Does the argument against the Preds apply to the Wings too?

Question

The Red Wings are18-4-5 (41 pts.) in their division. The Predators are 21-5-2 (44 pts.)in their division. I've heard people say that the Predators record is inflated because they play in a weak division, yet I've heard people say that the Red Wings are a legitimate team. What is the difference?

Answer 1

It does apply to both teams, and anybody that says it doesn't is bias. But it can apply to the entire east too since that conference is so weak. Anaheim really deserves recognition for what they've done because that's probably the toughest division in the league. Yeah, LA and Phoenix suck but San Jose and Dallas are really good. Some people might say the Northwest is the best since all 5 teams were in contention for such a long time, but their tops teams aren't as good as the top teams in the other divisions. To get back on point though, the central is weak, but that doesn't make Nashville or Detroit illegitimate. Both teams are as good as any other team in the NHL. Just because they took advantage of bad teams, that doesn't make them bad.

Answer 2

Even if that is the case, the Red Wings and Preds do play weaker teams, its not like its their choice. Its St. Louis, Columbus, and Chicago's fault for failing to put better teams on the ice. Not to mention that everytime the Wings play top Division teams like the Ducks, or Dallas, or Vancouver they always hold their own, make them close games win or lose. To say their division is weak is true but the worst team in their division is no worse than the worse team is any other division.

Answer 3

They say the same thing about the Wings.

The only difference between the two teams is Detroit is a 'proven' team because they have been around forever and have won Cups.

But don't worry about what they say about your team, everyone has to start somewhere.

The Wings use to be at the bottom of the heap for years, heck they called them the Dead Wings but they came back. They've been good for years.

The Preds, with the players they have now should be a team to contend with for years to come.

Answer 4

They play the same teams so I don't get why someone would say that. I guess it is the fact that the Red Wings have been so much more successful. Considering the Wings lackluster play off performances the last few years I don't know about them being legitimate either. Basically, it sounds like someone saying what they think and trying to make you believe they actually know what they are talking about! In the end the play off results will tell the truth.

Answer 5

The Red Wings are Legit

Solid Goaltending
Solid Defense
Good Scoring

You would have to look more closely at games outside their division.

Answer 6

The truth is, is that Nashville is new on the block to when it comes to the race for the President's trophy and people won't give them credit for being at the top unless they can stay up there for a couple of years. By the way if Det. or NSH were in the eastern conf. then they would walk away with 130 points every season, so don't just blame the inflated record on Chicago.

Answer 7

Its true for both teams. Any decant team, would have a better record, if they each played St Louis, Chicago, and Colombus, 8 times each. Still as a Wings fan, though they have gotten stronger with the 2 trades, I just worry about them playing like a bunch of girls in the playoffs again.

Answer 8

Other than those two teams, the central division is very weak. But both teams are tops in the conference due them both being damn good. They would still have good records in another division. Yes, that applies to both.

Answer 9

red wings have been great for a long time so have more fans but they are still great and the preds are new kid on the block but sure look good my choice is the wings.

Answer 10

red wings r better
the sabres beat the preds 7-1(Miller cant get a shutout, only 1 this year)