The Week Ahead
Good afternoon and welcome to a new feature we're doing here at WIIM where we take a quick peek at the week ahead for the Red Wings and give a snapshot of what you can expect in the coming days.
It's been a very consistent season so far for the Wings, as they began with 5 straight wins and then followed that with 6 straight losses. The pitchforks have been put down as the angry villagers have retired to their homes, but they're still casting a wary eye at this team in anticipation of another prolonged losing streak.
Thankfully, they put an end to that crap with a convincing 5-0 win on Saturday night against the Ducks. Jimmy Howard recorded his 3rd shutout of Anaheim in his last 5 games against them, so maybe if he had faced them more last year we could have avoided the unpleasant situation of having Corey Perry be celebrated for something other than crying because someone mentioned his name in a not negative way.
Can the Wings use Saturday night as a springboard to another winning streak? Or was it just a flash in the pan. Follow the jump as we take a look at the coming week for the Wings.
The Wings have a relatively "normal" week with 3 upcoming games, all at home.
Tuesday: Vs Avalanche: The Wings shutout the Avs in the second game of the year, spoiling Peter Forsberg night at the Pepsi Center. Since then, the Avs have had a weird season: they are 1-5-0 at home while going 6-1-1 on the road. Their biggest problem: consistent offense. In 7 of the Avs' 14 games, they've scored 2 goals or less, putting a lot of pressure on Semyon Varlamov.
Friday: Vs Oilers: The big surprise of the season early has been the play of the Edmonton Oilers. A team that was supposed to once again suffer through growing pains has shot out of the gate to lead the Northwest Division. They had their 6-game winning streak snapped on Saturday against the Coyotes, but during their streak they beat the Rangers, Capitals and Canucks, 3 solid teams. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, the latest of the Oilers' #1 overall picks, has 12 points in his 13 games, shooting out to the early lead in the Calder race. The biggest reason for the Oilers' success early has been the play of Nikolai Khabibulin. I didn't realize he was in a contract year, because he's sporting a 6-0-0 record (as of this writing) with a 0.98 GAA and .963 SV%. It's almost like he remembered he used to be a competent goaltender.
Saturday: Vs Stars: The other big surprise in the West early this season has been the play of the Dallas Stars. Thought to be dead with the loss of Brad Richards, the Stars have been getting contributions from all lines, and they currently sit atop the Western Conference standings. Loui Eriksson is off to another hot start, scoring 8 goals in 13 games, but reclamation project Sheldon Souray has been a hit. After toiling in the minors, he's proving he still belongs in the NHL, putting up 12 points in 13 games. Kari Lehtonen continues to enjoy his rebirth in Dallas, giving them a chance to win every night with his 10-1 record and 2.14 GAA and .936 SV%.
So what should we expect from the Wings? Personally, I think 3 wins is not out of the question. For a team that has struggled to score goals, they get to welcome a historic rival who has played them tough the last few years followed by 2 teams that are surprising people but don't look to have the talent to sustain that level of play over the course of an entire season.
Edmonton and Dallas are nice stories, but I'll guarantee that at least one of them doesn't make the playoffs, and I'd go so far as to say that both of them will likely miss post-season action as they come back to Earth while other teams stabilize their play. While that may not happen for another month or so, it's important to note that both Edmonton and Dallas will be playing their second of back-to-back games when they take on the Wings, with the Oilers in Boston the night before and Dallas in Pittsburgh. The Wings will also be playing back-to-back when they face Dallas, but they get to go home to their comfy race car beds.
If the Wings are serious about getting back on the winning beat, then taking advantage of 2 tired teams with inferior talent is the way to show us that the losing streak was a fluke. The big talk during the streak was a lack of execution and focus, so playing a rival followed by two surprising teams that are no pushovers at the moment should inspire the Wings to give everything they've got and end the homestand on a positive note. I'm going to go ahead and call this a perfect week, as they finish off the homestand with 3 straight wins before heading out West.
132 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m glad we won, but we beat a Ducks team that looked pretty tired from a road trip. This upcoming week will be the real test.
Exactly
Those are the games the Wings should win. They have 2 of them this week, and they SHOULD win both of them, or at the very least come away with 3 out of 4 points. There will be no excuse in not beating an Edmonton team playing their third game in four nights in three cities.
If the Wings are as good as we think they are, they destroy the Oilers and should beat the Stars.
Didn’t really read before I commented. That will definitely make it easier to get these wins. Both Leightonen and Khabibulin have had strong starts so far khabi has been standing on his head and kari has ten wins. I think we’ll be more likely to beat the oilers, but hey, thinking back on the last year or two, for whatever reason, it seems the oilers haven’t been such an easy team to beat for us. we’ll see.
I expect to win all 3...the talent level and experience isn't even close.
Plus, Howard has been fantastic despite our struggles. I think the wings simplified their game against a crappy Ducks team…lets hope the we get a roll going!!
The Disassembly Line....nuff said.
Question of the day though:
How soon do we see Conklin back in net? If it was me, it wouldn’t be till December. However, Jimmy can’t play every single game. So…. when do we see him come in and flip on beast mode? We NEED him to be a beast when he plays… that way we continue and build more momentum. I don’t want Jimmy to turn into a Ryan Miller and get tired as fuuuuuuu by Jan/Feb.
Get your Al the Octopus
byjenniferleigh.etsy.com/
Howard can take it
I think Babcock should keep Jimmy in for the forseeable future; looking at his rookie year, he played a hell of a lot of hockey between rare nights off due to Osgood being untrustworthy between the pipes that season… and we all saw how that year turned out for him. Top 5 GAA, Top 5 SV%, and would have been anyone’s pick for Calder were it not for his age.
Wings need the points these three games offer up and need to win games to remind themselves and others that they are simply one of the top few teams in the league as usual. Another Conklin stinker wouldn’t be great for team psyche right now. I say leave Jimmy in until he has a rough night or is obviously fatigued.
We all saw how that year turned out for HIM...
….but it ended in the second round for the TEAM.
Is Howard a guy who can carry us through 4 rounds after playing 60+ games, or does he need to play fewer regular season games to be ready in the playoffs?
The evidence (though only 2 seasons worth, so admittedly not much) says it might be worth trying a more balanced rotation.
Dancing Datsyuk Decidedly Dazzles Dainty Defensemen
i think howard was hardly the problem that year in the playoffs
he was playing at a pretty high level
by Pentatonic on Nov 7, 2011 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I dont think that playing 60+ games at Howard’s age is the issue. He did start to look a little less strong towards the end of the second round but I think that was a combination of it being his first NHL Playoffs and getting a ridiculous number of consecutive starts right before the playoffs (wasn’t it something like 17 consecutive?)
In fairness to Howard
2009 was Howard’s first time in the playoffs. Can’t be easy following goalies like Osgood and Hasek as the guy in goal for a team like Detroit who is always expected to contend. Can’t remember that many goalies who’ve been rock-solid in their first playoff year. Also, we had bigger issues than goaltending against both Phoenix and the San Jose. Refs, mostly.
Based on his stellar playoff showing last season I think Howard is up to the challenge. And based on Conklin’s early results, his one shutout notwithstanding, I’d like to see the lion’s share of starts go Jimmy’s way. Conklin just looked so, well, defeated, in the loss to Washington and I’m probably not the only fan nervous and second-guessing his signing on for a second stint with the Wings.
Babcock sure seems to love Howard and he has shown in the past a penchant for playing his starter a lot when he doesn’t have complete faith in his backup. We’ll see, but I think Howard will be amongst league leaders in GP this year.
At least if Conklin isn’t up to the task this year we have the loyal and competent Joey MacDonald waiting for another shot. He’s looking pretty good in Grand Rapids, based on the fantastic articles appearing here on WIIM.
So..now Hudler and Bert are sick, and are not likely to play tomorrow....(via 97.1 The Ticket)
Wonder if we will see Nyquist back in the line up? Eaves is skating again..Helm sat out as a day of rest…Should be interesting to say the least.
The Disassembly Line....nuff said.
apparently Hudler and Bertuzzi are both no-go's..
but Helmer just had a rest day.. so Brunnstrom, Eaves, and Hudler will all be playing.
by kylegroombridge on Nov 7, 2011 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
Rec'd for a great new feature.
Thank you, sir.
Personally
I think the Wings have a shot at all 3. It all depends on if they can give a complete 60 minute effort. Did the 5-0 win spark the Wings, or as Graham said, is it just ‘a flash in the pan’ and they go back to the way they have played the previous 6? If that is so, then they could start another streak… Here’s hoping that they dont go on another 6 game winless skid again
Fan of the Detroit Tigers ~ Detroit Lions ~ Detroit Red Wings! - No Town Better to be a fan of!
Fantasy: PoD Bench League (PackMules (2-7)) / WIIM Mursak League (Wingedmule (30-22-8))
Restoring the Roar - The 2011 Detroit Lions!
Just Score!!!
I won’t go so far as to guarantee 3 wins, but I do believe very strongly that our skid was a fluke. It was a horrible blob of negative energy that just kept feeding off itself with every bad break and missed opportunity. How many times during that span did the wings come out and play a 10-15 minute stint of purely dominant hockey that, under normal circumstances, would have won us the game but we couldn’t find the back of the net? With that said, I don’t know that we will go on a winning tear but I just want to be assured that the bleeding has stopped and the offensive production is stabilized. They are still near the top of the league in talent so as long as this week brings some sort of a return to normalcy, I will be happy. If that means 1-1-1 or 3-0-0 it doesn’t matter to me as much as if we score 8 plus goals over that period. Over the long run, returning to consistant offensive production is much more important than this weeks record. I have no doubt that it will happen, but these games get more important with every loss so it needs to happen now.
Yes
By a pretty wide margin, actually.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 8:13 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Admit what? That the Red Wings are a better team than a 12-game sample size suggests?
I don’t have any problem admitting that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
You’re not going to find a lot of support from objective sources who say that Dallas is a better team than Detroit. You’ll likely find a ton of them saying that the Stars are playing better hockey right now, but there’s a reason the NHL season is more than 15 games long.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 8:46 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I'll start with the NHL standings
and go from there
there’s a reason the NHL season is more than 15 games long.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 9:13 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry- had to head to work
There’s no doubt about that, but will you actually look? The Stars are leading the league in points (and points per game, in which Edmonton is second), tied for the lead in goal differential and top ten in both goals for and goals allowed. The Wings are 17th in the league (14th in points per game) with a goal differential of a whopping +3. Maybe, instead of dismissing us as an inferior team, you could be a little more respectful of that
by Hillbutton on Nov 9, 2011 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You’re the one who keeps reading “inferior to Detroit” as disrespectful here on a Wings blog.
The Stars are playing incredibly well as a team, but I don’t think that they’re as good. I do not believe Dallas will remain atop the conference standings or within the top five by season’s end. It’s nice that it got them this far and that they’re better than Detroit in those metrics. If they’re still above Detroit at the end of a respectable sample size, I’ll retract my statement.
I’m not ignoring the facts in this situation, I’m just weighing them as part of everything I know when making my judgment here.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes..
not ignoring the facts, just weighing them against what you know as a Red Wings fan, hence my call of homerism.
Again
You say it like it’s a bad thing.
I’ve asked you several times to produce an objective source which agrees that overall, this start by the Stars is evidence that they are a better team.
We’re both homers here… I just happen to be right about my homer opinion.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
I will again point you to the standings
by Hillbutton on Nov 9, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
sigh
there’s a reason the NHL season is more than 15 games long.
This is getting tiring. If you’re going to keep whining about me not being respectful enough to your team, it’s time that you stop being a homer and prove to me that you can actually take an objective look at things. You have continuously presented me with a small sample size of games which do not fit a larger context. Show to me how I, or anybody else should expect that the Stars can keep this up.
Show me something which tells me this is more than a blip on the radar. Didn’t the Stars lead the Western conference at some point last DECEMBER? They missed the playoffs with a team that looks on paper to have been superior to this year’s squad.
Yet you just want to keep harping on less than 20 games and about how I’m the one being overly subjective here?
It’s getting tiring. If it’s a joke, it is a bad one. I will not answer a call to objectivity from somebody who will not act on his own charge.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the numbers I'm citing
are the most objective things available to us right now, but that’s going by, you know, the definition of objectivity.
The numbers you’re citing are objectively a very small sample size.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 5:41 PM CST up reply actions
Non sequeter question
Playoffs, a tournament to decide who the best team is in hockey, are, at maximum, 28 games long for one team. To determine which is the better of two teams, they are given only 7 games between each other, a microscopic sample size. I’ve actually seen it referred to- I believe this was Wysh- The Tournament of Small Sample Sizes.
With that in mind, I ask you- do you think the Sharks are better than the Red Wings? It is a small sample size, but the tournament is designed specifically to determine which is the better team.
The Sharks finished ahead of Detroit in the standings and won a tight seven game series. I’d take much less offense to a Sharks fan saying the Wings are inferior to them than Stars fans have taken at the implication that their team is inferior to the WIngs.
Because at least we’re talking about playoff teams that way…
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 10:10 PM CST up reply actions
That wasn't what I asked
I’m not trying to rib you on getting kicked by the Sharks, they’re a good team, it’s just the best recent example. It’s a very small sample size- really, how could you say that and not expect someone to take offense?- It’s a very small sample size, like this regular season, but do you think that situation is indicative of the Sharks being a better team?
I think the talent level of the Sharks and Red Wings is extremely close. So close that I would not take offense to a Sharks fan saying the Wings are inferior. You asked, I answered.
I came to this conclusion based on all of the information available to me though, not just last season’s playoff series. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. The playoff series and head-to-head is a small sample which fits into a larger overall picture. This is how I’ve arrived at my conclusions since this entire thing started.
If you feel that I should take offense to a Sharks fan saying they’re a better team, then go pick a fight on Fear the Fin, because the logical trap you’re trying to set up here simply doesn’t work.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 6:59 AM CST up reply actions
You're right
It’s not working, but it’s because you’re trying so hard to avoid a logical trap that I’m not trying to set up- I’m not trying to get you to consider whether the Sharks are a better team, I’m asking you about the datapoints of just the playoffs themselves. Just in and of themselves, do you think the playoffs are a large enough set of data to definitively say the Sharks- not even the Sharks, just any team that wins a playoff series- are better than the team they defeat?
Are you asking me if I’m going to consistently apply the logic that a small sample size doesn’t tell us as much as a large sample size? Yes, I’m going to do that.
Are you asking me if I put more stock in a playoff series than a regular season series? Because the answer to that is also yes.
No, I do not think that you could fairly judge the Sharks were a better team based solely on last season’s playoff series between Detroit and San Jose.
I have long subscribed to the idea that the Stanley Cup is not always won by the best team in the league. I feel that last happened when the Blackhawks won it in 2010. Before then, I believe the Red Wings in 2008 were the best team in the league that also won a cup.
If there’s a point you’re trying to spring here, just spring it.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
That was it
I was wondering if you questioned the validity of the stanley cup playoffs by the same logic. Do you think the best team consistently wins the president’s trophy? Also, being that a player could go on a 16-28 game hot streak and maybe be a fourth liner the rest of his career and win it, do you think the conn smythe trophy is more prestigious than it should be?
Do you think the best team consistently wins the president’s trophy?
Do you believe that the team that accumulates the most points over an 82 game season is the best team?
Also, being that a player could go on a 16-28 game hot streak and maybe be a fourth liner the rest of his career and win it, do you think the conn smythe trophy is more prestigious than it should be?
Name a 4th-line player that has ever won the Conn Smythe and maybe you’d have some credibility with where you’re going there.
I guess that depends on whether we have to play all-or-nothing with it.
The best team doesn’t always win the cup, but a bad team never does. I’d go so far as to say that, even in a 16-team playoff, there’s a small chance that a team outside of the top eight in the league will win, so there are at least 8 teams in every postseason that’s pretty much only there to try to play spoiler.
I’ll say the same about the President’s trophy. Ending at tops in the league is an indication of a very good team, but not necessarily the best. I do think the Canucks deserved that title last season and they actually were the best team in the regular season. I think that division effects made the 12-point spread between them and the Sharks out west look worse than it was, but I don’t think that the final standings were so skewed by that as to create the argument that the Sharks were better.
Similarly, I would not accept an argument that the 9 point difference in the standings between the Wings and the Stars was so skewed as to call the difference meaningless.
As far as the Conn Smythe argument goes, I’m looking at a list of past Conn Smythe winners and I’m not seeing any evidence that a fourth liner has been able to consistently keep a high-enough level of play to win the award over that sample. Remember though, I put more stock in playoff games. As far as I’m concerned, a 20-game sample size in the playoffs is a pretty big one. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it hasn’t really happened yet and I’d say it would say more about why a coach would have such a good guy on his bottom lines than about his status as a true fourth-liner. Under that criteria, I have a hard time saying that the Conn Smythe is more prestigious than it should be. A man who has won the Conn Smythe truly has accomplished something great in his career.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions
Let me clarify/simplify on the President's Trophy thing
I think the final standings are a pretty good indicator. Sometimes you’ll get a team that’s a spot or two above or below where it should be. Sometimes a 5 seed is a better team than a 3 seed (not last season, but it’s possible)
I have never seen a final standings where I thought a 9 seed was equal to or better than a 3 seed. I don’t think that is possible and I don’t even want it to be.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting
Do you think there is any verifyable way to sift out the verifiably best team in the league?
Not really
There is no real agreed-upon uberstat nor an ubermensch which is held in higher regards than all others when it comes to a matter of opinion like this.
A lot of the evidence about last year is that Vancouver was the best team in the league. Many people (myself included) feel that they lost the cup primarily because of injuries (although Roberto Luongo playing terribly didn’t help either). Of course, there’s always going to be little bits of evidence that people hold on to when they argue against the prevailing majority opinion and there could be good arguments made for a few teams to be the BEST, but I don’t think that the way the NHL is set up nowadays lends itself to a true verifiable and inarguable BEST team every season.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 2:48 PM CST up reply actions
It's impossible with the salary cap to have a "best team" in the league
You have the top tier with teams like the Caps, Canucks, Sharks, etc
The 2nd tier with teams that occupy the middle seeds in the postseason like Nashville, Montreal, Buffalo etc
3rd tier would be teams that are playoff bubble at best like Phoenix, Anaheim, Toronto, etc
And the 4th tier is for the teams vying for a number 1 draft pick, ie Columbus, Winnipeg, Florida, etc
(And then you have the “overrated tier” which features only one team: Dallas. Hahaha)
Bottom line, the current setup doesn’t allow one team to sign the best players each year furthering the gap between the best and worst teams. The salary cap makes it so that even the best teams in the league have obvious weaknesses.
The Sharks have one of the best offenses in the league but have questionable goaltending.
The Nucks have star offense and goaltending but are forced to deal with their goalie being unable to handle high-pressure situations
The Caps strongly improved their goaltending with the signing of Vokoun but have an offense that tends to disappear entirely during the playoffs.
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
Oh damn
You had to go there?
Claude Lemieux was (and still is) a shitty, shitty human being, but as a hockey player, he was far from a fourth-liner. A lot of people would kill to have a guy who could put up a 35-point pace on one of the most defensive teams of the modern era.
Claude Lemieux may not have been the best player on the New Jersey Devils that season, but he was NOT a fourth-liner.
His winning the Conn Smythe tarnishes the legacy of the award because he was a cankerdicked cheap-shot artist puke scumbag shot-for-brains, but not because he was bad at hockey.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
That particular season
His regular-season statline read 6 goals and 19 points with 86 pims in 45 games (shortened season) while his playoff statline read 13 goals and 16 points with 20 pims in 20 games. If you look only at the numbers it reads like a fourth liner turned it on in April. I’ll agree with you that that isn’t the case, this is a clear precedent of a player having a poor regular season and a monster playoff and winning the Conn Smythe.
Also, if I told you this was an elaborate scheme to get a Wing fan to pay compliment to Claude Lemieux, would you believe me?
No, I wouldn't
Like I said though, 19 points in 45 games is a 35-point pace. It’s not great, but it’s not fourth-line either.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 13, 2011 12:04 AM CST up reply actions
After digging
I’ve come to the conclusion that 35 points would still be the lowest regular-season total for a forward winning the conn smythe. In recent history, by a lot- Nieuwendyk had just over 50 points in ‘99, but that was through 67 games so that’s also a bad example.
I also found an precedent that actually didn’t have Lemieux’s offensive skill. Bob Gainey, celebrated for his penalty killing, had 38 points in 79 regular season games in ’79 and 16 points in 16 playoff games. His point totals never exceeded 47, and that was in the early 80s so adjust for inflation there
You said fourth line. I don’t think that these two things in the history of the Conn Smythe do enough to tarnish the award in any way.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 13, 2011 2:23 PM CST up reply actions
I don't either
but… I don’t know. Learned something, got a couple wings fans to admit Lemieux is more than a goon. Fun talk.
I never admitted that Lemieux was more than a goon. You can score a hundred points and be a goon shithead. Hell, you can win a Hart trophy and still be a goon. Just ask Corey Perry.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 13, 2011 6:27 PM CST up reply actions
I am
trying to set up a logical trap, but it’s a different one and it’s much more interesting
And, yes
I find your putting subjectivity over objectivity as fuel to call the Stars an inferior team as disrespectful. The words “inferior” and “disrespect” kind of go hand in hand. I don’t know how you’re challenging that
Hahaha.
I’m asking for subjectivity here to prove me wrong and I’m getting none. Whether I’m being subjective about this is not the point. I’m being subjective about something that is objectively backed up with evidence and you’re pissed off about that for some stupid reason.
Seems to me you’re angry because the entire collection of the facts backs up my homer opinion… that sucks for you.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
But have you seen the standings yet?
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
by greg5897 on Nov 9, 2011 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
...I thought
whether or not you’re being subjective about it was the point. And my implication was what you’re being subjective about isn’t objectively backed up. Are you in too many conversations right now? I get that a lot
You keep citing a very small sample size and i keep asking for you to find an objective source who agrees with you. You have flat refused to do this because, in your own admission, you know you can’t do this.
Clinging subjectively to something which doesn’t tell us what you want it to tell us is not objectivity.
What I’m saying absolutely is objectively backed up. The Wings and Stars have not changed so much from last season so as to make those numbers worthless. Last season, the Red Wings made the playoffs as the 3 seed and the Dallas Stars sat at home and watched.
Objectively, just about every preseason writeup about the Stars talked about how they had not improved as a team. The questions about Detroit were whether they could replace their #2 defenseman. Objectively, preseason rankings had the Wings rated above the Stars by just about everybody.
Now you want to parrot “the standings! the standings!” after fewer than 15 games and say that’s all the objective proof you need. Meanwhile, I’ll objectively look back and see an example from your team’s RECENT past that indicates they were able to keep it together for long enough to lead the Western Conference as late as December before falling out of playoff contention entirely.
The same team that most experts said in preseason got no better from the team which accomplished this hilarious freefall.
You want to crown the Stars at 14 games, have fun with that… but don’t pretend that your narrow look is supposed to tell anybody with a grasp on hockey what you want it to tell them.
To recap all of the conversations… neither of us are objective here; I just happen to be the one whose subjective opinion is backed up more thoroughly by objective fact. The Stars are inferior to the Red Wings and nothing but Dallas finishing above Detroit in the standings this season is going to say otherwise.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 5:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Not changed much...
New coach, four new forwards in the top nine including an entire third line that wasn’t playing in Dallas last year and a new no. 1 defenseman. No change at all.
For the record, I personally don’t want to crown the Stars at 14 games, I just want to recognize that through 14 games they’ve been a hell of a lot better than the wings through 13 also you can’t pay much attention to “experts” when they talk about the stars. The vast majority of the preseason articles I read didn’t know what the forward lines would be to open whereas people who followed the team casually (well, as casually as you can while paying attention to lines) summed it up properly on sight. Maybe they get you guys right, but every stars article since they missed the playoffs in 09 has had the feel of “oh crap, we’re doing something for all the other teams but we completely forgot Dallas! let’s throw something together real quick and hope no one notices!” Most people don’t, but it’s a pretty common complaint on defendingbigd. The first problem you’ll run into looking for an objective source is they either pay attention almost exclusively to the Atlantic division and don’t really know what they’re talking about or they follow the Stars and aren’t objective. I’d refer you to Darryl Reaugh in a heartbeat if all you wanted was someone who actually knew his stuff, but he’s our color announcer. I’m not gonna call him objective.
we completely forgot Dallas! let’s throw something together real quick and hope no one notices!
That sounds like the way Dallas management has put their team together for the last few seasons.
I’d say you’ve done a very good job here recognizing that the Stars have played better than the Wings to this point in the season. If that was what you had been arguing since yesterday, this would have been a very short thread.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 10:13 PM CST up reply actions
What management?
I think you’ve done a very good job disregarding a team that most statistics point to being better than yours so far this season (multiple teams, actually), and then disregarding anyone who took offense to this for any reason. If that was your goal… I don’t know, it’s a very mean goal.
Mostly my goal is to make people realize that taking offense to an opinion about which team is superior that is based on a large data set instead of a small one is a very stupid thing to do.
Because here’s the thing… You’ve thrown the word “homer” around like an invective while acting in the same homeriffic manner you’d expect a Red Wings blog to avoid. Of all the stupid shit that has been said here for the last two days, this is by far the most persistent and stupid. It’s like every idiot with an axe to grind, but who doesn’t have the tools to actually hone the damn thing comes crying in about how this or that isn’t looking at it objectively enough because they’re apparently the arbiter of objectivity and the king of telling blog members at their own team’s blog exactly how they should be acting.
Quite frankly, you’re a fucking hypocrite and I’m tired of explaining to you that 1) objectivity is not a requirement. and 2) it’s entirely unattainable anyway. We’re all pigs in shit here, genius; quit telling others they should be less dirty.
If all you wanted to say is that the Stars have outplayed every team in the league through their first 14 games of the season, then just fucking say that. What you’ve been fighting for all this time is some bullshit apology for hurting your feelings when fans of another team see the performance they’ve put up so far and say they don’t think it’s an attainable expectation for them to stay where they are in the standings.
Like I said, if ALL you wanted was recognition that the Stars have outplayed Detroit through the first month of the season, reread the comments and do a count for me where people actually recognize that and then just shut the fuck up because you’ve gotten what you claim you came here to get. The fact that you keep this shit going indicates that above being a hypocrite, you’re also a fucking liar.
Take a fucking chill pill. If you want me to say I think the Stars are at least equals with the Wings or [gasp] a better team, then don’t hold your breath, there, ambassador fuckwit. There is nothing in the entire history of the world that has happened to this point which is going to make me believe this. The Stars have proven the same thing they proved last year: that they could hold it together for short stretches, but ultimately were not good enough to make the playoffs. They have more to go yet.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 10, 2011 7:15 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Yes.
Yes. I need to take a massive chill pill.
No, you need to shut up and leave
There’s beating a dead horse and there’s beating a dead horse then carrying it around with you so you can beat it some more. Which is what you’ve been doing since you all rushed in here to “defend your teams honor” or some shit. Even after all the other Stars fans recognized this is pure futility and left you still fucking persist. Let me tell you that no matter how many times you bring up the standings nor last years h2h record, it WILL NOT change a single persons mind. And we’ve made that as abundantly clear as we possibly could yet here we are two days later and we’ve turned this thread into an endless fucking wall of text.
Let me just some up the opinions of everyone on this blog for you
The Stars are inferior
The Stars are inferior
The Stars are inferior
The Stars are inferior
The Stars are inferior
The Stars are inferior
Now, THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN SAY THAT WILL MAKE US CHANGE OUR MINDS SO JUST FUCKING GIVE UP ALREADY
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
by greg5897 on Nov 10, 2011 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s not angry or aggressive enough to get me to do that. maybe you should curse a little more, or make more liberal use of the caps lock key. That will make me lend credence to your argument, and consider it with a more favorable bias
Is this better?
THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR THE STARS ARE FUCKING INFERIOR
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
by greg5897 on Nov 10, 2011 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
unlikely
he/she has their panties in a bunch over Graham’s post and thinks that feigned smugness will hide that fact
by Red, White and a Mile high on Nov 10, 2011 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
How hard are you trying to overlook talent
When you say that both the Oilers (how many top 10 picks are playing on their team right now?) and the Stars (Benn, Eriksson, Ribiero, Morrow, Ryder, Lehtonen, Goligoski) have inferior talent?
Or, to put your statement in perspective… Beyond Datsyuk and Zetterberg, what talent are the Wings stocked with? I see that the oh-so talented Stars cast-off Fabian Brunstrum is playing for the Wings now…
Carpe diem!
Oilers (how many top 10 picks are playing on their team right now?)
How many of them would you consider stars right now? Hall? Eberle? Nugent-Hopkins? They are all still so young that they can’t be considered legitimate stars in the NHL.
The fact that you listed Michael Ryder among the “talent” on the Stars shows that you’re a homer. I think Eriksson is one of the most underrated players in the NHL, Benn is going to continue to get better and better, but Ribeiro? Morrow? I like Morrow as a leader, but he’s not going to light up the league offensively, and Ribeiro is a dirty little punk who occasionally shows that be belongs in the NHL when he’s not chirping and acting like a little shithead by spearing goalies or flopping all over the ice.
You want to go up and down the rosters of the 2 teams? Prove to me that beyond Eriksson and Benn the Stars have talent that a neutral observer would say is better than Detroit. Go ahead; I’ll wait.
The Stars have had a nice start to the season, but who have they played? Columbus twice? Phoenix twice? Anaheim? Carolina? They’ve taken advantage of a weak schedule, as they should have, and all power to them. They’ve been a nice surprise. But lest we forget, we’ve seen teams get off to hot starts only to miss the playoffs by a wide margin. I think Dallas is this year’s version of that. I don’t see the talent on that team to sustain the start they’ve gotten off to, and in an extremely difficult division I could see them losing points very quickly to the other teams in the Pacific.
The Wings underachieved dramatically during their losing streak as poor efforts and lack of execution caused them to lose games they should have won. I expect that to not happen again, and in a regular season game the superior talent of the Wings will overcome anything either Edmonton or Dallas throws at them barring a goalie stealing a game.
by Amerinadian on Nov 8, 2011 8:56 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
No, I don’t consider them to be stars (or superstars, or elites, or any other nouns you care to place here). My argument is based on an analysis of raw talent and the apparent capability to reach ones potential. They’re not in the upper echelon of NHL players… yet.
Are you denying that Ryder has talent? I’m not trying to elevate him to the Crosby/Ovechkin/Stamkos level… I’m not even trying to elevate him to the Kopitar/Kovalchuk/Kane level; but the man obviously has talent.
Your assessment of Morrow is pretty solid… He will never light up the league in scoring, but he’s been solid throughout his career. He’s had 6 20+ goal seasons, with two of them being 30+ goal seasons. Not in the same tier as the elites of the league, but very solid nonetheless.
I will take umbrage with your assessment of Ribiero though. You provide no objective analysis of the player whatsoever and use your dislike of him to deny his skill. He had one idiotic incidence of diving in his early days in Montreal (yes, it was awful, we all know), but he hasn’t done anything like that. I find it funny that one incident of diving has followed Ribiero throughout his career, but Dustin Brown dives night after night and seems to be made of teflon.
But, roster roster for roster… I’ll use J.J. from Kansas’ analysis from below:
Zetterberg > Benn: Perhaps, but we will have to let time tell. Through their first two seasons, I would give Benn the advantage. He’s got more points through his first two seasons than Hank did. Also, Benn has been asked to play out of position and to transition in to a playmaking center. Tell me, was Hank asked to do that? No… you mean he’s always played on the left side? And to further drive the point home – Benn is succeeding (so far) in his role at center.
Datsyuk > Eriksson: This is a comparison of two totally different players here. Datsyuk is the consummate center – he’s good at everything he does. He can shoot, deke, defend, and pass. He’s a master at stripping the puck from opposing players… every GM wants him, but only one is lucky enough to have him. Eriksson is an excellent two way player who can snipe with the best of them. He’s showing the ability to make good passes… but in this comparison, Datsyuk wins. Datsyuk is more comparable to Ribiero, but in that case, Datsyuk is still the better player.
Franzen > Rebiero: Again, a mis-comparison. Franzen is good… but he’s definitely not going to put up as many points as Ribiero. Ribiero is a better passer, skater, and has a better shot. Ribiero is also far more creative with the puck. Franzen does what exactly? Bulls his way to the net? Attempts a wrister from the circles? Franzen is taller and better against the boards than Ribiero… that’s about all though.
Morrow > Filppula: Really? Filppula has never scored 20+ goals. Morrow has. End of story. A better comparison for Morrow would have been Franzen. But Morrow would still come out on top. Morrow is a battler – Franzen likes to complain about getting hit in the corners.
Ryder > Nobody: He has 4 20+ goal seasons, 2 of them are 30+ goal seasons. He’s better than many in the NHL, and better than Hudler, Abdelkader, and a few others.
Lehtonen = Howard: This is another wait and see. Howard is good. Lehtonen is good. Howard has played 2 full seasons. Lehtonen has been in shape to play for 2 seasons. Lets re-visit this 2 seasons from now.
(Goligoski = Kronwall) < Lidstrom: Lidstrom is incomparable – he’s one of the great defensemen to play the game. That goes without saying. Goligoski and Kronwall are about comparable. They are both capable of putting up points and play their position well. I think Kronwall tends to be more defensively sound than Goligoski, but that’s not to say that Goligoski has Mike Green syndrome (i.e. is a forward playing on the blue line).
The Stars have also played the Kings twice, Chicago twice, St. Louis, Colorado, and New Jersey. The Stars deserved better in their games against LA, but ultimately couldn’t pull it out… They beat Chicago once, St. Louis, Colorado, and New Jersey. The Devils and Blues aren’t the same quality of competition as the others (for the moment anyway – the second half of last season should prove as a reminder as to their capabilities). The schedule has been rather light for the Stars so far – but everyone expected the Stars to tank like Columbus is, and expected Columbus to challenge for a bottom 4 seed.
Carpe diem!
Also, Benn has been asked to play out of position and to transition in to a playmaking center. Tell me, was Hank asked to do that?
Actually yes. Henrik Zetterberg has switched back and forth between playmaking center, sniping winger, and somewhere in between about a dozen times since he joined Detroit’s fourth line in his rookie season. He continues to be more versatile than Benn and a better overall player. You use Benn’s two year’s against Zetterberg’s first two years at your own peril. Z spent those years in a much different role than Benn had in his first two seasons.
This is a comparison of two totally different players here. Datsyuk is the consummate center – he’s good at everything he does. He can shoot, deke, defend, and pass. He’s a master at stripping the puck from opposing players… every GM wants him, but only one is lucky enough to have him. Eriksson is an excellent two way player who can snipe with the best of them. He’s showing the ability to make good passes… but in this comparison, Datsyuk wins. Datsyuk is more comparable to Ribiero, but in that case, Datsyuk is still the better player.
So it’s not a good comparison because Eriksson shoots better but doesn’t pass as well? They’re both highly-skilled two-way players who are perennial Lady Byng candidates. I think they compare better than Ribeiro does to Datsyuk (mostly because Ribeiro gets absolutely smoked in that comparison).
Morrow > Filppula: Really? Filppula has never scored 20+ goals. Morrow has. End of story. A better comparison for Morrow would have been Franzen. But Morrow would still come out on top. Morrow is a battler – Franzen likes to complain about getting hit in the corners.
Read again genius… I said Morrow is better than Filppula here.
Comparing Franzen to Ribeiro works pretty well. Ribeiro’s career points-per-game is 0.51. Franzen’s is 0.56.
Lidstrom is incomparable
EXACTLY. Nobody on the Stars gets close to comparing to Lidstrom… who, if you’ve forgotten the point of this comparison, is a member of the Red Wings. You listed Goligoski as one of your star players and he’s at best unfavorably comparable to one of Detroit’s 2nd pairing guys. He’s not equal to Kronwall. He could be yet, but he’s not there.
Ryder > Nobody: He has 4 20+ goal seasons, 2 of them are 30+ goal seasons. He’s better than many in the NHL, and better than Hudler, Abdelkader, and a few others.
As a reminder, Hudler is playing on the Wings’ third line now. Michael Ryder plays three more minutes a game
The Stars do not match favorably talent-wise to Detroit. If you want to talk future potential, then we can discuss that, but as it stands, the Wings are the deeper and more-talented squad.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
"The Stars do not match favorably talent-wise to Detroit"
Yet they beat them almost every time. Let’s hear your analysis on this one.
by iHorses on Nov 8, 2011 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s harder to get motivated to play a playoff pretender.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Who cares if you don't get into the playoffs?
Having a winning record against 1 or 2 of the teams that do means you’re better right?
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
“The Blue Jackets are just as good as the Wings because the season series between the two is tied derpity derpity derp derp. The postseason is just a series of meaningless exhibition games for a trophy no one cares about. Which is why my team has only won it once. Derp”
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
Of all of the hilariously dumb conclusions at which to arrive
the one where somebody says a four game head-to-head sample size tells us more about which team is better than an 82-game sample size where overall standings are considered is front-runner for favorite of the year.
Run back to your home blog at Defending Big D and see how many of the writers you can get to sign off on the concept that the Dallas Stars were a better team than the Red Wings last year. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 6:56 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Last year was last year. Irrelevant is irrelevant.
And yes, 4-game head to head will tell you which team is better. The one that wins 3 or 4 out of 4. Math is hard.
Funny thing is, I like Wings a lot as a hockey team, I’d even say that they are my second favorite team in the league. Its arrogant and obnoxious fans like you that make me wonder why such a talented team have such classless followers.
Last year was last year. Irrelevant is irrelevant.
And yes, 4-game head to head will tell you which team is better. The one that wins 3 or 4 out of 4. Math is hard.
Apparently so is logic, because this has no place within your carefully constructed argument.
If last year was irrelevant and the Wings haven’t played the Stars yet this season, then all we can say is that neither team is better.
…except that’s a stupid thing to say. It’s almost as stupid as saying four games tells us more than 82 games; which is what you’re trying to do.
Ooh, I know. Let’s increase the sample size and do some more dumb figuring:
The Stars went 2-4 against the Ducks last season. The Red Wings went 3-1 against he Ducks last season. Therefore, since the Red Wings were better than the Ducks and the Ducks were better than the Stars, it only stands to reason that the Red Wings were better than the Stars!
Tell you what. Let’s just say screw it to the micro-math and do this figuring the right way:
The Red Wings were 47-25-10 against the entire league last season.
The Stars were 42-29-11 against the SAME LEAGUE.
That’s a nine point difference. The NHL took 69 points away from the Stars’ perfect record last season, but managed to take only 60 away from the Red Wings. By the transitive property (which is a mathematical concept), the Red Wings were a better team.
Blah blah blah standings you say?
there’s a reason the NHL season is more than 15 games long.
Keep harping on class all you want. I’m a hockey fanatic. You can sit on your high horse and judge me from up there, but you can’t have more fun as a hockey fan than I do. Take all that class you have and shove it up your peehole. See how well that works for you.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
If you line it up by records
of course it won’t be a straight line. The stars had a winning record last year against most west playoff teams and a worse overall record, it’s not clear-cut. But just because it doesn’t work out to a straight line doesn’t mean it should be completely taken into account
Seriously… find me any objective and trustworthy source who is willing to say that the Stars were a better team last season than Detroit.
The Stars missed the playoffs because they deserved to miss the playoffs.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
There isn't one, I won't even look
But you can’t tell me the Stars having a winning record against Detroit last season indicates absolutely nothing, especially in the context of a game between the two
I never said it indicates absolutely nothing. you’re putting words in my mouth.
I will flat-out say that it does not indicate the Stars are a better team than Detroit or were last season.
So what are we even arguing here? You seem to agree that there’s no objective rater who is going to say that last season’s Stars were better than the Wings? That’s all I’ve been saying all along. Last regular season’s head-to-head matchup tells us that the Stars were good at playing as a team against tough opponents. It does not tell us that the Stars were a better team. Pretty much every other metric disagrees with the concept that a four-game sample size would indicate that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Did Jamie Benn finish second in Calder voting? Has he been nominated for a Selke? Has he ever won a Conn Smythe?
You go on to compare each invidual player, but a distinction was made at DBD that these are 2 different teams that play 2 different styles. So while Morrow may fit in well with the Stars but there’d be no guarantee he’d fit in with Detroit. Likewise with Filppula on Dallas, although there are many within the Wing community who have felt that Filppula should be producing more than he has.
Again with Michael Ryder? Yes, he’s had a few nice seasons. He’s also been so shitty that he’s been run out of Montreal and Boston despite playing with some extremely talented players. He’s had questions about his work ethic and is one of the streakiest players in the league. He’s also not “better than many” as you say. If Ryder was so good as you claim, then why couldn’t he hang around with the Stanley Cup champs who had ample cap space?
by Amerinadian on Nov 8, 2011 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Will
Howard finish second in calder voting again? Will Datsyuk be nominated for another selke? Will Zetterberg get another conn smythe? If you’re going to cite the past as a reason Detroit is a better team, tell me about Yzerman’s 600-goal seasons or Gordie Howe why don’t you
So you guys are allowed to bring up past seasons in an attempt to help your inane arguments but we’re not. That makes sense. Remind me again what the head-to-head matchup result was last year I seem to have forgotten even though you’ve said it like 500 times
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
That
was someone else, I’ve been talking about the present season primarily
And yet my point still stands
Amerinadian posted that not in response to you, but to one of the other Stars fans. So again, it makes no sense for you to inject with a complaint that we’re bringing up the past in response to your fellow fans bringing up the past
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
Yeah
retract. That comment was misplaced, my apologies
In fairness, those were all about the comparison of Zetterberg’s first 2 years to Benn’s. Zetterberg DID finish second on Calder voting. He HAS been nominated for a Selke. He HAS won a Conn Smythe.
Until Jamie Benn does those things, he’s an inferior player to Henrik Zetterberg.
by Amerinadian on Nov 9, 2011 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I did not know that
about Zetterberg, I thought you were referring to Howard and Datsyuk. My bad
Also
Yzerman and Howe don’t play for the Red Wings anymore: Zetterberg does. Therefore his past is relevant to the discussion of whether he’s a better hockey player than Jamie Benn (which he is).
really?
Ribiero is a better passer, skater, and has a better shot.
GTFO.
by Big Z in Orlando on Nov 9, 2011 10:07 AM CST up reply actions
And your schedule was so strong
Columbus once? Minnesota twice? Oh that’s right, those were the games you lost.
So you’re taking a guy who has played in two games on Detroit’s fourth line as an example of lack of talent?
Zetterberg > Benn
Datsyuk > Eriksson
Franzen > Rebiero
Morrow > Filppula
Ryder > Nobody
Lehtonen = Howard
Goligoski < Kronwall < Lidstrom
Dallas is playing well as a team right now. That’s very good for them. That kind of play worked very well to get the Phoenix Coyotes into the playoffs for two years straight despite them not being one of the more talented teams. If they can keep up that good play, I would not be surprised to see Dallas earn a playoff spot.
Don’t confuse playing a good system for being a world-beater. As the season goes along, the teams that are more talented than the stars (Wings, Sharks, Canucks, Blackhawks) are going to pass them in the standings.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
"I would not be surprised to see Dallas earn a playoff spot"
You said you would be, at the beginning of the season. How quickly your opinion change….what a joke.
Cutting half of someone's sentence out then pasting the rest makes your argument seem valid right?
For example, you can cut out everything but “argument valid” and make it sound like I’m supporting you!
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
I didn’t know that their new coach was competent then.
Imagine that… you learn more and then you change your mind about things. It’s amazing!
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah I mean where do we get off
Calling a team that hasn’t been to the playoffs in 3 years inferior to a team that has been for over two decades.
We’re not even 1/4th of the way into the season but you folks feel that 15 games is more than enough to prove that you have the best team in the NHL bar none and we should just give you the cup now because holding off would mean another mid-end of season collapse which would rob you of the trophy you so very much deserve. How dare anyone (on this website. Anywhere else is fine obviously) write anything less about the Stars other than that they are gods in hockey uniforms that deserve our utmost respect and admiration
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
by greg5897 on Nov 9, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Oh man
I wish I could rec this three times.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 6:05 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting
How many people at the beginning of the season were picking the Stars to miss the playoffs? Are you blowing up their blogs, too?
Blowing your blog? Come on, get some tougher skin. Its nothign more than a discussion.
If you don’t like it, maybe you shouldn’t participate.
Careful there buddy
participation on this blog is guaranteed to him. It’s not guaranteed to you.
If you don’t like that, maybe you shouldn’t participate.
He’s got a good point thought. How many of the blogs who picked the Stars to miss the playoffs are you commenting at right now to prove to them how wrong they’ve been through the first week in November?
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 9, 2011 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
84 comments
All about a throwaway comment based on an opinion I have that the Wings have more talent on their team than the Stars do.
Yea, that’s blowing up the blog. And I’m not upset by any of this. You’re discussing your point and it’s being refuted. I’m having fun watching the back-and-forth about all of this.
Didn't Dallas get off to a hot start last year too?
Oh yeah now I remember! They rode that hot streak and their brilliant decision to keep Richards past the trade deadline to the 8th seed and a goal short of a 3-0 series comeback against their hated rival Vancouver.
Oh no wait that was Chicago. Dallas went into the final game of the season against a terrible Minnesota team and lost.
And so during the offseason you lost Richards and replaced him with Michael Ryder. Which is apparently the upgrade your team needs to get into the postseason. Or maybe it’s Sheldon Souray, ie that player no team would touch with a 10-foot pole last season the 500 or so times Edmonton put him on waivers.
Your team wasn’t good enough to get into the postseason last year and were one of the few teams that got worse during the offseason (again Richards > Ryder x3 + Souray x103750421670276409678 ) but now they’re once again off to a hot start and apparently teams should view them as an actual threat.
And not to get into the player v player but your argument that Benn is better than Zetterberg because he “got more points” in his first two seasons than Z did is absurd. (And easily countered with the fact that Benn had 41 points his first year while Zetterberg had 44 in less games. Math is hard)
And being (arguably) the best defensive forward in the league > Transitioning from an offense only LW to an offense-only C + any other inane arguments you can come up with
So overall we’ve got an 80 point-a-year two way forward with numerous accolades vs an offense-only playmaker(?) whose career high in points is 56. Hmmmmmm.
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
by greg5897 on Nov 8, 2011 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
See you can't make the Argument that Benn > Z based solely on both players first two seasons
That’d be like arguing “Lehtonen is better than Hasek based on their first two seasons” (as an example. I’m sure there’s much worse arguments you can make). It just doesn’t make any sense
My friends call me Lenny... only I ain't got no friends.
The keeping Richards past the trade deadline argument is moot.
He had a NTC, was suffering from a concussion, and said himself he wanted to stay in Dallas. The stars were also doing well in the playoff race at the time, and it didn’t make any sense to trade him, even if he would have allowed it. The argument that we should have traded him is absurd and pointless.
As far as missing the playoffs last year, something that became apparent after the season was over was that all of the players were extremely unhappy with the coaching. The system was bad, and the coaching was worse. Prime example: on the last game, the Stars needed a non-shootout win to make the playoffs. Crawford had them practice the shootout for the last part of practice that day. Ridiculous.
The coaching this year is far better, as is the depth of the team.
And your numbers are a little extreme for Souray, there. The man has12 points in 13 games, and leads the league in +/- (A questionable stat, but a stat nonetheless). He also doesn’t give up shorties on the PP that Richards did. Yeah, Richards was an offensive power. But he was a defensive liability. They took that money from his contract, added better defensive coverage (both in front and in back), and have asked Benn and Loui to step up offensively to fill the gaps (which, to this point in the season, they are doing exceptionally well).
Bottom line: Do I think the Stars are going to finish first in the Western Conference? Of course not. But they are a good team, one that I think won’t suffer the same kind of collapse that they did last year (barring severe injuries of course). And with the Western Conference being as tight as it is, they can give any team a run for their money.
"He punched the highlights out of her hair.... He punched the HIGHLIGHTS out of her hair!!!" -- Young Neil
At least we can agree that Marc Crawford is a garbage coach.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 8, 2011 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Agreed.
I never liked that hire.
Defending Big D- Dallas Stars news & analysis
@brandonworley - Follow me on Twitter!!
by Brandon Worley on Nov 8, 2011 2:09 PM CST up reply actions
Holy. Shit
To any Stars fan who wants to come over here and blast me for saying that the Stars have less talent than the Wings, my email is at the bottom of the page: go nuts. But for Christ’s sake, get over yourselves.
Your team is having a very nice start, and I applaud them for it. I seem to recall the Stars being in first in the West (or close to it) last season, and I also seem to recall them choking hard against an INFERIOR Wild team in the last game of the season.
The funniest thing about all of this is that my comment was simply about the Stars having less talent. As a Wing fan, I’ve seen TONS of more-talented Detroit teams lose to worse teams for reasons that went beyond the names on the sweaters. You come over here and call all of us arrogant and classless, but how about all of you get some thicker skin and not care so much about what one Red Wing blogger says about your team 15 games into the season?
So how about we all chill the fuck out and wait until March before we start declaring Dallas as the best team in the NHL?
by Amerinadian on Nov 9, 2011 8:33 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
WOW
How did I not see this thread blowing up yesterday when I was bored? Please tell me the fun isn’t over yet.
by Red, White and a Mile high on Nov 10, 2011 1:57 PM CST reply actions
It's kind of simmered down
I’m the only stars fan still posting, and I’m in an intelligent conversation in one thread and egging on an idiot in another but you’re not going to get much variation from anyone anymore

by 














