View Single Post
02-09-2013, 01:01 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,142
vCash: 500
Yes. But not as well as Ken Holland and Mike Babcock. If you think that implies that I believe they are infallible, then you are making things up along with your imaginary superfan.
I think that with our record and the trend of the Wing's performances over hundreds of games for the past three seasons, anyone saying that we need to give continued deference to Babcock and Holland is completely delusional. And yes, a complete homer. The PP is and has been horrible. The PK has been decent to horrible. The team continues on a downward slide.

And yet, when people bring up these things, they're told to just defer to Holland and Babcock? Why? What warrants that? The only thing seems to be an appeal to authority. Which frankly, doesn't fly for me. There's nothing to say they are objectively better at this than any of us. This isn't like being a doctor where you need years of education and specialized knowledge that can't be attained some other way. Many of us, myself included, have played and watched hockey at levels for decades. I tend to know exactly what's going on when I'm watching a hockey game. I can see who's making mistakes and who is playing well.

When I watch an older 35+ player continually making bad plays and being unproductive, being given ice time over talented youngsters who have proven themselves many times over in the AHL, well, it causes headscratching.

When I voice that, don't condescend and tell me to calm down and just "turn my brain off and be entertained." It's like telling people to just let the politicians do their thing. No. I see my team (country) going a certain direction. I'd like my team (country) to go this way. Okay, so they've been in hockey (politics) for 20 years. Does that make them someone above question? Does that make my opinion less valid, even if I've been a rabid fan/participant of hockey (politics) for nearly my entire life? I want my team (country) to do well every year. And when it doesn't, I want there to be changes.

Stop telling me to stop questioning that. I'm going to voice my concerns as I please. If you wanted mindless cheerleading, you should probably have only imaginary friends that never disagree with you.

You could always stroll on over to any other team's board and see that they all have the same problems as us. It's a wonder how any team wins the Stanley Cup considering how awful they all are.
If I had one pet peeve with people everywhere, it's their terrible logic. Here, let me correct you.

1. Every fan base is going to have people who are unsatisfied. Until the Cup is won. So pretty much, 30 teams are going to have fans that aren't happy, until only 29 teams have that. Wait a few months and it goes back to 30.

2. That does not equate every fan base. Not every fan base is wrong. Every top team in the league will have a group of fans who are doomsdayers, that does not make fans of the Islanders, Oilers, or other bottom dwellers who are doomsdayers, wrong.

3. It does not mean every team has the same problems. Some teams are flat out better than other teams. This cannot be denied. If you're denying it, there's simply no reasoning with you.

In short, the Wings have had a very clear trajectory for the past three years, and it is a downward one. Fans pointing this out are making a pretty objective observation and cannot be equated to fans of other teams that have no perspective. The Blues lost three games in a row and some of the crowd is in panic mode. That does not make criticism of what has been going on with the Wings the same as the Blue's reaction.

The Red Wings have clear, quantifiable, objective standards by which you can track their slide. Their PK, their PP, their finishes in the post season, their retirements and new signings. I mean, c'mon, Lidstrom is irreplaceable, even an older Lidstrom. No one we have on our backend is even close to replacing him. That's about as objective as it gets in terms of comparing players. And then there are the plain and simple numbers and the finishes. Bounced in 5 by Nashville, a team we used to regularly pass through on our way to the later rounds.

And then there is the subjective. I think anyone who has watched the majority of the team's games for the past 5 years cannot say with an honest heart, that the team has gotten better. This team is now the weakest it's been since 2008. No doubt.

Last edited by Flowah: 02-09-2013 at 01:10 AM.
Flowah is offline