Helene St. James Wings eyeing Bouchard

[Henkka]

One good thing for the draft is Blashill coaching Quinn Hughes at WHC. They should now know 100% sure what they are getting if they like Hughes. Or if they discard, that decision comes also with 100% knowledge.

 

[newfy]

Remember how everyone was tired about Babckok, and I am talking about players. Blush is a nice guy and nice guyes never win anything. It seems like players relax under Blushill. They have planty talant to be sowere in the meadle. Just cople years ago Nyquist and Tatar goals were compitin for best goal of the year. Have you noticed how many inguries we had last year. Main thing is nobady compited last year, exept Larkin and Glandanning

Babcock barely won with a much better version of this team. Still had Datsyuk and zetterberg as elite centers, Kronwalla number one D and still barely squeaked into playoffs on the last day. Blash might not be a good coach but noone is coaching this talentless team anywhere

 

[Pavels Dog]

Babcock barely won with a much better version of this team. Still had Datsyuk and zetterberg as elite centers, Kronwalla number one D and still barely squeaked into playoffs on the last day. Blash might not be a good coach but noone is coaching this talentless team anywhere

Squeaked in during injury plagued seasons or when we had just lost Lids and not inserted Dekeyser/Nyquist/Tatar/etc. 14-15 to 15-16 was a big drop without any injuries or major roster changes to blame it on- except Blashill coming in.

 

[Reddwit]

I’m fine with this. I like Bouchard enough. I definitely agree with some of the concerns expressed here but I could argue for or against all of Boqvist, Dobson, Hughes, Bouchard and maybe a couple others. It’s kind of a crapshoot right now (isn’t it always). I just really hope we take a defenseman. Getting a 2/3 guy out of this pick would be huge. I think defense by committee is more feasible than ever these days as long as they’re smart when it comes to forward puck movement.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Squeaked in during injury plagued seasons or when we had just lost Lids and not inserted Dekeyser/Nyquist/Tatar/etc. 14-15 to 15-16 was a big drop without any injuries or major roster changes to blame it on- except Blashill coming in.

Babcock was also one of the main reasons they couldn't blend youth into the lineup. That is a major cop out trying to pretend that he wasn't given the tools needed. The big difference in Blashill's tenure has been the good players like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall were and are now old and incapable of performing at the same level. The average players like Abdelkader and Helm rely heavily on high end skill to set them up in good positions, and good support players like Tatar and Nyquist see their numbers take a hit because the team overall takes a step back.

You sound like someone who hates Blashill just because. You have a selective thought process and you are ignoring the fact that his job right now probably has minimal emphasis on winning games, and more about grooming the next wave of players.

 

[njx9]

I think defense by committee is more feasible than ever these days as long as they’re smart when it comes to forward puck movement.

Can you elaborate on 'defense by committee'? I feel like I strongly disagree with the idea, after watching the Wings post-Lidstrom, that you don't need guys who can really play a traditional top pair role, but maybe I'm misunderstanding, or not thinking about it the same way.

 

[Frk It]

Can you elaborate on 'defense by committee'? I feel like I strongly disagree with the idea, after watching the Wings post-Lidstrom, that you don't need guys who can really play a traditional top pair role, but maybe I'm misunderstanding, or not thinking about it the same way.

Yeah, you really need a #1 work horse. I think that's what makes the difference.

Look at the Penguins. Last year Letang was playing like a high end #1 guy. This year he was trash and they had a lot of issues on odd man rushes and in their own end,

 

[Hen Kolland]

Can you elaborate on 'defense by committee'? I feel like I strongly disagree with the idea, after watching the Wings post-Lidstrom, that you don't need guys who can really play a traditional top pair role, but maybe I'm misunderstanding, or not thinking about it the same way.

And the teams that we see with the committee approach also have a set of defensemen that are top pair option on other teams with lack of depth like Detroit.

Preds: Josi, Subban, Ellis, Ekholm
Canes: Slavin, Hanifin, Faulk, Pesce
Lightning: Hedman, Sergachev, McDonagh, Stralman
Jets: Byfuglien, Trouba, Myers, Morrissey

It's easy to be confident in a committee when you have 4 players minimum who would be the best option for the Wings.

 

[lilidk]

there are good and bad about Bouchard:
good: he is ohl veteran with 3 seasons, he is improving every year, he can play 30 min a game , he is big and healthy
bad : i never see him playing , it is hardest other than goaltender position to predict outcome .

 

[newfy]

Can you elaborate on 'defense by committee'? I feel like I strongly disagree with the idea, after watching the Wings post-Lidstrom, that you don't need guys who can really play a traditional top pair role, but maybe I'm misunderstanding, or not thinking about it the same way.

The wings defense right now isnt a defense by committee team though. Theyre just a bunch of scrubs and players who used to be good and thus end up a bottom 5 or 6 team mostly due to the defense sucking. I dont think you necessarily need a #1 stud guy that plays 30 mins a night to have a good defense though. You just need more than what Detroit has.

If Bouchard became a number 2 dman, and the wings could get another guy of similar calibre then add 3 more top 4 type dmen they could be competitive. You basically have 5 top 4 dmen but no number one guy. I think with that though, those guys all have to fill a specific role really well. One of them is a Tanev/Vlasic, shutdown type of guy, one is a great PP QB etc. A truenumber one dman does all of that, so without one you go by committee and find guys that can fill roles to the level of a number one type, even if they arent well rounded enough to be one if that makes sense.

 

[MikeyDee]

there are good and bad about Bouchard:
good: he is ohl veteran with 3 seasons, he is improving every year, he can play 30 min a game , he is big and healthy
bad : i never see him playing , it is hardest other than goaltender position to predict outcome .

What do you mean by i never see him playing?

 

[njx9]

The wings defense right now isnt a defense by committee team though. Theyre just a bunch of scrubs and players who used to be good and thus end up a bottom 5 or 6 team mostly due to the defense sucking. I dont think you necessarily need a #1 stud guy that plays 30 mins a night to have a good defense though. You just need more than what Detroit has.

That's a fair assessment of our team, I guess I just don't feel like a bunch of guys of DDK's caliber (I think he's a good 4th and a reasonable 3rd kind of guy) really make a good defense, no matter how distributed the skills are. I don't know, maybe I'm biased, or not thinking of obvious examples of teams that do it well, but I can't think of a team without a real top guy who also has an overall good unit.

 

[Frk It]

That's a fair assessment of our team, I guess I just don't feel like a bunch of guys of DDK's caliber (I think he's a good 4th and a reasonable 3rd kind of guy) really make a good defense, no matter how distributed the skills are. I don't know, maybe I'm biased, or not thinking of obvious examples of teams that do it well, but I can't think of a team without a real top guy who also has an overall good unit.

Because DDK is not good.

 

[njx9]

Because DDK is not good.

Is he not a good 2nd pairing guy, if he's not asked to do more than that? I should add, I'm not trying to argue that he *is* good, but he seems to fit the mold of what you'd build that kind of defense around.

I dunno - I guess if you're saying you need a committee of guys better than that, I don't think you're talking about a defense by committee anymore, and more of a 'you need really good players' approach. I think that's the question I'm asking what the heck is a defense by committee if you still need a bunch of 1/2/3 guys to fill it in.

 

[Henkka]

Degence by comittee could be six almost equal guys instead of past, where you had superior top pair and decent second and weak 3rd pair.

 

[Frk It]

Is he not a good 2nd pairing guy, if he's not asked to do more than that? I should add, I'm not trying to argue that he *is* good, but he seems to fit the mold of what you'd build that kind of defense around.

I dunno - I guess if you're saying you need a committee of guys better than that, I don't think you're talking about a defense by committee anymore, and more of a 'you need really good players' approach. I think that's the question I'm asking what the heck is a defense by committee if you still need a bunch of 1/2/3 guys to fill it in.

I don't know, I used to think he was fine. But he has regressed offensively, and for a defensive guy he just gets outmatched physically too often.

I personally hope that our future top 4 doesn't include anyone who is currently on the team.

 

[TCNorthstars]

there are good and bad about Bouchard:
good: he is ohl veteran with 3 seasons, he is improving every year, he can play 30 min a game , he is big and healthy
bad : i never see him playing , it is hardest other than goaltender position to predict outcome .

How is you not seeing him play make it bad?

 

[Red Stanley]

Still want Dobson the most. After the concussion thing, Bouchard moves to 2nd and Boqvist is off my list completely now. Too much risk.

 

[NickH8]

Defense by committee is just getting a bunch of good defensemen instead of endlessly hunting for a star. Everyones definition of good is different but I personally thing 1#2+2#3's+3#4's makes a traditional defense (where you have a #1 as your #1, a #2 as your #2, etc.). This is all subjective and approximation but it's what worked for Vegas:

McNabb(#3) - Schmidt(#2): Your classic two-way defenseman with size, and an average #2 with good offense and decent on the PP.
Theodore(#3) - Engelland(#4): Traditional offensive/defensive match. Theodore is their PP QB and Engelland is the physical shot-blocker.
Sbisa(#4) - Miller(#4): Defensive physical guy covering up for the risk taking offensive force.

Each pair plays similar minutes and get the job. No one is the stand out star.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You don't necessarily need a Lidstrom or Suter or Weber. A guy you plop on the top pairing... but if you don't have that, you need a bunch of guys who skew towards 2/3s.

DDK is passable on a middle pairing. He'd need to be very good on a middle pairing for the "defense of 6 DDK level talents to work". It's kind of like the Pistons in 2004. They didn't have one superstar like LeBron or Kobe or whoever, but all five starters they had were legitimately All-Star caliber or slightly below that. Basically, out of 10, you need a whole mess of 7.5-8 out of 10s to flourish if you don't have that 10/10 guy. Or to bring it back to the Wings... you need to have multiple 2009 Nik Kronwalls on your roster to survive if you don't have Nick Lidstrom.

 

[SirloinUB]

Yeah, you really need a #1 work horse. I think that's what makes the difference.

Look at the Penguins. Last year Letang was playing like a high end #1 guy. This year he was trash and they had a lot of issues on odd man rushes and in their own end,

FYI: Letang was good for them in 15-16 but didn’t play a playoff game in 16-17.

The 16-17 penguins really rode a defence by committee all the way to the cup. Obviously they had a lot of other things going for them to get there, namely a stacked offence and great goaltending. Still there blue line was very underwhelming last year.

 

[NickH8]

FYI: Letang was good for them in 15-16 but didn’t play a playoff game in 16-17.

The 16-17 penguins really rode a defence by committee all the way to the cup. Obviously they had a lot of other things going for them to get there, namely a stacked offence and great goaltending. Still there blue line was very underwhelming last year.

Their style of game involved a relentless forecheck from three top tier scoring lines. All they needed their defense to do was be good at breaking the puck out and getting the puck to the forwards and allowing them to do the work. Schultz was the only offensive threat and that was mostly on the power play. Shows that there isn't one way to win like people think. If you waste your time trying to copy a trend somebody else will set it before you're successful and you'll have to start over and re-tool.

 

[Frk It]

FYI: Letang was good for them in 15-16 but didn’t play a playoff game in 16-17.

The 16-17 penguins really rode a defence by committee all the way to the cup. Obviously they had a lot of other things going for them to get there, namely a stacked offence and great goaltending. Still there blue line was very underwhelming last year.

Shoot, you’re right. I was thinking of 2 years ago. You’re also right they are probably not the best team to look at and model after.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

What I want the Wings to draft is the player they think most fits what they want to build.

But, I'm not sure what they're plan is.

Anyone got any links to mgmt saying what they want to do?

 

[Frk It]

What I want the Wings to draft is the player they think most fits what they want to build.

But, I'm not sure what they're plan is.

Anyone got any links to mgmt saying what they want to do?

Last year they said they wanted some guys who are big and hard to play against. This year they have said they are going more for skill players.

Hopefully it results in getting a good mix of both, we will see. I don’t think Wright has drafted many forwards with plus puck skills in his career up until this point.