Jump to content

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL


Supporting Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country

    United States

SpikeDDS last won the day on September 19 2017

SpikeDDS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

610 Excellent

About SpikeDDS

  • Birthday 06/06/1969

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Specific Location
    Fayetteville, GA, USA
  • Favorite Team
    Red Wings
  • 2nd Favorite Team

Recent Profile Visitors

7,771 profile views
  1. Totally agree...except that unlike most hits, which are mostly gross violations, this particular hit had exactly the nuances that they have needed to elaborate on. While I DO agree strongly that this could have and should have been done before using a collection of different hits to illustrate the subtleties of each particular qualification, I’m still glad they FINALLY did it. If the hit is center-mass, the hitting player doesn’t fly off like this. They bounce back or stay right where they are. This was a partial body mass miss which resulted in him flying up and to the side. Kronwall’s hit library proves this time and again. And I also agree with you that had he used his right shoulder and missed like he did here, it WOULD have been a head clip. If he does go shoulder-to-shoulder that way, it is legal annihilation. That can be a very fine and precarious line.
  2. I can't argue with this. As I said, I do think it warrants discipline. It did cause injury. I just didn't think his repeat offender was very relevant to this as much as when players grossly cross the line. I don't think 3 games is terribly unjust, and I can accept it. If I had been on the "committee" making the decision, I would have said 2 games, and if the decision made was 3, I'd be fine with it. I am, even if I wouldn't have done the same.
  3. Agreed on Kronner's artistry. But trust me, Kronner's hits were VERY intentional, just a bit more center-mass than this one.
  4. I disagree with you. If the hit is egregious, they usually go through the list of qualifications very quickly as to the illegality of the hit. They never go into such detail on egregious ones. They even say in the video--correctly--that some of these qualifications are not blatently illegal on their own. If the hit is way over the lines, the reasons for illegality should be obvious. They are not. They require explanation.
  5. I'm very late to the discussion, but a few points from an unbiased observer and hockey fan (if I have a bias, it would be against Pittsburgh): 1. My first reaction to the hit was that I thought it was a good hit. 2. The explanation for the suspension by the DPS is BY FAR the longest explanation for any hit-related infraction that I have ever seen. When you have to take almost 5 minutes to justify your decision, it means that the hit was very close to being a legal one. Thus, anyone who says that this hit was egregiously illegal is full of it. To me, and to the DPS, this was a close call. 3. I'm conflicted in that I know that in the instant that a play like this occurs, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a player making the decision to hit or not hit to consider all of the things that DPS is spending minutes discussing, much less probably hours of analyzing. To wit, I feel for Wilson and other players who need to make these decisions instantaneously. OTOH, an analysis of the details of this hit does clarify the DPS's position on these kinds of hits, which is important in establishing a standard. So I appreciate that they went into detail on why they considered this hit illegal. DPS owes it to players to communicate the standards so that players can be properly held accountable. They have a history of being somewhat ambiguous about their standards, and their decision-making often seems ad-hoc. So I like the clarity here. 4. The decision of illegality hinged on 3 COMBINED things: a. Wilson used his left shoulder instead of his right. This made head contact more possible and driving through body mass less direct. b. Wilson drove up and left his feet AFTER making contact--which they admit, even in this video, is a natural tendency to do on hits like this. c. The jaw is broken which suggests that the major force went to the head rather than the shoulder. There was somewhat of a head clip. It was not, by ANY means, a black and white head clip. There was definitely shoulder contact. But the way Wilson bounced off him up and to the side does suggest his momentum was not going through the body mass as much as the head. Someone mentioned Kronwall earlier. This was one of the main differences between some of Kronner's better hits and this one. Kronner almost always finished through the body, even if the head was the primary point of contact. In today's rules, that would make the hit legal. None of these things on their own makes the hit illegal in itself. But the combination goes to intent and execution, and after full analysis, my first impression was wrong, but not by much at all. 5. In the end, I think DPS did get this right, except I think 3 games is maybe one too many. Yes, Wilson is a repeat offender, but this was juuust barely illegal. This was nuances of a hit which added up to being juuust over the line, not a bully egregiously crossing it. The fact that it resulted in injury should give the extra game. I would have given 2 games instead of three. I welcome comments/criticisms/discussions.
  6. Truthfully, I really feel like we needed the D-man pick anyway. I'm somewhat glad--not YEAH!, but resignedly--we didn't pick second. We need talented D-men FAR more than we need Svechnikov IMHO. By picking 6th, there shouldn't be ANY confusion about the direction of our pick. If Bouchard is available, that would be a pick that few would criticize. If we build a solid D-core using talent from several drafts, it will be far easier to complete our team by picking up star offensive talent from FA than if we had star talent up front and were trying to acquire start D-man talent from the FA market later. The latter almost never happens, and when it does, the costs are prohibitive except for short-term rentals. There is a far more competitive, open FA market for forwards. If I'm building this team, I'm focusing on building where we (almost) can't build via FA acquisition. P.S. I'm not sighing today, because I didn't let myself get caught up emotionally over the Dahlen possibility. Nor will I let myself get frustrated if we don't win next year. As long as I see the team being led in a positive direction, where we are filling team needs with talent, I'll be content. Not happy, but content.
  7. Wings end up with the 6th pick. No Dahlen. No Svechnikov. No surprise.
  8. Yeah, I just don't know how realistic trading him for elite D-man talent would be. He doesn't help acquire a FA, other than the attractiveness his offensive skills might offer a FA considering coming to Detroit among other choices. Teams today are just not parting with elite D-man talent unless they are well beyond their peak. And then usually deadline deals as rentals right before their contracts expire. It's just becoming such a rarity in today's NHL. I'd be afraid that we would become the Islanders. Your assessment of them is spot on. And Tavares came and went (assuming he leaves as a FA), never really having seriously contended--at least not enough to win a conference title, much less a Cup while he was there. No back end leaves you there. And history has a tendency to repeat itself. I think Svechnikov is a tougher decision for the Wings vs. most teams. I'm not saying dead no. I'm just saying that decision needs more careful consideration for the good of the franchise. Is he really THAT good? Will his addition give the Wings what they need to eventually compete again? Or would his acquisition make us good enough to compete on the bubble as we have been for several years prior to last season preventing earlier draft picks of the players we will eventually need to seriously contend? To some degree, I think we have ignored our D problem for so long that we really can't afford to ignore it any longer UNLESS the talent is just SO good that it will make us competitive despite getting there unconventionally.
  9. @yave1964 Svechnikov may be worth it, but I don’t know if it gets us closer to contention than drafting elite D-men. Not without trading. But who trades elite D-men? Nobody...unless you are trading for another elite D-man ala Montreal-Nashville. We end up with an entertaining team that loses games 4-3. Certainly better than we are now, and more competitive, but not seriously competitive.
  10. Obviously, if the Red Wings are fortunate enough to actually get the first pick of the draft, they take Rasmus Dahlin. But let’s say they DON’T get the first pick, but DO get the second pick, and of course Dahlin gets taken by whomever gets the first pick. There are actually quite a number of very solid D-man prospects available other than Dahlen at the top end of this draft, and they have different skill sets to choose from. Do you go with size? Skating ability? Puck movers? Shooting ability/accuracy? Which factors do you rate higher than others in your matrix for that pick? For example, Quinn Hughes is considered one of the best skaters of the bunch. But he lacks size. He, of course, is a Michigan man. Is that what we should be going after? (I say no.) Or Boqvist? Bigger, still a good skater, and a good puck mover? (I like this better, personally.) Bouchard is also bigger. Also a good puck mover. Perhaps he fits better? I just see the Wings’ defense needing size to clear out the net front area. Dekeyser is just not built big enough to handle elite net front players with excellence. And when he does try, it hampers his game. Too much on one guy. OR since the next three best players after Dahlen are forwards, do you take the most talented remaining in the draft regardless of position? If Svechnikov is available, do you wait and fill your D with your next picks? (I say no to this. We need elite D in the worst way.) And how important is it to pick an NHL-ready player? Would you bring them up for what many are suggesting could be Henrik Zetterberg’s last year to learn to be a pro from an elite one? What do you do if you are Kenny Holland with the second pick of the draft?
  11. @yave1964 What's hard to know is how much Blash is attempting to teach playing the right way. He talks a good game, when it comes to that. But in either case--whether the issue is that he isn't teaching it as much as he SAYS he is or whether he is and he really isn't being listened to--in Larkin's case, we ARE definitely seeing development into a solid 2-way player, IMHO. But the jury is still out on Mantha and AA. Bert seems to be coming along nicely. I have a feeling he IS trying to teach it. So is the problem that he is connecting with some and not others? Is the problem that some just aren't going to change their game right now no matter how well the new ideas are presented? That some just need more time to mature? Hard to say. At best, it's inconclusive. Remember that Paul Coffey was traded away to bring in Brendan Shanahan by Scotty Bowman because he refused to conform his play to Scotty's left wing lock system. He was a great player, but refused to change his game. Mantha is no Paul Coffey, but he does have the choice to change his game or not, just like Coffey. But the list of players who have come through GR under his leadership who are "good" players that never became great is long! Is it because we didn't have "great" players to begin with? Very possible. Larkin was the first high-first-rounder in a while, but he skipped right to the NHL. He's only had Blash...AND Z! Does that make a difference? I think so. And if you read my other post, would a similar pathway benefit Rasmussen, allowing him to learn under Z while he's still playing to learn how a great pro works and thinks on and off the ice? I honestly think that bringing him up quickly is more of a help than a hurt. It's probably a little quicker than ideal, but losing Z's input and leaving all the teaching to Blashill and "good" but not "great" players will hurt him more--and us too. I think there would/will be a HUGE difference between Blashill trying to do it on his own vs. teaching it with Z modeling it and teaching it too. HUGE! And once Z is gone, who do we have to take his place as the seasoned veteran who due to his experience commands respect like he does? Dunno. So if they are sticking with Jeff--and I said before that I have less problem with keeping him vs. KH at the GM spot--then the thing that has to change are the players. Bring the young ones up and get them learning the game right. Next season will hurt for sure if they do it. But that is far better than the season after Z retires being horrible, whenever that might be. It's not gonna be good when he goes, but I don't want it to be rock bottom either. We need verifiable evidence of guys playing the game the right way BEFORE Z leaves, and if Blash can help make that happen, fine. I will say this categorically: Forgetting wins and losses next season, if there is not significant evidence that the young players are starting to "get it" by the trade deadline next season, there is NO WAY--ZERO CHANCE--that Blashill should continue at the helm after that season. I say bring up the kids, throw them at the wolves, take your licks, but teach and see what sticks to whom. And I'm not even going to THINK about Dahlen. Not at all.... (Wonder how long I can hold off?)
  12. Some teams call up young talent earlier than others. I think the Detroit Red Wings fall toward the later side of the spectrum, waiting longer to call up young talent and trying to get them NHL-ready before they do. I will agree that that is certainly the safer way to play it. However, it is also very helpful for younger players to learn how to be good pros and great players from great veteran players. On the Detroit Red Wings, that list has become pretty short. Zetterberg pretty much IS their list. So on the one hand, it might be a good idea to let Rasmussen develop in GR next season. However, looking at Larkin’s progression, I think he has learned A TON from watching Z play and work on/off the ice. Z is modeling how to be a great 2-way player, and not just a speedster, and it has elevated Larkin’s game. I would think that seeing it modeled firsthand would be fantastic for Rasmussen. But Z’s years remaining are numbered. Opportunity to learn from the best isn’t going to last much longer. And I’m thinking that it might be time to pull the trigger on bringing up Raz before Z retires. He is tearing it up in the WHL. He needs to adapt his game to the NHL and work his game within a 2-way system, even if he may not need to be quite as much a two-way player as they are shaping Larkin to be. Agree or disagree?
  13. @yave1964 ...aaaaand now to find out that Jeff Blashill will continue as head coach of the Detroit Red Wings. Confirmed by Ken Holland today. What do you think the odds are that we get NONE of the things you hoped for? To be fair to Blash, he can’t be expected to make a decent chicken salad out of chicken poop. Where we are now has more to do with KH than it does with Blash. I’m more upset that NOTHING seems to be changing than I am that Blash didn’t get fired. Tatar and Mrazek being traded CANNOT be the only significant change before next season.
  14. @yave1964 @yave1964 Well, so much for the ideal offseason. Ken Holland is GM for the next two seasons. It’s NOT going to be the complete revolution you have ordered. Having said that, I DO wonder how much influence Mike Ilitch had on KH’s decisionmaking. It is hard for me to believe that KH was being prevented from doing the right things for the franchise. But I agree with you completely on the other stuff. Much of this we have discussed before, particularly Hartley. I love that idea. I think it would be quite a good thing for Holland to go out and get the coach that Scotty Bowman has called the best coach he ever coached against. Scotty is no longer officially advising the Red Wings, but you can still pay attention to what he said. If you’re smart. I LOVE the Tavares idea too, but obviously it would require losing a key player to make enough cap room to fit him, but if we can do it, BY ALL MEANS!! I don’t even want to talk about Dahlin. Our odds are gonna be less than 1 in 10, so I don’t even want to set myself up for a letdown. Imagine the “disappointment” we would have if we won the SECOND pick. Soooo close! Not that it would be bad, of course. Truthfully, we have ZERO control over whether we get Dahlin or not. I’d rather ya focus on the things over which we DO have control. That matters to me more. As far as I’m concerned, Dahlin would be a HUGE bonus. It certainly might attract a guy like Tavares, though. IF we could afford him. Not sure we could afford both. Be fun if we could. Gus who? Darren who? ;-D
  15. Yeah, but then again, when it comes to top 5 picks, look at Buffalo, for example. In the last 5 years, they have had 2--count 'em, TWO--top five picks. Yet they have sucked the whole time, and they still do. They got Jack Eichel with the 2 pick. And they HAVE been in the top 10, but a LOT of these drafts, the top 5 you see play, and then the talent level drops off significantly. It's not as if the Sabres have been helped all that much. Remember also that Toronto got helped with Marner the year before Matthews at the 4th pick. It reall has been that combo of the two in a row that flipped the switch for them. Buffalo has never had that. Phoenix hasn't had jack squat, really. Edmonton is the head-scratcher. All those number 1 picks and not much to show for it, even with a generational player like McDavid. And Taylor Hall goes to NJ and becomes a force to be reckoned with. They prove that just getting good picks ensures you of nothing. You have to develop. They obviously have issues. Detroit, let's face it, were able to buy, draft and keep exceptional talent. The 2002 team? That team was the greatest assemblage of hockey talent on one NHL team EVER! The difference-makers were bought. They were helped immensely by Steve Yzerman getting so tired of being not-good-enough to win the Cup that he WILLINGLY took a salary cut to let Ilitch buy more talent around him. Nick Lidstrom saw that and followed the example, refusing $4-5M more per season to resign with the Detroit Red Wings for his final contract for $8M/season. That set the salary ceiling for the Red Wings until he retired, and worked right into the salary cap era that way. THAT is how the Wings stayed so good for so long. They also were drafting Hall of Fame talent (Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc.) in the later rounds of the draft. Multiple times! Those days are OVER! The good teams of the last decade--Chicago & Pittsburgh--both got multiple high picks from multiple successive drafts to assemble their core (top tier scorers, top tier D-men, and goalie). They have remained successful because, unlike the Red Wings, they didn't ride out their existing talent until they all retired. Chicago mixed up the second tier players before their performance began to lapse. Pittsburgh acquired Kessel among others that, once again, put them over the top. But in order to do it, they had to get multiple top-5 picks in successive drafts/. Usually that is a winning formula. Toronto is the latest example. Marner, then Matthews, and suddenly they are significant again. To me, Buffalo hasn't had that kind of break. Had they had a top-3 pick either before or after Eichel, it would be different. They didn't, and Eichel can't do it by himself. You can blame Edmonton. It's harder to blame Buffalo. They haven't had Edmonton's fortunes.

About us

We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and the great game of hockey in our Forums. Our members may write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more. If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.


 Contact Us


Recent tweets

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free