Will facing Chicago make the Wild better in the long run?

[Sportsfan1]

Russo has said it repeatedly that beating Edmonton would've had the Wild facing Vancouver and likely beating them. Now as sweet and fun as that would've been, ultimately we would've still gotten bounced by a Chicago or LA. Vancouver is on the downside of their years so they would not have been a true contender for the Wild, where as in this series the Wild first hand have seen what a true contender looks like in Chicago. They've played them, they've seen them up close and they saw what makes them a great team.

I honestly feel, silver lining I know, facing Chicago right now and losing like they did will give this team a better understanding in the long run of what it takes to truly become a winner unlike beating up on Vancouver would've given us. I feel it will make us better in the long run.

What are your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[TaLoN]

I think having to face Chicago at any point would show the same thing ultimately, the Wild are not in their class yet and to get there they need to make changes.

Whether it was round 1 or round 3, the same lesson was likely to be learned IMO. Especially knowing that going forward, they are divisional foes that you will now have to play much more frequently both in the regular season and in the playoffs!

 

[NHL1674]

Russo has said it repeatedly that beating Edmonton would've had the Wild facing Vancouver and likely beating them. Now as sweet and fun as that would've been, ultimately we would've still gotten bounced by a Chicago or LA. Vancouver is on the downside of their years so they would not have been a true contender for the Wild, where as in this series the Wild first hand have seen what a true contender looks like in Chicago. They've played them, they've seen them up close and they saw what makes them a great team.

I honestly feel, silver lining I know, facing Chicago right now and losing like they did will give this team a better understanding in the long run of what it takes to truly become a winner unlike beating up on Vancouver would've given us. I feel it will make us better in the long run.

What are your thoughts?

To be fair though, they got the crap beat out of them by the Ducks in 2007....the team that went on to win the Cup. They were a real contender that year, although a very dirty one. Did it help when the 2008 postseason came along? Not really.

I would have LOVED to have faced Vancouver. One final matchup before the division was history. And if it meant us getting over the hump and past the first round, then even better. The more playoff time ya get, the more experience that will pay off later.

 

[Nsjohnson]

Russo has said it repeatedly that beating Edmonton would've had the Wild facing Vancouver and likely beating them. Now as sweet and fun as that would've been, ultimately we would've still gotten bounced by a Chicago or LA. Vancouver is on the downside of their years so they would not have been a true contender for the Wild, where as in this series the Wild first hand have seen what a true contender looks like in Chicago. They've played them, they've seen them up close and they saw what makes them a great team.

I honestly feel, silver lining I know, facing Chicago right now and losing like they did will give this team a better understanding in the long run of what it takes to truly become a winner unlike beating up on Vancouver would've given us. I feel it will make us better in the long run.

What are your thoughts?

I do think that it gives guys like Coyle, Spurg, Scandella, Falk, and Brodziak a taste of what true winners are made of and the struggles will make them all better players next year.

Looking forward to what an offseason of training does for Coyle (who really doesn't need MORE muscle, just skills), Bacon (add 15 lbs to that kid), Zucker, and Granlund (size, strength, skating tech).

Koivu needs to work on his explosive skating.

 

[J22*]

Russo has said it repeatedly that beating Edmonton would've had the Wild facing Vancouver and likely beating them. Now as sweet and fun as that would've been, ultimately we would've still gotten bounced by a Chicago or LA. Vancouver is on the downside of their years so they would not have been a true contender for the Wild, where as in this series the Wild first hand have seen what a true contender looks like in Chicago. They've played them, they've seen them up close and they saw what makes them a great team.

I honestly feel, silver lining I know, facing Chicago right now and losing like they did will give this team a better understanding in the long run of what it takes to truly become a winner unlike beating up on Vancouver would've given us. I feel it will make us better in the long run.

What are your thoughts?

There is no way that losing to Chicago is better than beating the Canucks, but there are some good things that can be taken from making the playoffs and seeing what it takes to be a legitimate stanley cup contender.

 

[TaLoN]

To be fair though, they got the crap beat out of them by the Ducks in 2007....the team that went on to win the Cup. They were a real contender that year. Did it help when the 2008 postseason came along? Not really.

I would have LOVED to have faced Vancouver. One final matchup before the division was history. And if it meant us getting over the hump and past the second round, then even better. The more playoff time ya get, the more experience that will pay off later.

To be fair, that was a team run by one of the most inept front offices in the history of the NHL! Management learned nothing except "We have to play tough and dirty with big players" thus went after big lumbering slow guys like Voros and Fedoruk to improve.

 

[NHL1674]

To be fair, that was a team run by one of the most inept front offices in the history of the NHL! Management learned nothing except "We have to play tough and dirty with big players" thus went after big lumbering slow guys like Voros and Fedoruk to improve.

Chris Simon was the cherry on top.

 

[Sportsfan1]

To be fair though, they got the crap beat out of them by the Ducks in 2007....the team that went on to win the Cup. They were a real contender that year, although a very dirty one. Did it help when the 2008 postseason came along? Not really.

I would have LOVED to have faced Vancouver. One final matchup before the division was history. And if it meant us getting over the hump and past the first round, then even better. The more playoff time ya get, the more experience that will pay off later.

Yeah I was actually thinking about that myself the last few days. The difference here though to me first and foremost is A. Risebrough is not the GM. B. That team with Demo and Rolston was a little long in the tooth so the window to win was not nearly as wide open as this collection of players we have are. More opportunity for this team to grow and learn then that one.

Besides following year good ole Riser added dead weight literally in Simon, and had Boogey and Fedoruk and bulked up for an 07 ******** team that was not the style or team to beat that year, it was the Red Wings. Riser totally misread the trend that year and was behind the times...shocking I know.

 

[TaLoN]

Chris Simon was the cherry on top.

Yeah, the embarrassing trade deadline cherry on top.

 

[Sportsfan1]

Yeah that 08 postseason was over before it started.

 

[Jarick]

To be fair though, they got the crap beat out of them by the Ducks in 2007....the team that went on to win the Cup. They were a real contender that year, although a very dirty one. Did it help when the 2008 postseason came along? Not really.

I would have LOVED to have faced Vancouver. One final matchup before the division was history. And if it meant us getting over the hump and past the first round, then even better. The more playoff time ya get, the more experience that will pay off later.

+1

Remember, we had 4th overall Pouliot and 9th overall Sheppard in the wings and Koivu, Bouchard, Burns, and even Gaborik will still pretty young. Wild had some decent looking prospects at the time, so they had a "good future".

 

[Gaps]

I don't know about helping, but I'm sure it won't have a negative effect.

 

[Jarick]

I guess it depends on how honest the front office is. If they sugarcoat it, they hung in with the Hawks for 3+ games. If they look deeper, they went what, 0-for-20 on the PP? And top line did nothing? Yikes.

 

[TaLoN]

I guess it depends on how honest the front office is. If they sugarcoat it, they hung in with the Hawks for 3+ games. If they look deeper, they went what, 0-for-20 on the PP? And top line did nothing? Yikes.

I don't think Fletcher is one to look past the reality of why they lost. That PP is reason #1 and he knows it.

I think a lot of focus this offseason in terms of changes will focus on trying to improve the PP, whether that means a change of assistants on the bench or whatever.

 

[frozenriverrat77]

Lets not forget that teams are more variable from year to year than we think...the hawks have lost the last two first rounds with basically the same core players...hawks r amazing this year but that doesn't guarrentee anything for next year

 

[thestonedkoala]

I guess it depends on how honest the front office is. If they sugarcoat it, they hung in with the Hawks for 3+ games. If they look deeper, they went what, 0-for-20 on the PP? And top line did nothing? Yikes.

Exactly. If the front office realizes this team still has a ways to go, then I think the Chicago series was a boon to them. Chicago sucked and we still got bounced. That has to say something. I think the front office has a lot of questions still to be answered and I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing some rumbling about Fletcher on the hot seat.

 

[TaLoN]

No, Fletcher is not on the hot seat.

 

[thestonedkoala]

No, Fletcher is not on the hot seat.

Five years. Two bad head coaches. Many head scratching trades. The only thing he's done right is draft. He's going to feel some heat for Richards and Yeo.

 

[DeuceMN]

Risks are all part of the game.

If it were so easy to just pick winning coaches and players, we every team would do it, and then where does that get you.

I'ld rather have a GM who takes reasonable risks and aims to be the best, than some scared to lose fool who just maintains the status quo.

 

[BigT2002]

I'm a believer that any Playoff experience is good experience. Outside of those we got on UFA this year, who do we have on this team that has made the playoffs in the last 5 years? Facing Chicago proved only what every single person was saying...we were out of our league completely. Then again, that is one of the deepest teams I've witnessed since 2002 with the Red Wings. Wes Walz said it best when he stated he thought their weakness was goal (as many on here even said preseason) and Crawford played amazing all series IMO.

But most importantly, it proved without a shadow of doubt that you are not going to win playoff games when utilizing dump-n-chase tactics with a team that are just not fluid skaters top to bottom. This is a team that truly needs to work on the rush and crossing into the zone with the puck off the transition over just throwing it to the boards to line change and get fresh legs on the ice.

 

[AJ Thelen]

Risks are all part of the game.

If it were so easy to just pick winning coaches and players, we every team would do it, and then where does that get you.

I'ld rather have a GM who takes reasonable risks and aims to be the best, than some scared to lose fool who just maintains the status quo.

Agree!

Yeo on the other hand.... Out.

 

[Gaps]

Risks are all part of the game.

If it were so easy to just pick winning coaches and players, we every team would do it, and then where does that get you.

I'ld rather have a GM who takes reasonable risks and aims to be the best, than some scared to lose fool who just maintains the status quo.

I agree. And even Russo said in his blog he doesn't think Fletcher's job is in danger.

 

[melinko]

I'm not sure we learned anything we shouldn't have already known.

We aren't going to win as long as our only offensive play is throw garbage at the net and wack at it while the goalie just sits there covering the ice.
If there is one area that goalies are strong at these day it is sitting in the butterfly and letting their leg pads cover the entire bottom of the net.


I'm pretty concerned because Coyle is the only prospect we have that can grind it out like that. Granlund, Haula, Zucker, and possibly Graovac all need open ice to be effective.

 

[BigT2002]

Even if Coyle is the only one who will go for dirty goals, then you put him on a line with Pominville and put someone else on the top line with the other two. Parise will go in for the forecheck regardless because he will actually skate. And loves the dirty goal. Put someone with a damn shot in the opposite circle and let them shoot it. I'm not opposed to if these stupid Vanek rumors are true running:

Vanek-Koivu-Parise
Zucker-Cullen-Seto
Coyle-Granlund-Pominville
Brodziak-Konopka-Mitchell

 

[melinko]

Even if Coyle is the only one who will go for dirty goals, then you put him on a line with Pominville and put someone else on the top line with the other two. Parise will go in for the forecheck regardless because he will actually skate. And loves the dirty goal. Put someone with a damn shot in the opposite circle and let them shoot it. I'm not opposed to if these stupid Vanek rumors are true running:

Vanek-Koivu-Parise
Zucker-Cullen-Seto
Coyle-Granlund-Pominville
Brodziak-Konopka-Mitchell

I don't see how we get Vanek without giving up Granlund or Zucker or Coyle.