Pre-GDT - Opening Night. Red Wings @ Predators. Saturday

[MBH]

A life lesson for you is Results >= Expectations will result in new/continued employment. Results < Expectations will result in a firing.

If you looks at the Red Wings objectively and take your anti-Blashill slant out of the discussion, the Red Wings have built a roster and set on a path where the playoffs probably aren't even a single consideration for this year. Expectations likely emphasize growth of the team, more specifically the core, so all these things you are framing as relevant facts are actually pretty worthless.

But at risk of derailing a the thread, I will suggest we turn back towards the game tomorrow night.

You've just ignored all the data and asked me to look at it objectively.
No other coach in the NHL has gone 3 years out of the playoffs and still have their job.

No other Red Wings coach in Red Wings history has coached three straight seasons (the full season) without making the playoffs and still retained their job.

Granted, it's tougher to make the playoffs today - but if those numbers don't tell you that Blashill's job isn't safe... it's because you don't want to see it.
Objectively.

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[MBH]

 

[ShelbyZ]

You better believe Blashill is worried about his job.
There's no guarantee he's coming back to the NHL, with first class accommodations and a nice big salary.

Nothing truly is guaranteed but I'd be really surprised if Blashill doesn't ever find another NHL coaching job and if it isn't pretty quickly after he leaves Detroit at that. I mean sure, maybe not for a huge salary. But we're talking about a guy that has won championships with multiple teams at multiple levels, has done pretty well when it comes to developing young players and seems to be highly regarded in the fraternity of NHL front office people. I'll bet that, whether right or wrong, some NHL teams looking for a HC will chalk up Blashill's resume in Detroit as having less to do with him and more to do with the roster he had to work with. They'll give him a shot thinking he'll do better with more talent. If he doesn't do well there, then his stock probably drops after that and he's looking at NHL assistant, AHL HC or NHL Network analyst jobs.

As far as replacing Blashill goes, I kind of hope that they wait to make that type of change until after the season is done. I feel like a midseason change would see a coach come in and try to produce some job securing optics for casual fans that see it as a shiny new toy by having them play super low event heavy shot blocking defensive hockey to eke out a few extra wins or loser points. Or worse, they put the interim tag on Bylsma and he sees Abdelkader and Glendening as a rich mans Craig Adams and Tanner Glass and plays them for 20 minutes a night.... I guess at least that would help lottery odds though...

 

[Hen Kolland]

You've just ignored all the data and asked me to look at it objectively.
No other coach in the NHL has gone 3 years out of the playoffs and still have their job.

No other Red Wings coach in Red Wings history has coached three straight seasons (the full season) without making the playoffs and still retained their job.

Granted, it's tougher to make the playoffs today - but if those numbers don't tell you that Blashill's job isn't safe... it's because you don't want to see it.
Objectively.

No no. You aren't looking at it objectively. You are sitting here and looking strictly at playoff appearances and nothing else. It's the old "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree" situation. What you are openly advocating is that Blashill was given a horrendous pre-existing roster, numerous albatross contracts, and minimizing any impactful talent being added via trade, free agency, or development, and the fact that he can't make that team a playoff team, he should be fired. Not every coaching position is subject to the same criteria. It's like with the Tigers employing Gardenhire; his team just put together one of the most staggering, inept, embarrassing seasons in baseball history, but he's not getting canned. He followed up 98 loss season with a 114 loss season, and in all likelihood is destined for yet another 100+ loss season in 2020, but my bet is he is still employed at the end of it. Because his actual job as it is designed right now has nothing to do with winning; it's about getting better. The growth of the players is the aim of the organization as they cultivate more talent and let more contracts expire; sound familiar?

The fact that you can't comprehend that the expectations of being the coach of a clearly rebuilding team is significantly different than that of a coach of a team with playoff expectations is unfortunate. But honestly, I think you are just looking at something to qualify your hate for Blashill outside of the "he is disrespectful to Athanasiou and intentionally undermining his chance of success" nonsense.

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[Hen Kolland]

I wish we had just a little more fire power for the slot that Nielsen is filling on the second unit. Svechnikov would have been a good fit, or if Veleno were ready, you could slide Athanasiou to that spot. He's done well with the slot one time opportunities.

 

[lhsgolf19]

Helm sitting out?

So much for AA not being a center?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You've just ignored all the data and asked me to look at it objectively.
No other coach in the NHL has gone 3 years out of the playoffs and still have their job.

No other Red Wings coach in Red Wings history has coached three straight seasons (the full season) without making the playoffs and still retained their job.

Granted, it's tougher to make the playoffs today - but if those numbers don't tell you that Blashill's job isn't safe... it's because you don't want to see it.
Objectively.

Let's also look at it objectively another way. The Red Wings were pretty much always in one of two states.

a) Upper Echelon - More Cup favorites than Cup contenders. For about 18 of the 25 years of the streak, this was the case. So they weren't changing coaches during that period (nor missing the playoffs three years in a row) Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, same deal. They would hold onto the coach because they were fabulously talented rosters.
b) Mind-numbingly ****ing terrible. The Dead Wings. Darkness with Harkness. Only reason they didn't keep a coach long is because Harkness had no clue what he was doing. He'd hire and fire every year.

Your assertion that no coach has had three missed playoffs and kept their job isn't wrong... it's just devoid of context. Blashill's job isn't 100% safe nor should it be. But he's not guaranteed to be on the way out either.

Also, man, "No other coach in NHL has gone 3 years out of the playoffs and still have their job." Literally the first guy I looked up, Dave Tippett. (He's since left the job, but it fits your criteria)

Tippett was coach of the Coyotes from 09-17. Guess what they did from 2012-13 to 2014-15 (three years)? Missed the playoffs. Guess who the coach was in 15-16. Oh, and they missed in 15-16 too. Who could the coach have been in 16-17? They then split ways in the 17 offseason.

Lindy Ruff
2001-2004 (three consecutive seasons) miss the playoffs. Coached for another 9 years in Buffalo.

Barry Trotz
5 consecutive playoff missing seasons. Total of 6 playoff wins in first decade with the Predators. Coached for a hell of a lot longer than that.

By and large, most NHL teams don't employ coaches for longer than 2-3 years, regardless of making the playoffs or not. The average lifespan of a coach isn't that long. However, as evidenced, there are times when having a steady hand on the wheel during a period you KNOW is going to suck is worth its weight in gold. I mean, no NHL coach's job is safe nor should it be. However, they also shouldn't be placed on the chopping block... because reasons. Blashill has been given a roster that is woefully devoid of game-changing talent. Even the game changers they have are on the lower end (like Larkin compared to McDavid. Larkin's a fabulous player, but he's no Connor McDavid. AA is a great player, but he just now touched 30 goals. He's not Patrik Laine who pumped around 50 or Ovechkin who does that on the regular or Stamkos bombing in 60)

 

[jkutswings]

'Member when this thread was about Detroit vs Nashville? Pepperidge Farm 'members.

Yzerman was a great hire, and has thus far done nothing to convince me otherwise. So bring on the season, let's see growth from the kids, a great draft next summer, and a whole lot of beneficial turnover going into 2020-21.

 

[jkutswings]

Nah, we are all going to be clamoring for the "tank" here all year, finish in the bottom five, then lose the lottery and again and pick 5th. But, at least we tried to tank, right?..

Hopefully that particular curse follows Holland to Edmonton, and Detroit gets a monster at the top of the draft.

 

[MBH]

No no. You aren't looking at it objectively. You are sitting here and looking strictly at playoff appearances and nothing else. It's the old "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree" situation. What you are openly advocating is that Blashill was given a horrendous pre-existing roster, numerous albatross contracts, and minimizing any impactful talent being added via trade, free agency, or development, and the fact that he can't make that team a playoff team, he should be fired. Not every coaching position is subject to the same criteria. It's like with the Tigers employing Gardenhire; his team just put together one of the most staggering, inept, embarrassing seasons in baseball history, but he's not getting canned. He followed up 98 loss season with a 114 loss season, and in all likelihood is destined for yet another 100+ loss season in 2020, but my bet is he is still employed at the end of it. Because his actual job as it is designed right now has nothing to do with winning; it's about getting better. The growth of the players is the aim of the organization as they cultivate more talent and let more contracts expire; sound familiar?

The fact that you can't comprehend that the expectations of being the coach of a clearly rebuilding team is significantly different than that of a coach of a team with playoff expectations is unfortunate. But honestly, I think you are just looking at something to qualify your hate for Blashill outside of the "he is disrespectful to Athanasiou and intentionally undermining his chance of success" nonsense.

Man, your objectivity is filled with subjectivity.
Look around the league.
Is Detroit the only team that should have missed the playoffs three years running?
Why are these other non-playoff teams firing their coaches?
Why do all the non-playoff teams fire their coaches?
Sure, it's because some underperform.

But realistically, bad team or not, coaches don't often start year 4 after three straight years out of the playoffs.

Bruins - Never Happened.
Tampa - Terry Crisp (expansion)
Buffalo - Ruff (after coaching team to finals)
Toronto - Wilson (didn't last the 4th year)
Montreal - Never happened.
Florida - Never happened.
Ottawa - Bowness (expansion), fired in year 4.
Detroit - Blashill
Colorado/Quebec - Never happened.
Nashville - Trotz (expansion)
St. Louis - Never happened.
Minnesota - Never Happened.
Dallas/Minnesota - Never happened
Winnipeg/Atlanta - Curt Fraser (expansion. Fired in Year 4.
Chicago - Never happened.
Washington - Never happened.
Rangers - Boucher (World War II. Previous won a cup for Rangers)
Carolina - Peters 4 full years. Holmgren. Fired year 4.
Pittsburgh - Never
Columbus - Never
Philadelphia - Never
NY Islanders - Never
NJ Devils/Colorado/Kansas - Carpenter (fired year 4 )
Edmonton - Never
Vegas - Never
Anaheim - Ron Wilson (expansion)
Vancouver - Never
Calgary/Atlanta - Never
San Jose - Never
Arizona/Winnipeg - Tippett (5 years) Gretzky (4 years)
LA Kings - Never.

So. In the entire history of these 31 teams, 19 teams have NEVER had a coach fail to make the playoffs 3 straight seasons and start a fourth.

Of the original six teams, it's happened 3 times EVER.

Of the 12 teams that have done this - five times it was an expansion team coach.
Of the 14 times in NHL history this has happened, only four coaches lasted beyond year 4. 5 of them were fired DURING the fourth year.

Going back, it looks like no coach in NHL history has ever had 3 straight non-playoff teams and won a cup with said team.

So unless you're arguing that somehow, the Red Wings are in some special place in NHL history where sucking is OK, or that Blashill has one of the worst rosters in NHL history, believing he's "safe" just doesn't have much precedent in NHL history.

It's very rare four an NHL coach to last four years out of the playoffs. When it happens, it's usually a storied NHL coach (with a cup in his back pocket) or an expansion coach.
There aren't many exceptions. Tippett. Gretzky.

 

[MBH]

Helm sitting out?

So much for AA not being a center?

AA at center gives Glendog the kind of icetime Blashill likes for Glendog.
Realistically, if you're going to have Hirose and AA on the same line, you need someone to work the boards.
So I don't absolutely hate it, given who made our roster.

People think the Hirose-AA-Glendening line was good last year.
It was good because AA doesn't need many opportunities to score. But possession wise, they were dominated.

I don't expect this line to last. I think AA wants to be a center. Blash is throwing him a bone.
But if they struggle, it will be a short leash.

 

[MBH]

Nothing truly is guaranteed but I'd be really surprised if Blashill doesn't ever find another NHL coaching job and if it isn't pretty quickly after he leaves Detroit at that. I mean sure, maybe not for a huge salary. But we're talking about a guy that has won championships with multiple teams at multiple levels, has done pretty well when it comes to developing young players and seems to be highly regarded in the fraternity of NHL front office people. I'll bet that, whether right or wrong, some NHL teams looking for a HC will chalk up Blashill's resume in Detroit as having less to do with him and more to do with the roster he had to work with. They'll give him a shot thinking he'll do better with more talent. If he doesn't do well there, then his stock probably drops after that and he's looking at NHL assistant, AHL HC or NHL Network analyst jobs.

As far as replacing Blashill goes, I kind of hope that they wait to make that type of change until after the season is done. I feel like a midseason change would see a coach come in and try to produce some job securing optics for casual fans that see it as a shiny new toy by having them play super low event heavy shot blocking defensive hockey to eke out a few extra wins or loser points. Or worse, they put the interim tag on Bylsma and he sees Abdelkader and Glendening as a rich mans Craig Adams and Tanner Glass and plays them for 20 minutes a night.... I guess at least that would help lottery odds though...

Maybe. The NHL is an old boys network to some degree.

I'd rather have Bylsma, a cup winner, than Blashill though. Even if I'm not fond of Bylsma.

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[MBH]

Let's also look at it objectively another way. The Red Wings were pretty much always in one of two states.

a) Upper Echelon - More Cup favorites than Cup contenders. For about 18 of the 25 years of the streak, this was the case. So they weren't changing coaches during that period (nor missing the playoffs three years in a row) Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, same deal. They would hold onto the coach because they were fabulously talented rosters.
b) Mind-numbingly ****ing terrible. The Dead Wings. Darkness with Harkness. Only reason they didn't keep a coach long is because Harkness had no clue what he was doing. He'd hire and fire every year.

Your assertion that no coach has had three missed playoffs and kept their job isn't wrong... it's just devoid of context. Blashill's job isn't 100% safe nor should it be. But he's not guaranteed to be on the way out either.

Also, man, "No other coach in NHL has gone 3 years out of the playoffs and still have their job." Literally the first guy I looked up, Dave Tippett. (He's since left the job, but it fits your criteria)

Tippett was coach of the Coyotes from 09-17. Guess what they did from 2012-13 to 2014-15 (three years)? Missed the playoffs. Guess who the coach was in 15-16. Oh, and they missed in 15-16 too. Who could the coach have been in 16-17? They then split ways in the 17 offseason.

Lindy Ruff
2001-2004 (three consecutive seasons) miss the playoffs. Coached for another 9 years in Buffalo.

Barry Trotz
5 consecutive playoff missing seasons. Total of 6 playoff wins in first decade with the Predators. Coached for a hell of a lot longer than that.

By and large, most NHL teams don't employ coaches for longer than 2-3 years, regardless of making the playoffs or not. The average lifespan of a coach isn't that long. However, as evidenced, there are times when having a steady hand on the wheel during a period you KNOW is going to suck is worth its weight in gold. I mean, no NHL coach's job is safe nor should it be. However, they also shouldn't be placed on the chopping block... because reasons. Blashill has been given a roster that is woefully devoid of game-changing talent. Even the game changers they have are on the lower end (like Larkin compared to McDavid. Larkin's a fabulous player, but he's no Connor McDavid. AA is a great player, but he just now touched 30 goals. He's not Patrik Laine who pumped around 50 or Ovechkin who does that on the regular or Stamkos bombing in 60)

Outside of expansion teams, where are all the success stories of sticking with a coach through 4 awful seasons?
Worth its weight in gold? Any examples?

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[Hen Kolland]

I don't expect this line to last.

Would think it lasts as long as it takes someone to come knocking from GR, which hopefully will be like a month in.

 

[RedWingzz]

I think Svechnikov in the AHL could be the worst thing for him.
He took a major step back in the AHL in his sophomore year but when he came up to the NHL he looked better than he did the previous year.
And by starting a 23-year-old there now, if he doesn't fit right there and struggles, you might lose any and all value in him.
If you start him in the NHL and give him 20-30 games, if he struggles, you can send him down or bench him or whatever. It's no big deal for a rookie to struggle in the NHL. It;s a big deal for a 23-year-old to struggle in the A. And if he does, that puts him behind the eight-ball and might cause him to press - and struggle more.
He's at a critical point in his development.
Not just because of where he is, but because there are other wingers in the organization who could leap past him in the depth charts and there are only so many spots to go around.
Notice, for example, there are ZERO Red Wing forward UFAs after this season.

That last sentence makes me sick to my stomach. Our forwards are so bad.

On most NHL teams;
-Larkin: 1st liner
-Mantha: fringe 1st liner (with consistency, he is for sure a 1st line talent)
-Bertuzzi: 2nd liner
-AA: 2nd liner
-Nielsen: 3rd liner on average teams/ 4th liner on good teams
-Erne: 4th liner on most teams/ 3rd liner on bad teams
-Glendening: 4th liner
-Filppula: 3rd liner on most teams/4th liner on good teams
-Hirose: He's a wildcard, but because he has a good amount of potential I'll say he's a 3rd liner
-Helm: Not an NHL calibre player anymore on most teams
-Abdelkader: Not an NHL calibre player anymore at all.
-JDLR: Probably doesn't make most NHL teams
-Ehn: 4th liner /scratch/ minor leaguer on most teams

Basically we have Larkin, 3 other good forwards and then a bunch of junk. I'm already dreading watching this roster this year, but the fact that everyone may be back next year...

We will never be good again.

 

[TheOtherOne]

That last sentence makes me sick to my stomach. Our forwards are so bad.

On most NHL teams;
-Larkin: 1st liner
-Mantha: fringe 1st liner (with consistency, he is for sure a 1st line talent)
-Bertuzzi: 2nd liner
-AA: 2nd liner
-Nielsen: 3rd liner on average teams/ 4th liner on good teams
-Erne: 4th liner on most teams/ 3rd liner on bad teams
-Glendening: 4th liner
-Filppula: 3rd liner on most teams/4th liner on good teams
-Hirose: He's a wildcard, but because he has a good amount of potential I'll say he's a 3rd liner
-Helm: Not an NHL calibre player anymore on most teams
-Abdelkader: Not an NHL calibre player anymore at all.
-JDLR: Probably doesn't make most NHL teams
-Ehn: 4th liner /scratch/ minor leaguer on most teams

Basically we have Larkin, 3 other good forwards and then a bunch of junk. I'm already dreading watching this roster this year, but the fact that everyone may be back next year...

We will never be good again.

Actually if you put it like that it sounds pretty good. Basically you're saying we need to fill 2 spots in the top-6. Between Moose, Svech, Zadina, Veleno, and the possibility of UFAs/trades, I think that's achievable before long. Not this year, but nobody's expecting to contend this year anyway.

Thanks for the optimism!

 

[Gniwder]

You didn't watch the games and are looking for someone to argue with you as usual.

I did, show me one preseason clip where Zadina showed that he was anything close to being NHL ready. Your opinion goes against everyone else here and team management as well.

 

[Winger98]

Losing coaches get fired.
It's the way of pro sports.

I'd fire Blashill for reasons beyond his atrocious record - which is more than reason enough to do it.

But that's beside the point.

The point is, Blashill has to know his time is nearing an end with the Wings. As it is, he's 6th or 7th in longevity.
Guys ahead of him like Mike Babcock, a cup winner and Olympic Gold winner, are reportedly on thin ice.
The Wings' bad roster offers only so much protection.

So unless you're arguing that somehow, the Red Wings are in some special place in NHL history where sucking is OK, or that Blashill has one of the worst rosters in NHL history, believing he's "safe" just doesn't have much precedent in NHL history.

Well, they sort of are. Across sports, the idea of tanking to accumulate high picks has made losing a lot more palatable than in the past.

If Blashill is fired I think it's going to be for one of two reasons. One, someone unquestionably better comes along. Two, something that is not his win/loss record.

It'll be a reason beyond his record. Maybe they think he lost the locker room. Maybe he accidentally runs over Marian Ilitch's dog. But if the Wings have a bad roster, and everyone admits it, and he gets out of that roster what can reasonably be expected, I'm not sure why his missing the playoffs is unexpected or cause for firing. It might have been in the past but crappy teams with a new coach were still crappy teams.

The Wings missed the playoffs left and right and went through coaches like crazy in the 1970s. They were still lousy teams every year regardless of who was behind the bench.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

So unless you're arguing that somehow, the Red Wings are in some special place in NHL history where sucking is OK, or that Blashill has one of the worst rosters in NHL history, believing he's "safe" just doesn't have much precedent in NHL history.

I would argue that the Red Wings are in a special place in NHL history where they traded many of their picks to remain in contention and had to start from a more difficult place to rebuild, meaning that the team that Blashill inherited in fact was bad enough to miss the playoffs for a number of years.

The team has shown progress under Blashill and the young kids seem to be figuring themselves out, which is all I am looking for at the moment. I am not going to go "well coaches rarely get to miss the playoffs so many years" completely devoid of context or ignoring the progress of the players who actually matter in the long-run and assert that Blashill most definitely HAS to be fired.

 

[Ezekial]

I'm sick of watching all these teams I don't care about play hockey. So excited for tomorrow.

 

[MBH]

I would argue that the Red Wings are in a special place in NHL history where they traded many of their picks to remain in contention and had to start from a more difficult place to rebuild, meaning that the team that Blashill inherited in fact was bad enough to miss the playoffs for a number of years.

The team has shown progress under Blashill and the young kids seem to be figuring themselves out, which is all I am looking for at the moment. I am not going to go "well coaches rarely get to miss the playoffs so many years" completely devoid of context or ignoring the progress of the players who actually matter in the long-run and assert that Blashill most definitely HAS to be fired.

As bad as this team, without firsts, etc, we still managed to hit homeruns with Larkin, Athanasiou, Mantha and Bertuzzi.
We had Zetterberg for two of the three years.
We had Tatar for most of two years and Nyquist for parts of two years.

I've seen worse teams.

Blashill isn't some kind of hero for the job he's done.