lets go pavel

Ok, I have to say it is amusing watching Crosby punch a guy in the butthole. Beyond that, whether this is an example of old-time hockey or not, whether it is dirty or not, if that was Maxime Talbot punching the guy in the butthole this thread doesn't exist. Plain and simple, regardless of anything else, we wouldn't waste our typing if this wasn't Crosby. It's a bit ironic that so many of us ***** about how much publicity he gets and then we turn around a new thread about him every chance we get ...

I guess this is just where we'll have to differ. I don't buy the slippery slope argument that if the league allowed Avery's actions to go unpunished then the league would deteriorate into a bunch of trash-talking assholes bragging about who banged who's girlfriend first. I don't have a problem with a few villians who run their mouths, fire up the fans, and who you love to hate. To me, that makes things more interesting. I think a fine would have been the perfect way to slap Avery's wrist, and send a message that his energy is great, but his words on this occasion crossed the line. Obviously this is where I differ from the league. It is impossible to guess whether the length of the suspension represents solely their feelings on the seriousness of this offense, or is rather a cumulative punishment for a series of offenses, but in either case I feel the punishment is too much. You, it would seem, find it too lenient. To each his own.

If you want to debate the reasons why steroid use is banned that's a different discussion. The point is that they are banned, and they are a health risk, and Sean Avery's comments don't fall under either of those 2 categories. Comparing the 2 as if their punishments should be equivalent is ridiculous. Noone is arguing that the attention justifies Avery's comments or makes them okay, but many of us feel that the attention this particular case has garnered reflects badly on Sean Avery but doesn't have anything to do with the game of hockey (read: not detrimental to the game), and could have brought some added excitement to at least one game.

Uhhh, yeah, one of the main arguments against steroids and other performance enhancing drugs that have been banned are that they are a form of cheating, which obviously affects more than just the cheater.

Why not just shoot him? Steroids are a health risk and clearly jeopardize the very integrity of the game. Sean Avery said "sloppy seconds". I can't believe we're even comparing the two.

Are you saying 6 games wasn't severe enough? What punishment did you want to see?

The only difference is that had he been allowed to play, the attention would have had people tuning in to watch the games he was playing, and potentially getting his ass beat in (Calgary game anyway). Now, he still gets attention but it's solely on him because he's not playing.

Who's being a snob? Who's not appreciating or enjoying the wins? The question at hand isn't complaining about how we're winning, simply asking whether people think that the increase in quantity of tight games, if it were to continue all season, would be beneficial or detrimental to the team's chances in the playoffs.

This season the Wings are 20-5-4 after 29 games. Last season we were 21-6-2. Same point totals. However, I went back and looked at the goal differentials in the wins and losses over those games, and they paint a picture that is probably pretty obvious to all of us who have been watching ... the Wings are playing in a lot more tight games than last year. Here's a breakdown of the goal differentials: WINS: ..........07-08.....08-09 SO.........3............4 1goal.....4 .........10 2goals....5...........4 3+..........9...........2 LOSSES: ...........07-08.....08-09 SO ..........2...........0 1goal.......4...........5 2goals.....1...........3 3+...........1...........1 The losses aren't strikingly different, but the wins are. Twice as many games this year have been decided by 1 goal or shootout. Rather than pointing fingers at who is to blame, my question is this ... is the closeness of games this year a good thing or a bad thing for our team and it's postseason chances? If this were April and we were fighting tooth-and-nail for every win it would seem like good preparation for the playoffs. This is December, and we only seem to go all-out for a few minutes a game. Is this still better than a blowout? Is there a risk of mental fatigue if this continues all year? Regardless of the physical effort (or lack thereof) put forth, are close games more mentally taxing, or are they better mental preparation for the playoffs when most games are closer?

That was me, but I wasn't criticizing Conklin, only pointing out that he has not improved, at least statistically, over last year, despite playing for a better team. Someone else had made the comment that if a goalie is playing so-so on an average team their play will have to improve playing for a better team, and I was disputing this claim. Not bashing Conks ...

Conklin's not playing anywhere near where he was last year ... last year he had a 2.51 GAA and a .923 Save % ... his year he's at 2.75 and .902. He carried the Pens for a stretch last year, he hasn't done a whole lot for us this year. All of the guys you mentioned are starters because they're on s***ty teams. Toskala and Bryz were backups for a long while, and while they've both shown flashes of being quality starters neither has really taken the job and run with it. Smith is young and does look good, but he has little experience.

You saying "they can steal a game and ours can't" doesn't make it true. I readily concede that Ozzie and Conks have not been playing well and have not stolen a game yet this year, but both have proven more than capable of stealing games in the past. As for your second point, no, that's not common sense because it's also not always true. Conklin is on a better team now than last year, why isn't he playing better? Moreover, part of the problem is that we haven't been supporting our goaltenders ... what makes you think we'll start once the new guy shows up?

Are you serious? Toskala, Bryzgalov, and Smith? First of all, none of their teams are going to be looking to get rid of their starting goalie, and Howard/Conklin isn't going to convince them. More importantly, how the hell do they help us? None of those three is an upgrade. They could just as easily have worse numbers, and none of them have proven they can do anything in the postseason. I seem to remember winning a cup with Ozzie sometime not so long ago. As a number of people have already stated, we're not going to get a better goalie for anything we'd be willing to give up ...

Either A. There is no conspiracy to slant calls one way or the other, the referees are doing the best they can. Most of the time they get things right but sometimes calls are blown, in which case fining them is silly and firing them will more than likely not improve anything. Private performance reviews between the league and officials, much like what happens in any other job, is the only real fix, and most likely this already happens. or B. What appears to be a league-wide effort to give losing teams more calls in an attempt to produce closer games is excactly as it appears, but if this is the case it is almost certainly a conspiracy on the part of the league, not the referees, which means the league is perfectly happy with the officiating and won't want to do anything about it. Personally I subscribe to choice A, but regardless of which scenario you believe the league really isn't going to do anything noteworthy to change the officiating.

As you mentioned in another post, he's an RFA ... unless I'm mistaken, doesn't that mean we would get compensation if another team takes him?

I'm not disagreeing with your premise, I don't think all guys willing and able to fight are otherwise useless, but points don't tell the whole story either. Many of the guys you jest selected from the Wings are here for their defensive abilities, they aren't counted on to score a lot of points, much like most of the enforcers you listed. The points they do get are icing on the cake. The fact that their point totals are similar doesn't mean they make the same contributions on the ice. How many of those guys play on the PK? How many lead their team in faceoffs? I doubt that most of the enforcers you just named could fill Draper's or Stuart's role on this team. Meech is a backup, and he's played forward a bit of the time, so I'm not sure we've gotten a good idea what his role could be. As for Lebda, Maltby and Kopecky ... I think you could make a pretty decent argument that your enforcers could contribute the same things they do, plus the toughness.

Okay, so Draper jumping on at the time isn't enough ... what did you want to happen last night? One of our guys to take a run at him, cheap shot him maybe? That's not how we play. Or do you think if Downey had been in the lineup he could have squared up and fought Ribeiro? Yeah, that's gonna happen, I'm sure Ribeiro would be glad to fight. Look, I think Ribeiro's a ***** too, but as SWF said, what happened is in the past. The time for dealing with it was when it happened, and if you or I don't like how it was handled back then that's fine, but we're pretty much going to have to get over it.

Ozzie did butt-end him in the face as he was skating by, and the Wings jumped on him right after it happened. I'm pretty sure Ozzie's confidence will be fine, I don't think he's trembling in fear from Mike Ribeiro.

Almost all of the physical play you are talking about, and even the "nonsense after the whistle", is a normal part of the game. Having an enforcer is not going to prevent that, anymore than having an enforcer is going to make opposing teams stop checking us. Perhaps it will make teams less likely to cheap-shot our players, but to be honest there are few players that do that, and I'm not sure an enforcer would deter them. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having someone on the Wings who can fight. I enjoy a good scrap, I think it brings energy to the game and to the fans, and I like the sense of justice that a good rumble brings when it's in retaliation for some other offense. I'm just not convinced it prevents a whole lot ...

with good reason ...

Not blind faith. But I think the majority of us feel he has earned the faith in him. Of course he makes mistakes, but what evidence do you have that the Wings current lack of consistent play is his responsibility? What are your complaints with Babcock? All the OP could provide was a disagreement over lines, which seems to be a rather silly thing to throw Babs under the bus.

Uhh, nope, that's not it. I'm sure we all have our complaints. We just don't necessarily agree with yours. Oh yeah, and welcome to LGW!

Over the past 5 games, Cleary has 8 pts (2G, 6A). In those same 5 games, Datsyuk has 2 pts (2A) and Hossa has 3 pts (2G, 1A). He's not getting garbage points from them. And the rest of the roster over the last 5? Z has 3 pts, Franzen 4 pts, Homer 3 pts, Huddles 5 pts, Flip 5 pts, Sammy 0, Maltby 1, Draper 1, Kopecky 1. Looks to me like Cleary's more than holding his own, regardless of who he's playing with.

Maybe my memory is hazy, but I remember a lot more line changing last season. It seemed like every game we weren't playing well last year ... not even necessarily losing, but just not playing with jump ... Babs was juggling someone around. This season it seems like we've seen very little until the last few games. My only complaint with the coaching, and for purely personal reasons, is that DZH didn't stay together for the whole game last night. I was pretty excited when I saw them out there for the opening faceoff, I'd have liked to see what those lines could do over an entire game ...

Okay, but in a way you proved GMR's point ... the Stars may have benefitted from the PPs, but that didn't stop the Ducks from playing that way. So the PP didn't act as an enforcer at all, it just helped them win the series ... and obviously, during the regular season, this doesn't matter. Can the PP act as a deterrent sometimes? Sure, for the same reason coaches tell their players not to take stupid penalties when the game is close. But if the game isn't close ...