Ken Holland has been rebuilding through the draft for nearly 15 years

[obey86]

Having great forwards won't make up for 3+/6 defensemen being incapable of passing to a stick instead of a skate, or passing forwards into a breakout.

That said, I think you make a good point that, if we get a couple more elite forwards (or maybe just Hughes), you might be able to get by without a Doughty-type #1. But you still need to improve on some of the garbage we're currently cycling.

Well yeah, i'm not talking about players like Ericsson and Dekeyser, i'm talking about players like Hronek and Cholowski, who although they will likely never turn into a Karlsson or Burns (obviously) they can at least skate, pass, and have some offensive talent. I think if you have a forward group of something like the following that lives up to their potential, your young offensively talented defensemen have a great chance of looking solid on the stat sheet and we are all much happier even if they aren't great/elite players.

Rasmussen - Hughes - Mantha
Zadina - Larkin - ???

I guess my overall point is that I think the team score a lot and be a very good team in a few years, even if they don't find the next Ryan Suter to be their #1 defensemen or whatever.

 

[obey86]

On paper, yeah. But I think that is still kind of Toronto's achilles heel and the reason they have not gone to the next level as of yet, even with the 50 pt seasons.

Fair point, but even teams like Pittsburgh and Vegas have shown they can go far in the playoffs without super quality defensemen....because their offensive production and forwards were so good.

 

[NickH8]

On paper, yeah. But I think that is still kind of Toronto's achilles heel and the reason they have not gone to the next level as of yet, even with the 50 pt seasons.

I agree. Reilly and Gardiner seem good because of their point totals, but defensively they are bad. From a match-up standpoint, you need your Drew Doughty or Zdeno Chara on the first pair who can shut down the other teams top forwards. You can only get away with it in the rare case you have a Datsyuk caliber two-way forward, but even then it could hurt their offensive production.

 

[NickH8]

Fair point, but even teams like Pittsburgh and Vegas have shown they can go far in the playoffs without super quality defensemen....because their offensive production and forwards were so good.

They didn't have super quality defensemen, but they had their guys who could shut down a top tier player in Dumoulin and Schmidt.

 

[Frk It]

Fair point, but even teams like Pittsburgh and Vegas have shown they can go far in the playoffs without super quality defensemen....because their offensive production and forwards were so good.

Well, if we get Hughes, like you said above, you could convince me

 

[obey86]

They didn't have super quality defensemen, but they had their guys who could shut down a top tier player in Dumoulin and Schmidt.

Sure but you don’t need top 5 picks or elite defensemen to find those types of players.

 

[NickH8]

Sure but you don’t need top 5 picks or elite defensemen to find those types of players.

Not arguing that. Just connected well with my previous post.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

How many times has Nashville really been a threat? I count twice in their entire franchise history, so lets slow the NSH hype train here.

Yes but they were also operating on an internal budget every year. It's impressive they were as competitive as they were for a lot of those seasons.

 

[Ishad]

Holland has also traded first round picks to get multiple second rounders, which would make sense if he was great at drafting. After all, Shea Weber and PK Subban were both drafted in the second round!!

Those trades range from almost no impact to very good for the wings.

 

[kliq]

This is all true. And I think it's great for discussion you pointed it out. But... the devil is in the details. While those champions you listed won by leveraging high picks, so did Tampa (a #1 overall pick in Lecavalier) and San Jose (trading a #3 overall Brad Stuart in a package for Joe Thornton, a former #1 overall himself). Calgary is an interesting case for sure, they traded a Hall of Fame player in Joe Nieuwendyk for young holdout Jarome Iginla (#11 overall from Dallas).

And of course, the same holds true for our 90s Red Wings, who became the dynasty with The Captain #4 overall pick Yzerman.

So here's a handful of things I take from this:
1) The Red Wings need another blue chip, Zadina-level prospect or two in the next few years.
2) I don't blame Ken Holland for not having that elite talent with his draft picks.
3) I do blame Ken Holland for not putting more emphasis on acquiring top picks years ago. Keeping the roster floating in purgatory with veteran stopgaps has only slowed our fall.
4) And I also think it's pure incompetence an organization and Holland could fail to improve a completely awful blueline via draft, trade, or free agency since 2012. We're not talking Lidstrom 2.0, we're talking about having a top 15 blueline rather than bottom 5.

Honestly, it feels like too much pride. A level of hubris that they could beat the odds.

I can't say I disagree with anything you are saying, that is a very well written post that is written based on logic. My point was never anti rebuild or even to defend Holland, my point was simply against those that believe tanking for a decade is the only way you will have any success. This group often cite Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh as to proof as to why they are right.

You need top talent to become an elite team, and trading away valuable assets helps you acquire that talent (like the Iginla example). This is why its so important to trade for picks, because lower end picks become a crap shoot. Its like a raffle, the more raffle tickets you have, the higher the probability of hitting a winner. I am for all of this, however, I am not for trading/buying out every player we have over the age of 25 with the intention of being dreadful for the next 5-7 years, I don't want to become the next Edmonton, Buffalo, or Arizona. Not that you are implying this, just putting my point out there.

To touch on all your points:

1) Agree, and I think this year we will likely land another top 5 pick. Hopefully we draft a can't miss #1C or elite D-man.
2) Agreed, its very hard to land elite talent now a days when you are at best picking in the mid teens or later.
3) Also agree. The team prioritized the streak, there is no doubt of that. Was it Holland, Illitch, JD, all of the above? Who knows.
4) I'm not sure why the blue-line has been their Achilles heel, but it has. Outside of Kronwall, they haven't drafted a legit top pairing guy in almost 2 decades. That is bad, there is no defending it. Maybe the reason is that they have done a bad job developing? Maybe it's that they fail to successfully evaluate a D-mans ceiling, and focus too much on where they are at the time of the draft? I'm not sure. I really thought Smith was going to become an elite D-man and that Sproul would become a top 4 guy, but we all know what happened there

 

[kliq]

In what game let alone season was Legwand ever our #1 center, it never happened? He played 3rd line and 4th line with us as far as I can remember, and did so very underwhelmingly.

When Datsyuk, Z, and I believe Helm were all injured. If I remember correctly, Andersson was playing in the 1C role, and Legwand took that role over post trade until the previously mentioned came back.

 

[waltdetroit]

When Datsyuk, Z, and I believe Helm were all injured. If I remember correctly, Andersson was playing in the 1C role, and Legwand took that role over post trade until the previously mentioned came back.

Yes I remember the same. Legwand on the 1st line for a month and did OK. Babs really cut his playing time after that maybe with good reason as he didn't play as well after

 

[Frk It]

4) I'm not sure why the blue-line has been their Achilles heel, but it has. Outside of Kronwall, they haven't drafted a legit top pairing guy in almost 2 decades. That is bad, there is no defending it. Maybe the reason is that they have done a bad job developing? Maybe it's that they fail to successfully evaluate a D-mans ceiling, and focus too much on where they are at the time of the draft? I'm not sure. I really thought Smith was going to become an elite D-man and that Sproul would become a top 4 guy, but we all know what happened there

I think a factor may be that forwards are easier to project, and Holland is pretty conservative in nature. We don't have a ton of hits with our drafting, but I think we have much less whiffs than other teams do as a whole. Basically, we kind of stick to what we are good/comfortable at doing (drafting forwards [wingers]).

 

[Pavels Dog]

4) I'm not sure why the blue-line has been their Achilles heel, but it has. Outside of Kronwall, they haven't drafted a legit top pairing guy in almost 2 decades. That is bad, there is no defending it. Maybe the reason is that they have done a bad job developing? Maybe it's that they fail to successfully evaluate a D-mans ceiling, and focus too much on where they are at the time of the draft? I'm not sure. I really thought Smith was going to become an elite D-man and that Sproul would become a top 4 guy, but we all know what happened there

I think a factor may be that forwards are easier to project, and Holland is pretty conservative in nature. We don't have a ton of hits with our drafting, but I think we have much less whiffs than other teams do as a whole. Basically, we kind of stick to what we are good/comfortable at doing (drafting forwards [wingers]).

To expand on what I said in the other thread

from 1998-2014:

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
30 d-men drafted after that

38 picks in 17 drafts = 2.24 picks per draft
21% of picks in top 3 rounds

From 2015-2018

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
6 d-men drafted after that

14 picks in 4 drafts = 3.5 picks per draft
57% of picks in top 3 rounds


Development strategy can be a factor, drafting philosophy can be a factor.. but most of all I have no doubt it's a numbers game. And this only factors in what rounds we drafted D in, not the (major) difference between a late 3rd round pick or an early 2nd for example.

 

[Frk It]

To expand on what I said in the other thread

from 1998-2014:

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
30 d-men drafted after that

38 picks in 17 drafts = 2.24 picks per draft
21% of picks in top 3 rounds

From 2015-2018

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
6 d-men drafted after that

14 picks in 4 drafts = 3.5 picks per draft
57% of picks in top 3 rounds


Development strategy can be a factor, drafting philosophy can be a factor.. but most of all I have no doubt it's a numbers game. And this only factors in what rounds we drafted D in, not the (major) difference between a late 3rd round pick or an early 2nd for example.

Ok, but there is a reason for that. There were choices made, and a lot of time those choices were "lets draft a forward" and not "lets draft a defenseman".

 

[Pavels Dog]

Ok, but there is a reason for that. There were choices made, and a lot of time those choices were "lets draft a forward" and not "lets draft a defenseman".

Yeah, and that might have been wrong. Sometimes we know 100% that it was wrong, for example taking McCollum in 2008 was awful, it can't be defended. Voynov, Schultz, Josi and Hamonic were taken in the 2nd round. Sometimes it was chance, like Edler getting taken right before our pick. Sometimes it's hard to complain, like getting Hudler, Flesichmann and Filppula in the same 2nd round. Whatever the reasons the point is that we're changing our approach. We're using a much higher % of our picks on d-men, and we're using more quality picks on them.

 

[jkutswings]

To expand on what I said in the other thread

from 1998-2014:

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
30 d-men drafted after that

38 picks in 17 drafts = 2.24 picks per draft
21% of picks in top 3 rounds

From 2015-2018

8 d-men drafted in rounds 1-3
6 d-men drafted after that

14 picks in 4 drafts = 3.5 picks per draft
57% of picks in top 3 rounds


Development strategy can be a factor, drafting philosophy can be a factor.. but most of all I have no doubt it's a numbers game. And this only factors in what rounds we drafted D in, not the (major) difference between a late 3rd round pick or an early 2nd for example.

If it were purely about numbers, Detroit would have multiple elite forwards by now, since that's where the lion's share of their picks have gone. I definitely think risk aversion plays at least a supporting role in how things have unfolded in the draft. Even last month, had Zadina not been there, it was Bouchard, and for stated reasons like size and being NHL ready. I like Bouchard as a prospect, but if rarely swinging for the fences is part of the MO, then that reduces the odds of hitting a home run, in and of itself.

 

[Frk It]

Yeah, and that might have been wrong. Sometimes we know 100% that it was wrong, for example taking McCollum in 2008 was awful, it can't be defended. Voynov, Schultz, Josi and Hamonic were taken in the 2nd round. Sometimes it was chance, like Edler getting taken right before our pick. Sometimes it's hard to complain, like getting Hudler, Flesichmann and Filppula in the same 2nd round. Whatever the reasons the point is that we're changing our approach. We're using a much higher % of our picks on d-men, and we're using more quality picks on them.

I think a lot of time it was justified, but if you don't draft defenseman you don't have defenseman.

We are taking a step in the right direction, but here are some numbers for you.

We have had back to back top 10 picks - Drafted 0 defenseman with them
We have had 3 top 15 picks in the last 5 years - Drafted 0 defenseman with them
We have had 8 first round picks since 2008 - Drafted 1 defenseman with them

Why is our defense garbage? There you go.

I can see the thought process, but something has to give you know? Like I wouldn't trade Larkin for the defenseman picked after him, and Zadina may follow suit there, but banking on re-building your defense with picks from 20 and beyond is AMBITIOUS.

 

[Frk It]

If it were purely about numbers, Detroit would have multiple elite forwards by now, since that's where the lion's share of their picks have gone. I definitely think risk aversion plays at least a supporting role in how things have unfolded in the draft. Even last month, had Zadina not been there, it was Bouchard, and for stated reasons like size and being NHL ready. I like Bouchard as a prospect, but if rarely swinging for the fences is part of the MO, then that reduces the odds of hitting a home run, in and of itself.

We have drafted forwards well relative to where we pick, even if we have not drafted a game changer.

Drafting Nyquist, Tatar, AA level players where we took them is actually very difficult... we take this for granted as a fan base.

 

[jkutswings]

We have drafted forwards well relative to where we pick, even if we have not drafted a game changer.

Drafting Nyquist, Tatar, AA level players where we took them is actually very difficult... we take this for granted as a fan base.

I didn't mean to suggest that Detroit should have drafted better forwards. Just that "not enough picks" isn't 100% of the answer on why the defense is awful.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I think a lot of time it was justified, but if you don't draft defenseman you don't have defenseman.

We are taking a step in the right direction, but here are some numbers for you.

We have had back to back top 10 picks - Drafted 0 defenseman with them
We have had 3 top 15 picks in the last 5 yeras - Drafted 0 defenseman with them
We have had 8 first round picks since 2008 - Drafted 1 defenseman with them

Why is our defense garbage? There you go.

I think when you go into those kind of very small sample sizes you can't just ignore what was actually available though. Taking a D-man instead of Larkin would have been a huge error. Rasmussen was maybe not the popular pick but if it wasn't him it should have been Necas/Vilardi, not a d-man. And then you have Zadina who was a no-brainer pick. So it's not as simple as blindly taking d-men, all you can do is adjust the overall strategy into making D an area of focus and hope that it pays off. We've done that imo.

 

[abbbaron]

When Datsyuk, Z, and I believe Helm were all injured. If I remember correctly, Andersson was playing in the 1C role, and Legwand took that role over post trade until the previously mentioned came back.

Yes I remember the same. Legwand on the 1st line for a month and did OK. Babs really cut his playing time after that maybe with good reason as he didn't play as well after

Alright, the revisionism is getting a little out of hand here. If ever, Andersson never played more than a few shifts up top while Babcock was juggling lines (Sheahan and Helm were centering the top lines around the time of trade, and even when Helm went down with the injury Andersson never finished in the top 3 in TOI among forwards-- Franzen was shifting over and taking faceoffs); and it took less than 2 weeks after the Legwand trade before Luke Glendening and Drew Miller regularly started overtaking Legwand in TOI...

 

[Frk It]

And then you have Zadina who was a no-brainer pick. So it's not as simple as blindly taking d-men, all you can do is adjust the overall strategy into making D an area of focus and hope that it pays off. We've done that imo.

I agree you don't just go blindly for defenseman. I can understand Larkin and Zadina. I did not (still don't) think Rasmussen has a clear advantage on Foote, Liljegren, or Valimaki personally. Sheahan, McCollum, Svechnikov... some of those years they could have at least tried for a defenseman. Josi was picked after McCollum, Faulk was picked a bit after Sheahan, etc.

I hope we have shifted strategies, picking more guys in the 2nd is nice, but I think unless we win the lottery we really need to be zeroing in on the best or 2nd best defenseman available next year.

 

[Winger98]

I can see the thought process, but something has to give you know? Like I wouldn't trade Larkin for the defenseman picked after him, and Zadina may follow suit there, but banking on re-building your defense with picks from 20 and beyond is AMBITIOUS.

Especially when you spend the majority of the past ten years either allowing guys (Flip, Hudler) to walk or re-signing them (Helm, Gator) rather than dealing them for more picks. Going to pick late? Need more to inject more talent into the system? Well, kinda should look at picking more often. At this point it's sorta too little too late picking up extra 2nds and 3rds while hoping to shorten the rebuild.

 

[MikeyDee]

Okay everyone, wrap your heads around this one:

The Red Wings lead the league in NTC's with.... guess.... 10

WTF!!! The next closest team is Tampa with 8, but their considered a good team! I know it's still the FA period so, some teams will add to there totals, but 10!?!

The league average (not counting Detroit) is 3.7.