[PGT] Red Wings beat Flames 4-2

[saillias]

Nitpicking but that was frustrating when they had a 3 on 1 I think on a PK. Perfect opportunity to go tic-tac-toe. Granlund waits too long until he has no angle and shoots it right into Mrazek. You might get a chance for a 3 on 1 like that every 5 games. Gotta make a pass there. Skating in a straight line, looking shoot the whole way, isn't fooling any goalie.

*This may have been against St. Louis. My weekend memories are hazy.

[heep223]

That might have been the worst game I've ever seen Monahan play. Really tough night for him.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Bennett doesn't seem to be much of a passer (by that I mean he tries to dangle instead of passing, not that he's bad at passing). He has a guy in Granlund who has a great shot, and Hudler is a known finisher as well. I think Bennett has a few junior habits he still needs to shed.

That, plus a need to work on the defensive side of the game is likely why he's being used at wing.

Anyway, the team has decent young centre depth, with a bunch of guys on the farm who can play centre, plus Jankowski. No, they aren't all top 6 guys, but Jankowski might be. If Granlund gets to be good at faceoffs, he's a decent 3, and you also have Arnold, Grant, Shore, etc. who could play 4th line C. Fitting Bennett in at wing is more of a luxury of having lots of centres and not having to use a rookie in the middle IMO.

When you don't have a #1C and you've got a kid who projects to be a #1C it's not a "luxury" to waste that kid as a winger. This is as misguided as Montreal's mishandling of Galchenyuk.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by saillias

Nitpicking but that was frustrating when they had a 3 on 1 I think on a PK. Perfect opportunity to go tic-tac-toe. Granlund waits too long until he has no angle and shoots it right into Mrazek. You might get a chance for a 3 on 1 like that every 5 games.

*This may have been against St. Louis. My weekend memories are hazy.

Thought the same. They praised the D for taking away the pass, but that's impossible when Gio is trailing. And Gio has a hell of a shot from the slot.

People like Granlund's shot, but while it goes hard, he seems to shoot high and wide a lot (or else centre mass like that one).

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

No disrespect, but what a load of BS.

The whole myth around the Wings and just drafting for skill is such a joke. I don't disagree with you that on the skill over size debate but teams will and still should lean towards size on some picks. It's awesome Brandon Montour is off to a rip roaring start but if Hunter Smith pans out he brings an element few can to the NHL, a massive big body presence and game. Don't find anyone with Hunter's size often so you go for that long term hopeful home run.

On what planet was Tomas Tatar a risky pick? He had a great World Juniors in 2009 leading up to his draft and was a consensus 2nd round pick by most. He was maybe undersized a tad on draft day, 5'11 176 pounds but a burger at Carls JR would have bumped that weight up.

Tatar was a consensus 2nd round pick, taken in the second round. Wasn't much risk in that pick but the Wings put him in the AHL right away and despite a cup of coffee or two in the NHL he spent four seasons in the AHL before getting his full time spot.

Patience and development for the Wings, not the mythical always draft for skill bullcrap people keep spouting.

Smith's upside is basically Brian Boyle. A huge physical depth forward that can chip in occasionally. That's a very important player and there is a reason why he has been to the cup final more than once. I actually like Smith and what he will bring to the organization moving forward. In terms of our defense prospects at the time though, we had only Kulak/Culkin/Spoon. A guy like Montour would have addressed a need. The Flames did fill that spot quite effectively in the organization this past draft with the acquisitions of Hamilton/Andersson/Kylington.

His (Tatar) lack of size was the risk in his case. In my opinion anyone sub 6-0 is a risk due to the difficulty of them being able to translate at higher levels. Some guys can do it (Gaudreau) others can't with any success.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

When you don't have a #1C and you've got a kid who projects to be a #1C it's not a "luxury" to waste that kid as a winger. This is as misguided as Montreal's mishandling of Galchenyuk.

He's a raw rookie. He doesn't play very well defensively - he gets caught up ice a lot, he tends to watch the play in his own zone and let shooters slip past, and Granlund, Backlund, Stajan and Monahan are way better. Hartley's demonstrated that wants to win, not develop and experiment with positions. So Bennett either plays up here as a wing, or he plays in Stockton as a C.

Monahan is a perfectly respectable #1. He'd be a #1 on a dozen other teams in the NHL. Bennett may get there, but he hasn't shown anything like what Monahan could do in his first year. Monahan (without Gaudreau) was decent defensively and still scored 22 goals. Bennett's way flashier, sure. But he hasn't shown that he can handle the position IMO.

[Da_Chief]

Sure Montour is looking good but as many AHL scorers that make it to NHL there are twice as many that will forver stay in the AHL or head to Europe.

Montoyr has a tough road ahead of him; Fowler, Vatanen, Lindholm, Despres are all young top 4s already in Anaheim. With Theodore knocking on the doorstep. Anaheim will have to make room for him or trade him to fully see what he is.

long ways to go before either of them makes any impact.

[ScorchyScorch]

Away Monahan and away Gaudreau are not very good.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

Away Monahan and away Gaudreau are not very good.

Gaudreau had a good trip, Mony had one bad game

relax, was a extremely tough schedule and they went .500

[polak]

Gaudreau got 3 points in 4 games?

Still 8th in the league in scoring and above a ppg.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

His (Tatar) lack of size was the risk in his case. In my opinion anyone sub 6-0 is a risk due to the difficulty of them being able to translate at higher levels. Some guys can do it (Gaudreau) others can't with any success.

This is the first time I've ever heard Tatar labelled as a risky pick. It honestly like you picked Tatar at random hoping it fit your narrative about the mighty Wings, but it really doesn't.

Morgan Klimchuk was generously listed as 5'11 on draft day, are you suggesting he was a risky pick? There is a ocean of difference between guys sized like Klimchuk and Tatar and guys of Gaudreau's height.