Wings succeeding despite size etc.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

I forget who said it, but Detroit is a puck possession team, and the reason why the Canucks are not like Detroit is because they don't play that style of play. AV had them playing a dump and chance style, and fight and grind to get puck possession, as Detroit uses their skill for puck possession, plus Babcock is just that damn good, especially after losing Lidstrom.

[puckinaround]

Okay, I'm relaxed now. Yah, I disagree with "Sedins, have no talent" guy too.

Relax duders.

I respectfully added to the dialogue, so did the others that you feel derailed the thread.

But when some bumpkin actually derails your thread saying that the Twins are not this and that, and it is patently false, its open season to call them on it. Not like we did the same to you.

Trust me...i feel the same way as you. We may not share the same opinions but we certainly share the disdain for haters.

[puckinaround]

Sorry if I'm not gonna stand for someone trying to crap on the best players this team has ever had.

I don't see how saying we do have superstars like the Red Wings is derailing the thread. When someone says something so ridiculous like "the Sedins aren't superstars", you have to call them on it. Otherwise this forum fills up with posters saying, "this team sucks", "trade all the players", "fire everyone".

Maybe a bit of an overreaction on your part.

[Vansicle]

Im not trying to denigrate the wings success so far in the playoffs , but if i was a millionaire I still wouldnt bet 5$ on them beating l.a , let alone boston and or pits .. they have been good ... and lucky ... lets not get carried away with our praise yet ... still a long way to the cup ..

[Ride the red Pony]

This.

I would add that any any monkey could probably have coached them to a fair degree of success, but thanks to Babcock, they have been a shining becon of success and in particular, playoff success.

There are those who woul draw comparison to comments about the Canucks being coached by a monkey, and relative to Babcock, they were. The two are not in the same league. Don't pretend they are. It's intellectually dishonest.

[BenDrinkin]

The main difference between us and Detroit is that we are a Canadian team that they don't need (as a league) to succeed. I'm pretty sure the Wings don't get piled on by the officials like we do. Seems impossible.

[Bite me Burr]

Despite size?

They all play big for their size and are mixed with sublime skill, experience and are well coached. They are first on the puck and win most battles.

Don't take an exception and try to make the point that size doesn't matter. This team is an anomaly.

[tocnhockey]

The main difference between us and Detroit is that we are a Canadian team that they don't need (as a league) to succeed. I'm pretty sure the Wings don't get piled on by the officials like we do. Seems impossible.

[Dynamic Innovator]

The Wings are an excellent organization from top to bottom. Good (sometimes lucky) drafting, excellent player development, top notch coaching, a fully committed owner, and a group of players that love winning and do whatever they can to win.

To a man, the Wings play a very firm, assertive, aggressive, confident game. They have a very solid system and adapt well through adversity.

Think of how Mikael Samuelsson played when he first arrived in Vancouver. He's not that big, not that fast but he was strong, assertive, played with purpose and determination, and had huge mental toughness. That's how Detroit plays.

It also helps to have two of the very best players in the league!

[DownUndaCanuck]

Babcock and his assistants are the only reason Detroit is anywhere, so you really can't compare us to them. They have a dreadful team, face it. On paper, one of the thinnest in the league. Shocking defensive depth, 2 true stars on the entire team and what should be a very average goalie.

Yet Babcock has turned them all into heroes, and he's done it by cutting up the opposition's game plan. He's simply the best in the league at adapting to what the opponent throws at him, and he's doing it now against the two best teams in the Conference.

We shouldn't copy Detroit's team on ice, but we should try to emulate their coaching strategies and management. That is, play sound defence first, play as a 5-man squad, ditch this stupid "offence from the defence mentality" and stop playing a risky game, learn how to forecheck hard and adapt to the opponents during the series and during a game.

[Bite me Burr]

Very well done.

[Bite me Burr]

.

[Bite me Burr]

Babcock and his assistants are the only reason Detroit is anywhere

[Lancaster]

Well, this is a bit of a departure from what you were initially saying, however, part of the problem might not have been having a 2nd line center who was injured, but rather the uncertainty at the 3C after Malhotra was injured.

Had Malhotra not gotten that unfortunate eye injury, then Kesler would likely have been played in a more offensive role and more of the defensive zone heavy lifting could have been left to Malhotra, which could well have resulted in Kesler remaining healthier through the entire playoffs.

Are you are suggesting that the Canucks should have held on to Hodgson for his offensive talents, and that this would have somehow saved the Canucks in the playoffs? Is the fact that he was (and still is) weak in the faceoff circle lost on you? Is the fact that he is a soft player okay with you, because his name is Hodgson rather than Sedin?

Actually, I was going out for brunch, but that isn't related to my opinion that neither Grabner nor Hodgson would have made it in Detroit's system.

I would agree that Detroit likes to develop their prospects. They are not unique in this regard. One of the aspects which the Wings stress is sound defensive play, as do the Canucks. Are you suggesting that had Grabner and Hodgson been drafted by Detroit, that they would have played a sound, defensive style to supplement their offense, but for some reason they chose not to do the same thing in Vancouver?

I suggest that they would both have continued to show their lack of defensive ability (as indeed they have), and that the Wings would have traded them for veterans who are physical and know how to back-check.

Yes, Detroit is all these things you've mentioned. All teams would like to do this. There's also a few things you are perhaps not taking into consideration which has allowed the Wings to develop what young players they have drafted, and kept.

1.) Detroit has had the very good fortune of obtaining a number of very talented players who have stayed with that team for a lot of years, while still playing at a very high level. I suspect this is not that common in today's NHL. How many other teams have had the good fortune of having guys like Yzerman (22 yrs), Lidstrom (20 yrs), Draper (17 yrs), Holmstrom (15 yrs), Maltby (14 yrs), McCarty (13 yrs), Datsyuk (11 yrs and counting), Chelios (10 yrs) and Zetterberg (10 yrs and counting) playing for them as long as they have? And then there's Kronwall, Franzen, Filppula and Cleary who have been around for 8 - 9 years.

The Canucks have the Sedins at 12 yrs. Kesler, Burrows and Bieksa have been around for 8 - 9 yrs.

Having longevity in these players has allowed the Wings the luxury of time to develop their picks/prospects, or to move them.

2.) Detroit has traded away their 1st round pick 6 out of the last 10 years (10 of the last 20). They got in return assets like Quincey, Lang, Schneider, three 2nd round picks, and one 3rd round pick, The Wings have also been without a 2nd round pick three of those years, and had no 3rd once. With that many high picks out the door, they certainly had better be good at drafting in the later rounds.

Moving picks and prospects for veteran players has been one of the hallmarks of Detroit's success over the last 20+ years. I would say that Grabner and Hodgson would have been part of that fine tradition.

3.) Luck. Detroit has gotten "lucky" in some of their drafts, and those successes blind folks to their failures.

Datsyuk was drafted in the 6th round in '98. Maybe the other teams were unaware of him and so Detroit felt they could wait until that late to draft him, or maybe they were unsure that he would/could make it over to the NHL. That being said, was taking Fischer, Barnes, Valtonen, McCracken, Hobday, Steen, or Deleeuw ahead of Datsyuk an example of good drafting?

Holmstrom was drafted in the 10th round. It may have been astute scouting to draft him, but it was damn lucky that he was still there that late. And other than Dandenault in the 2nd round, the Wings really didn't do that well in '04.

Take a walk through the Wings' draft history. They took a flyer on a few European players with some late round picks which paid off in a very big way, kind of like the Canucks did with Bure in '89 (6th round), or Larionov in ''85 (10th round). Detroit has had some absolutely miserable draft years, from their 1st down to their last pick.

Not a hunch, but an observation that Detroit demands certain things from their prospects, and if the prospects fail to live up to expectations then they are moved.

Grabner is better than anyone who Detroit drafted in the 1st round of '06, mostly because Detroit had traded away their 1st round pick for a couple of 2nd round picks (Emmerton and Matthias). And Hodgson is certainly better than anyone Detroit drafted in '08, but I'm not sure how that supports your position of how Detroit has built their team since clearly Detroit had an epic failure that year (as did a number of teams, to be fair).

I suspect that, if Detroit had the position which allowed them to draft Grabner and/or Hodgson, that they would have traded the picks. And if they did select those two players, then they would have been traded for the above stated reasons.

Oh no, sarcastic laughter. I might not ever post on the internets again I am so crushed.

regards,

G.

[jensen383]

"despite size"....Red Wings have 10 players at 6'2" or better

[canuckinparadise]

Detroit started their model 20 years ago and built it from the scouting department out. MG has said many times he wants to emulate their model and in fairness has tried to out some of the building blocks in place (not that much has worked so far). In addition, the Detroit model requires the patience of Job, which this market (T. Gallagher aka Skeletor and company) wouldn't allow.

The premier teams in the league now - Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, LA - sucked for years before they got the picks in place to build a foundation on, and in most cases they drafted the right players. Anyone remember the Blackhawks ten years ago?

[hockeyking]

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.

With Hodgson, he was used on the PK for Brampton, Team Canada, in Manitoba and even with Buffalo..... yet he was never used while with the Canucks. The Wings would have given him every opportunity to develop and succeed, unlike on the Canucks where he's never trusted and only given "sheltered" minutes.

[verybcman]

None of these teams that are still playing ever cycles the puck as excessively as the Canucks does. PP sucked because of this. Won't get a first shot until after 1:30 mark or when the 2nd line comes in. Hope the next coach comes up with an entirely different play culture - if there is such a thing. The 'in-your-face' type of play will always get you the Cup.

[oldnews]

None of these teams that are still playing ever cycles the puck as excessively as the Canucks does. PP sucked because of this. Won't get a first shot until after 1:30 mark or when the 2nd line comes in. Hope the next coach comes up with an entirely different play culture - if there is such a thing. The 'in-your-face' type of play will always get you the Cup.

[wallstreetamigo]

Not quite sure what you're talking about.

The Sedin's cycling is almost exclusively 5 on 5. There is very little "cycling" on the powerplay - that wasn't really the problem with the powerplay. The Canucks attempt to gain entry or retrieve a dump-in, and then set up Henrik on the half-boards. They out-man the pk - there really isn't the need to cycle - they move the puck to the open man until they create the space to set up.

Because the natural place for Henrik to set up is on the right side halfboards, having a righthanded shooter with an adept one-timer is a very dangerous weapon for the Canucks powerplay. With Kesler in the mix, it becomes far more dangerous for that reason (Daniel on his off side can't really provide that) - whereas Kesler prevents teams from cheating so much on preventing Henrik from setting up the point shots to his big shots on the right side of the powerplay. With Kesler hanging out near the left half boards, it keeps teams much more honest, and if they don't pay enough attention to him, they wind up digging one timers out of their net.

Kesler's return makes a very big difference - and he's not easy to substitute for in his absence.