I'm not constantly complaining! I've never complained about not Winning the cup while rebuilding. I don't live in Xbox land. I've played the Xbox 1/2 doz. times with my sons. Too many buttons for this old man.
I believe you are the one with unrealistic expectations. If you think every year the wings make the playoffs they have a legitimate chance of winning it all. Right now they look like they are in the middle of the pack. Especially as of late. With 5 straight losses.
You still have never really answered why you defend KH so vehemently. Other than saying because he's been so brilliant. I know you think he is brilliant. Why does it bother you if someone else doesn't.
I expect everyone to answer the wrong question.
Dismissing right-handed shots because you don't know the advantages of having them, especially on defense, and using a blanketed statement like "hockey is a team game" as an argument doesn't make you look smart either bud.If you think a #1 RHD is 100% necessary to win the cup you fail to recognize that hockey is a team game. You don't look smart when you post this 2,333,765,098 times.
Dismissing right-handed shots because you don't know the advantages of having them, especially on defense, and using a blanketed statement like "hockey is a team game" as an argument doesn't make you look smart either bud.
edit: I'd be willing to bet there isn't a team that has won the Stanley Cup that didn't have a couple right-handed shots. But let's give the benefit of the doubt and say there were a couple. It's 99% necessary.
Lidstrom was a lefty. If you add Lidstrom in his prime to this roster are they a contender?
OK then, challenge accepted.I am not so much defending Holland as I am logic and reason.
I would like to think our fan base has enough of a clue to recognize at least the obvious. The irony is that most here are so eager to post "They can't win" that the failed to even address the actual topic. This is supposed to be the fan base of the Detroit Red Wings?
The majority think we should fire the most successful GM in hockey. Most think Babcock should just go away. Most think our PP is playing 2 defensemen. Most here think blockbuster trades are the only way to build a team. Most think Holland should have had a closet full of Lidstroms waiting when he retired. Now being that he failed to do that people think he should just run out and get one. You would think in a town with the Lions that people would be capable of recognizing how well the Detroit Red Wings have treated them. Frankly I am embarrassed.
Your 8th defensemen isn't expected to put up 50 points.
Loyalty is a virtue. Players are people not horses. For every action there is a reaction.
The Detroit Red Wings have been and continue to be the best franchise in hockey. Their commitment to quality and excellence has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt for an extended period of time. Sports are very fluid. Players age, over excel, under perform, and get injured. No franchise can predict these things with 100% accuracy. The Wings do far better than most.
It's the relation of body position to stick position given the side of the ice you are on and the direction you are facing to achieve that positioning either in relation to the net or to the boards.
Are you for real? You are a master at dodging questions and ideas that you don't understand and trying to deflect them, I'll give you that.
Adding Lidstrom in his prime to virtually any team makes them a contender. What a redundant question. That's like asking if you think adding Yzerman to this team would make them a contender.
But back to the original subject at hand, don't think you're going to get out of this, I'd be willing to bet you can't give me a list of advantages of having RHS and RHD. I'll give you a break and all you have to do is list the advantages in the defensive zone. We won't address the other two, at least not yet. I'd also be willing to bet that there isn't a team that has won the Stanley Cup that didn't have a couple right-handed shots. History and stats are on my side. Your opinion is meaningless against those.
edit: That came off as a little harsh, which isn't my intention. But you can't go making statements like that and try to pass them off as facts. Especially when there is a history of evidence against you.
Since this game is so boring...
But every team that has won a Cup since 2000 has had at least 1 RH forward and 1 RH defenseman. Most have had more. The information isn't that easy to come by, without looking at each roster.
For what it's worth.
You did a wonderful job explaining what handness is but you didn't list one advantage of it e.g. A RHD is going to make a more accurate, crisper pass on the right side as it's his natural side. He's also going to be able to protect the puck better.It's the relation of body position to stick position given the side of the ice you are on and the direction you are facing to achieve that positioning either in relation to the net or to the boards.
I am not arguing that there is no value. I am arguing that you can win without it given that the vast majority of blueliners are leftys.
Oh and you said "you would bet" and then cited that as "stats" and declared my opinion meaningless against "those". Do you have a link to that data? You didn't post any facts. I would be very curious as to the righty/lefty make up of all the cup winning teams. I assume you have that handy since you stated it as fact. History even.
If you think a #1 RHD is 100% necessary to win the cup you fail to recognize that hockey is a team game. You don't look smart when you post this 2,333,765,098 times.
We have 1 RH forward, now if we bring up one of our RH defensemen/trade for one, we'll be a stanley cup team.
PERSONALLY I think that adding another quality defenseman, or a legitimate offensive defenseman is more important than getting just a right handed defenseman.
I mean, ideally you would get one that is both. Like Mike Green. But I would much rather have Yandle than Myers. Or Petry.
Actually what was originally brought up was your expectations for a sports franchise. In the rush to post how "we can't win" and "we need a RHD" very few here even noticed the topic.You did a wonderful job explaining what handness is but you didn't list one advantage of it e.g. A RHD is going to make a more accurate, crisper pass on the right side as it's his natural side. He's also going to be able to protect the puck better.
We'll just go to with defenseman because that's what was originally brought up:
LA Kings: 4 RHD
Chicago: 2 RHD
Boston: 4+ RHD
Pittsburgh: 2 RHD
Detroit: 2 RHD
Those are just some recent examples. But, for this arguments sake, I went to wikipedia and went to the list of Stanley Cup Champions. I then used hockey-reference.com, a pretty handy site, to look at all the rosters. Every. single. team. had at least one RHD. I just glanced at it, as I'm not going to devote that much time to it but I'd wager to say the average was 30%, sometimes 40%, of the total roster was RHS
So yes, it is necessary. There is literally no example you can point to and back up your claim that it isn't 100% necessary.
edit: So in the future I would avoid saying stuff like
because it might not be him that doesn't look smart
PERSONALLY I think that adding another quality defenseman, or a legitimate offensive defenseman is more important than getting just a right handed defenseman.
I mean, ideally you would get one that is both. Like Mike Green. But I would much rather have Yandle than Myers. Or Petry.
But, for this arguments sake, I went to wikipedia and went to the list of Stanley Cup Champions. I then used hockey-reference.com, a pretty handy site, to look at all the rosters. Every. single. team. had at least one RHD. I just glanced at it, as I'm not going to devote that much time to it but I'd wager to say the average was 30%, sometimes 40%, of the total roster was RHS
So yes, it is necessary. There is literally no example you can point to and back up your claim that it isn't 100% necessary.
Don't attack another member by saying he doesn't look smart and then make a statement that has no truth to it, but was presented as a fact, and we won't have a problem.Actually what was originally brought up was your expectations for a sports franchise. In the rush to post how "we can't win" and "we need a RHD" very few here even noticed the topic.
Don't attack another member by saying he doesn't look smart and then make a statement that has no truth to it, but was presented as a fact, and we won't have a problem.
But perhaps part of their expectations for a franchise is for them to realize "we can't win" and say "hey, we need a RHD, that would really help our chances of winning." And here is the big shocker:
Every GM in every sport does this, you know, addressing a team's needs. So it's kind of a redundant question to ask what you expect out of a franchise when there is basically an universal answer. I look at this thread and all I see is another oppurtunity for you to call everyone's constructive criticism about a GM and team, pessimism, as it seems that's part of your MO. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, if you don't blindly follow a GM and agree with every move he makes and never question him you're pessimistic.
2006 Carolina had:
LHD Bret Hedican - RHD Aaron Ward
LHD Frantisek Kaberle - RHD Mike Commodore
LHD Glen Wesley - LHD Niclas Wallin
They also used RH forward Ray Whitney on the PP point.
2006 Edmonton had:
LHD Chris Pronger - RHD Steve Staios
LHD Jaroslav Spacek - RHD Jason Smith
LHD MA Bergeron - RHD Matt Greene
They also used RH Ales Hemsky and Jarred Stoll on the PP point.
2007 Ottawa had:
LHD Wade Redden - RHD Joe Corvo
LHD Chris Phillips - LHD Anton Volcenkov
LHD Andrej Meszaros - RHD Tom Preissing
They used RH Daniel Alfredsson on the PP point.
2007 Anaheim had:
LHD Chris Pronger - LHD Sean O'donnell
LHD Francois Beauchemin - LHD Scott Niedermayer
LHD Kent Huskins - RHD Joe DiPenta
(RD Richard Jackman)
They had RH Ryan Getzlaf on the point.
2008 Detroit had:
LHD Lidström - RHD Rafalski
LHD Kronwall - LHD Stuart
LHD Lebda - RHD Chelios/LHD Lilja
Used also RH Mikael Samuelsson on the 2nd PP point.
2008 Pittsburgh had:
LHD Sergei Gonchar - LHD Brooks Orpik
LHD Rob Scuderi - RHD Kris Letang
LHD Hal Gill - LHD Ryan Whitney
Didn't have any RH forward on the point.
2009 Pittsburgh had:
LHD Sergei Gonchar LHD Brooks Orpik
LHD Rob Scuderi - RHD Kris Letang
LHD Hal Gill - LHD Mark Eaton
Didn't have any RH forward on the point, but added RH Bill Guerin for the 1st PP.
2009 Detroit had:
LHD Lidström - RHD Rafalski
LHD Kronwall - LHD Stuart
LHD Lebda - LHD Ericsson
(LHD Meech - RHD Chelios)
RH Sammy on the PP point.
2010 Chicago had:
LHD Duncan Keith - RHD Brent Seabrook
LHD Brian Campbell - LHD Niklas Hjalmarsson
LHD Jordan Hendry/Nick Boynton - RHD Brent Sopel
Used RH Patrick Sharp on the PP point. Also RHD Dustin Byfuglien had some games as a defenceman, but more as a forward.
2010 Flyers had:
LHD Chris Pronger - LHD Matt Carle
LHD Kimmo Timonen - LHD Braydon Coburn
LHD Lukas Krajicek - LHD Ryan Parent/LHD Oskars Bartulis
They did have RH forwards like Daniel Briere and Claude Giroux, but didn't use them on the PP point. Went with Pronger - Timonen and Carle - Coburn.
2011 Boston had:
LHD Zdeno Chara - LHD Dennis Seidenberg
LHD Andrew Ference - RHD Johnny Boychuk
LHD Tomas Kaberle - RHD Adam McQuaid
Used at least RH David Krejci and RH Rich Peverley on the PP point.
2011 Vancouver had:
LHD Dan Hamhuis - RHD Kevin Bieksa
LHD Alex Edler - LHD Christian Ehrhoff
LHD Aaron Rome/Keith Ballard - RHD Sami Salo
(LHD Andrew Alberts - RHD Chris Tanev)
2012 Los Angeles had:
LHD Rob Scuderi - RHD Drew Doughty
LHD Willie Mitchell - RHD Slava Voynov
LHD Alec Martinez - RHD Matt Greene
2012 New Jersey had:
LHD Bryce Salvador - RHD Marek Zidlicky
LHD Andy Greene - RHD Mark Fayne
LHD Anton Volchenkov - RHD Peter Harrold/RHD Adam Larsson
Used also RH Ilya Kovalchuk on the PP point.
2013 Chicago had:
LHD Duncan Keith - RHD Brent Seabrook
LHD Niklas Hjalmarsson - LHD Johnny Oduya
LHD Nick Leddy - RHD Michal Roszival
Used RH Sharp on the point.
2013 Boston had:
LHD Zdeno Chara - LHD Dennis Seidenberg
LHD Andrew Ference - RHD Johnny Boychuk
LHD Torey Krug - RHD Adam McQuaid
(LHD Matt Bartkowski/Wade Redden - RHD Dougie Hamilton)
Used righties like Bergeron, Seguin and Krejci on the PP point.
2014 Los Angeles had:
LHD Jake Muzzin - RHD Drew Doughty
LHD Willie Mitchell/Robyn Regehr - RHD Slava Voynov
LHD Alec Martinez - RHD Matt Greene
2014 NY Rangers had:
LHD Ryan McDonagh - RHD Dan Girardi
LHD Marc Staal - RHD Anton Strålman
LHD Jon Moore - RHD Kevin Klein
Since that Flyers "all-lefties" 2010 team, all SC-finalists have had very complete handness combos on the back end. 2007 Anaheim and 2009 Pittsburgh have had least righties about recent Cup winners.
Our Stanley Cup teams have also had nice handness combos as 2002 being the perfect defence.
1997 Detroit:
LHD Nicklas Lidström - RHD Larry Murphy
LHD Slava Fetisov - RHD Vladimir Konstantinov
RHD Aaron Ward - RHD Bob Rouse
1998 Detroit:
LHD Nicklas Lidström - RHD Larry Murphy
LHD Slava Fetisov - LHD Anders Eriksson/RHD Dimitry Mironov
LHD Jamie Macoun - RHD Bob Rouse
2002 Detroit:
LHD Nicklas Lidström - RHD Fredrik Olausson
LHD Jiri Fischer - RHD Chris Chelios
LHD Steve Duchesne - RHD Mathieu Dandenault
You did a wonderful job explaining what handness is but you didn't list one advantage of it e.g. A RHD is going to make a more accurate, crisper pass on the right side as it's his natural side. He's also going to be able to protect the puck better.
We'll just go to with defenseman because that's what was originally brought up:
LA Kings: 4 RHD
Chicago: 2 RHD
Boston: 4+ RHD
Pittsburgh: 2 RHD
Detroit: 2 RHD
Those are just some recent examples. But, for this arguments sake, I went to wikipedia and went to the list of Stanley Cup Champions. I then used hockey-reference.com, a pretty handy site, to look at all the rosters. Every. single. team. had at least one RHD. I just glanced at it, as I'm not going to devote that much time to it but I'd wager to say the average was 30%, sometimes 40%, of the total roster was RHS
So yes, it is necessary. There is literally no example you can point to and back up your claim that it isn't 100% necessary.
edit: So in the future I would avoid saying stuff like
because it might not be him that doesn't look smart
Well said. There is a ton of condescension poured on any post that speculates that the Wings are potential contenders. This crowd will tell you every reason in the world why the Wings aren't possibly contenders and how preposterous you are for suggesting that they could be. Everything here seems to start with "we are losers and this is why".lol In no way shape or form is this proof that a RH shot is 100% necessary. It just happens to be something that the last however many cup winnings team has had.
It's like saying that because every single team that has won the cup for however many years has had at least one player that likes to iron his socks, it's proof that it is 100% necessary to have a player on your team who likes to iron his socks in order to win the cup.
Or before females were leaders, that a true leader needed to be a male because all other leaders before that were male.
Or that if I walk into a room and talk to 10 successful lawyers and they all drink coffee that's proof that it is 100% necessary to drink coffee to be a successful lawyer.
Yeah sure, having a right-handed shot is a benefit and that's why most teams like to have some right-handed shots but in no way does that make it an actual requirement to win the cup lol It might increase the odds of winning because it has a strategic advantage but so do a million other things. Increasing the odds of something occurring is a totally different story than it actually being a condition required for that thing to occur lol
lol It's funny because you're proudly strutting around here in a very condescending manner (I have facts and history on my side!), acting like your argument is so supremely flawless, when the very nature of the argument is flawed.
Just because a group of things has a certain quality in common doesn’t mean that quality is a requirement for that group to exist. That’s basic critical thinking skills you learn in high school lol
He doesn't need to prove anything to you or provide you with any evidence. You are the one making the claim and although you've cited 'facts' and 'history' they don't actually prove your claim whatsoever. I've already given you several examples of why that type of reasoning is flawed and I could think of a billion more. I think it’s probably time you take your ego down a notch bud before you embarrass yourself anymore.