The Curious Case of the Detroit Red Wings

[peckthenathan]

Weird-ass start to the season, certainly not without its ups and downs. Who's been good, who's been bad, and who's been ugly? I gave my answers in the article, three of each at least, but what do y'all think?

clicky clicky

Click to read more...

 

[Mijatovic]

Would rather someone who wants to write articles as a potential future journalist at least try and not fall into the trap of just bleating repeated "facts".

Kindl has had a decent start to the season is probably even with Kronwall just behind DDK/Quincey.

 

[peckthenathan]

Would rather someone who wants to write articles as a potential future journalist at least try and not fall into the trap of just bleating repeated "facts".

Kindl has had a decent start to the season is probably even with Kronwall just behind DDK/Quincey.

Kindl has not played on par with Kronwall, at all. Granted, no one on our backend has had a great start, but to suggest Kindl has played equally as well or better than Kronwall is insane. Sure, maybe in the third line, 16 minutes a night role he's played fine, but him and Smith are a huge liability as a pairing and should be separated ASAP.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

I think we played Closer in the Calgary,Vancouver game then you give credit for. I only watched Glimpses of the 1st and 2nd, but when I did they had the puck in the zone, and applied alittle pressure. Could be wrong though.

But the calgary game was way closer. They really pulled away in the third which is the only reason it looked bad.

 

[Mijatovic]

but to suggest Kindl has played equally as well or better than Kronwall is insane. Sure, maybe in the third line,

Once again, you are just making assumptions based on past play. Kronwall hasnt been good and Kindl just hasnt been that bad. Anyway, its just a tip mate. You should try and remove bias from your articles if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[peckthenathan]

Calgary was honestly a better game than Vancouver, at least from a sustained pressure point of view. Vancouver was pretty embarrassing through two periods. Shots were still a huge concern against the Flames, but at least we held even with them for the most part.

And I'm not entirely sure how I'm making assumptions. I've defended both Kindl and Smith and their style of play in the past, but I don't know how anyone could objectively find a Smith-Kindl pairing desirable.

No one on defense has been particularly good, including Kronwall, but he's been better than Kindl.

 

[johnnyarmstrong]

Kindl has not played on par with Kronwall, at all. Granted, no one on our backend has had a great start, but to suggest Kindl has played equally as well or better than Kronwall is insane. Sure, maybe in the third line, 16 minutes a night role he's played fine, but him and Smith are a huge liability as a pairing and should be separated ASAP.

I disagree strongly

 

[Winger98]

Would rather someone who wants to write articles as a potential future journalist at least try and not fall into the trap of just bleating repeated "facts".

Kindl has had a decent start to the season is probably even with Kronwall just behind DDK/Quincey.

Kindl's had a decent start for Kindl, but he hasn't been as good as Kronwall, and neither has DDK. Quincey I can get the argument for. The best that can be said for Kindl is that he's had a pulse this year, something that was sorely in doubt for the past three years.

 

[BinCookin]

Interesting that this is coming down to a debate about our defensemen:

I offer up this "statistical" piece of evidence.

Self collected +/- scores (+ good play; - bad play) which is a measure of the eye test taken IN context each game:

View attachment 85677

using these scores: I can rank our D men so far this year:

1) Green
2) Kronwall
3) Quincey
4) Dekeyser
5/6) Ericsson / Kindl (Tie)
7) Smith (Most mistakes by a wide margin)

Also with only 1 game played, Marchenko did not fair any better than Ericsson or Kindl (But I only have 1 game of data so far)

 

[TheMule93]

I think we played Closer in the Calgary,Vancouver game then you give credit for. I only watched Glimpses of the 1st and 2nd, but when I did they had the puck in the zone, and applied alittle pressure. Could be wrong though.

But the calgary game was way closer. They really pulled away in the third which is the only reason it looked bad.

Against Calgary we showed up for the first period only. Against Vancouver we showed up for the last period (and OT)

Both games were bad, and we lose both of them 9/10 x

Hopefully they can build on their good 3rd period in Vancouver, but I won't get my hopes up. It was a fluke compared to how our season has gone so far.

 

[BinCookin]

Against Calgary we showed up for the first period only. Against Vancouver we showed up for the last period (and OT)

Both games were bad, and we lose both of them 9/10 x

Hopefully they can build on their good 3rd period in Vancouver, but I won't get my hopes up. It was a fluke compared to how our season has gone so far.

This opinion is mostly related to the outcome of the game.

Up until 2 min left in the game score was 2-1 Det.
Also I found that only a few defensemen (Quincey's 2 penalties) really made any glaring mistakes all game.
If the game finished 2-1 win for Detroit. You would be saying how we played a solid game throughout. 20-20 hindsight.

Btw we did infact play much worse in vancouver. First 2 periods you are right were bad.
I am much more aware of these trends since I have been scoring our Dmen on their play.

 

[TheMule93]

This opinion is mostly related to the outcome of the game.

Up until 2 min left in the game score was 2-1 Det.
Also I found that only a few defensemen (Quincey's 2 penalties) really made any glaring mistakes all game.
If the game finished 2-1 win for Detroit. You would be saying how we played a solid game throughout. 20-20 hindsight.

Wrong. We looked horrible for the final 2 periods, and we were outshot by 16 thru them.

 

[BinCookin]

Wrong. We looked horrible for the final 2 periods, and we were outshot by 16 thru them.

That is not saying much... We have been outshot almost every period in every game we have played all year. I was referring mostly to the Dmen though. I do not think our offense has looked good in ANY game. And most definitely not in the SHOTS department. We get 1 break, 1 good shot, we score a few times we win the game, else we are getting outshot EVERY game, and in EVERY period. (Baring what 1,2,3 periods total???) I don't need to look it up, the point is the same.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I think we played Closer in the Calgary,Vancouver game then you give credit for. I only watched Glimpses of the 1st and 2nd, but when I did they had the puck in the zone, and applied alittle pressure. Could be wrong though.

But the calgary game was way closer. They really pulled away in the third which is the only reason it looked bad.

I thought they got demolished in both games and were lucky to emerge with any points. The Vancouver game was much like the game they won against Carolina. They had a couple of moments but largely it was an unimpressive performance in which they got dominated everywhere but the scoreboard. I don't think we can ride Z 23 mins a night and hope to be successful for an entire season.

 

[opivy]

That is not saying much... We have been outshot almost every period in every game we have played all year. I was referring mostly to the Dmen though. I do not think our offense has looked good in ANY game. And most definitely not in the SHOTS department. We get 1 break, 1 good shot, we score a few times we win the game, else we are getting outshot EVERY game, and in EVERY period. (Baring what 1,2,3 periods total???) I don't need to look it up, the point is the same.

This brings up a good point that our forward line is considered deep and talented yet we seem to not ever get the puck to the net. Is it all a Babcock size queen argument? With Franzen out we really only have Abby and Jurco to get to the net and pull D down low. Our "skill" players generally work along the perimeter or thrive on quick transition (Which is fed by the D, and we've beaten that conversation into the dirt.)

How deep is our forward core, or moreso, balanced? In order to get a good shot total and then win those rebound battle and cycle? I notice a lot less chipping in and going to get and drive possession in their end vs the Babcock teams, this to me dramatically affects shots and corsi's etc.

 

[Actual Thought*]

Against Calgary we showed up for the first period only. Against Vancouver we showed up for the last period (and OT)

Both games were bad, and we lose both of them 9/10 x

Hopefully they can build on their good 3rd period in Vancouver, but I won't get my hopes up. It was a fluke compared to how our season has gone so far.

Really the outcome of the 3rd in Vancouver was better than the play. They were playing very hard but still very disorganized. There were several times where players actually ran into each other as they were scrambling around in desperation. I have still yet to see an impressive period where they played well for a straight 20 minutes.

 

[Actual Thought*]

This brings up a good point that our forward line is considered deep and talented yet we seem to not ever get the puck to the net. Is it all a Babcock size queen argument? With Franzen out we really only have Abby and Jurco to get to the net and pull D down low. Our "skill" players generally work along the perimeter or thrive on quick transition (Which is fed by the D, and we've beaten that conversation into the dirt.)

How deep is our forward core, or moreso, balanced? In order to get a good shot total and then win those rebound battle and cycle? I notice a lot less chipping in and going to get and drive possession in their end vs the Babcock teams, this to me dramatically affects shots and corsi's etc.

Seems to me they try to skate the puck too much and get knocked off and headed back the other way over and over. If they manage to gain the zone they get a perimeter shot and nobody is there to collect the rebound. They don't cycle, they don't wear on the opposition's D and they rarely get 2nd chances because they don't penetrate past the top of the circles before getting stripped. If the puck gets deep they aren't getting there before the opponent.

 

[Yemack]

Interesting that this is coming down to a debate about our defensemen:

I offer up this "statistical" piece of evidence.

Self collected +/- scores (+ good play; - bad play) which is a measure of the eye test taken IN context each game:

View attachment 85677

using these scores: I can rank our D men so far this year:

1) Green
2) Kronwall
3) Quincey
4) Dekeyser
5/6) Ericsson / Kindl (Tie)
7) Smith (Most mistakes by a wide margin)

Also with only 1 game played, Marchenko did not fair any better than Ericsson or Kindl (But I only have 1 game of data so far)

that list pretty much describes my impression of D.

Kronner at top, though he kinda sucked last game. everyone did

Quincey was pretty decent. nothing spectacular but good enough

then DK who seriously needs to pick up and figure out ways under new system

Ericsson could actually tie to DK but also with Kindl.

Smith. ...

i wasnt really able to properly gauge Green because I wasn't really looking at him. but aside from few hiccups. seemed serviceable and provided some stuffs his own way.

 

[Dotter]

Kindl isn't the problem. The team is unorganized and lost. They lost all confidence and are making bad decisions. This would fall on the coach.

9 games in with a new team that hasn't had time to gel yet, he gets a pass from me.