Wings dead last in shots per game

[InjuredChoker]

I'm wondering out loud if it's not as if Blashill wants to play more offensive and Babcock more defensive, or if Babcock just had a better grasp on the pros and cons of his personnel and made his system accordingly (due to being there forever). Basically, that off the glass and out stuff was just as simple as he could make it for his defense knowing we don't have the deepest blueline anymore. Maybe not what he necessarily wanted, but what he knew would work.

Blashill it seemed was thinking he could come in and do some quick reclamation projects on Kindl and Smith and play an uptempo transition game, and I think he's learning that our back end just isn't good enough for that. Something Babs already knew, but I think Blashill will adjust he just needs some time.

also, i complained about how conservative babcock had red wings in the ozone. staying on the perimeter, using the point shots, screens, deflections etc. i wanted them to try to get inside more and attack more off the rush. wings haven't been good team in transition for a while and don't get many odd man rushes (some/much of it is on dman and their lack of mobility/PMD abilities)

but looks like he had it right. even if you just cycle it on the perimeter and grind it on the boards at least you have the puck in the offensive zone. you're not playing defense. and babcock's wings were almost always ready to attack the puck carrier hard and with numbers to get it back. they were one and done often but at least they got the puck back. now they are often one and done (if even that) and lose the puck.

wings didn't score a lot post-lidström under babcock but they were still good (and at times great) puck possession team that didn't give up a lot of chances. i expected wings to score more but also get scored on more. and get more shots and give up more shots. so far shot generation has been big issue and the scoring will dry up, sooner or later if blashill can't make adjustments (i do think he has the ability to do that but we'll see).

 

[Shaman464]

A lot of the problem comes down to the fact that Kronwall, Ericsson, Kindl and Smith are just atrocious at making the breakout pass. Outside of Green, this team doesn't have any standouts for puck moving and it's hurting the transition game. If you watch the team right now you'll see most of the transitions are made by the forwards, so instead of picking up speed and causing havoc through the middle of the ice they are forced to protect the puck and make zone entries. Until they get a real first pairing, not the stopgaps they have now, they will never be a great transition team.

 

[Actual Thought*]

At the same time, Blashill isn't going to know in 5 games what Babcock knew after 10 years. That's just not realistic to expect that.

If Blash didn't know it before I bet he does know. Hence the benching.

If he didn't know his personnel game 1 he isn't qualified to do the job. He spent more time with most of these guys than Babcock did. There is also a thing called video.

 

[Classicnamesup]

Kind of ironic considering everyone was so excited about our offensive firepower this season.

 

[Frk It]

If he didn't know his personnel game 1 he isn't qualified to do the job. He spent more time with most of these guys than Babcock did. There is also a thing called video.

I wasn't suggesting he didn't know his personnel, I was just saying I don't think he did to the extent Babcock did because of the time difference each guy had with the players. Video doesn't bring you up to speed overnight.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I wasn't suggesting he didn't know his personnel, I was just saying I don't think he did to the extent Babcock did because of the time difference each guy had with the players. Video doesn't bring you up to speed overnight.

Nah, He had an entire off season as head coach. He should know each player of his nightly opponent better than you are implying he knows Smith. I assure you that the opponents have the book on Smith. If Blashill doesn't he is far worse than even I thought he was and I have very little confidence in the guy.

 

[SoupNazi]

Nah, He had an entire off season as head coach. He should know each player of his nightly opponent better than you are implying he knows Smith. I assure you that the opponents have the book on Smith. If Blashill doesn't he is far worse than even I thought he was and I have very little confidence in the guy.

Yep, because an "entire offseason" is the same as the several seasons Babcock had with Smith, right?

 

[Actual Thought*]

Yep, because an "entire offseason" is the same as the several seasons Babcock had with Smith, right?

Look it is early in the season. I am skeptical about Blashill because he really doesn't seem to me to be a very impressive guy. Maybe he will surprise me. Maybe he won't. Guys who hang self help seminar catch phrases in the locker room rarely surprise me.

We have all been treated to hundreds of posts about how Babs was holding players such as Smith, Kindl, and Jurco back. How Blashill was going to unleash their greatness by being nice and giving them a "chance". 5 games in I think we can say that we have debunked that myth. Smith has actually regressed, Jurco is a healthy scratch, and Kindl is still Kindl except he gets to play a bunch of minutes every night.
Our 6 million dollar PP specialist is on the 2nd unit and our PP went from best in the league to f***ing horrible. We take a lot of penalties. We are last in the league in shot differential.
One line is playing well. Goaltending has been good.

Blashill says "greatness is a daily choice". Why does he need you making excuses for him? He is a big boy in a big boys' league. Results are the bottom line. This isn't on the job training.

 

[SoupNazi]

Blashill says "greatness is a daily choice". Why does he need you making excuses for him? He is a big boy in a big boys' league. Results are the bottom line. This isn't on the job training.

I'm sorry - I don't see where I'm "making excuses" for Blashill. I'm simply pointing out that as much as you'd like to make us believe he's been coaching Smith for as long as Babcock did, he hasn't been. Unless of course you can refute that point?

Some of us want to give Blashill a chance rather than write him off completely after five games and a handful of meaningless preseason games.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I'm sorry - I don't see where I'm "making excuses" for Blashill. I'm simply pointing out that as much as you'd like to make us believe he's been coaching Smith for as long as Babcock did, he hasn't been. Unless of course you can refute that point?

Some of us want to give Blashill a chance rather than write him off completely after five games and a handful of meaningless preseason games.

You are entitled to give him as much of a chance as you feel he deserves. Why does it bother you so badly that I don't share your enthusiasm toward him? Am I somehow required to be impressed by someone who has done nothing to impress me? Why wouldn't we scrutinize a new coach especially given the shoes he has to fill? Babcock surely got more than his share of scrutiny and most of it is being debunked right before our very eyes.

 

[Winger98]

I'm sorry - I don't see where I'm "making excuses" for Blashill. I'm simply pointing out that as much as you'd like to make us believe he's been coaching Smith for as long as Babcock did, he hasn't been. Unless of course you can refute that point?

Some of us want to give Blashill a chance rather than write him off completely after five games and a handful of meaningless preseason games.

I don't think it's even about giving him a chance. I remember when Babcock came here, and it wasn't smooth. Hell, I remember when Bowman first came aboard, and it wasn't smooth. They got results, at least in part because they were both stepping into some good teams, but the product on the ice was far from the well-oiled machines they would craft as they got later into their tenure.

We got a new coach, it's a rough process.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

You are entitled to give him as much of a chance as you feel he deserves. Why does it bother you so badly that I don't share your enthusiasm toward him? Am I somehow required to be impressed by someone who has done nothing to impress me? Why wouldn't we scrutinize a new coach especially given the shoes he has to fill? Babcock surely got more than his share of scrutiny and most of it is being debunked right before our very eyes.

The difference is as soon as it was announced that Babcock was moving on, you started not being impressed by Blashill.

Nobody is asking you to be impressed or assume he is going to be amazing as a coach. People are asking for you to acknowledge your opinion hasn't necessarily been proven yet.

I have high hopes for Blash, but he has coached 5 regular season games. Even if he was 5-0 it wouldn't change that we can't know for sure if he is the real deal.

 

[Actual Thought*]

The difference is as soon as it was announced that Babcock was moving on, you started not being impressed by Blashill.

Nobody is asking you to be impressed or assume he is going to be amazing as a coach. People are asking for you to acknowledge your opinion hasn't necessarily been proven yet.

I have high hopes for Blash, but he has coached 5 regular season games. Even if he was 5-0 it wouldn't change that we can't know for sure if he is the real deal.

It has been 5 games. Of course it hasn't been proven yet. It has only been supported.

 

[Frk It]

I don't think it's even about giving him a chance. I remember when Babcock came here, and it wasn't smooth. Hell, I remember when Bowman first came aboard, and it wasn't smooth. They got results, at least in part because they were both stepping into some good teams, but the product on the ice was far from the well-oiled machines they would craft as they got later into their tenure.

We got a new coach, it's a rough process.

Yup, we are 5 games into a long season. No reason for a Blashill witch-hunt at this point.

 

[DanZ]

It has been 5 games. Of course it hasn't been proven yet. It has only been supported.

The only thing that's been supported is the fact that coaches need time to implement a system. That's all that's been supported.

 

[Flowah]

How Blashill was going to unleash their greatness by being nice and giving them a "chance". 5 games in I think we can say that we have debunked that myth. Smith has actually regressed, Jurco is a healthy scratch, and Kindl is still Kindl except he gets to play a bunch of minutes every night.

This is where you make your bias and your irrelevance concrete.

You claim later "of course it hasn't been proven but it's supported." Yet in this part right here you're claiming it's done. It's debunked. It's a fact that Blashill can't change the team.

Moreover, you claim that Smith has regressed. Not really. He's played bad to be sure but he's had stretches where he's played bad even under Babcock. Smith would have had to be consistently decent in order for this to be a regression.

And then you say Kindl is Kindl. Except he's actually played pretty decent so far this season. So you give no credit for things, but you do give blame, when really, neither should be the case right now 5 games in.

 

[Actual Thought*]

This is where you make your bias and your irrelevance concrete.

You claim later "of course it hasn't been proven but it's supported." Yet in this part right here you're claiming it's done. It's debunked. It's a fact that Blashill can't change the team.

Moreover, you claim that Smith has regressed. Not really. He's played bad to be sure but he's had stretches where he's played bad even under Babcock. Smith would have had to be consistently decent in order for this to be a regression.

And then you say Kindl is Kindl. Except he's actually played pretty decent so far this season. So you give no credit for things, but you do give blame, when really, neither should be the case right now 5 games in.

Concrete irrelevance? Really? Would I be more "relevant" if I said "fresh voice trumps record of most wins in franchise history"?

 

[Flowah]

You'd be more relevant if you strawmanned less. And perhaps respond as to why Smith is a regression and not just an extension of his previous play. And why Kindl's improvement isn't grounds for applause for Blashill but Smith's "regression" is cause for blame.

 

[Hendricks433]

You'd be more relevant if you strawmanned less. And perhaps respond as to why Smith is a regression and not just an extension of his previous play. And why Kindl's improvement isn't grounds for applause for Blashill but Smith's "regression" is cause for blame.

Kindl has looked better so far. Smith has had one bad game but I don't think it's looked like he's regressed. Jurco is a healthy scratch most games because we have so many forwards. Those aren't great indicators of Blashill is a good coach or not, especially 5 games into a season.

Now the shot differential, turnovers, penalties and terrible PP are more concerning.

Again, it's only been 5 games.

 

[Flowah]

Kindl has looked better so far. Smith has had one bad game but I don't think it's looked like he's regressed. Jurco is a healthy scratch most games because we have so many forwards. Those aren't great indicators of Blashill is a good coach or not, especially 5 games into a season.

Now the shot differential, turnovers, penalties and terrible PP are more concerning.

Again, it's only been 5 games.

I agree! Kindl's look good before. Smith has looked bad before. Both of their biggest flaws is that they lack all consistency, which is essential in a good defenseman. They've both looked terrible and great in the same season under years of Babcock. It's been literally 5 games. Not even 10% of the season.

Using either player's performance as reason for praise or blame is foolish to use a more polite term. And at the very least, one should not have a double standard about it by handing out blame for one but reserving praise for the other. That's eating your cake and having it too.

 

[Actual Thought*]

You'd be more relevant if you strawmanned less. And perhaps respond as to why Smith is a regression and not just an extension of his previous play. And why Kindl's improvement isn't grounds for applause for Blashill but Smith's "regression" is cause for blame.

You are right. It has only been 5 games. The performance of the team or any of its' players, coaches, manager, or staff cannot and should not be up for discussion because given the small sample size of the new era nothing can be quantified as fact or representative of trend. I hope the team is good after a larger sample size can be observed.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

You are right. It has only been 5 games. The performance of the team or any of its' players, coaches, manager, or staff cannot and should not be up for discussion because given the small sample size of the new era nothing can be quantified as fact or representative of trend. I hope the team is good after a larger sample size can be observed.

Nobody is saying it should not be up for discussion. Just that it should not be considered known what this team, its management, or its players are based on 5 games.

 

[Classicnamesup]

And that is what we are doing, discussing. The team has looked terrible and Blash needs to get them improving. Ball in his court

 

[Winger98]

You'd be more relevant if you strawmanned less. And perhaps respond as to why Smith is a regression and not just an extension of his previous play. And why Kindl's improvement isn't grounds for applause for Blashill but Smith's "regression" is cause for blame.

None of this was actually responded to.

 

[Hendricks433]

And that is what we are doing, discussing. The team has looked terrible and Blash needs to get them improving. Ball in his court

Looked terrible? Thats a pretty strong word and seems pretty excessive.