So Then...Where Is The Game Going?

[Gollumpus]

On 4/13/2019 at 11:48 PM, We Are All Cucks said:

- For a while, the Detroit model was looked up to: slowly introduce players only after they have payed their dues in the minors, even if your high picks are there until their 20's.

- Now...get your kids in as soon as possible. In our case, Utica isn't even being used, really. We just go the college route.

I always thought that the "Detroit model" was:

 

1.) Be very fortunate in your early drafting. By this I mean that not only do you draft talented players, but that those guys also play for 10 - 20 years, at a very high level.

2.) Trade newer high picks for veteran help to supplement your veteran core. Those guys play (in some cases) play for a long time.

3.) Eventually bring in some newer prospects to add to the core. You bring them in when they are in their 20's often because they haven't been able to supplant the veterans who have been around for 10 - 20 years. As the team has been winning, there hasn't been any need to bring these guys in any earlier. 

 

                                                                    regards,  G.

[Hindustan Smyl]

Calgary and Tampa:  small men with small egg rolls?

 

Over the past few years, the mantra has been that the game has changed.  Speed was now the name of the game and teams with smaller players could now thrive.

 

While I do agree that “speed” is the name of the game today, I think these playoffs have also shown that size and physicality are still very important elements, even if they have diminished in importance. 

 

On an unrelated note, while I usually do pretty well on playoff pools (I usually average out to 12/15), I’m getting slaughtered this year.  

[cuporbust]

Im going to be honest.  I was always an old school hockey guy. Hated the way it was going at first, but i wouldn't trade the new product for the old one for anything . Now that its actually changed , i love the new style of play and dont miss the goon crap as much as i thought i would . Its way more fun to watch now IMO. 

[cuporbust]

3 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

I always thought that the "Detroit model" was:

 

1.) Be very fortunate in your early drafting. By this I mean that not only do you draft talented players, but that those guys also play for 10 - 20 years, at a very high level.

2.) Trade newer high picks for veteran help to supplement your veteran core. Those guys play (in some cases) play for a long time.

3.) Eventually bring in some newer prospects to add to the core. You bring them in when they are in their 20's often because they haven't been able to supplant the veterans who have been around for 10 - 20 years. As the team has been winning, there hasn't been any need to bring these guys in any earlier. 

 

                                                                    regards,  G.

Zetterberg was a 7th round pick , Datsyuk was a 6th, and Lidstrom was a 3rd . Would say that is the opposite of lucky early drafting 

 

Also....

Fransen was a 3rd round pick

Holstrom was a 10th round pick

Fedorov was a 4th round pick 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by cuporbust

[Gollumpus]

5 minutes ago, cuporbust said:

Zetterberg was a 7th round pick , Datsyuk was a 6th, and Lidstrom was a 3rd . Would say that is the opposite of lucky early drafting 

 

Also....

Fransen was a 3rd round pick

Holstrom was a 10th round pick

Yeah, thought I should have been clearer there.

 

My meaning was that, in say the first 5 or so years of building, you get a number of good prospects (regardless of the round in which they were picked). In the next 5 or so years, you start trading picks for veteran players to support the young core you have drafted.

 

In the case of the Wings, that young core pretty much stayed together (or was added to) for around 15 years or more and as a result they continued to trade picks to support or add to them. At one point the Wings traded at least half of their 1st round picks over a 10 year period. Yes, some Wings' prospects were added to the NHL team, but there wasn't any need to rush them while guys like Lidstrom or Yserman were playing for around 15 to 20 years.

 

                                                      regards,  G.

[lmm]

6 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Yeah, thought I should have been clearer there.

 

My meaning was that, in say the first 5 or so years of building, you get a number of good prospects (regardless of the round in which they were picked). In the next 5 or so years, you start trading picks for veteran players to support the young core you have drafted.

 

In the case of the Wings, that young core pretty much stayed together (or was added to) for around 15 years or more and as a result they continued to trade picks to support or add to them. At one point the Wings traded at least half of their 1st round picks over a 10 year period. Yes, some Wings' prospects were added to the NHL team, but there wasn't any need to rush them while guys like Lidstrom or Yserman were playing for around 15 to 20 years.

 

                                                      regards,  G.

I thought the Deetroit Model was to sign so many large contracts that the NHL would bring in the salary cap.

NO need for picks when you can always sign high end  free agents

Didn't Detroit (and Colorado) have a power play that was larger than the cap is now, 15 years later?

[Gollumpus]

7 minutes ago, lmm said:

I thought the Deetroit Model was to sign so many large contracts that the NHL would bring in the salary cap.

NO need for picks when you can always sign high end  free agents

Didn't Detroit (and Colorado) have a power play that was larger than the cap is now, 15 years later?

Yeah, they did a lot of that as well. Detroit was a popular destination because of their playoff success in that period.

 

                                          regards,  G.

[cuporbust]

13 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Yeah, thought I should have been clearer there.

 

My meaning was that, in say the first 5 or so years of building, you get a number of good prospects (regardless of the round in which they were picked). In the next 5 or so years, you start trading picks for veteran players to support the young core you have drafted.

 

In the case of the Wings, that young core pretty much stayed together (or was added to) for around 15 years or more and as a result they continued to trade picks to support or add to them. At one point the Wings traded at least half of their 1st round picks over a 10 year period. Yes, some Wings' prospects were added to the NHL team, but there wasn't any need to rush them while guys like Lidstrom or Yserman were playing for around 15 to 20 years.

 

                                                      regards,  G.

Yes this makes more sense now . Lol. Very true. 

[86Viking]

How did Tampa the offensive dynamo with their skilled team do against a team with a more abbrasive lineup do?

 

How did Johnny Hockey the tiny stickhandler do this year in the playoffs?

 

You need a good mix of everything, to say you dont need  a team with some grit and or size is laughable to me. If the cup went to the top team tampa wouldnt have got swept round 1.

 

Dont need 12 lucic's on your team or 6 chara's but you need player willing and capable of hitting and playing an engaged type of game and if rough stuff comes of it, they arent afraid or wont turtle or get face washed and no nothing about it. We saw how that plays out with the friendly Sedins.

 

I wonder if Bo will play with more of an edge or stand up for his teammates more if/when we make the playoffs again. That is a part of the game I wish he was more engaged and willing to be a apart of going forward lets hope he does

[Amebushi]

Personally I’d like to see the team take a more forward approach to building a team. I won’t pretend to be an NHL GM but the game is changing and no one knows the formula for success yet. What I see working is a combination of taking superstar talent wherever you can find it, but not at inflated UFA prices. Surround the elite talents with high end (not necessarily elite) two way players with grit. Best example of such a player is Bo Horvat. 

 

     People rag on players like Jake Virtannen but I think players like him are the future of hockey. He is becoming defensively responsible, possesses high end speed and is plenty big enough to survive the playoffs. The fact he isn’t elite means his price will remain affordable. Build a team that can play the trap against speedy skilled teams, skate around the goons and play any way the refs want to “manage” it. By avoiding paying any player 10+ million per year it allows for significant depth of skill in many areas. Combined with good goaltending and a coach that can put it together I think you have a team that doesn’t depend on one or two players or a particular play style in a changing league. 

 

     We need several more pieces, I’m not convinced that Green’s line blender is the secret to playoff success but I think we are on the right track. Small things like assistant coaches, proper on ice leadership and a team that plays like one will be the difference makers in the salary cap world. If you need more proof watch what happens when McJesus (highest paid player in the NHL) lines up consistently against Bo. Two way, team friendly contracts are the new way to get to the cup. We just need a few more, dump a couple underperforming players and some systems to put it all together. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Amebushi
Spelling

[kloubek]

I think seeing how Gaudreau got shut down against Colorado proves that it isn't all about skill. I think in a long playoff run, guys like this are susceptible to being overpowered and shut down - perhaps even injured. With multiple guys like him on one team you might stand a chance regardless of your opposition, but that isn't a liberty many teams have and Calgary certainly didn't.

 

To me, Petey is our Gaudreau until he gains a fair amount of weight.  He is probably going to get shut down in a playoff environment - and will be subject to the hooks, slashes, and hard hits which would make a full playoff run very difficult for him. I do think the ideal LW to play on our top line would be a bigger who who can help protect him and make room for him and Boeser - while not being completely void of scoring potential himself.  A tall order.

 

I also feel a guy like Tryamkin would thrive in the playoff environment. The fear of getting crushed is real.

[butters]

On 4/14/2019 at 1:53 PM, spur1 said:

Keep your head in the sand. Your choice. 

Classic conspiracy guy. Its not even really about the conspiracy. Its that you want to think that you know things other people don't. As displayed in this comment.

 

Anyone know what qanon has to say about bettman?;)

[spur1]

11 hours ago, butters said:

Classic conspiracy guy. Its not even really about the conspiracy. Its that you want to think that you know things other people don't. As displayed in this comment.

 

Anyone know what qanon has to say about bettman?;)

Give your head a shake to get the sand out. 

[butters]

1 hour ago, spur1 said:

Give your head a shake to get the sand out. 

calgary flames can't melt steel beams! wake up sheeple!

[lmm]

22 hours ago, Amebushi said:

Personally I’d like to see the team take a more forward approach to building a team. I won’t pretend to be an NHL GM but the game is changing and no one knows the formula for success yet. What I see working is a combination of taking superstar talent wherever you can find it, but not at inflated UFA prices. Surround the elite talents with high end (not necessarily elite) two way players with grit. Best example of such a player is Bo Horvat. 

 

     People rag on players like Jake Virtannen but I think players like him are the future of hockey. He is becoming defensively responsible, possesses high end speed and is plenty big enough to survive the playoffs. The fact he isn’t elite means his price will remain affordable. Build a team that can play the trap against speedy skilled teams, skate around the goons and play any way the refs want to “manage” it. By avoiding paying any player 10+ million per year it allows for significant depth of skill in many areas. Combined with good goaltending and a coach that can put it together I think you have a team that doesn’t depend on one or two players or a particular play style in a changing league. 

 

     We need several more pieces, I’m not convinced that Green’s line blender is the secret to playoff success but I think we are on the right track. Small things like assistant coaches, proper on ice leadership and a team that plays like one will be the difference makers in the salary cap world. If you need more proof watch what happens when McJesus (highest paid player in the NHL) lines up consistently against Bo. Two way, team friendly contracts are the new way to get to the cup. We just need a few more, dump a couple underperforming players and some systems to put it all together. 

this is maybe the post ever on this subject.

 

It seems since 2011 when Gillis said "changing goal posts" there has been a desire to "out think" the rest of the league.

In reality it has been happening for much longer than that.

The Canucks were first on the Euro bandwagon,(Hlinka..) first with heavy Swedish influence,(early 80s) traded grit for skill (Peca-Molgilny)

All in an attempt queue jump to the next big fad.

 

I have always prefered the Flyers-Oilers (old Oilers) method of making the league play your game 

 

I think what we have seen since 2011 is that you cannot "make a team to suit the NHL" because the NHL will "shift the goal posts"

what is needed is to put a team together that the rest of the league cannot handle

It  needs to be

Fast

Skilled 

Mean

 

That is pretty new age eh?

Just like the Habs, Flyers, Islanders, Oilers, Wings, Kings

 

Sure all teams are faster now, but you need to be fast relative to the current competition

 

Trying to predict where the league is going is pre-reactionism

Edited April 21, 2019 by lmm

[ktcy2]

I do not agree with the pure desire and need for size. Size is overrated, someone with good size doesn’t necessarily win the puck battles. 

 

You need players that are willing to play a particular style and show that compete level and intensity, some smaller guys do it well too. Size alone means nothing if the player is big and slow and clumsy

 

 

[lmm]

3 minutes ago, ktcy2 said:

I do not agree with the pure desire and need for size. Size is overrated, someone with good size doesn’t necessarily win the puck battles. 

 

You need players that are willing to play a particular style and show that compete level and intensity, some smaller guys do it well too. Size alone means nothing if the player is big and slow and clumsy

 

 

who is your favorite small and slow and clumsy player?

[Nuxfanabroad]

On 4/21/2019 at 9:42 AM, Amebushi said:

Personally I’d like to see the team take a more forward approach to building a team. I won’t pretend to be an NHL GM but the game is changing and no one knows the formula for success yet. What I see working is a combination of taking superstar talent wherever you can find it, but not at inflated UFA prices. Surround the elite talents with high end (not necessarily elite) two way players with grit. Best example of such a player is Bo Horvat. 

 

     People rag on players like Jake Virtannen but I think players like him are the future of hockey. He is becoming defensively responsible, possesses high end speed and is plenty big enough to survive the playoffs. The fact he isn’t elite means his price will remain affordable. Build a team that can play the trap against speedy skilled teams, skate around the goons and play any way the refs want to “manage” it. By avoiding paying any player 10+ million per year it allows for significant depth of skill in many areas. Combined with good goaltending and a coach that can put it together I think you have a team that doesn’t depend on one or two players or a particular play style in a changing league. 

 

     We need several more pieces, I’m not convinced that Green’s line blender is the secret to playoff success but I think we are on the right track. Small things like assistant coaches, proper on ice leadership and a team that plays like one will be the difference makers in the salary cap world. If you need more proof watch what happens when McJesus (highest paid player in the NHL) lines up consistently against Bo. Two way, team friendly contracts are the new way to get to the cup. We just need a few more, dump a couple underperforming players and some systems to put it all together. 

I like this post..good one!

[Magnifier]

20 hours ago, lmm said:

this is maybe the post ever on this subject.

 

It seems since 2011 when Gillis said "changing goal posts" there has been a desire to "out think" the rest of the league.

In reality it has been happening for much longer than that.

The Canucks were first on the Euro bandwagon,(Hlinka..) first with heavy Swedish influence,(early 80s) traded grit for skill (Peca-Molgilny)

All in an attempt queue jump to the next big fad.

 

I have always prefered the Flyers-Oilers (old Oilers) method of making the league play your game 

 

I think what we have seen since 2011 is that you cannot "make a team to suit the NHL" because the NHL will "shift the goal posts"

what is needed is to put a team together that the rest of the league cannot handle

It  needs to be

Fast

Skilled 

Mean

 

That is pretty new age eh?

Just like the Habs, Flyers, Islanders, Oilers, Wings, Kings

 

Sure all teams are faster now, but you need to be fast relative to the current competition

 

Trying to predict where the league is going is pre-reactionism

 

20 hours ago, ktcy2 said:

I do not agree with the pure desire and need for size. Size is overrated, someone with good size doesn’t necessarily win the puck battles. 

 

You need players that are willing to play a particular style and show that compete level and intensity, some smaller guys do it well too. Size alone means nothing if the player is big and slow and clumsy

 

 

It is not hard to figure out how teams are matching up once the games start, to see how some teams are winning and some unexpectedly losing

 

Winnipeg, a really big team lost to a really big defence and big team overall. StLouis defence is huge four guys over 6'4" and only two under league average they just outsized the Peg's forwards and great goaltending.

The Pens lost because they are not only smaller the Islanders but older as well. The Islander's forwards owned the Pens defence.

Tampa lost because they are simply the smallest team in the league, over 3/4 are under the league average and once they lost Hedman they couldn't come back, the BlueJackets consist of, just over 60% over the league average size and had larger dmen than Tampa forwards.

The Hurricanes have only two dmen under the league average, but 3/4 of their team is over that is why they are hanging in there so far but Washington has experience and size at forward, they may have the smallest C core left in the playoffs but that is what makes this match up close, Carolina has many large forwards too.

Vegas knew they lost the cup final because they were small, not anymore, they got much bigger, bigger dmen and bigger forwards, SanJose has many large players but some are just getting too old. Size is pretty much a wash and experience is close, pick em.

 

Calgary lost because the got a single top player in Gaudreau and have very good defence. The danger the Canucks have to watch out for is too good too soon, but not good enough. Calgary had Gaudreau, the Avalanche had 3 Gaudreau's, MacKinnon, Landesklog, Ratanen, The Avalanche also had 8 top players from 4 drafts all under 24. Speed, youth and goaltending. Calgary will have to do what Colorado did, tank to get more top players. The Avalanche traded some to their first wave rebuild for more top picks in their second wave rebuild.

The Canucks may have to do a second wave rebuild soon trading away some to the top young players for more picks so more top players are closer together in age.

Surely they are facing a one and done, their current roster has them the second smallest team in the league and the smallest ever defence iced in the NHL. If the size says 6' it means 5'11" something, so 5'10" means 5'9" something and the Canucks have 3 of those, 3 dmen under 5'10". In fact the Canucks have only 3 dmen over the league average size, this is something that needs addressing. 19 players under the league average, 8 over and two goalies.

[kloubek]

7 hours ago, Magnifier said:

Surely they are facing a one and done, their current roster has them the second smallest team in the league and the smallest ever defence iced in the NHL. 19 players under the league average, 8 over and two goalies.

Firstly, good job on the stats of size. I agree we need to get bigger, but I don't necessarily think it is so black and white.

 

For example - if you have a moderate team that are a bunch of speedsters, you can probably get away on largely speed and mobility.

 

Also, by your stats if we simply added a guy like Tryamkin that is one more big guy... but the kind of crushing hits he can deliver outweighs that of two normally big guys imo.

 

Also, there is something to be said about guys who play bigger than their weight would suggest.  We have a couple of those too.

 

So while size is nice, even adding a couple big guys onto our team could male a real difference.  I feel the 1lw we get/need ideally has size to balance out our top line. But besides size, we need more skill.  Also 1lw as well as at least one good winger for Bo - who is managing amazing points considering his cusp 2nd line wingers.

 

We also could use more production from our bottom 6 - but I actually think we will be ok there if we stop playing oir 3rd and 4th line guys as top 6.

 

At the top of the list, we need more production from the back end.  Hughes might be a revelation for us but we need another point getter back there.

 

Finally, not many teams go far without good goaltending.  If we can play a better posession game and limit chances, we might be ok there with Marky's resurgence (if it sticks) and a couple promising prospects.

 

Overall, we need to work on apmost all facets of this team.  But I think we have a solid core, and we would improve dramatically with only 2-3 solid additions.

 

Where do those come from?  Eventually the draft but pending that development I see FA acquisitions IF we want to be a playoff team any time soon.