Gniwder
Registered User
You'd think they could have done a better job with the makeup, it's very obvious where the edge of the bald cap is.
You'd think they could have done a better job with the makeup, it's very obvious where the edge of the bald cap is.
Statistically speaking, Holl was a +8 last year. It was more he got caught up in a rosters numbers crunch than being flat out terrible.
He can be useful if used right.
The +8 had way more to do with being sheltered more than anyone else on the team. There is a reason for that, he isn't good.
The +8 had way more to do with being sheltered more than anyone else on the team. There is a reason for that, he isn't good.
Wings have the talent to do much better if they learn how to play cohesively.
I'd rather AJ be on the bottom pairing, but Holl isn't the reason why Detroit sucks so far this season. I think coaching needs to be addressed. Wings have the talent to do much better if they learn how to play cohesively.
I agree. I haven't been on the "Fire Lalonde" train so far but I'm starting to move in that direction. The team still lacks high end talent but they do have enough defensively responsible players that they should be better.
And I think this offseason was a move in that direction from Yzerman. Even if their replacements were a lateral move at best I don't think it's a coincidence that Sprong, Ghost and Fabbri didn't get re-signed.
Yzerman has said multiple times the team needs to be better defensively, and that he wasn't just talking about the defensemen.
As for Holl, he's looked better this season than he did last. If he can be in the lineup in any capacity that's useful, that's a win for the Wings.
Correct me of I am wrong, "if used right" and "being sheltered" kinda proves the point?
Holl will not be perfect, or even really good. Nobody should be expecting a #1 here. But he can be less of a disaster than Petry, Gus and Ben at times, when used right.
Nope. It had nothing to do with sheltering. They were the best pair with Chiarot as the 2nd pair at last season start.
3rd pair is the only sheltered pair.
lol at fans ripping lalonde . whose their talent beyond larkin , raymond , debrincat , seider ? very weak in goal . very weak on defense . and some over the hill wingers . whose centering the 2nd line compher ? whose the qb on defense ? whose the 2nd line high scoring wingers the over the hill crew ? this forum inhabited by chronic complainers not dealing in reality
Kind of need receipts on those worse rosters that do better tbh.There have been plenty of worse rosters than ours that did lots better because of better coaching. We have been saying roster excuses over coach since Blashill. At some point the coach is the issue. Playing Gus on PP1 over Seider is example 1 of bad coaching. I don't think Lalonde is a horrible coach, I think he simply just a meh coach who is a good assistant coach.
Kind of need receipts on those worse rosters that do better tbh.
Gus on PP1 is both an example of trying to maximize a player's value and an example of what I'd expect Tanguay to be in charge of. But it's convenient to blame Lalonde I guess.
So your example of the impact of great coaching is a Scotty Bowman led team being upset by a team whose coach's biggest highlight is a 2nd place finish in the Romanian league?Watching the NHL since 1990, there have been many worse rosters that did better, like 1994 San Jose Sharks for instance. They were nothing great and they still beat us and made the playoffs. The 24-25 Wings aren't beating a heavy favourite in the playoffs with Lalonde as coach. We will be very lucky to make the playoffs.
As long as you give 100% credit to Lalonde when the PP is good, that's fine. Last year it was a top 10 PP. Which, imo, on paper it should not be.Head coach makes lineup calls, not the assistants. Like if Lalonde is not happy with it, it would be his call to change it. If he is letting Tanguay make the call, that is also on Lalonde being not a good coach.
His first season we were right in the middle, 16th, when it comes to scoring first.Some of it is roster for sure, but this team starts slow so very often under Lalonde, that something is missing with him at the helm.
So your example of the impact of great coaching is a Scotty Bowman led team being upset by a team whose coach's biggest highlight is a 2nd place finish in the Romanian league?
As long as you give 100% credit to Lalonde when the PP is good, that's fine. Last year it was a top 10 PP. Which, imo, on paper it should not be.
His first season we were right in the middle, 16th, when it comes to scoring first.
Last season we struggled a bit with starts, but we were one of the best 3rd period comeback teams in the league.
Maybe you simply can't expect a perfect 60 minutes from a flawed roster.
All we can hope for with Holl is that he plays well enough to become tradeable at 50%. He's a bottom pair guy that is probably playing a little above that right now, but I certainly wouldn't count on it long term.
Aljo should be playing over all of our bottom pair guys until he looks super overmatched, which he has yet to look like. Our biggest chance of getting someone on this current roster that isn't Seider/Ed/Chia to look decent playing top 4 is to have him develop into one over the season. Gus, Maata, Holl, and Petry are all in way over their heads in the top 4 and Chia needs a solid partner to be there.
Holl covers $3,4 million money.
So what are you asking for? Better starts.. then what? You view 3rd period comebacks as a bad thing, but I assume that doesn't mean you want the team to be on the other side of those?Where did I say anything about a perfect 60 minutes?