Bowman had a word with management, too. Would the wings have targeted different players in free agency or would Bowman have pushed Holland to complete a trade he's shied away from? Maybe. Maybe with Bowman's prodding, guys like Smith, Nyquist, Kindl and Tatar would have more games under their belts and not be so collectively green.
Bowman had a word with management, too. Would the wings have targeted different players in free agency or would Bowman have pushed Holland to complete a trade he's shied away from? Maybe. Maybe with Bowman's prodding, guys like Smith, Nyquist, Kindl and Tatar would have more games under their belts and not be so collectively green.
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
Babcock's system requires an overall diminishment of the skill level on the roster.
Run the Jewels
Make Detroit Great Again
Yes, we were never one of the highest scoring teams in the league during the first 6 years when Mike Babcock had a roster full of high quality talent.
Run the Jewels
Make Detroit Great Again
2005-06: 2nd most goals for in the NHL
2006-07: 10th most goals for in the NHL
2007-08: 3rd most goals for in the NHL
2008-09: #1 in goals for in the NHL
2009-10: 14th in goals for in the NHL
2010-11: 2nd most goals for in the NHL
2011-12: 6th most goals for in the NHL
Yes, Mike Babcock requires his teams to sacrifice offense!!!!!!
2006-07: 10th most goals for in the NHL
2007-08: 3rd most goals for in the NHL
2008-09: #1 in goals for in the NHL
2009-10: 14th in goals for in the NHL
2010-11: 2nd most goals for in the NHL
2011-12: 6th most goals for in the NHL
Yes, Mike Babcock requires his teams to sacrifice offense!!!!!!
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
Yes, we were never one of the highest scoring teams in the league during the first 6 years when Mike Babcock had a roster full of high quality talent.
Yes. That is kind of what we are discussing. Looking at trends and factors. My opinion/interpretation is that the more Babcock's ideal system has been highlighted/put in place, the less we score, and the more mediocre defensive forwards we have on our team.
Crymson
Fire Holland
- May 23, 2010
- 3,667
- 0
MOD Apparently judging how well a coach does consists of laboriously pointing out how he isn't perfect whilst completely ignoring the fact that no other coach is perfect either, and that just about all of them are even more imperfect.
But please do point out for me the coach who wins every game and always has his players firing on all cylinders.
But please do point out for me the coach who wins every game and always has his players firing on all cylinders.
Last edited by a moderator:
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
Interesting. What a drop. I wonder if the wings lost a key player on offense there
(sorry)I wonder if there was a drop in 2013? I wonder if the same player was lost again.
No one is ignoring that other coaches aren't perfect. We just don't care about them, they don't coach the Red Wings. We don't follow their every decision. Is this not obvious to you?
And we're not even talking about coaches needing to win every game/always motivating their players. We're talking about things a coach has complete control over. Like lineups, matchups, who gets ice time, who he wants called up. He wanted Lashoff. Obviously that was a huge mistake. One he remedied. He put Kindl out there on the first unit PP instead of Brunner. Another fixed mistake.
The point being, they were originally mistakes. Huge mistakes. Game costing mistakes.
You'd do better at arguments if you didn't strawman everything. No one here is demanding that Babcock win every game. Everyone realizes that a coach can only do so much to motivate his players. That's not what we're complaining about. Holy crap.
19 for president
Registered User
- Apr 28, 2002
- 2,885
- 1,794
I think Babs is one of the best coaches in the league but he definitely has his strengths and weaknesses. He is also not even close to being on Bowman's level because really the only big weakness Scotty had was his unwillingness to play young players. His in game/ out of game coaching was phenomenal.
Pros
1. Great 5 on 5 defensive coach. Outside of maybe Hitch and Lemaire I don't think any other NHL coaches from this era could have gotten this D to finish top 5 in GA.
2. Excellent job of getting vets to conform to his system. Not all of them like it but they do conform or they leave. I mean without Babs Dats and Z don't probably become the all round players that they blossomed into under him.
3. Getting the most out of his plugs. He knows how to get his good ole grinder boys to play above and beyond offensively. He's done this both in Anh and Det. He's helped turned waiver wire tweeners like Eaves, Miller, Abs, etc into legit NHLers.
4. Understands the need for his team to go to the crease and score the dirty goals, and consistently emphasizes this.
5. Embodies his team with a never give up attitude. Last year was the only year I've seen this team sorta give up in a playoff series, but I think that had more to do with injuries.
6. Willing to play young guys if they are big and Canadian lol. I mean he has consistently played Lash, Smith, Dek and Andersson (not Canadian, I know). Not always the right decision but he will give young guys a chance if they are big and or defensive leaning. The problem is that he won't get the same chance to young smallish skilled guys, as easily.
7. He is a fairly decent out of game adjuster. If the Wings have a really bad game they usually respond with a decent one.
8. The guy is a winner plain and simple. He will sacrifice any and everything to win, and this ultimately what the game is about.
Cons
1. Has issues bringing in young smallish skilled Euros. I sort of understand his hesitancy a bit because of the makeup of this team, but really the fact that Nyquist and Tatar weren't on this team all season is silly especially with how they performed when they were called up.
2. He isn't a great in game adjuster. Rarely do you see lineup changes until its too late, or see matchup changes until its too late. He is better between periods in terms of working on zone plays etc, but even then he isn't fantastic. Usually if the Wings look horrid in the 1st, they don't get a lot better. **This year is a little different because of the young guys, but I'm more talking about past years with a largely vet team.
3. Incredibly stubborn when it comes to personnel. He has his favorites and will use them inappropriately at times. He eventually will come around if it is blatant but its often a slow process. For example Lashoff should have never seen a 2nd playoff game. Clears should not be in the top 6. I mean he usually figures it out, but he is stubborn. He is definitely a round hole/ square peg kind of guy at times. This is one of the biggest differences between he and Scotty. Babs will keep a line together until it works, even if it looks like crap for 15 games. Scotty would give it a few games max before blowing it up if it wasn't doing anything.
4. Lacks offensive vision. As good as he is in terms of defensive vision he is just as bad offensively. Babs has his system, get the puck on net/ screen the goalie and crash net. He has run this system since he got here. There is very little creativity in his offensive game, which can A. bore players and B. really limit your PP. I mean the NHL is not the same as it was in Bowman's day but his offense was based around the skills of the players he had. I mean could you imagine the Russian five playing under Babs on the PP? Gone are the days of odd man rushes, cycling the puck on the PP, cross ice plays on the PP. He is the exact opposite of Lewis who just let his offensive guys do whatever they wanted. Scotty had balance, Babs strangles his offense a bit. This becomes most obvious in the playoffs where the Wings have really struggled to score the last few playoffs. Our offensive is super predictable, because Babs offensive system has removed a lot of the creativity.
5. He can't use a timeout to save his life.
Pros
1. Great 5 on 5 defensive coach. Outside of maybe Hitch and Lemaire I don't think any other NHL coaches from this era could have gotten this D to finish top 5 in GA.
2. Excellent job of getting vets to conform to his system. Not all of them like it but they do conform or they leave. I mean without Babs Dats and Z don't probably become the all round players that they blossomed into under him.
3. Getting the most out of his plugs. He knows how to get his good ole grinder boys to play above and beyond offensively. He's done this both in Anh and Det. He's helped turned waiver wire tweeners like Eaves, Miller, Abs, etc into legit NHLers.
4. Understands the need for his team to go to the crease and score the dirty goals, and consistently emphasizes this.
5. Embodies his team with a never give up attitude. Last year was the only year I've seen this team sorta give up in a playoff series, but I think that had more to do with injuries.
6. Willing to play young guys if they are big and Canadian lol. I mean he has consistently played Lash, Smith, Dek and Andersson (not Canadian, I know). Not always the right decision but he will give young guys a chance if they are big and or defensive leaning. The problem is that he won't get the same chance to young smallish skilled guys, as easily.
7. He is a fairly decent out of game adjuster. If the Wings have a really bad game they usually respond with a decent one.
8. The guy is a winner plain and simple. He will sacrifice any and everything to win, and this ultimately what the game is about.
Cons
1. Has issues bringing in young smallish skilled Euros. I sort of understand his hesitancy a bit because of the makeup of this team, but really the fact that Nyquist and Tatar weren't on this team all season is silly especially with how they performed when they were called up.
2. He isn't a great in game adjuster. Rarely do you see lineup changes until its too late, or see matchup changes until its too late. He is better between periods in terms of working on zone plays etc, but even then he isn't fantastic. Usually if the Wings look horrid in the 1st, they don't get a lot better. **This year is a little different because of the young guys, but I'm more talking about past years with a largely vet team.
3. Incredibly stubborn when it comes to personnel. He has his favorites and will use them inappropriately at times. He eventually will come around if it is blatant but its often a slow process. For example Lashoff should have never seen a 2nd playoff game. Clears should not be in the top 6. I mean he usually figures it out, but he is stubborn. He is definitely a round hole/ square peg kind of guy at times. This is one of the biggest differences between he and Scotty. Babs will keep a line together until it works, even if it looks like crap for 15 games. Scotty would give it a few games max before blowing it up if it wasn't doing anything.
4. Lacks offensive vision. As good as he is in terms of defensive vision he is just as bad offensively. Babs has his system, get the puck on net/ screen the goalie and crash net. He has run this system since he got here. There is very little creativity in his offensive game, which can A. bore players and B. really limit your PP. I mean the NHL is not the same as it was in Bowman's day but his offense was based around the skills of the players he had. I mean could you imagine the Russian five playing under Babs on the PP? Gone are the days of odd man rushes, cycling the puck on the PP, cross ice plays on the PP. He is the exact opposite of Lewis who just let his offensive guys do whatever they wanted. Scotty had balance, Babs strangles his offense a bit. This becomes most obvious in the playoffs where the Wings have really struggled to score the last few playoffs. Our offensive is super predictable, because Babs offensive system has removed a lot of the creativity.
5. He can't use a timeout to save his life.
agree
it probably happens often that the losing coach outcoached the winning coach, just as the losing team often outplays or outshoots the winner.
i hate the phrase outcoaching. unlike outplaying or outshooting, it is very nebulous, and seems to be used most often when trying to explain the mystery of why a team lost without blaming specific players. simple luck is a huge part of hockey.
leadership is similar. i have no idea who the best leaders are.
i don't hear much about winning coaches coaching poorly, or losing coaches coaching brilliantly. it is common for all kinds of narratives to be created in hindsight about why various things happened (in sports or in history or anything), but many of them are BS.
i would add claude julien.
big reason he got the finals in '03 was a legendary performance by giguere. i don't think babcock coached his team to get totally dominated by detroit and dallas, or to suck ass in games 1 and 2 of the finals.
babcock should get a lot of credit for combining the puck possession system with aggressive puck pressure. that combination gave DRW a huge advantage in possession and shots, and defensive play among F's increased a lot.
it also made matchups easier to get, since 1st unit killed basically every opposing set of players, and had the puck 70% of the time. it put opponents on their heels and allowed babcock to outchange opponents.
dominating possession also covered for the weaknesses on the team. depth was not great, goaltending was spotty in regular season, 3rd pair was weak.
anaheim's depth is much better. they have greater speed and size and physicality. better on forecheck and cycle.
imo, his move away from puck possession in '07 toward dump and chase is one of the big reasons they were 10th in GF. offense was weak early in the season. when players and management blocked him, and datsyuk and zetterberg played together, offense was very good.
these seem right to me.
babcock has seemed uncreative and stubborn with his lines to me. sort of the opposite of bowman, who constantly changed his lines and tried new things within games.
On the upside, he adapted. On the downside, he had to adapt. Stubborn perhaps, but not too proud to change entirely.
Mickey Redmond*
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2010
- 1,661
- 0
Sentinel
Registered User
Since 08 the team has been progressively getting worse results. The exception is this year (we already did better than against Nashville), but still. The blame is to be shared between Holland (mostly) and Babcock.
This is exactly what every poster here that is clamoring for Babcock to get fired are wishing for. Lewis couldn't get this team anywhere in the playoffs and Babs came in and won the cup. This year IMO Babs has the team playing above itself. If a coach still has players buying in then you would be foolish to replace him. It isn't like Babcock has lost the team by any stretch of the imagination.
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,039
- 3,906
Exactly what is it to be "out coached" in the NHL????
Coaching at this level is more about motivation, being able to mesh different skill sets, personalities and matchups. Is it Babcock's fault Flip had a brain fart last night? No.
The guy is one of the best at what needs to be done. Sure, there's always going to be an instance where the wrong guy took a face off or you make a matchup mistake.
Fact is though, people are often willing to blame a coach for a team making a mistake or two. It's a motivation thing. Look at the LA Kings last season. When the Wings stop responding to Babcock, that's when a change needs to be made. Not until then.
Coaching at this level is more about motivation, being able to mesh different skill sets, personalities and matchups. Is it Babcock's fault Flip had a brain fart last night? No.
The guy is one of the best at what needs to be done. Sure, there's always going to be an instance where the wrong guy took a face off or you make a matchup mistake.
Fact is though, people are often willing to blame a coach for a team making a mistake or two. It's a motivation thing. Look at the LA Kings last season. When the Wings stop responding to Babcock, that's when a change needs to be made. Not until then.
Exactly. With posters here ranting daily about Cleary or Quincy being on the roster has the team turned on their coach? Nope. Time and time again you see coaches become lame ducks and players simply not put forth effort and go through the motions. Has that come close to happening here? Nope. I would think if the players believed that Babs wasn't putting them in a position that gives them the best chance to win that they would respond accordingly just like every other roster does when they start tuning out a coach. As a group the Wings seem to be very much on the same page and Babcock's job is extremely secure as it should be.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
I think Babcock's greatest weakness is that he cannot get MORE scoring out of a lineup. He can make them better defensively, but that's it. He's bad at finding line chemistry and sometimes doesn't even seem to care about it. I think it shows throughout the lineup: the 2nd line doesn't produce, the 2nd PP unit doesn't produce, and the 4th line doesn't produce. Most of his defensemen produce nothing, offensively. If you look at the Ducks, their 4th line has been surprisingly productive.
Maybe he just likes having a tremendously defensively stable lineup and offensive chemistry comes last, but he's turned the Wings into a one line team in order to achieve that.
Maybe he just likes having a tremendously defensively stable lineup and offensive chemistry comes last, but he's turned the Wings into a one line team in order to achieve that.
Then how has this clown gotten this team within one shot of eliminating the 3rd best team in the league? This series looks to me like a classic case of a coach getting a bunch of misfits to believe that they have a chance and to play for that chance. When their backs have been against the wall they have risen up and overcome each time and now they are in a position to rise up again.
After the top two, I think the Ducks are easily superior (bold).
Yup. Bowman was very good at telling the GM what/who he needed on the roster. Holland was much more aggressive with player movement while Scotty was around.
Also the point where Bowman left for Chicago. I think his loss is underrated by a lot of fans. It was those pushes, tweaks, adjustments on the fly. He was very good at figuring out how to mix personnel up.
I think Howard, Zetterberg and Datsyuk have kept the team in it, tbh. The third period losses of 2 and 3 goal leads? Not sure what to call that.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
Right, but he's done that by clamping down on offense and preventing goals against. The Wings have been absolutely desperate for offense and that's mostly Babcock's fault. I think the purest 'WTF?' type question is why Nyquist isn't on the second line.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,523
- 16,903
I think he likes the chemistry of Nyquist-Andy-Brunner together and likes the matchups they get as the 3rd unit. My WTF question is why he hasn't split Datsyuk and Zetterberg up to try and distribute the wealth a little more on the top 2 lines. Zetterberg had 1 pt in 4 playoff games before last night so it wasn't like they were giving him a ton of offense together, and the 2nd line has been absolutely garbage. Z has had chemistry with both Fil and Franzen in the past.
SoupNazi
hangman’s Only Fan
- Feb 6, 2010
- 26,333
- 19,669
I think part of that is Babs problem - he's not really forward with what he wants. He keeps making his remarks to the media about what he needs, and I'm willing to bet money that he doesn't say the same things to Holland.
Crymson
Fire Holland
- May 23, 2010
- 3,667
- 0
... or perhaps we're now in the salary cap era and acquiring whatever the coach wants isn't so easy as it was back then.
Yeah, that's probably it.
PelagicJoe
Registered User
We have 8 playoffs series now and which one/s can we say that one Coach has clearly outcoach the other?
West
Hawks were supposed to win easily and they did. Coaching had 0 impact.
Sharks swept Nucks. Obviously Sharks' Coach outcoached Canucks'.
Blues had the 2-0 lead in the series and then lost 4. Another example of Clear outcoaching.
Our series, no matter who wins, I am not sure coaching has much to do With it.
East
Sens winning "easily", their Coach outcoached the other.
That's it.
I can't come up With any example of Babcock outcoaching somebody, but I can't think of the opposite either.
West
Hawks were supposed to win easily and they did. Coaching had 0 impact.
Sharks swept Nucks. Obviously Sharks' Coach outcoached Canucks'.
Blues had the 2-0 lead in the series and then lost 4. Another example of Clear outcoaching.
Our series, no matter who wins, I am not sure coaching has much to do With it.
East
Sens winning "easily", their Coach outcoached the other.
That's it.
I can't come up With any example of Babcock outcoaching somebody, but I can't think of the opposite either.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
With the Shanahan era now concluded, what were the key mistakes made under his tenure? (7 Viewers)
- Latest: Leafshater67
-
-
-
