GDT: Wings @ cats 5:00 pm et 3/10/19

SoupGuru

Registered User
May 12, 2007
18,544
2,693
Spokane
Wow..Ican't believe the amount of whining about the effort level of Mantha and other players in this thread..it was a bad game that helped the tank, that's all we can expect from a team that has been hovering above the bottom for the bigger part of the season..what are these players supposed to play for, with 13-14 games left to the season? A worse draft possition? A possible injury that can affect their offseason preparation? Be reasonable guys
Phoning it in is never acceptable. Not ever. It happens from time to time but it's shameful. The day it becomes no big deal to not even try is the day I stop being a fan.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
I don't know, maybe pride? Maybe because they are payed millions of dollars to perform? They are here for our entertainment are they not?

You think he gives a damn about us? Do you think anyone on that roster gives a single f*** about our entertainment? This mindset has to change, man. They care about winning, and we are entertained and take joy out of them winning. But in this case 1+1 does not equal 2.

Mantha was a mid/late round first, and has established himself as a quality NHL player who can score (on pace) 20+ goals year after year. Does he have the potential to be a better player? Yes. Should that potential being left untapped justify people crucifying him for every decision he makes? I don't think so, but that's not going to stop the outrage culture that this fan base abides by.
 

TCNorthstars

Registered User
Jan 5, 2009
4,281
1,796
Lansing area, MI
You think he gives a damn about us? Do you think anyone on that roster gives a single **** about our entertainment? This mindset has to change, man. They care about winning, and we are entertained and take joy out of them winning. But in this case 1+1 does not equal 2.

Mantha was a mid/late round first, and has established himself as a quality NHL player who can score (on pace) 20+ goals year after year. Does he have the potential to be a better player? Yes. Should that potential being left untapped justify people crucifying him for every decision he makes? I don't think so, but that's not going to stop the outrage culture that this fan base abides by.

If they care about winning, Mantha isn't showing it with his continual lazy play. They players may not specifically care about entertainment, but the owners sure do.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
If they care about winning, Mantha isn't showing it with his continual lazy play. They players may not specifically care about entertainment, but the owners sure do.

You want to move on from Mantha? Fine. Go for it. Won't hear me complain. But I bet I will hear multiple complaints about someone else a week later. That's my point. People get so pissed at a single player, and then as soon as they aren't in the picture (see: Smith, Sheahan) they just find someone else to get pissed at. It's not like Mantha is a bad player by any definition, but the way people talk about him sounds as if he is the plague.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
You want to move on from Mantha? Fine. Go for it. Won't hear me complain. But I bet I will hear multiple complaints about someone else a week later. That's my point. People get so pissed at a single player, and then as soon as they aren't in the picture (see: Smith, Sheahan) they just find someone else to get pissed at. It's not like Mantha is a bad player by any definition, but the way people talk about him sounds as if he is the plague.
Welcome to sports. Fans find a whipping boy, and, well...

:deadhorse
 

firestarter

Registered User
Mar 11, 2019
108
47
Slovakia
If they care about winning, Mantha isn't showing it with his continual lazy play. They players may not specifically care about entertainment, but the owners sure do.
It's just that a few games ago, Mantha and AA were declared the best players with Larkin out..today, they are judged on the merits of a bad performance in a game where the whole team didn't show up, but somehow this narrative that they don't care/are lazy is assigned to the two of them, but not to the rest of the players on the ice last night. It's getting old is what I'm saying. And focusing your criticism on the players that actually contributed the most behind Larkin and Gus is a weird thing to do..if anything, you can focus on the guys that help make the Wings the highest paid team in the league with a 30th place in the standings to show for it.
 
Last edited:

firestarter

Registered User
Mar 11, 2019
108
47
Slovakia
Phoning it in is never acceptable. Not ever. It happens from time to time but it's shameful. The day it becomes no big deal to not even try is the day I stop being a fan.
I'd say it happens a lot,also with other teams,especially at the end of dissapointing seasons. At the end of the day, they are just people, and judging from Kronwall's interview before the TDL, I'm sure they are even more frustrated by the outcome of this season than their fans. All they can do now is embrace the tank and work hard during the summer to improve next season.
 

TCNorthstars

Registered User
Jan 5, 2009
4,281
1,796
Lansing area, MI
It's just that a few games ago, Mantha and AA were declared the best players with Larkin out..today, they are judged on the merits of a bad performance in a game where the whole team didn't show up, but somehow this narrative that they don't care/are lazy is assigned to the two of them, but not to the rest of the players on the ice last night. It's getting old is what I'm saying. And focusing your criticism on the players that actually contributed the most behind Larkin and Gus is a weird thing to do..if anything, you can focus on the guys that help make the Wings the highest paid team in the league with a 30th place in the standings to show for it.

It isn't about the last game or 2 games ago. Both players in your posting have had the lazy/uninspired knock on them their entire careers. If it quacks like a duck and all that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zetterberg4Captain

firestarter

Registered User
Mar 11, 2019
108
47
Slovakia
It isn't about the last game or 2 games ago. Both players in your posting have had the lazy/uninspired knock on them their entire careers. If it quacks like a duck and all that...
They are what they are. AA is ideally a 3rd line winger that can explode once in a while and win you a game. Mantha a player that can score 25+goals a season, ideally on the second line. The problem here is that even with their warts, they are still top5 contributors on this team. So it's really not about them being lazy, but about the veterans being even worse. I also think it's too early in the rebuild to give-up on young players that are able to score 20+goals. How many of those does Detroit have, excluding Larkin, AA and Mo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flowah

TCNorthstars

Registered User
Jan 5, 2009
4,281
1,796
Lansing area, MI
Mantha quacks like a 24 year old duck that scores my team 25+ per season. That's a hell of a duck.

Odd duck you are! I don't see any season that Mantha has scored even 25 goals let alone 25+. Perhaps if he tried harder in 50% more games than he does now, the little engine that sometimes could would get to that 25+ mark. ;)
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
Odd duck you are! I don't see any season that Mantha has scored even 25 goals let alone 25+. Perhaps if he tried harder in 50% more games than he does now, the little engine that sometimes could would get to that 25+ mark. ;)

Hey, I found the context that you lost:

16/17: 17 goals in 60 games. 23.23 goals per 82 games.
17/18: 24 goals in 80 games. 24.60 goals per 82 games.
18/19: 17 goals in 54 games. 25.81 goals per 82 games.

In total: 58 goals in 194 games. 24.52 goals per 82 games.

I'm no math expert, but I'm pretty damn good with rounding and have a decent grasp on the concept of the law of averages (humble brag) it looks like he's pretty much a 25 goal guy. I feel comfortable in my description; a guy who can offer 25 year in and year out. The + is an assumption that based on him being 24 and only one season of playing a full season in the NHL, he has the potential of adding more than the 25.

I won't argue with you that he could be a 30 or even a 40 goal player with greater intensity and consistency. I also don't think we have seen the final product of Mantha, but you obviously do.
 

lilidk

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
9,592
3,426
You want to move on from Mantha? Fine. Go for it. Won't hear me complain. But I bet I will hear multiple complaints about someone else a week later. That's my point. People get so pissed at a single player, and then as soon as they aren't in the picture (see: Smith, Sheahan) they just find someone else to get pissed at. It's not like Mantha is a bad player by any definition, but the way people talk about him sounds as if he is the plague.
Mantha has everything to dominate this game , but he doesn't and its frustrate people
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCNorthstars

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
Pls evryone stop using 'pace" ever again, period.

Its arbitrary as their is no agreed minimum number of games required to base the "pace" on

It's a stat used to embellish a point if view.

If you haven't done it you haven't done it, case closed
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCNorthstars

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
Pls evryone stop using 'pace" ever again, period.

Its arbitrary as their is no agreed minimum number of games required to base the "pace" on

It's a stat used to embellish a point if view.

If you haven't done it you haven't done it, case closed

I know you're only posting this because you disagree with me, so I'll bring you into this too.

Take a look at the quote below. It's more than two full seasons worth of games over his first 3 full time seasons in the NHL, oh and what's that? Still an average of 25 goals. Go figure. Pace is looking at future production, in this context it's what we call historical averages. I don't care how you slice it, you are wrong in this case, he has done it.

In total: 58 goals in 194 games. 24.52 goals per 82 games.

Also, Pace (noun) - a rate of activity, progress, growth, performance, etc. You don't need a basis to determine what is an acceptable scenario for "pace" because a pace is literally just assessing what you would produce of continuing at your current rate of production. Here's an example: you are on pace to still be wrong in this argument.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
I know you're only posting this because you disagree with me, so I'll bring you into this too.

Take a look at the quote below. It's more than two full seasons worth of games over his first 3 full time seasons in the NHL, oh and what's that? Still an average of 25 goals. Go figure. Pace is looking at future production, in this context it's what we call historical averages. I don't care how you slice it, you are wrong in this case, he has done it.



Also, Pace (noun) - a rate of activity, progress, growth, performance, etc. You don't need a basis to determine what is an acceptable scenario for "pace" because a pace is literally just assessing what you would produce of continuing at your current rate of production. Here's an example: you are on pace to still be wrong in this argument.
This also assumes he is healthy and in the lineup for essentially full seasons going forward, which is something he is not yet on pace for.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
This also assumes he is healthy and in the lineup for essentially full seasons going forward, which is something he is not yet on pace for.

I'd like to believe that the fluke hand injury stemming from the first fight would have made fighting a thing of the past, but he really proved me wrong on that one. Can only hope that he just doesn't fight anymore.
 

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,212
4,422
Boston, MA
Hey, I found the context that you lost:

16/17: 17 goals in 60 games. 23.23 goals per 82 games.
17/18: 24 goals in 80 games. 24.60 goals per 82 games.
18/19: 17 goals in 54 games. 25.81 goals per 82 games.

In total: 58 goals in 194 games. 24.52 goals per 82 games.

I'm no math expert, but I'm pretty damn good with rounding and have a decent grasp on the concept of the law of averages (humble brag) it looks like he's pretty much a 25 goal guy. I feel comfortable in my description; a guy who can offer 25 year in and year out. The + is an assumption that based on him being 24 and only one season of playing a full season in the NHL, he has the potential of adding more than the 25.

I won't argue with you that he could be a 30 or even a 40 goal player with greater intensity and consistency. I also don't think we have seen the final product of Mantha, but you obviously do.

There are players that in their first NHL score hatricks. Does that make them 246 goal scorers? You aren't a 25 goal scorer until you score 25. He has the potential to score 25 goal scorer, but isn't one yet. I've defended him a lot on here, because I think some shitty injuries have held him back, but, he is also is own worst enemy, and his own biggest obstacle.
 

Zetterberg4Captain

Registered User
Aug 11, 2009
13,728
2,136
Detroit
I know you're only posting this because you disagree with me, so I'll bring you into this too.

Take a look at the quote below. It's more than two full seasons worth of games over his first 3 full time seasons in the NHL, oh and what's that? Still an average of 25 goals. Go figure. Pace is looking at future production, in this context it's what we call historical averages. I don't care how you slice it, you are wrong in this case, he has done it.



Also, Pace (noun) - a rate of activity, progress, growth, performance, etc. You don't need a basis to determine what is an acceptable scenario for "pace" because a pace is literally just assessing what you would produce of continuing at your current rate of production. Here's an example: you are on pace to still be wrong in this argument.

So a player never has to actually accomplish a feat for you to decide he is a repeated performer of that feat?

That makes me a NHL star since I played hockey and was on pace to make the NHL when I was 8.

Yahhh for me
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
So a player never has to actually accomplish a feat for you to decide he is a repeated performer of that feat?

That makes me a NHL star since I played hockey and was on pace to make the NHL when I was 8.

Yahhh for me

The difference is I have numbers to support my argument whereas you have a petty approach to a debate even after being shown where he has maintained a level of performance for almost 200 games in the NHL that would averages out to 24.5 goals per season.

What have, or rather what you don’t have, is anything that resembles talent. But go ahead and keep trying to argue a failed point.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->