stormboy

it appears to me to be a bad goad, and with those crazy diagrams, that seems to support the argument. however, it seems like in this case, and with the ducks OT winner against us, there is rarely a conclusive camera angle. hence: i wonder why they don't install two cameras that are exactly at the level of the top of the goal and in line with the crossbar, similar to the cameras they have looking directly down on the goal. when your only looks at the play are from off angles, there's no way to get a definite look on a close play (very high sticks are obviously detectable with these angles). if there was a shot that was perfectly in line with the crossbar, it seems like it would make those calls a snap. then again, how many times does this happen a year? right now i know of two game-winning goals, both of which i thought were bad, but couldn't prove conclusively. i'm sure there have been a few other non-ot goals, which nevertheless affect the outcome of the game. but i'm wondering if it's enough to get the league to set up new cameras in rinks.

i have to work at 10pm tonight, which means that i'll probably get to watch the first two periods and miss the third, which might turn out to be a bad or very good thing. there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is a statement game. on the one hand, if the wings lose, it's just another regular-season loss in a season that will almost certainly see them go the playoffs, where games really matter (for teams like us and the sharks). that being said, if the sharks beat us (especially if it's badly) in our own building after coming off a game the night before, there is no doubt that everyone here and throughout the league will seriously question the wings' ability to compete with the sharks come playoff time. if they lose tonight, i'm not willing to throw in the towel and hand the cup to the sharks, but i think it will be pretty indicative of the wings' capacity to win this year. goalie HAS to play well. this is the biggest part, in my opinion. a close second is defensive tightness, obviously. but i've been pretty disappointed lately about our ability to score goals. we scored a total of three goals against the stars and the avs, both of whom we should have lit up. the last game that we played that i truly believed was a statement game (and made it clear in the GDT) was the game against the ducks. we won 2-1. hopefully that pattern continues. honestly, i'm alright with a few losses against weak teams if we win against the good ones. right now we are 2-0 against the hawks, split the season series with vancouver, are 1-1 vs the ducks, and are 2-0 against the flames. while not completely dominant, i'm okay with these figures as overall we are doing fine against the better teams in the conferencem and not playing our best hockey. you just have to go 4-3 in a playoff series. but if we go 0-4 against the sharks, bad news bears. and it is now too late in the season to say "well it's only x amount of games in, they'll get it together." nope. time to ******* play. hossa and datsyuk have to play amazing games tonight. come on boys.

there will not be a magic goalie to pick up our season. if there was an under-the-radar goalie floating around in europe he would have been picked up by some team a long time ago. we have the talent, and we just need to tighten up our d and get our goalies playing better. both ozzie and conklin know they can and can play better, and i believe they will. ozzie showed his value in last years' playoff run. conk showed his value with pitts in the middle of last season. our d demonstrated its dominance throughout last years' playoffs. WE DO NOT NEED NEW PLAYERS. we just need the ones we have to play their game. ozzie made big saves in the shootout tonight, and, at the end of the day, won us the game. so step the f*** off. we'll be fine.

well at least we have unchanging, objective outsiders to show "us" the error of "our" ways. that being said, i have never liked melrose, and i still don't, but taking the fact that it's him out of the equation and just looking at the situation, it's obvious that tampa is just finding every whichway to screw themselves over. and, as a coach in that situation, it has to be really frustrating being put in a situation where you have a bunch of miscellaneous free agents and not really being given a chance to make it work. and as others have pointed out, they're doing worse without him.

i feel basically the same way, except that i grow weary of posts where people whine about individuals bitching about fans who grumble. and, after proof reading this post, i'm already sick of the fact that i wrote it, and wish to bemoan my own lamentings of those who choose to snivel about other who gripe about the folks who criticize. now i have a headache.

yeah, i think it's worth a try. big fan of the defensive pairings. second line i'm okay with...hossa and z should be good together, though i'm i little sad to see hossa and dats split up. they've been a bit cold the last few games but seemed like they'd finally found their chemistry before that. maybe babs didn't think they were going to get it back together. to me, the filppula-datsyuk combination is the biggest question mark, for me. i don't clearly remember them playing together last year (i'm sure it happened, i just don't remember) but it seems like they could have good chemistry...but again, it depends on filppula kind of getting over that hump such that he's actually playing very well. it'll take homer a game or two to get his legs back--he looked pretty out of it last game, but i'm sure he'll get back into it. i'm also sorry to see franzen and z split up--i thought they were playing well together. however, sammy-franzen-huds seems like it has some potential. to me, this seems more like a 2a-2b-2c-4 set up. you have a line with a couple good passers but no scorers, a line with two good scorers without a great set up man, and a line that's a bit mixed (sammy does shoot, but isn't great, and has been passing more--franzen is a shooter, hudler can do both fairly well) but doesn't have a super-star on it. maybe an even more balanced attack will work? btw, have we ever seen hossa-datsyuk-zetterberg at any time, even during a powerplay or anything? obviously that kinda kills our depth but i'd still like to see it from time to time...

i suppose i'll never really understand the nhl cba. how can they just say, "cool, don't worry about it," and not have to pay his salary? once a player clears waivers can they just be sent anywhere? and then as long as their not with their nhl club, the team doesn't have to pay their salary? i remember vrbata being good last year...didn't realize he was sucking it up so bad now.

i'm not worried too much about it now, given the time of year and our record. still, i have to think that our way of winning games so far this year likely won't work too well in the playoffs. i just have to think that everyone plays a tighter game in the playoffs, and for us, it seems like a lot of games we play pretty well and then it's one bad giveaway, one defensive breakdown, or one really blown save and the puck's in the back of our net. now, obviously a lot of our one-goal victories have been low-scoring (anaheim) but a game like last night i would see us losing in the playoffs because the other team will likely be playing a tighter game and a few f*** ups from our back end would be much more costly. giving up one really weak goal in a 6-5 game is a lot less of a problem than in a 2-1 game. but, nah, i'm not too worried. personally, i don't see conks or howard being a huge improvement over ozzie. ty was wicked bad in his last start. i'm not saying that he'll keep sucking it up, but it's not like he's stealing games for us when we play him. we just need to get back to consistently having +20-25 shot differentials. that way, when our goalie has a .800 save percentage and theirs has a .940 save percentage, we'll still win the game. that's how we beat scarrrrrry anaheim.

assuming homer is in the lineup, the bottom two lines have been val-huds-cleary kopy-draper-malts correct? i guess i'm not understanding why there's such a large difference in even-strength ice time between hudler and flipper. huds has about 10:20 ESATIO a game compared to val's roughly 13:40. i would guess that some of that has to do with the fact that because huds is basically playing on the second line on the power play that after a powerplay ends, someone (kopy, maybe?) is bumped to the third line for a shift, meaning that hudler loses, say, one even-strength shift per powerplay shift? if you take huder's overall time (which includes one second of PK time) and compare it to flipper's time without PK time, it's about 310 (huds) to 336, a difference of just over 1:00 per game. anyway, one could probably talk numbers all day and not really get that much out of it...or at least everyone could take it a different way. i've heard people say that hudler does better when he's getting less TOI, versus when he was playing with like zetterberg and franzen. do you think it's a matchup issue? on the third line he's maybe going against lesser players instead of shut-down lines? also, maybe with less time he's got more jump in his step for the time he is out on the ice? i don't know. for my part, i've been frustrated with flipper's lack of production, but pleasantly surprised by hudler and yes, even sammy. i always feel like flippula is *almost* there...like he *almost* makes the play every time, you know? which maybe means that he's on the verge of breaking out (which i think i said all last season) or that he'll just never get over that hump. maybe he'll develop--let's hope so. if not, he plays good defense, but would in no way be worth three million a year. we shall see.

yeah, i don't see any reason to be upset about tonight's game. like others have mentioned, we beat jiggy and were inches away from scoring three more goals, which would have been a 5-1 result. hossa also owned the d on a good pass from dats and just missed over the bar on a breakaway. obviously, those don't count, but it doesn't matter because we got the win. jiggy was good (amazing toe stop on datsyuk at one point), and it seemed like a fair amount of the shots were from the perimeter, but when we shoot almost three times as many shots as them, that means that we controlled play. they can't score if we're shooting the puck, even if we're shooting it into their goalies chest and then winning the vast majority of the faceoffs (draper and z were collectively 23 wins against seven losses-- that's almost 77 per cent). we can't expect to blow out a physical team with a good goalie that often. what we can expect is to control the play, play solid d and get good goaltending...all of which we did tonight (save stuart's gaffe, which i missed, but sounded pretty brutal). it was one of the most exciting 2-1 results i've seen in a while and an important home win against a contending team (their start was horrible but they have an excellent record since then, putting them on par with the leagues best teams...and they're still fourth in the west) that we've had trouble with in the past. plus, the only thing better than chris pronger taking that cross-checking penalty to negate a late ducks powerplay was watching the reaction on the board. i think "see you in box you dumb retarded f***" made its way into the mix, which just makes me laugh. and anyone arguing the whole second-of-a-back-to-back thing, this is our third game in four days, with travel in between each one, and when we play there we're playing until one in the morning; when they play here, the game starts at four thirty in the afternoon. so i don't want your s*** and i don't give a s***. go wings.

oh, btw...despite my frustration at certain games, i haven't jumped on the "season is over" bandwagon yet. i'm not saying i WILL if the wings lose this game, but if they just get beat up, have s***ty goaltending, and can't score goals, i'm not saying the season is over, but this has to be a litmus test for our team. of our eight losses so far, two have been against vancouver, one against san jose, one a piece against boston, montreal and pitts, plus the one against the ducks. we need to prove that we can run with these teams and not just beat up on weaker teams. a loss tonight makes four out of five. not acceptable. if we can't beat the ducks, we can't win the cup this year, IMO. i'm not just talking about tonight's game (if we lose this we have no shot) but i don't see how a team that consistently loses to the ducks is going to make it. oh, and also, how the f*** does getzlaf have five more points than hossa? god, have i mentioned i hate that guy?

wings need need need this one. c'mon, boys. 4-3 wings: getzlaf with no points. i don't know why....i hate that guy. and every time i look at a box score and see that he's racked up more points, it just pisses me off.

i wouldn't really call it a mistake, but an unfortunate reality. and it is very unfortunate. i liked him when he was here and as soon as he started playing for LA he was doing well. i think he had an assist and twenty-plus minutes the first game he played with them. i guess you can look at it like this: we're obviously not trading/releasing cheli, as much as people might want us to. we won't trade lilja because we just re-signed him. that leaves lebda. personally, i think quincey > lebda, but i see one of two things being true: one, they tried to shop lebda quietly and no one was interested whatsoever. i don't think this is true (because i think we would have heard something) but i think even if he had been shopped we may have got nothing for him anyway. the other possibility i see that they deemed that the lilja-lebda combination would be better than the lilja-quincey combination. myself, i have a hard time seeing this actually be true (that l-l is better than l-q) but i don't know. that's the only thing i can think of. maybe they still think lebda will become awesome. but, yeah, i don't think mgmt had a ton of choice on the matter, but i do really wish that we could have kept him.

Friday: Florida @ Boston NY Islanders @ New Jersey Phoenix @ Carolina Philadelphia @ Buffalo Nashville @ Tampa Bay Anaheim @ St Louis Saturday: Vancouver @ Pittsburgh NY Rangers @ Ottawa NY Islanders @ Buffalo Chicago @ Toronto Phoenix @ Philadelphia Columbus @ Atlanta Boston @ Montreal St Louis @ Minnesota Anaheim @ Dallas Detroit @ Calgary Colorado @ Los Angeles Washington @ San Jose Sunday: Nashville @ Carolina New Jersey @ Tampa Bay

why does it piss me off when getzlaf gets points? i don't know why i hate the guy so much...i honestly think it's just because he looks like such a ******. he's never done anything bad to me, and i can't really remember a time where he did something that i felt was unfair against the wings. *shrug* oh, well, glad the ducks lost. i suppose that if a duck fan read this thread he/she would assume that we're still just pissed from the playoff boot and have sour grapes because "we think the ducks can still beat us." i'd really love a playoff series to settle this once and for all (or at least until the next year starts ).

you do realize that that is an extremely subjective judgment of the guy, correct? "he sucks." non-descriptive and thus, essentially meaningless, though you do explain it with this: "he's not funny." i don't think chris rock is funny, but a lot of people do. i think monty python is hilarious, and a lot of people can find no humor in it. and he's not going out there trying to be freebeer and hotwings or something. he's just goofy...i don't get the impression that he's trying to be "laugh out loud" funny. finally, "he's an embarrassment to the organization." i really have a hard time understanding how you get to this point. yes, i can understand you personally wishing that he was not on TV, and so i see your earlier criticisms and more valid -- if you think he sucks and is not funny, i disagree, but again, these are subjective opinions. saying he's an embarrassment is a broad-based claim which suggests you perfectly understand and represent public opinion. unless he's out trashing opposing players or making deragatory remarks, i have a hard time seeing how people are going to see keating and think, "wow, the wings sports team must be awful." again, it's fine that you do not like his delivery. i just disagree. i don't think he's the best in the business by any means, but i guess i don't understand why he bothers people so much. *shrug* but that's just my opinion.

alright, we all seem to think that the refs are calling penalties against the winning team late in games to try to even things up to make things more exciting. i thought we could emperically test this and see if we notice any trends. you can only tell so much from box scores -- you can obviously see what penalties are called, but without watching the game you have no way of knowing whether the calls were legit or not. even if no one else posts in this thread, i'm going to keep it updated (unless it gets deleted ) every once and a while. please add your thoughts about specific games as they occur. bolded games are games in which there seems to be an opportunity for the refs to attempt to swing the game, italicized games are games in which, in my opinion, an argument could be made that the refs attempted to make the game more exciting by showing a bias for the trailing team. i'll go back for the last few days: 17 november. ott. 1 vs. nyr 2 (SO). both teams were 0/3 on the power play, and as the game was tied for most of the third period, i see little evidence. there was a penalty on ott. a few minutes before new york tied it up, but it's hard to make a case here. van 1 vs. nyi 2 (SO). again, i see little evidence though little opportunity for this theory here. tied for about 30 minutes and was tied since before the end of the second. det. 4 vs. edm. 0. this is a game where there was a lot of potential for the refs to turn the bias towards the losing team. however, both teams were called for a total of five penalties with one each in the second period. there were no penalties on detroit after they went up 3-0 or 4-0; the only penalty in the third was against the losing team. bos. 3 vs. tor. 2. this is a tough call. as the game was never more than a one goal difference after the first period, any calling by the officials has a high potential to make a difference. the losing team took the first three penalties of the third, which presents little evidence that refs were biased in toronto's favor. the reason i think you could make an argument for it is because boston took two penalties very late in the game, and one with thirty seconds left. because of the new rule, the faceoff would be in toronto's offensive zone and they would be up six men to four. yes, they had less than thirty seconds, but if they win that faceoff they have plenty of time with a 2-man advantage to score a goal. sjs. 4 vs. nsh. 1 again, any game with a big spread gives the refs the opportunity to intervene. ignoring all the fights in the third period (i'm guessing this would have been a fun game to watch) the sharks got three penalties to nashville's one. one of the sharks' penalties came with less than five minutes. but there were no shark penalties between 4:24 and 16:06 of the third period, while there was one nashville penalty in that span. if the refs were trying to influence the game, i would guess that they would make more calls because the sharks were up by three and four goals in the third period. additionally the sharks had more powerplay chances in the game despite the fact that they were winning for the vast majority of it. overall for the day: 1/3 games in which, in my opinion, you could make an argument that the refs attempted to favor the losing team. 16 november tam. 2 vs. car. 3 (SO) this game was tied for the whole third period, so i see little opportunity for intervention. mon. 3 vs. stl 2 (SO) between the time when st. louis went up 2-1 and the time bobby lang scored each team was assessed one penalty each. atl. 3 vs. phi. 4 philly was called for two hooking penalties shortly after going up 3-1 in the second period. while the penalites were relatively mixed throughout the rest of the game, it seems to me that one could at least make a case, especially given the generally suspicious nature of hooking calls. however, having not seen the calls i can't make a definitive statement...perhaps someone who saw the game would care to comment. sjs. 6 vs. chi. 5 this was a bit crazy, so it might be hard to tell what exactly went on here. two calls against san jose late in the second when they were up 4-3. then with chicago up by a goal, they start getting called for penalties. then after the sharks retake the lead, they are whistled for a hooking call. looks like ref intervention might be a possibility here. la. 0 vs. ana 2 only one penalty called against anaheim when they were up 1-0, no penalties called against them when they were up 2-0. the refs called los angeles for more penalties in the game despite the fact that they are obviously the weaker team and never had the lead. i give this day 2/3. so, for these two sample days, i say you could make an argument that the refs attempted to intervene in 3/6 games. however, any and all of these potential games could be shot down if someone saw the game and the calls were indeed legit. anyone see any of the games in question here? discuss.

IMO, most probably won't. semin won't keep up his current torrid pace, but if he stays with ovie and backstrom i think he could do very well this year (though he was still putting up good numbers with different linemates as well). setoguchi is off to a great start, already netting more point than he got last year. i could potentially see him being the real deal. dumont, though, will probably never be much more than a 70-ish point player. feel the same way about hemsky. i expect stajan's hot streak to come to a grinding halt. just on this good start he'll probably get a career-high point total this year, but i don't think it'll be much more than in recent years.

i don't mind murph. don't get me wrong here -- i love mickey, but look...we know you disagree with how penalties are called now. i don't know why he can't just say, "yep, 'nother chinsey call" and leave it at that (aside from maybe the most glaring). but it seems like he has to go on a four minute rant every single time a penalty is called. to his credit, he does argue the case for opposing players when they get called for weak stuff, albeit in a much weaker fashion, but it's getting a little old. but, yeah, i'd still take mickey over murph, but i'm guessing that the FSN higher ups want murph to be a little more objective. i personally think it makes a better broadcast when the announcers have some degree of disagreement instead of just jerking each other off the whole time about how great their team is and how s***ty the refs are. isn't that why we hate other announcers? just a thought.

yeah, the only game that hasn't been a one goal game for all intents and purposes was the san jose game, where we were down 4-1 until the last minute. wings need to run away with a game here pretty soon. they're due. the panthers might just be the team to provide that.

it'll be interesting to see what happens to z's totals now that franzen is back. i don't imagine he'll slow down much in terms of over all points, but right now he's got 10 goals and 5 assists. i'd expect the rate of assists to jump way up and his goals to slow down a bit. i don't see franzen as a guy who will likely have more assists than goals in a season very many years. almost 60% of his points are goals. given that z can score and set up, and franzen seems to be a very natural finisher, i expect z will get a ton of points but not fifty goals. that being said, it also depends on who else is on the line, be it hudler, flipper or sammy. each plays a different game which will affect z's game to some degree. interestingly, counter to what i might expect, sammy has 3 goals to z's 5 assists, and 11 assists to z's 10 goals. huds seems to be more of a set up guy. i kinda don't think z will get fifty goals, but if he stays healthy i do expect him to break a hundred points.

ah, yes, good, good stuff. wasn't draper the one who scored with like seven seconds left? or maybe he scored the earlier one, i don't remember. or maybe he didn't at all.

was that san jose game in 06/07 the one where we went up like three nothing in the first ten minutes and then gave up eight or nine straight goals? awful.

Friday: New Jersey @ Washington Columbus @ Buffalo Carolina @ Atlanta Detroit @ Florida St Louis @ Chicago Nashville @ Anaheim Saturday: Toronto @ Vancouver Philadelphia @ Montreal Washington @ New Jersey Ottawa @ NY Islanders Boston @ NY Rangers Buffalo @ Pittsburgh Columbus @ Minnesota Dallas @ Phoenix Colorado @ Edmonton Nashville @ Los Angeles Sunday: Tampa Bay @ Carolina Montreal @ St Louis San Jose @ Chicago Atlanta @ Philadelphia Los Angeles @ Anaheim

wings better effin win this one. if we can't beat good teams, we need to at least beat up on bad teams. maybe a strong defensive game will boost some confidence??? although it didn't really happen after the jersey win. still, the boys need to recover. and ozzie needs to not get torched!!