Hey, I read this same article in 1998…and 1999…and 2002…and 2004…and 2007…and 2008…and

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 03/21/10 at 08:31 AM ET

Yeah, give me a break.  Red Wings are still the team to beat in the West.  Too much skill and depth to overlook them.

They’ve been in playoff mode for weeks now, trying to secure a playoff spot.

Posted by DigitalGypsy66 on 03/21/10 at 08:57 AM ET

And yet they walk out of Vancouver with 2 points, and 5 of 6 from their 3-game western swing.

Maybe the author would have more success writing about how Vancouver is a Never Was…

Posted by Primis on 03/21/10 at 09:12 AM ET

Yeah, give me a break.  Red Wings are still the team to beat in the West.  Too much skill and depth to overlook them.

They’ve been in playoff mode for weeks now, trying to secure a playoff spot.

Posted by DigitalGypsy66 on 03/21/10 at 09:57 AM ET

Uh, that’s a little too far to the other extreme, don’t you think?

The article was a decent read, but I do take issue with saying “age” (again) is what is catching up with them. In truth, a lot of what’s caught up with them is youth. Having to rely too heavily on players like Drew Miller, Patrick Eaves, Darren Helm, and Justin Abdelkader this year. Don’t get me wrong—I think the latter three will be very good Red Wings for a lot of years to come, and Drew Miller’s got a shot at holding down a fourth-line, Draper/Maltby-esque role going forward, as well. I’m just saying that last year their depth was made up of guys that had Cup rings and the understanding of what makes 100-point seasons.

The important thing to note with the same old, same old “age” argument is that while the Red Wings are older than the average team, they’re not dinosaurs. The author makes the distinction of players under 30 (as so many people do), which leaves out 30 years old Datsyuk, Cleary, Franzen, and Stuart. Tell me, what’s the difference between the 29 year old players and the 30 year olds?

30 is an arbitrary numbers hockey writers and pundits (or all sports pundits) have used to separate the “young” (read: good) from the “old” (read: bad) for a long time. But it’s just that—arbitrary. It’s a clean number that’s easy to look at. It’s easy to look at a roster and see guys with a first digit of 2 and guys with a first digit of 3 in the age column.

Gordie Howe was a point-per-game players in his 30s. Steve Yzerman, while less flashy, was a far better all-around player in his 30s than he was for the majority of his 20s. Nick Lidstrom, great as he’s always been, didn’t really hit his prime until his late 20’s, and hasn’t shown a drop-off until this year (and he’s still the best defensive player in the league, offensive dip aside). Joe Sakic’s best and most successful years came after age 28, and lasted into his mid-30s.

And yes, you can list a number of players that put up their best numbers, or won the must early in their careers. Gretzky and Lemieux were best in their 20s. Obviously, so were guys plagued with injury like Bossy and Orr. My point is that it’s impossible to draw a line at 30 and make the argument—either side—that one is better than the other.

Generally, I think most people would agree that the majority of NHL players have their best all-around game between the age 25 and 35. Before 25, most players lack fundamentals or consistency, are still immature, don’t play great defense. After 35, most players have had too much wear and tear on their bodies to continue with the physical dominance they used to succeed with.

To tie the bow on this, you have to look at the Red Wings’ philosophy for building a team over the last 15 years. They don’t play guys under 20. And for the most part, they don’t even play guys under 22. In Detroit, a little bit of age is a benefit, not a liability. For most of the players that the Wings draft and/or develop, they don’t want the player in their lineup regularly until their mid-20s. They try to shift the prime years of a player into their late-20s through their early-to-mid 30s. Most of this has been out of necessity, with lots of low draft picks, and a pipeline of talent that, while obviously good, has been very very raw for a long time.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 03/21/10 at 09:30 AM ET

And yet they walk out of Vancouver with 2 points, and 5 of 6 from their 3-game western swing.

You get the feeling the author had a late-Saturday night deadline, and wrote this piece soon after the Wings laid an egg in Edmonton.

“Surely the mighty Canucks will beat these Wings, so my article will say the following:..”

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 03/21/10 at 09:55 AM ET

you know what’s older than the red wings? blogs and articles about their age. It’s sad. This has been debunked on TPSH comment sections several times in the last year.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 03/21/10 at 10:15 AM ET

It isn’t the age, it’s the lack of depth.  But that’s harder to explain in a short article, I guess.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/21/10 at 10:18 AM ET

Don’t forget the fact that the advances in training regimens, nutrition, sports medicine, and the Chris Chelios effect = Red Wings players believing that they can contribute for significant periods of time past the magic 30-year-old mark.

I’m with Baroque regarding the injuries, but I think the Wings are OK depth-wise when everyone is healthy.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 03/21/10 at 10:32 AM ET

This guy seems to be a little short on history.  The current team is younger than the teams that won the cup in 2002, and 2008.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 03/21/10 at 11:00 AM ET