...to the Red Wings, not to college. Given that he had been suggested (strongly, at one point a few weeks ago) as a successor to Red, this is news on two fronts, and not OT.
not meant as an insult but you could pull off a great uncle fester if thats you in the pic
You could pull off a good Red Forman if that is you in the picture.
Not really. My hair is getting there but I'm too tall and way too dark to be a plausible Fester.
Fester delivered on some good bits. Go with it.
Oh well. 90's Scotty Bowman may just have scratched-out an eight seed with those guys -- It wasn't Blashill.
Yes, it was partly Blashill. You go down the list of players like Kulfan did in the News today and you see so many instances of the word "disappointed" and you have to blame the coaching. Abdelkader, Nyquist, Tatar, DeKeyser, Nielsen, Sheahan, Larkin, Glendening - up and down the roster, everyone underachieved. The power play is shit. Once-promising goaltenders and scorers underperform like crazy. Blashill is a huge part of the problem.
And by the way for some reason whenever I say this, people take it as synonymous with absolving Holland of any blame, which is totally fallacious.
No, I totally blame Holland and agree with most of your points but I don't agree that Nielsen underachieved. Z probably over-performed really, Green had a good year and Nielsen was actually pretty good on a bad team. I think he is a guy that would be even better on a good team. Tatar not really disappointing if you take the year as a whole (though very streaky). Nyquist, DeKe, Sheahan, Larkin, Glendening - yes to all of those. But then maybe you have to give him credit for Vanek who had a nice season.
But yes, overall it's the terrible contracts to marginal performers that are killing this team.
There may be some blame for Blashill, but I don't know that it's important to determine how much. Separating from the local coaching issue, I think retaining Blashill is a decent idea, but for odd reasons:
When a team's roster is bad and going to be bad again, the coach may or may not share some fault. But it seems to me to be a no-lose situation to retain him for another year if the team isn't ready to pull itself back to the top next season. Why?
Well, for starters, you give a guy that hasn't been around that long a chance to prove himself, and/or correct mistakes from the previous season. Second, if he really isn't the guy, you're just playing out the string with a bad roster anyway, and it's better to give the next coach a start with a leg up in the rebuild process. So you're not wasting a "lost year" on a good coach. Finally, if the guy is really bad, he can artificially depress your record and produce a better draft position.
One could argue that he could have a negative effect on the players already on the team, but remember: The roster is bad, so a version of that team that is competitive is going to be missing a lot of the guys in that locker room.
Detroit is going to be mediocre-to-bad next season, so why not give Blashill a shot at it? Sounds good to me.
You edited this for clarity? I'm assuming previously you posted "Guy goes to a place." The only clarity I got from this was in the text of the URL. Since I don't follow hockey and this isn't a professional hockey blog, some context would have been nice.
More concerned about who is coaching Michigan next year.
Red Wings will be fine. They'll be down until they get rid of all the horrid/toxic contracts. I think Blashill will do OK with the Wings.
Right, Blashill is far from the biggest problem with the Red Wings. I think he will be a good to great NHL coach in 5 years. He could also be fired next season and never coach in the NHL again.
That will be worked out soon enough, but no need to fire him as we rebuild the team from the ground up.
clearly - no one wanted the gig...and since the NHL isn't allowing the Pros to play in the Olympics - might as well make him the next Olympic Hockey Coach.
Not the same thing. The World Championships are held every spring and are played by national teams cobbled together from minor leaguers, foreign leaguers, and NHL players whose seasons are over. It's pretty patchwork. Blashill is a good choice because his team is out of the playoffs, basically.
They'll still hire a serious coach for the Olympics.
Sweet.
Holland could buy cups with the best of them, but he can't manage a salary cap for shit.
but Larkin is this organization's highest draft pick in 25 years. No other team in the NHL has had draft position even remotely close to as bad as Detroit's. Unfortunate that the inevitable tank didn't take place last year, with a better draft class. In the league the way it is now, you win when you have telented, and because of the league's CBA, underpaid superstars.
But Holland said he believes Blashill is the right man to lead the team, based partly in his resume of having won at lower levels, including the 2013 Calder Cup championship with the AHL Grand Rapids Griffins.
I guess my only question then is how long is the leash on Blashill - I am not on the "fire him now" boat like some folks I've discussed this with, but that makes me wonder what Holland's short term plan might be.