More Speculation About Babcock's Future

Crymson

Fire Holland
May 23, 2010
3,667
0
We could have had two more during Babcock's tenure but our team choked against the Ducks and the Penguins.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "choke."

All we had to do was close the deals on both.

It's that easy when you've got so much talent unable to play or skating injured, huh? Have you ever played sports?

I can't accept injuries as an excuse.

Then continue inhabiting La-La-Land instead, because you're denying reality. You might as well crash your car on account of old brake pads and then say that you can't accept the worn-down parts as an "excuse."
 

Crymson

Fire Holland
May 23, 2010
3,667
0
The merits are not on your side. Nyquist, and especially Tatar, have excelled at every level. Tatar has been superb in the AHL for a good 2-3 years now.

I think that "superb" would be pushing it. Nyquist's performance in the AHL this season has been superb. A 25-goal, 60-point performance in the AHL is good but not an indicator of NHL-level aptitude, especially as Tatar's point total did not rise from two seasons ago to last season. In light of this, how well he did this season with the Wings was a surprise, and I'm excited to see him develop further.

That said, he's not yet a complete player, and I think that getting back to the AHL after his time with the Wings will do him some good.

And please do drop the "You think that Holland is 100% right in everything and that every criticism of him is wrong!" routine. Respective variations of that claim have been utilized in arguments since the dawn of man, and I daresay they've rarely been accurate. Try sticking to discussing the facts.
 

GT500x

Im OK where we're at
Jun 15, 2008
2,664
0
My comfort zone
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "choke."



It's that easy when you've got so much talent unable to play or skating injured, huh? Have you ever played sports?



Then continue inhabiting La-La-Land instead, because you're denying reality. You might as well crash your car on account of old brake pads and then say that you can't accept the worn-down parts as an "excuse."


You sound silly asking me that question. Did you even watch the series I'm talking about? The Wings put themselves in positions to win the series WITH injuries. It's not like they suddenly suffered injuries in games 6 and 7. And guess what, the other teams we faced dealt with injuries too. We got there with injuries, we should have closed the deals with injuries. We made mistakes when it really counted and that's what it came down to. Don't give me that bs about injuries.
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
I've always been critical of Babcock. I see him as playing a large role in playoff exits in 06 07 and 09. 06 and 07 and 08 his handling of the goaltending situation was terrible. Even Yzerman more or less publicly asked for Babcock to rethink on Legace before the 06 playoffs. Hasek was a weak link in big games throughout his second time in Detroit. The fact that it took until midway through the first round on our cup team for that to be addressed was crazy.

Babcock did choke in game 7 against the pens. The team was injured and tired, but they were veteran and at home. If that game had been allowed to play out, the Wings should've had the edge because of experience, instead they shot their wad in the first 10 minutes, and had to hang on by the skin of their teeth until almost miraculously coming back anyways. When you are injured, tired and more experienced, you don't play your hand first! Why are you trying to score first against the away, youthful, underdog? Babcock spent his roster trying to get the least valuable goal of the game.

More on topic, I also think he bears the majority of the responsibility for the holes that have accumulated in our roster over the years. You can only sharpen a blade so much until you start to dull it instead. His lineup and ice time management are completely lacking in versatility and foresight, and we now have a one dimensional roster because of it.
 

chances14

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
10,396
499
Michigan
I've always been critical of Babcock. I see him as playing a large role in playoff exits in 06 07 and 09. 06 and 07 and 08 his handling of the goaltending situation was terrible. Even Yzerman more or less publicly asked for Babcock to rethink on Legace before the 06 playoffs. Hasek was a weak link in big games throughout his second time in Detroit. The fact that it took until midway through the first round on our cup team for that to be addressed was crazy.

Babcock did choke in game 7 against the pens. The team was injured and tired, but they were veteran and at home. If that game had been allowed to play out, the Wings should've had the edge because of experience, instead they shot their wad in the first 10 minutes, and had to hang on by the skin of their teeth until almost miraculously coming back anyways. When you are injured, tired and more experienced, you don't play your hand first! Why are you trying to score first against the away, youthful, underdog? Babcock spent his roster trying to get the least valuable goal of the game.

More on topic, I also think he bears the majority of the responsibility for the holes that have accumulated in our roster over the years. You can only sharpen a blade so much until you start to dull it instead. His lineup and ice time management are completely lacking in versatility and foresight, and we now have a one dimensional roster because of it.

i agree with most of your post but criticizing a coach for instructing his team to try to get the first goal in a playoff game is downright laughable.
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
i agree with most of your post but criticizing a coach for instructing his team to try to get the first goal in a playoff game is downright laughable.

Laughable?

Like I said, that goal was the least valuable goal of the game, and the wings SOLD OUT to get it. The Wings were the puck possession team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were the veteran team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were the home team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were injured and worn down, that makes working the clock an absolute priority. Joe Louis had seen hundreds of games where the Wings controlled the play, but had to spend the entire middle part of the game dismantling a team playing with a lead. There was no logic behind the Red Wings approach to that game.
 

FlashyG

Registered User
Dec 15, 2011
4,624
38
Toronto
Scratching your leading scorer, and arguably your most consistent source of offence while playing far lesser players every game despite providing no offence at all makes no sense to me.

edit - Then again they are winning without Brunner against the 2nd best team in the conference so maybe I should shut up and let Babcock do his job.
 
Last edited:

chances14

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
10,396
499
Michigan
Laughable?

Like I said, that goal was the least valuable goal of the game, and the wings SOLD OUT to get it. The Wings were the puck possession team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were the veteran team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were the home team in that game, that makes the 1st goal less valuable. The wings were injured and worn down, that makes working the clock an absolute priority. Joe Louis had seen hundreds of games where the Wings controlled the play, but had to spend the entire middle part of the game dismantling a team playing with a lead. There was no logic behind the Red Wings approach to that game.

yes laughable.

home or away, scoring the first goal in a game 7 is huge. i don't care if the team is full of veterans or a bunch of rookies, scoring the 1st goal is extremely valuable imo.

I could say that being injured and worn down would mean getting the 1st goal is even more valuable. much easier on the body to defend a lead, then chasing the entire game
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
yes laughable.

home or away, scoring the first goal in a game 7 is huge. i don't care if the team is full of veterans or a bunch of rookies, scoring the 1st goal is extremely valuable imo.

I could say that being injured and worn down would mean getting the 1st goal is even more valuable. much easier on the body to defend a lead, then chasing the entire game

You could say that, but it wouldn't make much sense, considering that the Wings were the puck possession team. That team was not even close to being built to spend any time in their defensive zone. Playing offense takes less of a toll than playing defense.

At least you acknowledged that your stance is just an opinion. Not sure why my opinions are funnier than yours.
 

Crymson

Fire Holland
May 23, 2010
3,667
0
I've always been critical of Babcock. I see him as playing a large role in playoff exits in 06 07 and 09. 06 and 07 and 08 his handling of the goaltending situation was terrible. Even Yzerman more or less publicly asked for Babcock to rethink on Legace before the 06 playoffs. Hasek was a weak link in big games throughout his second time in Detroit. The fact that it took until midway through the first round on our cup team for that to be addressed was crazy.

Are you perhaps referring to the Hasek who, in the 2006-2007 season, co-won a Jennings Trophy and played brilliantly throughout the playoffs in that season? Do you think that Osgood, who had an awful season, should have been playing instead?

You'll need to cite for me your source regarding Legace in 2006 playoffs. That said, Osgood was set to come into the series in game four but injured his groin during warm-ups.

As for 2008, It seems you've forgotten that Osgood was slumping during the final quarter of that season.

Babcock did choke in game 7 against the pens. The team was injured and tired, but they were veteran and at home. If that game had been allowed to play out, the Wings should've had the edge because of experience, instead they shot their wad in the first 10 minutes, and had to hang on by the skin of their teeth until almost miraculously coming back anyways. When you are injured, tired and more experienced, you don't play your hand first! Why are you trying to score first against the away, youthful, underdog? Babcock spent his roster trying to get the least valuable goal of the game.

.... completely ridiculous argument on every count. I don't think this even merits address.

More on topic, I also think he bears the majority of the responsibility for the holes that have accumulated in our roster over the years. You can only sharpen a blade so much until you start to dull it instead. His lineup and ice time management are completely lacking in versatility and foresight, and we now have a one dimensional roster because of it.

I believe you're looking at the wrong guy as far as team composition goes.

In conclusion: yikes.
 

Adityase

Registered User
Mar 27, 2002
1,477
39
Troy, MI
Visit site
I see Nyquist, Smith and Kindl on the PP and I'm reminded that everyone here overreacts about everything. White's out there too on the first unit BTW.
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
Are you perhaps referring to the Hasek who, in the 2006-2007 season, co-won a Jennings Trophy and played brilliantly throughout the playoffs in that season? Do you think that Osgood, who had an awful season, should have been playing instead?

I'm referring to the Hasek who was seen laying on his back for all of the ducks net front goals that series. I think Osgood, who got injured the year before due to under use, should have started more than 21 games to be a viable option to have in tandem with an aging goalie. Osgood had a .907 sv pct in 21 games that year. I disagree that Hasek played brilliantly in those playoffs, and I don't think he was a true no.1 at that point in his career, just like Legace was not a true no.1 the year before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2430729

There's a story citing a couple dramatic comments from Legace before and after the playoffs. There were plenty of indications in the press going into the playoffs that Legace and the team weren't sold on the idea of him being number 1 going into the playoffs. I remember Yzerman possibly hinting that another plan should be in place.

.... completely ridiculous argument on every count. I don't think this even merits address.

Well if you are going to address it, which you have, you may as well add something meaningful. Someone else has already said that selling out for the first goal is always the right strategy, which is a fine opinion to have. Obviously I disagree, and as I was watching in 09 I disagreed and looking back still feel like it was a major miscalculation based on emotion and not on logic. I stand by the points I've made regarding the importance of the first goal in that game.

I figured I'd lend support to those looking back thinking we could've won more with the team we had. It's interesting to think about. Defending a brief argument against lazy hyperbole is less interesting!

And for the last part, Holland has done a terrible job integrating the new head coach into managements style. But the coach plays a HUGE role in the development of a roster.
 
Last edited:

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
because i have never seen someone criticize a coach for instructing his team to score the first goal of a game.

yeah... not saying they shouldn't have tried to score the first goal in the game.

I'm saying the game plan was flawed, and that game plan included what was to me an obvious deviation from our usual playing style for the first 10 minutes of the game.

I think your thoughts about it being smoother sailing with a hampered lineup if you get the first goal was what Babcock was thinking as well. I think looking at it that way ultimately reduced our chances of winning that game.
 

Crymson

Fire Holland
May 23, 2010
3,667
0
I'm referring to the Hasek who was seen laying on his back for all of the ducks net front goals that series. I think Osgood, who got injured the year before due to under use, should have started more than 21 games to be a viable option to have in tandem with an aging goalie. Osgood had a .907 sv pct in 21 games that year. I disagree that Hasek played brilliantly in those playoffs, and I don't think he was a true no.1 at that point in his career, just like Legace was not a true no.1 the year before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2430729

There's a story citing a couple dramatic comments from Legace before and after the playoffs. There were plenty of indications in the press going into the playoffs that Legace and the team weren't sold on the idea of him being number 1 going into the playoffs. I remember Yzerman possibly hinting that another plan should be in place.

Well if you are going to address it, which you have, you may as well add something meaningful. Someone else has already said that selling out for the first goal is always the right strategy, which is a fine opinion to have. Obviously I disagree, and as I was watching in 09 I disagreed and looking back still feel like it was a major miscalculation based on emotion and not on logic. I stand by the points I've made regarding the importance of the first goal in that game.

I figured I'd lend support to those looking back thinking we could've won more with the team we had. It's interesting to think about. Defending a brief argument against lazy hyperbole is less interesting!

And for the last part, Holland has done a terrible job integrating the new head coach into managements style. But the coach plays a HUGE role in the development of a roster.

So sorry, but there's a limit as to the ridiculousness of posts that I'm willing to respond to.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->