Lack of Structure in Blashill's System?

[Lgw]

If we were truly tanking Howard wouldn't be getting the starts. Unless of course we are simply trying to build trade value I guess.

 

[ap3x]

so people still in denial that blashill sucks. Hey look z the slowest guy on the team was in most of the OT. Look dek was in as well. Trashill is just as bad as babcock and probably did the same thing as a kid taking a circle and trying to force it into a square. But yeah the only thing were missing in dats? never mind z is useless and so in kronwall. Lets ignore the fact that z and kronwall are not the same players.

Yeah, just explaining it with the lack of datsyukian magic is too easy for me. Damn sure missing him hurts. But don't act as if this is the best that we could get with that roster. Most of our guys are awfully underperforming right now. Not everything can be pinned on Blash. But he's the coach in charge and responsible for it. So, his ****ed up personal decisions don't help at all.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The Wings structure was Pavel Datsyuk.

Elite players are the system. When you don't have any, you don't have a system.

This logic completely ignores how bad this team looked for 90% of last season even with Pavel, or how good the team has been in the past even with Pavel out of the lineup (for example I believe we had a better record without Pavel than with him in one recent season).

I think you and many others drastically underrate the impact of coaching. "elite players are the system", a few months after Pittsburgh has gone from being terrible to winning the Cup because of a coaching change? Really?

 

[WingedWheel1987]

This logic completely ignores how bad this team looked for 90% of last season even with Pavel, or how good the team has been in the past even with Pavel out of the lineup (for example I believe we had a better record without Pavel than with him in one recent season).

I think you and many others drastically underrate the impact of coaching. "elite players are the system", a few months after Pittsburgh has gone from being terrible to winning the Cup because of a coaching change? Really?

So if Crosby and Malkin weren't on that team, as in you replaced them with inferior players, what does a coaching change do?

Nothing.

You need the requisite skill to run any system.

Detroit no longer has any elite talent, so it doesn't matter what system you implement. It's not gonna look pretty.

Having a winning record without Datsyuk for 10ish games is hardly proof that he wasn't the system.

Datsyuk drove the Wings puck possession #'s to a respectable level. That in turn meant less time in their own zone, and allowed the Wings to hide their biggest flaw. Low IQ defenseman that are incapable of consistently moving the puck. Unfortunately during his final few seasons with Detroit, Datsyuk was only able to play 50-60 games a year. Still though, 25 games of Datsyuk is far more valuable than 82 games of Nyquist, Tatar, Helm or Abdelkader.

That sure sounds like Datsyuk being the system to me.


Put Scotty Bowman behind the bench and this team still sucks.

Or get rid of Connor McDavid and the Oilers are back to being complete garbage.

 

[Flowah]

This logic completely ignores how bad this team looked for 90% of last season even with Pavel, or how good the team has been in the past even with Pavel out of the lineup (for example I believe we had a better record without Pavel than with him in one recent season).

This means nothing.

I guess Pens should sell Crosby for picks. He's clearly dragging them down.

 

[InjuredChoker]

they could even buy two justin abdelkaders/darren helms if they got rid of crosby's cap hit.

 

[Pavels Dog]

This means nothing.

I guess Pens should sell Crosby for picks. He's clearly dragging them down.

I was specifically talking about some statistics from the last couple of years, when Pavel obviously wasn't quite the player he used to be, and the sample size for games in which Pavel was missing got big enough for it to be worth looking at. It doesn't mean much, but I think it's enough to sink the "Pavel was the system" argument. The team survived fine without him.
I wouldn't say that Crosby is Pittsburgh's system either. That team isn't good because of Crosby or bad because Crosby is missing. Coaching makes MUCH more of a difference than any individual player can.

 

[InjuredChoker]

I was specifically talking about some statistics from the last couple of years, when Pavel obviously wasn't quite the player he used to be, and the sample size for games in which Pavel was missing got big enough for it to be worth looking at. It doesn't mean much, but I think it's enough to sink the "Pavel was the system" argument. The team survived fine without him.
I wouldn't say that Crosby is Pittsburgh's system either. That team isn't good because of Crosby or bad because Crosby is missing. Coaching makes MUCH more of a difference than any individual player can.

no it doesn't. if you swap crosby with drew miller, we would be better team than with this same roster coached by babcock (or whoever one considers to be the best coach in the game).


edit. maybe in scenarios where you can swap a very good NHL coach for completely awful coach, eg. clearly not NHL caliber. blashill doesn't apply there, he's just medicore NHL coach.

 

[Pavels Dog]

no it doesn't. if you swap crosby with drew miller, we would be better team than with this same roster coached by babcock (or whoever one considers to be the best coach in the game).

In that scenario, it's not just one individual player though, it's getting the world's best player and about 8 million more in cap space than any other team in the league. Make the team cap compliant and it's not as much of a difference. Crosby's scoring would potentially make up for the lost players and then some, but we'd still not be a signficantly better team as a whole.
It's also looking at the Crosby who is currently playing in a cup-winning system, not the version of Crosby that we saw under Mike Johnston. Pittsburgh's PP sucked with Crosby/Malkin/Letang because of coaching, yet we think that our PP that sucks with Blashill would be magically transformed by one player?

 

[InjuredChoker]

In that scenario, it's not just one individual player though, it's getting the world's best player and about 8 million more in cap space than any other team in the league. Make the team cap compliant and it's not as much of a difference. Crosby's scoring would potentially make up for the lost players and then some, but we'd still not be a signficantly better team as a whole.
It's also looking at the Crosby who is currently playing in a cup-winning system, not the version of Crosby that we saw under Mike Johnston. Pittsburgh's PP sucked with Crosby/Malkin/Letang because of coaching, yet we think that our PP that sucks with Blashill would be magically transformed by one player?

ok, make that 2 of kronwall/helm/abby/ericsson then. i wouldn't expect the pp to magically become one of the best. it's about 20th or so now. maybe slightly above average.

pens had top 10 power play on johnston's first year. below their standards but not completely awful either.

mike johnston might be one of the guys i included in my edit, someone who was way over his head.

 

[Flowah]

I was specifically talking about some statistics from the last couple of years, when Pavel obviously wasn't quite the player he used to be, and the sample size for games in which Pavel was missing got big enough for it to be worth looking at. It doesn't mean much, but I think it's enough to sink the "Pavel was the system" argument. The team survived fine without him.
I wouldn't say that Crosby is Pittsburgh's system either. That team isn't good because of Crosby or bad because Crosby is missing. Coaching makes MUCH more of a difference than any individual player can.

The number of games missed by Pavel is smaller than the number of games missed by Crosby here. It isn't much of a sample size and in either case it is dwarfed by the games missed by Crosby. So unless you're saying Crosby doesn't make the team better....

 

[TheOctopusKid]

I don't think we can so simply state that "Wings are bad so therefore Blash is bad". To be honest, we have no idea what the Red Wings internal organizational goals are this year, and no I don't think it's as simple as "Win the Stanley Cup" or "Tank and get a Top 5 Pick". There's a lot of grey area in between those two things.

The two things I would honestly credit Babcock for in terms of coaching was: 1) A very clear and well established system of play and 2) He often got great effort out of his players.

But I would agree that he certainly had his faults as well where he didn't like young players because of natural inconsistency. He favored "piano pullers" over elite skill because they generally worked better in his system and we're easier to replace, and he often slowed the game down to a snails pace and was overly conservative.

The only reason I bring this up is I know that Babcock often grated on some of our younger skill players and no one ever seemed to get "better" under his coaching. That is, we often had young talent but they never seemed to improve year after year either because of his approach or use of that individual (the list is long). This from interviews from players, free agency, etc. that Blash was to be a breath of fresh air from the Babcock style.

So in that sense, I think someone had mentioned it before, I'm extremely happy to see Blash use more of our younger players in more appropriate roles for their skill sets. He isn't trying to convert Jurco into a big bodied checker. He's trying to put them in a more natural position and they are getting more meaningful ice time. The offense seems a bit more up-tempo and fast paced and whether that's because of the players or their usage, or his system, I'm not entirely sure.

Really, I'm happy to see him make a more concerted effort to develop his younger players (often at the expense of the older ones), try a more open system with more speed and skill and give the players the chance to create. Now, whether or not this works or not or if I think his coaching is successful will really depend on seeing a strong improvement in development of our young guys - actually see them get better; improved consistency night in and night out from an effort standpoint; and overall improvement in output either in offense or defense, or both.

 

[MIDeerHunter]

So who do we get to replace blashill with?[/QUOTE

 

[Dotter]

So who do we get to replace blashill with?

Blashill is fine. He's def not the problem. He's just the scape goat here on HF. There is one every year, this year it's him.

 

[obey86]

Blashill is fine. He's def not the problem. He's just the scape goat here on HF. There is one every year, this year it's him.

Ok.

You do know that the roster AND the coaching can be poor right? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dotter]

Ok.

You do know that the roster AND the coaching can be poor right? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yep. And I don't have a problem with coaching. He's not my target as "whipping boy". I guess my only complaint with him is he started Mrazek too much to start the season and didn't start Howard last night. But looking at the big picture, I get why he did. I am just not a big Mrazek fan and like Howard better. That's my personal view. He started Mrazek because he had a good P.O. last season and didn't want a goalie controversy. I get that. I just don't have to like it, and I don't think it makes Blashill a bad coach because I don't agree with it.

 

[Sadekuuro]

I agree with Dotter. Flipping out about coaching on here every single day when we have a team devoid of elite talent and with no identifiable direction other than trying to extend the playoff streak is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I agree with Dotter. Flipping out about coaching on here every single day when we have a team devoid of elite talent and with no identifiable direction other than trying to extend the playoff streak is missing the forest for the trees.

Lack of talent behind the bench can be an issue too you know.

Do we need to acquire Karlsson and Crosby and watch them put up career worst numbers in order to question the coach? How many line changes in 1 game before you start thinking "hmm maybe this coach doesn't really know what he's doing"?

Blashill isn't the guy to lead this team to success. He may be the right guy to tank with though.

 

[Dotter]

Lack of talent behind the bench can be an issue too you know.

Do we need to acquire Karlsson and Crosby and watch them put up career worst numbers in order to question the coach? How many line changes in 1 game before you start thinking "hmm maybe this coach doesn't really know what he's doing"?

Blashill isn't the guy to lead this team to success. He may be the right guy to tank with though.

Using your own theory, Mike Green is on pace to putting up more points than he did his 2013/14 season in Washington. Which is only 3 points more than he did last season in Detroit.

So... not buying it.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Pretty sure this isn't a one-solution issue. The team needs more talent and Blashill is not a stolen clone of Scotty Bowman.

I think the most accurate assessment of both issues (talent and coaching) is a middle of the road one. The Wings are a team with mediocre talent and a mediocre coach. When they had mediocre talent and an elite coach in Babcock they were 10ish points better. When they had elite talent and a mediocre coach (Lewis), they were 15+ points better.

That seems about right, generally speaking. Better talent improves the team more completely, but a better coach can nudge a team up the standings page somewhat, as well.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Using your own theory, Mike Green is on pace to putting up more points than he did his 2013/14 season in Washington. Which is only 3 points more than he did last season in Detroit.

So... not buying it.

And he's averaging about 2 minutes more per game than he did that year. Besides, it's 1 player, who is ON PACE for a slightly better year than one of the worst he had in Washington.

Yay.

If Blash could hire someone to fix the PP it could help a lot. But I still don't think he's anything other than one of the worst coaches currently in the NHL. It should be somewhat concerning that he's apparently trying to run the same system that has the extremely talented TBL team struggling. Says something about whether we only have an on-ice talent issue.

 

[Dotter]

And he's averaging about 2 minutes more per game than he did that year. Besides, it's 1 player, who is ON PACE for a slightly better year than one of the worst he had in Washington.

Yay.

If Blash could hire someone to fix the PP it could help a lot. But I still don't think he's anything other than one of the worst coaches currently in the NHL. It should be somewhat concerning that he's apparently trying to run the same system that has the extremely talented TBL team struggling. Says something about whether we only have an on-ice talent issue.

Actually in 28 games Mike Green already surpassed his 2007 season in which he played 70 games for in Washington.

So... there's that.

 

[Debrincat93]

so much fail in this thread it makes the defense on this squad look legitimate.

You can blame the coach all you want, but when the defense cant move the puck up the ice with ease into easy to score situations like other teams, its never going to work. How come all these ****** teams near the bottom lack defense?

Buffalo: defense outside of Risto is a joke
Toronto: all a joke (im not a morgan rielly fan, either).
NY Isles: depth is OK so this might be an anomaly.
Colorado: a joke
Dallas: a joke
Vancouver: a joke
AZ: a joke

but hey - lets keep blaming the coach for the lack of a puck moving dman or any dman worth a ****.

The sooner people realize marchenko is a 6-8 dman at best, the better you will all sleep at night.

Green: top 2-3
Dekeyser: 3-4
Kronwall: 3-5
Ericsson: 6-8
Sproul: 5-8
Marchenko: 6-8
Smith: 6-8
Ouellet: 5-8

this defensive unit is a disgrace...... but hey - lets blame blashill for not turning a piece of **** into gold.

 

[aar000n]

so much fail in this thread it makes the defense on this squad look legitimate.

You can blame the coach all you want, but when the defense cant move the puck up the ice with ease into easy to score situations like other teams, its never going to work. How come all these ****** teams near the bottom lack defense?

Buffalo: defense outside of Risto is a joke
Toronto: all a joke (im not a morgan rielly fan, either).
NY Isles: depth is OK so this might be an anomaly.
Colorado: a joke
Dallas: a joke
Vancouver: a joke
AZ: a joke

but hey - lets keep blaming the coach for the lack of a puck moving dman or any dman worth a ****.

The sooner people realize marchenko is a 6-8 dman at best, the better you will all sleep at night.

Green: top 2-3
Dekeyser: 3-4
Kronwall: 3-5
Ericsson: 6-8
Sproul: 5-8
Marchenko: 6-8
Smith: 6-8
Ouellet: 5-8

this defensive unit is a disgrace...... but hey - lets blame blashill for not turning a piece of **** into gold.

look at the power play. Look at his constant use of glendening and sheham. his inability to use rookies until the garbage got hurt. Puts larkin on the 4th line only to swap him with matha when that didnt work. Look Dekeyser got lucky and score put him out on 3-3 more.

 

[Henkka]

Last two games we have been playing great hockey. Sooner or later we are gonna hit on a win streak.