Post-Game Talk: Welcome back Jimmy!

[Lampedampe]

The wild card spots are slipping away with philly and columbus playing the way they are. No way we're beating caps/pens/rags. Have to get a a top 3 in our division, they're not out of reach yet with bruins and sens playing the way they are lately.

 

[Filppula]

Blash thinks Sheahan is playing outstanding? Far out, this guy absolutely must go. He seriously has to go.

 

[One Blurred Eye]

Team needs a radical change in the way they're doing things. THey essentially need to do a full 180. Because whatever they're doing ain't working. Blashill needs to fess up and just say **** it.

I'd definitely like to see some more creative, perhaps crazy even, lineup feng shui--starting with deploying Smith as a winger and Sheahan as a defenseman for a few games. Maybe tell Tatar he's the new number one center and to deal with it. Sort of like an old Star Trek motif--reverse the polarity of a component or two, and watch all your ship problems fix themselves. Speaking of, Lidstrom always seemed kind of like a Vulcan, maybe he could come in and mind-meld his katra into some of these guys. Maybe they start winning some games, building some confidence, make a run. Or at the very least maybe these dead-weight players can muster some trade value by playing above expectations in unexpected utilization. Brent Burns and Dustin Byfuglien benefited from periods of fluidity in their deployment; it helped Fedorov re-engage now and again to spend some time outside of his normal position too. None of these guys are probably going to end up as useful as any of those examples, but you never know, and what have we to lose at this point by trying? If we keep losing it only improves the odds of landing a decent pick in the lottery; best case scenario is we get the team clicking and maybe look competitive come April, holding a free future Selke winner, future Norris winner and future Art Ross winner that we didn't even know we had until we looked at them in a new light (wouldn't that be something). Somewhere in the far more likely median is landing some extra picks for them when we're selling off our junk at the deadline.

At some point you just have to burn the Babcock Hockey Coaching For Dummies Book, eat some mushrooms and aspire to something more innovative. The constant banality and timidity of the current philosophy has grown far beyond tedious.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Mantha refused to move his feet and played like ass tonight. Why on earth did he deserve more ice time?

What on earth were you watching? Mantha kept winning pucks defensively and on the forecheck, and gave it to Tatar or Z who immediately lost the puck. Over and over. He was basically never given a decent pass, other than a short while on the PP where he manned the point and helped create the best pressure we had on the PP all night. 8-9 minutes of ES time, "refused to move his feet".. yeah right. He's a winger, with that kind of icetime he can disappear from the game if he gets that little icetime and his linemates aren't doing much.

What did Sheahan do to earn some of the highest icetime on the team? What did Tatar or Nyquist do to earn more time than Mantha? Glendening?

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

I'd definitely like to see some more creative, perhaps crazy even, lineup feng shui--starting with deploying Smith as a winger and Sheahan as a defenseman for a few games. Maybe tell Tatar he's the new number one center and to deal with it. Sort of like an old Star Trek motif--reverse the polarity of a component or two, and watch all your ship problems fix themselves. Speaking of, Lidstrom always seemed kind of like a Vulcan, maybe he could come in and mind-meld his katra into some of these guys. Maybe they start winning some games, building some confidence, make a run. Or at the very least maybe these dead-weight players can muster some trade value by playing above expectations in unexpected utilization. Brent Burns and Dustin Byfuglien benefited from periods of fluidity in their deployment; it helped Fedorov re-engage now and again to spend some time outside of his normal position too. None of these guys are probably going to end up as useful as any of those examples, but you never know, and what have we to lose at this point by trying? If we keep losing it only improves the odds of landing a decent pick in the lottery; best case scenario is we get the team clicking and maybe look competitive come April, holding a free future Selke winner, future Norris winner and future Art Ross winner that we didn't even know we had until we looked at them in a new light (wouldn't that be something). Somewhere in the far more likely median is landing some extra picks for them when we're selling off our junk at the deadline.

At some point you just have to burn the Babcock Hockey Coaching For Dummies Book, eat some mushrooms and aspire to something more innovative. The constant banality and timidity of the current philosophy has grown far beyond tedious.

Smith as a winger isn't that crazy. Babcock has already done that.


http://windsorstar.com/sports/hockey/wings-to-move-smith-to-left-wing-as-they-face-leafs

I can't remember how he fared, but I've always figured Smith would be better utilized as a winger than as a defenseman. He'd have less defensive responsibilities, which IMO, would suit him well, because when it comes to the defensive side of the game, he's completely clueless.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Smith as a winger isn't that crazy. Babcock has already done that.


http://windsorstar.com/sports/hockey/wings-to-move-smith-to-left-wing-as-they-face-leafs

I can't remember how he fared, but I've always figured Smith would be better utilized as a winger than as a defenseman. He'd have less defensive responsibilities, which IMO, would suit him well, because when it comes to the defensive side of the game, he's completely clueless.

Smith isn't good offensively either, so best you can hope for from him at forward is a 4th line plug. We don't need those.

Would rather try Sproul up front if we're throwing crazy ideas out there.

 

[ap3x]

It's beyond me how there are still some that are the opinion that Blash can't do any better with that roster. His **** ups in terms of personal decisions, distribution of IT & PP jump out at you you. This is the only stuff that could make a difference right now & would give us a shot to sit in the 3rd place of our division. Especially as Bolts & Bruins lost a few recently. But given this roster plus a coach ****ing up is just not cutting it. Roster isn't good enough to compensate for that. Playing the Sheahans & Glendendings of this team that much isn't getting you far.

And no, I'm not interested in another discussion about what being the point in making it into the playoffs again. It's either making the playoffs & giving it a shot or trying to get a good pick. With Blash standing behind the bench it's neither... nor. Worst-case scenario.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Smith isn't good offensively either, so best you can hope for from him at forward is a 4th line plug. We don't need those.

Would rather try Sproul up front if we're throwing crazy ideas out there.

Sproul's bread and butter is his canon of a shot. I think that'd be wasted if he was on the wing.

Smith is a very good skater and has some good puck skills too, which IMO is a waste on this defense.

But yea, both are just crazy ideas that'll never happen without either a forward being converted to D or a bunch more injuries to the forward group.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Vezina numbers. Back up goalie win-loss.

What could we get from Dallas for Howard? We could take one of Lehtonen/Niemi right?

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Smith isn't good offensively either, so best you can hope for from him at forward is a 4th line plug. We don't need those.

Would rather try Sproul up front if we're throwing crazy ideas out there.

Didn't smith play wing with Johnny Tavares growing up as a kid?

 

[borisbadenough]

Philly's first shutout of the year. They average GA over 3. Not a fun team to watch right now. I even thought Vanek was pretty bad tonight for the first time this year.

You mean all those grade A chances his linemates gave him where he missed the net from the slot, lol

How many times in the last 12 games have you seen him get the puck when open and in shooting position? You are not going to see a lot of goals from a guy shooting once a game .

The problem is that there appears to be only 3-4 guys with IQ's and the ability to see the ice and finish on this team and they do not play with each other.

 

[HIFE]

It's beyond me how there are still some that are the opinion that Blash can't do any better with that roster. His **** ups in terms of personal decisions, distribution of IT & PP jump out at you you. This is the only stuff that could make a difference right now & would give us a shot to sit in the 3rd place of our division. Especially as Bolts & Bruins lost a few recently. But given this roster plus a coach ****ing up is just not cutting it. Roster isn't good enough to compensate for that. Playing the Sheahans & Glendendings of this team that much isn't getting you far.

And no, I'm not interested in another discussion about what being the point in making it into the playoffs again. It's either making the playoffs & giving it a shot or trying to get a good pick. With Blash standing behind the bench it's neither... nor. Worst-case scenario.

I think it's some of both, the roster and coaching are sub-par. HHD said it well in the "structure" thread:

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.

 

[Shaman464]

Why in the world would they employ one playing strategy in front of one goalie, and a different one in front of another goalie?

Why would a baseball team use one strategy in front of one pitcher and a different one in front of another pitcher? Because the games they play are different? One small example of this is puck handling. Your game plan is much different if your goal can or cannot handle the puck well. It changes how you plan breakouts, it changes defense schemes, it changes a lot for one minor facet. Watching the games, and the replays, it's pretty clear that the team plays much tighter, and much lower in the d-zone around Howard. This type of play affects the ability for a team to transition, and transition game is one of the biggest keys to goal scoring.

When you start getting sample sizes this big the less this is chance, and the more this is caused by some independent factor.

 

[Ezekial]

Mantha refused to move his feet and played like ass tonight. Why on earth did he deserve more ice time?

I don't think he had a particularly strong game, but I don't think he played poorly. Certainly not poor enough to be a bottom 3 IT forward.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Why would a baseball team use one strategy in front of one pitcher and a different one in front of another pitcher? Because the games they play are different? One small example of this is puck handling. Your game plan is much different if your goal can or cannot handle the puck well. It changes how you plan breakouts, it changes defense schemes, it changes a lot for one minor facet. Watching the games, and the replays, it's pretty clear that the team plays much tighter, and much lower in the d-zone around Howard. This type of play affects the ability for a team to transition, and transition game is one of the biggest keys to goal scoring.

When you start getting sample sizes this big the less this is chance, and the more this is caused by some independent factor.

I would like to see the actual numbers, because this is all based on our memory for each game.

If true is unfortunate that the focus is more on Howard being a bad puck-handler rather than the fact that the team requires their goaltender to help the breakout in order for them to produce offensively.

 

[Frk It]

Why would a baseball team use one strategy in front of one pitcher and a different one in front of another pitcher? Because the games they play are different? One small example of this is puck handling. Your game plan is much different if your goal can or cannot handle the puck well. It changes how you plan breakouts, it changes defense schemes, it changes a lot for one minor facet. Watching the games, and the replays, it's pretty clear that the team plays much tighter, and much lower in the d-zone around Howard. This type of play affects the ability for a team to transition, and transition game is one of the biggest keys to goal scoring.

When you start getting sample sizes this big the less this is chance, and the more this is caused by some independent factor.

How many times does Mrazek actually play the puck a game? Our defense is bad at moving the puck every night, and they do so far more often than our goalies do.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I don't think he had a particularly strong game, but I don't think he played poorly. Certainly not poor enough to be a bottom 3 IT forward.

I agree that you can make the case that he should never be in the bottom three of ice time given his skill, but that was not a very good showing from him. I think Mantha has been great and is clearly one of the three most skilled players on the team. Still, a bad performance is a bad performance and should be acknowledged as such and should be met with some degree of reduced ice time.

 

[TheOtherOne]

At some point you just have to burn the Babcock Hockey Coaching For Dummies Book, eat some mushrooms and aspire to something more innovative. The constant banality and timidity of the current philosophy has grown far beyond tedious.

I'm just replying because I love this quote so, so much.

 

[Lampedampe]

I'm just replying because I love this quote so, so much.

At some point you just have to burn the Babcock Hockey Coaching For Dummies Book, eat some mushrooms and aspire to something more innovative. The constant banality and timidity of the current philosophy has grown far beyond tedious

That's easily the best thing i've ever read on this forum.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Why would a baseball team use one strategy in front of one pitcher and a different one in front of another pitcher? Because the games they play are different? One small example of this is puck handling. Your game plan is much different if your goal can or cannot handle the puck well. It changes how you plan breakouts, it changes defense schemes, it changes a lot for one minor facet. Watching the games, and the replays, it's pretty clear that the team plays much tighter, and much lower in the d-zone around Howard. This type of play affects the ability for a team to transition, and transition game is one of the biggest keys to goal scoring.

When you start getting sample sizes this big the less this is chance, and the more this is caused by some independent factor.

Goalies are not the ones making breakout passes.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Still, a bad performance is a bad performance and should be acknowledged as such and should be met with some degree of reduced ice time.

Yes. So decrease the icetime of the guys doing bad instead of Mantha.

 

[Shaman464]

Goalies are not the ones making breakout passes.

Who said they were? The defense is making it, if they are trapped below the circles then the breakout passes either have to be longer, or are going to be closer to the defensive blue line.

Seriously, what I said is so uncontroversial. Teams plan for literally everything. Teams plan different when they play against Price than they do when they play against Howard. Same thing goes for the defense. Howard and Mrazek are not the same goalie, and as such the team doesn't have the same defensive plan for both. Based on the fact that there has been a third of a season where one goal gets nearly twice the goal support as the other, one has to believe there is a reason. The best reason that comes to mind is a different game plan. The only other one that makes any sense if that the team is doing something subconsciously that Bash isn't able to account for.

How many times does Mrazek actually play the puck a game? Our defense is bad at moving the puck every night, and they do so far more often than our goalies do.

That was just one for instance. The issue I am trying to address is that each goalie, based on their playing style and their strength and weaknesses will cause the coach to build a defensive game plan around them. If a goalie can handle the puck, that may allow the coach to tell players if there isn't massive pressure to allow the goalie to make a play on the puck. If on the other hand the goalie doesn't handle the puck well, it may be planned that a d-man circles behind the net.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

This is all speculation unless you can provide something substantive.

And again ignores the problem that the players would need to rely on their goaltender to move the puck up the ice, which is a major indictment of the defensive core this team has.

 

[Shaman464]

This is all speculation unless you can provide something substantive.

And again ignores the problem that the players would need to rely on their goaltender to move the puck up the ice, which is a major indictment of the defensive core this team has.

It's not just the puck moving, its how much Detroit's defense and centers spend below the dots when Howard is in net. It helps limit high percentage chances and rebounds, but it also makes breakouts harder because it gives the other team more time to regroup in the neutral zone.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Who said they were? The defense is making it, if they are trapped below the circles then the breakout passes either have to be longer, or are going to be closer to the defensive blue line.

Seriously, what I said is so uncontroversial. Teams plan for literally everything. Teams plan different when they play against Price than they do when they play against Howard. Same thing goes for the defense. Howard and Mrazek are not the same goalie, and as such the team doesn't have the same defensive plan for both. Based on the fact that there has been a third of a season where one goal gets nearly twice the goal support as the other, one has to believe there is a reason. The best reason that comes to mind is a different game plan. The only other one that makes any sense if that the team is doing something subconsciously that Bash isn't able to account for.

Uh, we're talking about our own goalie. Not the opposing one.