Lidstrom was good right out of the gate too. However he wasn't great for 5 or 6 years. Most defencemen peak in their late 20s early 30s.
We need to talk about Brendan Smith (Update: I jinxed him hard)
- Thread starter Bench
- Start date
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
How it not true? On one hand we have fans saying Brendan Smith is just your typical late bloomer who is 26 and has career best season had him put up 19 points.
On the other hand, the majority of the top 20 defenseman in point totals were very productive players almost immediately after they entered the league, so it's not like Brendan Smith's career trajectory is right on track with the vast majority of good to great NHL defenseman.
If a defenseman puts up 30+ points in his first or second season, that is very good. I mean Kronwall is probably gonna top out at 35 points this season, and all that experience he has doesn't matter since he is too old and slow to put it to good use.
Now if Detroit had anything to show for it's philosophy towards developing defenseman, i could at least understand why they would continue to use that strategy even if it hasn't worked for a few years, but it has never worked. The Wings just had Lidstrom so it didn't really matter if it worked. I don't even blame the Wings for not altering their approach when Lidstrom was around. Why not take advantage of generational talent to makeup for your deficiencies?
Last edited:
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,271
- 14,770
Lidstrom was the exception to just about everything. I can't think of a lot of guys now that peak during that age on defense.
Injuredchoker has said a few times what WW87 is saying, and these guys that become impact players tend to typically have an impact from pretty early on. I think in most cases that's how it goes with top end defenseman.
And was the 2nd overall pick in his draft class and came into the league at age 18. He has nothing in common with Smith or anyone else we have drafted in the last twenty-plus years.
Smith has clearly been much better and more assertive this year notwithstanding his recent uptick in production. His passing is much, much better than prior years and he is finally using his feet to transport the puck (something he clearly wasn't allowed to do under Babcock). His pinches also seem to be more productive. Sadly, he still makes more costly errors than he should at this point and still struggles with certain basic plays and coverage. He is fine on the bottom pair in my opinion but needs to be better in his own zone on a consistent basis to move up the depth chart. I do, however, welcome the uptick in production.
Smith is not nor is he ever going to be a top 20 defenceman. There are only 20 of those guys in the world.
Cyborg Yzerberg
Registered User
Probably not, but he definitely can still be a top 4 defenseman. Door hasn't shut on that yet.
Even on his best days, he's never struck me as an intelligent player. His good plays usually result from him wheeling and skating the puck around, not making smart passes or something like that. I just don't think an unintelligent hockey player can be top20 unless he's got superlative physical qualities which Smith just does not.
Cyborg Yzerberg
Registered User
Yeah, I don't think that's in dispute. The top 20 defensemen in the NHL are top pairing guys; I don't think it's likely for Smith to become a top pairing guy.
You Are missing the point completely.
You should read the post I replied to and mine before replying.
Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Quincey 1st rounders.
Other teams find and develop Dmen, but we Are not that good. The Wings find and develop forwards, but not dmen.
gretskidoo
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 4,794
- 395
It's not 2012. He's easily a top 10 defenseman these days(Tampa is struggling this season, but come on..). Not sure what you call great, but I'd definitely call top 10 great.
Well, other than Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Fischer and Kronwall it hasn't "worked", as in landed a top pairing level dman... but, as always, this argument is couched in "well, let's ignore how great the Wings have been in drafting forwards and goalies and just complain about how they haven't landed many top pair dmen lately."
I mean, sure, that's technically true... but man oh man that's a fairly high bar to set. I'm not 100% sure there's a team in the NHL that has done a better job drafting forwards than Detroit has, and I'm not sure there's a team in the NHL that's even been as good there.
Detroit's probably a C- team as far as drafting dmen goes... maybe even a D+ (for effort), but they're a solid A to A+ at forward and a strong B in goal.
Would it be "nice" to see the Wings be able to reload the blueline in addition to striking gold at forward and in net? Sure it would... just like it'd be nice if Nyquist was a world-dominating faceoff, defensive and assist man.
Not terribly fair to mark him down for not being those things, though.
FissionFire
Registered User
Quincey was picked in the 4th round, not the 1st. Holland traded a 1st for him though if that is what you mean.
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
Two players drafted in the late 80's, (it's 2016 btw) and Kronwall. You just added Fischer on your list to artificially inflate it to make it look better even though his career best season saw him putting up 19 points. That's not a top pairing defenseman at any level. Top pairing defenseman are great on both sides of the ice. Otherwise why not add Jonathan Ericsson to your list?
That isn't good, it's absolutely awful and now there is no Lidstrom to hide that flaw.
Being good at only drafting 50-55 point wingers doesn't get an organization anywhere. Especially when the organization does nothing to leverage that ability because they let those excess forwards walk for nothing.
Last edited:
SpookyTsuki
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2014
- 15,916
- 671
Fischer > Dekeyser.
No, they aren't. Lead dman /= top-pairing dman. Lots of teams have guys on their top pairing who are either one-dimensional or barely competent offensive players.
Well, depends on what your definition of 'anywhere' is. Detroit's playoff streak just graduated college, so I'd imagine a few franchises would think of that as somewhere.
You get that having that kind of organizational depth allows Detroit to walk away from paying fairly ruinous FA prices for aging forwards, yes? We're not in 2002 anymore. Not having a huge cap number is as much a real-time benefit as moving an expiring player for picks and prospects used to be back pre-cap.
Heck, I'd bet a whole bunch of GMs would value cap flexibility over having a couple extra 2's or 3's rattling around their franchise.
WingedWheel1987
Registered User
DD isn't a #1 dman either, so i don't know why you felt the need to make the comparison. Also i don't disagree that Fischer was better than DD. I certainly don't think DD is some kind of amazing talent.
You are right, lots of teams do pair their best dman with their third or fourth best defenseman instead of their second best to spread the wealth and improve depth along the blue line. However those players certainly aren't talented enough to be called top pairing defenseman, otherwise Ian White was a "top pairing" defenseman the year he played with Lidstrom. Jonathan Ericsson is also another fine top pairing defenseman. Simply being given the designation of #1 or #2 defenseman doesn't make you a top pairing defenseman. Otherwise why would the Wings be so bad on defense when they are just swimming in top pairing defenseman who are forced to play on the second and third pairings because of the Wings amazing depth?
This is about the best defenseman on your team. The work horse that a team feels can tilt the ice in their favor when he is on the ice.
If Kronwall only put up 20 points a season, but played amazing shut down defense, he would not be a top pairing defenseman. You can't play him 24-25 minutes a night with that kind of abysmal production.
The Wings and every other team in the league are perfectly capable of drafting #4, #5, #6 defenseman.
The Wings are incapable of drafting top pairing defenseman. The last time they drafted anyone with the talent to be the back bone of their defense was almost 16 years ago, and i don't think that drought is going to end anytime soon.
The fact that you mentioned players that were drafted when the Soviet Union was still around as proof that the system works doesn't really convince me that the Wings know how to draft high quality defenseman.
Hooray the playoff streak is still kicking. In 25 years i will reflect on it very fondly, but today, it means i will get to watch the Wings lose in the first round again for the third straight year.
Yeah instead of dolling out fairly ruinous contracts to aging vets, the Wings can hand them out to players like Justin Abdelkader, Stephen Weiss, Jonathan Ericsson and Jimmy Howard. Not a single one of those contracts are below market value. Although i wouldn't have an issue with Howard's contract if i thought Holland would actually trade him at the end of this season. Of course that won't happen. We wouldn't want to degrade the Wings "organizational depth."
And then the Wings can use their draft picks to acquire washed up vets at the TDL.
That's a win/win!!!!!!
You are right, lots of teams do pair their best dman with their third or fourth best defenseman instead of their second best to spread the wealth and improve depth along the blue line. However those players certainly aren't talented enough to be called top pairing defenseman, otherwise Ian White was a "top pairing" defenseman the year he played with Lidstrom. Jonathan Ericsson is also another fine top pairing defenseman. Simply being given the designation of #1 or #2 defenseman doesn't make you a top pairing defenseman. Otherwise why would the Wings be so bad on defense when they are just swimming in top pairing defenseman who are forced to play on the second and third pairings because of the Wings amazing depth?
This is about the best defenseman on your team. The work horse that a team feels can tilt the ice in their favor when he is on the ice.
If Kronwall only put up 20 points a season, but played amazing shut down defense, he would not be a top pairing defenseman. You can't play him 24-25 minutes a night with that kind of abysmal production.
The Wings and every other team in the league are perfectly capable of drafting #4, #5, #6 defenseman.
The Wings are incapable of drafting top pairing defenseman. The last time they drafted anyone with the talent to be the back bone of their defense was almost 16 years ago, and i don't think that drought is going to end anytime soon.
The fact that you mentioned players that were drafted when the Soviet Union was still around as proof that the system works doesn't really convince me that the Wings know how to draft high quality defenseman.
Hooray the playoff streak is still kicking. In 25 years i will reflect on it very fondly, but today, it means i will get to watch the Wings lose in the first round again for the third straight year.
Yeah instead of dolling out fairly ruinous contracts to aging vets, the Wings can hand them out to players like Justin Abdelkader, Stephen Weiss, Jonathan Ericsson and Jimmy Howard. Not a single one of those contracts are below market value. Although i wouldn't have an issue with Howard's contract if i thought Holland would actually trade him at the end of this season. Of course that won't happen. We wouldn't want to degrade the Wings "organizational depth."
And then the Wings can use their draft picks to acquire washed up vets at the TDL.
That's a win/win!!!!!!
Last edited:
SpookyTsuki
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2014
- 15,916
- 671
Where you are hung up is in your confusing "#1 dman" (something I didn't say) with "top pairing dman" (what I actually said).
That is true, but not what I said. Even most teams #2 is not someone to consider an 'all around defenseman'. To make the example as perilously clear as I can, Detroit's second best defenseman for the vast majority of their runs were: Konstantinov, Murphy, Chelios, Rafalski. Do those guys meet the category you expressed as being "Top pairing defenseman are great on both sides of the ice"?
Konstantinov was "great" offensively? No. Murphy was "great" defensively? No. Chelios was "great" offensively? No. Rafalski was "great" defensively? No.
It's not a question of top pairing guys being Anders Erikkson circa 1998 or Jonathan Ericsson circa 2013, although that's certainly something teams do, it's that true lead dmen are steps beyond even qualified #2's.
Like I said, you're confusing #1 dman with top pairing dman. Tons of team play their #2's in roles very similar to the one you describe. Granted, not 24-25 minutes, but there are typically not a lot of even #1 dmen who get that kind of usage. 21-23+? All the time.
Perhaps, but 1) I'm not sure many people would describe your general outlook on anything related to the Wings as 'rosy' and 2), it's not like there are many of the guys who exceed your expectation for that role in the NHL anyway.
League wide we're talking about 10-15 guys tops who are that, drafted over a period of a decade by 30 teams. There are a couple teams who have done exceptionally well getting them, 5-8 who've gotten 1 over that time frame, and 15+ who haven't done any better in that specific regard than Detroit.
Where a lot of those other teams pass the Wings is in their improved accuracy getting better depth dmen. Detroit's spent a lot of 2's on the blue line and come up with very little.
I'm confused that you thought such was my aim.
It's always a matter of perspective and emphasis. The Wings view that streak much more fondly than you (or I, to be honest) do. I'd imagine there are lots of other fanbases who would gladly trade their teams history the past quarter century for Detroit's, while fans of Detroit who've already gotten to experience that kind of endless success are blase about it's continuance.
I'm confused why you think they should have been?
What Detroit's depth at forward allowed is for them to avoid having to add a couple more of those deals at forward. Had Detroit Mrazek a couple years earlier there's less pressure on them to commit so strongly to Howard. Had Detroit some blueline talent in the pipeline there's less pressure to spent to market on Ericsson or (more detrimental IMO) to move a 1 for Quincey and then pay him 4.5ish for 4 years.
Those are the moving-part mechanics of the cap construct. For example, if Detroit didn't have Tatar or Nyquist how more desperate do you think they'd be to pay guys like Fil and Hudler to stick around, players who are inferior to Tatar and Nyquist?
I'm curious. At the time of the signing where were you on the deal? Given that there was no depth in the system behind him and he was coming off some fairly good years, were you a voice in the wilderness castigating the deal?
Unless they didn't, which mean you'd hammer them for not trying to improve the team. As you say...
RedMenace
Registered User
Are you good at reverse jinxes? Maybe make another thread about how he is bad. Or that our team is underperforming. Or that we won't win the cup this year.
The Zermanator
In Yzerman We Trust
- Jan 21, 2013
- 3,396
- 1,207
Or maybe he Smithed you? You know, played well enough for a while to lead you to believe he'd finally turned the corner only to fall back down to Earth?
It would be interesting to see what smith's comparative % of team points is this year, given the poverty of our offence. And I agree that were we not using a d-man and a forward in the blue line power play, Smith would be excellent as a rover.
On the overall discussion, Smith's upside is as an possession driving but accident prone #4 at this point, who is one of the few to benefit from the systemic change due to his play style. Either way his physicality and improved confidence have seen him firmly leap ahead of Kindl, despite the latter being a better PP point man.
At this stage he's worth his contract and not worth getting rid of unless as part of a trade for a bigger piece, which is an improvement - he's past thE age of great leaps forward, but should show small steady growth over the next 2 or 3 years to potentially cement a #4 slot, particularly if his prior pairing with Marchenko continues to grow as they seem to complement each other
On the overall discussion, Smith's upside is as an possession driving but accident prone #4 at this point, who is one of the few to benefit from the systemic change due to his play style. Either way his physicality and improved confidence have seen him firmly leap ahead of Kindl, despite the latter being a better PP point man.
At this stage he's worth his contract and not worth getting rid of unless as part of a trade for a bigger piece, which is an improvement - he's past thE age of great leaps forward, but should show small steady growth over the next 2 or 3 years to potentially cement a #4 slot, particularly if his prior pairing with Marchenko continues to grow as they seem to complement each other
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 3 Dallas Stars @ Colorado Avalanche - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 12Staked: $16,124.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
