Wings succeeding despite size etc.

[oldnews]

But for this to work consistently they need their point shots to hit the net (and let's face it the Canucks D are not great when it comes to accuracy) and they also have to be much better at screening the goalie and getting their sticks on rebounds.

[Fred65]

There's no doubt the lack of a RH point man hurt the PP. Henrik has to work the right boards because he wants the puck on his fore hand, he runs the PP and every thing flows from there. They practise that way the opposition recognize it and they also recognize the fact the Canucks didn't have a one timer from a right handed player. The entire purpose of the PP is to overwhelm an opponent trying to cover 2 rather than one player...and get the goalie moving

[Gollumpus]

At the outset, I'd like to make clear (again) that I do not dislike either Grabner or Hodgson. I do fully acknowledge their respective talents, but I also fully acknowledge their deficiencies.

Michael Grabner being weak defensively is a myth that has been perpetuated since him being drafted. It's like the one of most used argument for keeping Mason Raymond over Grabner. Grabner is a main PKer for the NYI and is usually used in defensive situations as well. While he was initially weak defensively, he has improved that aspect of his game through his time with the Moose and now with the Islanders. If the Red Wings were to have Grabner, he would have developed properly..... something AV wouldn't have done.

[wallstreetamigo]

Garrison was about 20th among regular NHL defensemen in shooting % - despite his relatively poor start where he struggled a lot with his shot accuracy. Edler was in the 40th overall range. Bieksa around 25th. Not that bad.

I think Burrows and Kesler are both very good net/screening/deflection/rebound presences on the powerplay.

[oldnews]

Watch some other good PP teams play and then tell me the Canucks generate good chances around the net off of rebounds. They really don't. When the Canucks D hit the net the vast majority of the time they hit the crest/get a glove save for a whistle. Occasionally they score cleanly or get a great deflection goal. Very rarely are there good second or third chances at the puck on rebounds though.

Burrows is great at screening and Kesler can be too. I agree with that. But they do not get many good rebound opportunities compared to what you see other teams generate. And even when they do the Canucks get beat to loose pucks a lot as well.

I have long made the argument that shots on net and EFFECTIVE shots on net that generate real scoring chances are two very different things.

[Losing With Pride]

The problem as of late is we are finishing higher in the standings (2 President's Trophies) which guarantees us drafting later. Could you imagine if the Canucks finished in the basement for 5 years straight.

[oldnews]

There's no doubt the lack of a RH point man hurt the PP. Henrik has to work the right boards because he wants the puck on his fore hand, he runs the PP and every thing flows from there. They practise that way the opposition recognize it and they also recognize the fact the Canucks didn't have a one timer from a right handed player. The entire purpose of the PP is to overwhelm an opponent trying to cover 2 rather than one player...and get the goalie moving

[wallstreetamigo]

Shooting percentage is a pretty good indicator of effectiveness.

In any event, one thing I did like about Ehrhoff was that while he rarely got much mustard on his points shots, he is highly effective at getting the shot on net - and at the velocity of his (often just wrist) shots, they were also ripe shots for the tipping (and tipped shots tend to generate rebounds if not goals).

While I hear what you're saying, the top 4 produced 26 goals this season - I think if you look around the NHL, that's not bad production.

[oldnews]

Rater than relying only on shooting percentage, which relies on a goal being scored on the play, I like to look at total shots of a player that hit the net vs missed the net to determine whether they are accurately getting their shots to the net. I don't include blocked ones because they would skew the numbers too heavily against the player's accuracy and are not sure things either way of whether they would have hit the net or not. It still does not address the issue of the quality of the shots but no stat really will.

Ballard 35 shots, 11 missed 23.9%

Barker 19 shots, 7 missed 26.9%

Edler 113 shots, 47 missed 29.4%

Bieksa 77 shots, 35 missed 31.3%

Garrison 94 shots, 61 missed 39.3%

Alberts 15 shots, 10 missed 40.0%

Tanev 20 shots, 14 missed 41.1%

Hamhuis 61 shots, 43 missed 41.3%

As other examples, true PP guys like Suter and Subban are around 25%. Garrison and Hamhuis especially need to be better there. Bieksa and Edler hit the net more often relatively speaking but both are pretty slow shooters too so goalies are usually set when their shots get there. Edler especially stops the puck to shoot it a lot of the time which increases his accuracy for sure but also results in much lower chances to actually score.

When the PP goes as completely dead as the Canucks did I don't think it can be seen as "not bad". The effectiveness of the shots from the point had a huge impact on consistency on the PP.

[wallstreetamigo]

You're misquoting me - I referred to the blueline's goal production as an indication that they're actually "not bad" in terms of shooting the puck - that had nothing to do with the powerplay - which imo pivots more on Kesler than people realize.

Garrison's numbers imo were likely very different in the 2nd half of the season. His shot wasn't the only thing that improved dramatically - he was also struggling in the first half of the season with his skating - as his groin healed, he gained a step and was noticeably more stifling in the shutdown aspect of his game.

[oldnews]

I think Garrison was our best defenceman overall once he got acclimated to the system and fully healed. I do not think the coaching staff utilized him to full effect on the PP though. Edler is a more accurate shooter in terms of hitting the net but Garrison is also fast and loose with the one timers. That is more important on the 1st unit in my opinion because other than Kesler no one else is going to shoot and everyone knows it. Still, missing 40% of the time is too much for a #1 PP guy on a team imo. Garrison needs to get better and I think he can.

Kesler is also very inaccurate with his shooting which can hurt the PP too. Almost as many missed shots as hit the net this season.

[shazzam]

I think Garrison was our best defenceman overall once he got acclimated to the system and fully healed. I do not think the coaching staff utilized him to full effect on the PP though. Edler is a more accurate shooter in terms of hitting the net but Garrison is also fast and loose with the one timers. That is more important on the 1st unit in my opinion because other than Kesler no one else is going to shoot and everyone knows it. Still, missing 40% of the time is too much for a #1 PP guy on a team imo. Garrison needs to get better and I think he can.

Kesler is also very inaccurate with his shooting which can hurt the PP too. Almost as many missed shots as hit the net this season.

[Guest Dasein]

1. History - History matters. I remember the dread I fealt when Boston brought out Bobbi Orr to wave the flag in the stand in 2010. The Wings have that same mojo going with Gordie Howe

2. Coaches who preach a hard nosed brand of Hockey based on letting your skilled line score and everyone grind it out tough until you get the cup.

3. One huge point Im making is that we have the Sedins as our top stars. They take up the biggest chunks of payroll. Do they have the desire, grit, aggessiveness, toughness etc that it takes to win a cup? All I can picture is Marchand punching Daniel's face in, as he bobbleheads over and over again. That is my answer. NO they are not tough enough to win it all.

So in conclusion, what we need is.

1.Stars that dont allow themselves to be walked all over.

2.Coaches who ensure every player is grinding every play out to the maximum ability.

3.A GM who understands that modeling a team after only one aspect(skill) of the Wings success is foolish.

[puckinaround]

Yes, I miss Samuelsson also. Sucks he had such an injury plague or we may have won it in 2010. Maybe your right about what we need in the locker room. There is the unseen factors that get a team to win and a lot of that is psychological. I find it interesting that Sutter just stated he doesnt believe in momentum. We had some great mojo in the lockeroom with Malhotra but we have to look for more leadership like that. That brings back the question, are the Sedins the type of leaders that get a team united to win or are they too wierd and Swedish to relate to half fo the players on our team?

[CanucksSayEh]

Zetterberg and Dats score less than the twins, defense is porous, goalie is above average, they get pinned in their own zone for minutes at a time and constantly take stupid penalties.

Still win

FML!

[sting]

It's a good start, but I don't think you can be the Red Wings without winning a championship first.

What separates Detroit from Vancouver is much more than 1, 2, 3.

Detroit drafts extremely well. They also develop players to their needs extremely well to support their stars.

Detroit's stars are also better than ours. Let's face it. Sedins are great, but Datsyuk and Zetterberg are so underrated. Datsyuk is arguably the best player in the game after Crosby. Datsyuk and Zetterberg have the speed and individual drives to score goals or create offense on their own. Sedins, for the most part, rely on each other.

Detroit has the better coach (as you mentioned).

What Detroit has is a core group of proven winners - Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall. What Vancouver has is a core group of players that came close who keep talking about how they got to game 7 of SCF like that is an accomplishment, and they are okay with that.

We need some veteran Stanley Cup winners on the team that can help the core group get into the winner mentality like Samuelsson did.