team is on IR right now, and they are still in the fight, whether they make it or not. Again, not saying Blashill is the worst coach, and another coach may fail too with this roster, but I think a better coach has us doing much better. Of course that is a different question anyways, as the majority on this forum want us losing anyhow.

 

[Gniwder]

my biggest issue is he does not seem like the kind of coach you would ideally want in a rebuild where you are aiming to play younger players, he loves to kill his young players and play unproductive vets over them.

I have to wonder if Holland is forcing Blash to play the vets. When they're out of the lineup like the last 2 games, the team plays a completely different style. Solid coaching on this road trip, and good use of the new kids.

He played AA over 20 minutes last night, so they're finally on the same page. I liked that too.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

It's amazing how dense the average fan is. HF is the only place where I have seen what appears to be a relatively even split for and against (or indifferent about) Blashill, and that's probably realistic as to where it should be. Whether it be the fallout from Twitter or Reddit or WiiM, it has to be about 95-99% negative opinions of Blashill, and the worst part is it's not an open discussion. People who arrive with an optimistic mindset, or a hopeful mindset are immediately ridiculed. Using Barry Trotz as an example of how a coach can change things is true, but he also arrived in NY with a team that had a stronger defensive core, had established scoring, which is something Blashill has not had the luxury to experience.

Just look at the state of the coaching market right now and be honest, who would be a higher priority for a team looking for a coach? For a team that is projected to be a playoff contender, I get the Quenneville attraction. But beyond that, who? I have browsed a few articles/blogs that have mentioned Dan Bylsma as a top 5 option. Todd McLellan? Todd Nelson? Michel Therrien? Alain Vigneault? I have to imagine Blashill's resume is enough to place him higher than any of those coaches. The respect he has garnered from winning at every level through the AHL, that he has been selected as the HC of Team USA, he's gotta be near the top. Keeping Blashill is absolutely the safest bet, when you consider the most likely alternative is probably promoting Bylsma to HC.

Ah yes, playing the victim card, how convenient meanwhile people that don't like Blashill are constantly insulted or asked to defend their opinion and then are told they don't support the team or haven't watched enough games

 

[Hen Kolland]

Ah yes, playing the victim card, how convenient meanwhile people that don't like Blashill are constantly insulted or asked to defend their opinion and then are told they don't support the team or haven't watched enough games

Why are you hunting down something from a week ago? Find something better to do with your time.

Did you even read the message you’re responding to in that post? It was essentially a compliment to the people on this site for being more open to different thoughts and discussions.

Not to mention you suggested I played the victim card and then immediately played the victim card yourself. Why don’t we just call it a wrap for tonight?

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Ah yes, playing the victim card, how convenient meanwhile people that don't like Blashill are constantly insulted or asked to defend their opinion and then are told they don't support the team or haven't watched enough games

Not to start a huge fight... but I mean, less the insults (which probably shouldn’t happen), it is incumbent on those arguing against something that is happening to defend their position. And so many of the things that are used as “slams” against Blashill by those that don’t like him are literally the same things that all coaches do. There are certainly some valid complaints... but they’re not generally focused on. It’s “he overplays the vets”, which is a hallmark of damn near every coach in the league. “He doesn’t stick with line X which we like”, I mean neither did Bowman or Babcock or a dozen other coaches. “Players seem to be regressing under him”. Which has been basically proven not to be true by the development of AA, Larkin, Bertuzzi, etc.

And basically the “you don’t watch enough” comes down to when complaints that existed about Blashill two or three years ago but do not now are the ones being complained about.

Blashill is not a top 5 coach in the league who can get a ragtag bunch to win anything significant. He is, however, a good coach and not one we should be hoping to get tossed out on his ass without a clear upgrade

 

[raymond23]

No problem with me. This season has gone about as good as we could've asked.

I have my issues with Blash but unless he shows he's inept in developing talent, I see no reason in bringing someone else in. Big test next season for me is his handling of Hronek and Cholowski.

 

[Henkka]

Big test next season for me is his handling of Hronek and Cholowski.

Imo, Doug Houda has bigger part on that than Blashill.

 

[lilidk]

No problem with me. This season has gone about as good as we could've asked.

I have my issues with Blash but unless he shows he's inept in developing talent, I see no reason in bringing someone else in. Big test next season for me is his handling of Hronek and Cholowski.

I don't know if it is good idea to play so much Hronek and Cholowski

 

[lilidk]

2 year extension is coming.

 

[Snuggs]

SMH.

I'm sure he "earned" it somehow.

SMH.

Pretty sure Yzerman isn't coming to run the show this summer. Rolling back all my expectations for this summer with one extension before the offseason even beggins...

 

[Henkka]

I don't know if it is good idea to play so much Hronek and Cholowski

I think it's a good idea to play with our most promising young defencemen.

***

Pretty sure Yzerman isn't coming to run the show this summer.

Blashill extension now has zero impact is Yzerman coming or not.

Yzerman can fire him at 2020-21 if the results are bad. Just normal business.

I'm quite sure Yzerman hires his next guy to be ready at Griffins like he did with Cooper at Tampa. Cooper took the charge after 2,5 seasons when Stevie took the GM spot at Tampa.

 

[NickH8]

Good. This season was as much a success as it could be. Two young defensemen proved they were NHL caliber, two of our young forwards hit 30 goals, and Mantha and Bertuzzi have taken strides recently. Also has created a culture where nobody is phoning it in.