HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

The Kurse of KQ

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2013, 12:19 PM
  #26
nickyno72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rzombo4 prez View Post
No offense, but correlation and causation are not the same things. I would encourage you to look at the team's man games lost to injury over the same respective periods.
That's true, and is exactly the reply I got over on B/R. But, for ***** and giggles it's interesting to point out how much our record is better with Q out than with in.

nickyno72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 12:28 PM
  #27
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
In all honestly, a lot of the poor record has to do with the end of last season and the playoffs.

But my question is, why are we 8-2 when he's out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickyno72 View Post
Hey boys, I basically joined just to share this comment I made on a Bleacher Report article. Yah, I know B/R; I'm one of those guys. But I've been lurking these forums for years, and just have never registered. I appreciated the humor of a lot of the posters nihilism here. Anyways this is from ten days ago and doesn't include the current 3 game win streak, so it may be even more inclined towards the Wings being better without Q.





Sorry, but Kyle Quincey is not vital to the Wings at all. I've actually done some research to prove my point. As some other people have pointed out the Wings are quite a bit better when he doesn't play.

Prior to the Quincey trade in 2012 the Wings were an impressive 41-18-2.

Then, all hell broke loose when Holland opened up a time warp by trading for Quincey.

Including the playoffs the Wings would go on to finish their 2012 campaign (including playoffs) with a record of...wait for it, 7(2 Shootout Ws)- 14-4.

The disappointing playoff exit wouldn't change this trend. So far in 2013 the Wings are 11(2 Shootout Ws)-10-5 when Quincey plays.

Since acquiring Quincey the Wings are 17(4 Shootout Ws)-24-8. This is a win percentage of 34.

When Quincey is NOT in the lineup since 2011-12 the Wings have an amazing record of 44-19-2 for a win percentage of 68.

I'm not a math wizard... BUT this seems to imply that the team is twice as good when Quincey is NOT in the line up.

So I'm not sure this stud dman is all that vital to a team, unless we're gunning for the number one draft pick. (For reference last seasons worst team was the Bluejackets who had a win percentage of 35.)

Also, when the Wings got Quincey back (from the TB/COL swap) that a lot of things changed. Home winning streak ended. Lidstrom got hurt. For whatever reason the Wings took of their memorial patch for Lokomotiv. Ever since trading for him there has been some bad juju going with this team.
This is interesting no matter what.
How long is he staying out?

He has the biggest impact on the team by far.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 12:43 PM
  #28
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I will take KQ over CC, no hesitation whatsoever.
Why?




Quote:
Where your analysis, mathematically speaking, falls apart is in considering the REASON Holland felt it was necessary to make that trade in the first place.

Moreover I honestly think some of the more important reasons for the Wings continued decline (beyond the natural decay from turnover and loss/aging of ELITE players) is that someone like Helm has been missing. I'd be interested to see a similar analysis (despite its limitations) with Helm as the central point.
What was the reason>
Quincey doesn't replace Lidstrom. He doesn't replace Stuart.

In the short term, Smith was good enough and Quincey was good enough.


Helm hasn't played in enough games recently to do the same thing.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 12:47 PM
  #29
P U L L H A R D
#shewenttoharvard
 
P U L L H A R D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 23,848
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rzombo4 prez View Post
Eternal, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to admit as much. Most fans cannot objectively evaluate Q because they are pissed that they gave up a first round pick to get back a defensemen they could have had for free all along. Sure he is overpaid, but in this day and age, Kenny can't even spend to the cap if he wanted to.

Q is fine for the short-term and really won't have much impact on the success of this team. I think White has more trade value at this point and should be moved at the deadline.
While I agree that it doesn't necessarily matter that we are paying Q as much as we are, shouldn't we give that money to a guy who deserves it? Q was never worth that money, and now he has simplified his game to a Huskins level of simplicity.

I try not to take his play into account when looking at the trade, because he was productive in LA and Colorado for stretches, scoring at a pretty impressive rate at certain points in his career, but it was obvious he was on a downward spiral the season we got him. So...

1. Why buy high for him, if he isn't even playing (Col was sitting him during their win streak)

2. Why Quincey? Because we once drafted him? Didn't seem to help him when it came to keeping him over an ancient Chelios, whom should have been let go at that point.

3. If Q is your guy, why go as far as to offer up a 1st? That is not the market value for him, not even close. A 2nd with a little +, sure, it is the deadline and prices are high ... but not a 1st.

Holland will always be awesome, just for what he has delivered us so far as GM, but I can't not call him out on these types of moves. I hope this is one of Holland's biggest booboos, because it isn't a backbreaking trade by any means, but is a bad way to manage assets, obviously.

P U L L H A R D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 01:13 PM
  #30
Flowah
#FireHolland
 
Flowah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post

Moreover I honestly think some of the more important reasons for the Wings continued decline (beyond the natural decay from turnover and loss/aging of ELITE players) is that someone like Helm has been missing. I'd be interested to see a similar analysis (despite its limitations) with Helm as the central point.
As I noted earlier, FSD had a graphic already with Helm's numbers in and out of the lineup. It was much better with him in. But he's been missing so long now, that KQ has had ample time to show that it's not the addition or subtraction of Helm affecting his numbers. So far this year, Helm's not played more than a game. Q's numbers this season are pretty independent of Helm's impact, and the same trend still shows.

It's not a huge sample size, but it's definitely a trend.

And the past 3 games without him? Our team's only give up 4 goals. That's pretty damn good even if two of them were based on stellar goaltending.

Flowah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 01:27 PM
  #31
TatarTangle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
More like the Kurse of Ken Holland...

I'm with Fugu, I'll take KQ over CC, not really saying much though.

TatarTangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 02:09 PM
  #32
Rzombo4 prez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Sunshine View Post
While I agree that it doesn't necessarily matter that we are paying Q as much as we are, shouldn't we give that money to a guy who deserves it? Q was never worth that money, and now he has simplified his game to a Huskins level of simplicity.

I try not to take his play into account when looking at the trade, because he was productive in LA and Colorado for stretches, scoring at a pretty impressive rate at certain points in his career, but it was obvious he was on a downward spiral the season we got him. So...

1. Why buy high for him, if he isn't even playing (Col was sitting him during their win streak)

2. Why Quincey? Because we once drafted him? Didn't seem to help him when it came to keeping him over an ancient Chelios, whom should have been let go at that point.

3. If Q is your guy, why go as far as to offer up a 1st? That is not the market value for him, not even close. A 2nd with a little +, sure, it is the deadline and prices are high ... but not a 1st.

Holland will always be awesome, just for what he has delivered us so far as GM, but I can't not call him out on these types of moves. I hope this is one of Holland's biggest booboos, because it isn't a backbreaking trade by any means, but is a bad way to manage assets, obviously.
I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, but would respond as follows:

1. There aren't that many teams that were out of the playoffs that had a surplus of defensemen to move. Hell there aren't a lot of teams with a surplus of defensemen period. It is even more difficult to find one that is willing to move a non-rental defensemen. Q was coming off of an injury and lost his spot because the team got hot. For all we know, he could have been the best defensemen available that could have been had without giving up a roster player.

2. This is Kenny's real issue. If he targeted Q primarily because of familiarity, than he is guilty of even more than what he is being charged with. If he settled on Q because he was the best available option, I will cut him some slack. I watched Q a lot in CO, and I honestly thought we were getting a much better player. Clearly he is not the same player and isn't going to produce much without more PP time. I think he watches the puck too much and doesn't and can get very lazy off of it. Unlike other posters, I do believe that he is a bona fide NHL defensemen.

3. At the time, that pick was pretty damn close to being a second rounder and if you were Stevie, you would have called it as much in negotiating with Holland. Again, Q wasn't a rental and had showed some ability to contribute on the PP, both of which added to the cost. I honestly think Kenny paid fair market value for Q. Hell, look at what Murray just returned.

I think Kenny had the right general idea with the deal, but screwed the execution. Yes you needed a replacement for Stuart who could contribute for a number of years. That in and of itself warranted parting with real assets. However, he didn't need to pay the premium that a puck-moving, PP-defensemen commands. Someone like Oduya or Grossman would have probably done the job just as well. Contrary to what Kenny believes, we don't need six puck-moving defensemen.

My two cents on the issue. Anyways, Q will not make or break our season.

Rzombo4 prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 02:26 PM
  #33
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
Why?


What was the reason>
Quincey doesn't replace Lidstrom. He doesn't replace Stuart.

In the short term, Smith was good enough and Quincey was good enough.


Helm hasn't played in enough games recently to do the same thing.
Holland didn't want to be caught short of D because he didn't push to get Smith and Kindl serious ice time sooner. He works those two kids into the lineup sooner, and maybe he realizes Q isn't needed as a safe fallback option.

__________________
blah, blah, blah
Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 03:01 PM
  #34
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Holland didn't want to be caught short of D because he didn't push to get Smith and Kindl serious ice time sooner. He works those two kids into the lineup sooner, and maybe he realizes Q isn't needed as a safe fallback option.
But why waste a first on him when you could sign any number of guys?

This wasn't just about the future. This was about the playoff run. And it was unnecessary.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 03:15 PM
  #35
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,908
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
But why waste a first on him when you could sign any number of guys?

This wasn't just about the future. This was about the playoff run. And it was unnecessary.
Because he apparently felt he was better, and younger than any other guys available.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 04:48 PM
  #36
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
Because he apparently felt he was better, and younger than any other guys available.
I think price had a share of that, too. After seeing D prices escalate the past couple of years,Holland may not have wanted to get into a bidding war for a guy like Carle over the summer. With Q, he probably didn't see much of a downgrade, and could be reasonably sure that whatever contract he'd end up bound to would either be relatively cost effective or short.

Yeah, a first round pick is a cost, but we got an NHL ready D immediately. And to have traded for a D any better than Q likely would have taken more assets.

Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:01 PM
  #37
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,136
vCash: 500
I submit for your collective consideration, seeing we're trying to draw conclusions from trends:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10447942/


Quote:
In a typical 82-game season, teams generally average roughly around three man-games lost per team, a figure that teams would likely reach due to season-ending injuries if there were more games played.
What we havenít seen, however, is an epidemic of injuries due to the condensed schedule, as these numbers donít appear that far off the norm.
Youíll note that most of the teams on the low end here are playoff teams, and thatís not a coincidence. Thereís a correlation between man-games lost and points percentage every year thatís pretty significant.
And that makes what Detroit and Ottawa are doing all the more impressive.
Detroit is at 5.64 to Ottawa/Florida at 4.79--- not quite a full man games lost per game above #2.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:03 PM
  #38
Flowah
#FireHolland
 
Flowah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I submit for your collective consideration, seeing we're trying to draw conclusions from trends:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10447942/




Detroit is at 5.64 to Ottawa/Florida at 4.79--- not quite a full man games lost per game above #2.
What they need to do is find a way to insert player quality into that formula.

I don't think anyone would argue the man games lost added by Mursak, a guy that was waived, hurt the team very much.q

Flowah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:16 PM
  #39
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowah View Post
What they need to do is find a way to insert player quality into that formula.

I don't think anyone would argue the man games lost added by Mursak, a guy that was waived, hurt the team very much.q

If you looked at similar data when Holland acquired Q last year, that would be even more the case than this year.

The overarching point however is that trying to measure anything from the set of data presented forces us to suspend any belief that the types of players injured/missing, who on the roster, and other conditions (like a lockout that took out half the year) are irrelevant, and that there is a direct correlation between the one player and the record. It's even possible that if you did the same thing for every player, there might even be worse examples.

However, mathematically, this is a prime example of:

Correlation does not imply causation (*** hoc propter hoc, Latin for "with this, because of this") is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_and_correlation

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:46 PM
  #40
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
I think price had a share of that, too. After seeing D prices escalate the past couple of years,Holland may not have wanted to get into a bidding war for a guy like Carle over the summer. With Q, he probably didn't see much of a downgrade, and could be reasonably sure that whatever contract he'd end up bound to would either be relatively cost effective or short.

Yeah, a first round pick is a cost, but we got an NHL ready D immediately. And to have traded for a D any better than Q likely would have taken more assets.

But again, we didn't need an NHL ready defensemen. We had enough D for last year's playoffs. We didn't need KQ last year.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 08:51 PM
  #41
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I submit for your collective consideration, seeing we're trying to draw conclusions from trends:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10447942/




Detroit is at 5.64 to Ottawa/Florida at 4.79--- not quite a full man games lost per game above #2.
The man-games lost thing is a lark.

Outside of Helm, none of the long term injuries hurt us. We're probably better off with Bert and Sammy out of the lineup. Losing CC hasn't hurt us much. Losing KQ isn't going to hurt us.

Injuries are actually helping us in a way that Ken Holland and Mike Babcock don't have the guts to help this team.

Because, for the most part, injuries are keeping out excess, rummage sale type veterans on the IR.

If Datsyuk and Zetterberg were hurt, or Kronwall or Ericsson, or Howard, then we'd have issues.

Other than that, Franzen and Flip each missed seven games.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:00 PM
  #42
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
But again, we didn't need an NHL ready defensemen. We had enough D for last year's playoffs. We didn't need KQ last year.
But he didn't make the deal with just the balance of last season in mind. And since Smith/Kindl weren't groomed to be ready this season, we needed to be sure we had vet depth. The signing that probably shouldn't have happened was CC, but his being injured has made it a non issue.

Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:00 PM
  #43
ProPAIN
Waar is da feestje?!
 
ProPAIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Paris
Country: Belgium
Posts: 11,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Then think a third time, PP. Talk about ignoring the forest for the trees.

There is a trend, but there is no correlation to Q.
Wait, you mean like, using logic and stuff? Around here? Please!

ProPAIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:04 PM
  #44
Heaton
Moderator
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 16,908
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
The man-games lost thing is a lark.

Outside of Helm, none of the long term injuries hurt us. We're probably better off with Bert and Sammy out of the lineup. Losing CC hasn't hurt us much. Losing KQ isn't going to hurt us.

Injuries are actually helping us in a way that Ken Holland and Mike Babcock don't have the guts to help this team.

Because, for the most part, injuries are keeping out excess, rummage sale type veterans on the IR.

If Datsyuk and Zetterberg were hurt, or Kronwall or Ericsson, or Howard, then we'd have issues.

Other than that, Franzen and Flip each missed seven games.
No, I still don't think that's right. While it was good that Tatar and Nyquist got some games, they would've gotten in games regardless and played in the same type of situations. So based on what Nyquist and Tatar were given this team would've been much better off with a healthy Samuelsson, Bertuzzi and Helm. While I agree Samuelsson and Bertuzzi are basically dead weight, they would've still contributed much more than we're giving them credit. And our overall depth would've been much improved with guys like that in the lineup.

Injuries to depth is still a huge issue and I'm surprised everyone is poo-pooing it. We've seen so many times that really good teams lose depth to free agency or injuries and it severely impacts them. The Wings have been severely impacted due to injuries.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:10 PM
  #45
Flowah
#FireHolland
 
Flowah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
So based on what Nyquist and Tatar were given this team would've been much better off with a healthy Samuelsson, Bertuzzi and Helm.
Are you saying their record would have been better?

Quote:
they would've gotten in games regardless and played in the same type of situations.
How's that? We already have to sit either Tootoo or Eaves to make room for Nyquist. I don't see Babs benching Bert or Sammy if they're healthy. Tatar or Nyquist might have gotten a game or two just to see what they might do, but that lengthy stint for Tatar would probably not have happened. Same with Nyquist. Andersson competes for a different spot so he's not really a part of that discussion.

Flowah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:19 PM
  #46
Rzombo4 prez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
But again, we didn't need an NHL ready defensemen. We had enough D for last year's playoffs. We didn't need KQ last year.
That deal was made 90% for the future and 10% for the playoff run. Just look at Q's age and contract status at the time of the deal. Furthermore, everyone expected Stuart to leave and Lid's future could not be taken for granted.

At the time of the deal we had Kindl, White, Kronner and Ericsson under contract with Smith ready to come up. Did you really expect Holland to go into free agency NEEDING to sign two defensemen? Talk about painting yourself into a corner.

Holland had the right general idea, he just arguably picked the wrong target.

Rzombo4 prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:34 PM
  #47
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
But he didn't make the deal with just the balance of last season in mind. And since Smith/Kindl weren't groomed to be ready this season, we needed to be sure we had vet depth. The signing that probably shouldn't have happened was CC, but his being injured has made it a non issue.
If it wasn't for last year, then why waste a pick when unrestricted UFA could land defensemen who actually address our needs (like the PK).

Either way, Kyle Quincey is the gift that just keeps on giving (away assets)

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:39 PM
  #48
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rzombo4 prez View Post
That deal was made 90% for the future and 10% for the playoff run. Just look at Q's age and contract status at the time of the deal. Furthermore, everyone expected Stuart to leave and Lid's future could not be taken for granted.

At the time of the deal we had Kindl, White, Kronner and Ericsson under contract with Smith ready to come up. Did you really expect Holland to go into free agency NEEDING to sign two defensemen? Talk about painting yourself into a corner.

Holland had the right general idea, he just arguably picked the wrong target.
Totally disagree.

You had Ericsson, Kronwall, White, Kindl and Smith -- 5 guys in our lineup now.

Look at our lineup right now. What do we need?
We need to upgrade Lashoff into a REAL shutdown Right-Handed defense,

So you go get your Right-Handed D, come hell or high water, to help your PK.

Anyone can look at:
Kronwall, Ericsson, White, Smith and Kindl
and see that what we're strong in puck moving/offensive zone play and weak in defensive zone play.

So how does Quincey help us? He's another offensive, puck moving defenseman who has always been defensively suspect.

The idea that Quincey was for 2012-13 is ABSURD.
He doesn't help us at all.

If Holland and Babcock had just trusted their youngsters earlier, this entire unfortunate move could have been avoided.

Instead we just collected more junk for the roster and, WORSE, we never actually addressed our need.


Unless you're going to get an elite player -- something Holland hasn't done in quite awhile -- give your prospects the opportunity.


Last edited by RedWingsNow*: 03-27-2013 at 09:45 PM.
RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:43 PM
  #49
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
No, I still don't think that's right. While it was good that Tatar and Nyquist got some games, they would've gotten in games regardless and played in the same type of situations. So based on what Nyquist and Tatar were given this team would've been much better off with a healthy Samuelsson, Bertuzzi and Helm. While I agree Samuelsson and Bertuzzi are basically dead weight, they would've still contributed much more than we're giving them credit. And our overall depth would've been much improved with guys like that in the lineup.

Injuries to depth is still a huge issue and I'm surprised everyone is poo-pooing it. We've seen so many times that really good teams lose depth to free agency or injuries and it severely impacts them. The Wings have been severely impacted due to injuries.
No, I don't include Helm in dead weight. Losing Helm hurt this team.

But otherwise, the other injuries that piled up our "Man Games" that people use as an excuse are Bertuzzi and Sammy. And those guys are addition by substraction.

The Wings have been hurt by the loss of Helm.

Otherwise, injuries haven't hurt this team more than they've hurt anyone else.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:44 PM
  #50
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowah View Post
Are you saying their record would have been better?


How's that? We already have to sit either Tootoo or Eaves to make room for Nyquist. I don't see Babs benching Bert or Sammy if they're healthy. Tatar or Nyquist might have gotten a game or two just to see what they might do, but that lengthy stint for Tatar would probably not have happened. Same with Nyquist. Andersson competes for a different spot so he's not really a part of that discussion.
If Sammy and Bert were healthy, Tatar and Nyquist wouldn't have seen much if any time.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.