RedWings Gone Wild

Osgood pulled by the end of the period?..... I'm feeling it.

haha just awsome

somewhere Brett Hull is going... "wait, that's a rule?"

............ lol........ you've got to be joking

wth Dats...

Goaltending is hardly better. IMO Fluery is as overrated as they come... he'll let in some of the weakest goals of the year, while making some impressive saves... it about evens out into mediocrity. Crosby/Malkin > Dats/Zetterberg, sure, but I'll take our depth (if healthy).

Didn't see the first goal..... but Kipper 10 saves out of 10.... osgood 1 out of 2.... seems about consistent with our start against Atlanta... sigh

I 100% agree that Colorado had a better team, by far... and they would probably have a cup or two more if they weren't against Dallas, Detroit, and some of the other top teams of the past twenty years. However, I think Leclair gets underrated, and Lindros over.. again, when in Philly, Leclair's numbers were just as good with Lindros injured, as when he was healthy. And, while the line "they played their best years with him" is certainly true, the inverse is true too, that Lindros played his best years with them, and didn't do anything without them either. I also think you're underrating what Lindros had to work with.... a lot of good guys passed through philly, granted not the same types as Detroit or Colorado, but still he had Langkow, Steve Duchesne, Vanbiesbrouck, Chris Gratton, Alex Daigle, Mike Sillinger, Klatt, Niinimaa (very underrated Dman), Hawerchuk (tho considerably out of his prime), Coffey, Zubrus, Prospal, Svoboda, Brind'Amour, etc... This was a team regularly amongst the leaders in goals for in the east, it really wasn't a team he was carrying nightly, it was a team that should have contended more often than it did.... but I agree, Forsberg had more to work with... EDIT: Oh, and one other thing I haven't mentioned yet about Forsberg... he was right there with Fed as one of the best two-way forwards of all time, an asset of his that is often overlooked (like his physicality)...

I never meant to sound (nor do I think I did) like I was implying that Forsberg would have led the Flyers to multiple cups. However, I think you've wonderfully undersold the help Lindros had in Philly to make it sound as if he was Hasek with Buffalo or something. Lindros underachieved. He had the best line in hockey for close to 6 years, had a decent netminder (by early 90s standards), average depth, and some good defensemen. It's not like the defensemen you mentioned (Bourque, Foote, Blake and Ozolinsh) contributed to Forsberg's career numbers drastically. Bourque was there a season and a half... Foote is average, 2nd pairing on a weak wings team, 3rd pairing on our good years... Blake is awesome, no doubt... but Ozolinsh was more of a liability than anything else, and hardly anyone I would point to as an asset for a team to have... As to who was a better playoff performer, Sakic and Forsberg were teammates from 94-95 through 03-04. During that partnership Forsberg had 154 playoff points in 133 games: 1.16 ppg and a +/- of 47. Sakic had 163 points in 147 games: 1.10 ppg and a +/- of 9 over that time. Not only did Forberg score at a higher rate in the playoffs than Sakic while they were together, he was also much better on the defensive end, the difference in +/- being especially surprising when I looked at it.... we're talking about a different of 38, and this is a subjective stat when looking from team to team, but within the same team, it's a pretty drastic difference...... and yes yes yes, no need to tell me that Sakic's production is irrelevant because he is the leader, inspiration, blah blah blah... I know, I'm only talking about on-ice productivity, not the intangibles. With Forsberg, for those saying that his teammates played a role in his point production... well, he still scored at a 1.14 ppg pace after leaving Colorado, despite being injured the majority of his career, and not playing for anyone I would consider a big-time contender after the Avs. Lindros, on the other hand, was an elite offensive threat for only about half his career, becoming a shell of his former self, whereas Forsberg, to this day, is still a top offensive threat, with or without his legs, spleen, knees... it'd probably be easier to list the body parts on him that still work, than list the ones he's injured.... There is little to suggest that with a better team, Lindros would have achieved more, because his team was pretty damn good, especially his linemates... and looking at his international career, he was always a utility/role player, never a strong/productive leader, as you make him out to be (the Canada cup you mention, he was tied for 6th with 3 other people in scoring for Canada....)...

I don't know what you thought would happen with Z and Franzen's contracts, but they took DISCOUNTS to play with us... the idea that we would be able to get comparable or better players, and then be able to get additional skilled players, at less of a rate than we got this season... well sir, I am guess you don't know much about hockey contracts.

So, no Osgood right?

Lindros never had to carry a team.. and he never did carry a team. Unless you're implying that his lone accomplishment as a team player (making the finals) was a one man effort, and not equally the result of LeClair's 21 in 19, or Brind'Amour's 21 in 19, or Desjardins, or Renberg, or Hextall, or... you get my point. Lindros was certainly their MVP performer, but to imply he carried teams is entirely against the reality of what happened (hell, despite Lindros only playing in 52 games that year, LeClair still managed to net 50 goals and 97 points... numbers Lindros only eclipsed once in his career, tho he never had 50 goals). Forsberg, on the other hand, was the best big-game performer I've seen.. IMO moreso than Roy or Sakic... which is evident, to me, because of his cups, but also because of his two Olympic golds, his two world championship golds, and all the other accomplishments Lindros doesn't have (leading the league in points, +/-, etc...). In fact, the only team based victory Lindros has (the 02 olympic gold), he wasn't even much of a presence for.

I could be wrong, and I don't feel like looking it up, but isn't there a rule that if you sign a contract and you're over 35 that you can't retire during it and have the $ come off the cap? I believe it's one of the safeguards they put in place for the cap era with just that kind of logic in mind.

Not even in the pre-cap era would he make that much money as a 40 year old on pace for 28 points. You've got to be joking.

oh... and in case anyone thinks differently (and I see a few do).... the semin - backstrom - Ovie line is the best line in hockey. Period. And once they are all actually healthy and on the ice at the same time, game over... at least in the east. No doubt the Hawks will be very very good... but let's not exaggerate.

Agreed. And I think that's one of the things the article overlooks, is that, while the Wings certainly aren't going to be blowing people out daily for a while, the team, if healthy, is still arguably right up there with San Jose and Chicago as the West's best. I still think Franzen is the most missed, because I think he has the ability, more than anyone on this roster, to create goals out of nowhere, and without assistance. He has been our best finisher over the past two playoffs and last season.. To me, this team can't be judged until January, when all the guys start petering back into the lineup.

I think based upon many of the weak players that have been inducted recently that Lindros has a "hall worthy" resume. That being said, I have a problem with the hall of fame's weak standards, and lack of pre-NHL Europeans (Kharlamov and Tretiak being the only two). Even tho it is a "hockey" hall of fame, it is entirely NHL focused... The Hall of Fame, IMO, is also pretty damn generous to cup champs, and largely ignores players who couldn't get there (this is a team sport, isn't it? So why rob a player of an individual honor, based upon a team's performance). Some may not agree, but guys like Gillies, Dick Duff, and Glenn Anderson are only in there because of team accomplishments (Anderson being particularly ridiculous to me). And yet arguably the best goal scorer of the late 90s doesn't get inclusion (Bure literally scored 30% of the Islanders' goals in 00-01)? I also think there are a number of guys that deserve inclusion over Lindros that have been passed over in previous seasons. Ciccerelli, Bure, and a slew of Russians, to name a few... Based upon the guys presently in the hall, yeah, i think Lindros' accomplishments deserve recognition, but I also think the hall needs to toughen up its criteria for induction.... lets not forget how comically overrepresented the original 6 era is too.

and here I was expecting to have to argue rosters with you

Yes, but that was hockey news, this is puck daddy and is a separate list. Puck daddy is doing a series of top ten lists for the decade, including top 10 teams (Detroit's 02 squad was #1)

No, not in the slightest. With the exception of a hand full of seasons he's been very mediocre. There are probably close to a half-dozen goalies with better decades (emphasis on the word decade, not season) than him overall (see: Nabokov, Osgood, Kipper, etc.....)

Subjective. Half this decade was clutch and grab, and half was considerably more open and free flowing. A comparison of ppg averages doesn't account for the different in play, style, and potency from the last decade. You can't compare Sundin with Crosby or Ovechkin since his prime entirely predated the lockout, and he was amongst the most dominant players in the league prior to it, and still one of the top after it. Alfredsson is in similar territory as he was peaking around the lockout, so again the comparison is moot, but his ppg numbers after the lockout are still pretty close to Ovie and Crosby. Since the lockout. Ovie: 1.30 ppg. Crosby: 1.33 Vinny: 361 points in 341 games. 1.06 ppg. Kovulchuk: 373 points in 332 games. 1.12 ppg... without the benefit of the teams Crosby and Ovie have of late (yes, in the Heatley/Hossa days he did have a little help, but that's about the extent of it through his entire career). Alfredsson: 376 points in 324 games. 1.16 ppg. Heatley: 390 points in 342 games. 1.14 ppg. Datsyuk: 386 points in 337 games. 1.14 ppg, while winning more cups than anyone else mentioned, and being by far the best out of any other contender defensively. Ovie n Crosby's numbers are certainly better (by about 0.15 - 0.20 ppg)... but the difference, to me, isn't astronomical enough to justify inclusion amongst the best decade-long performers... guys like Alfredsson have been leading their teams for the entire decade, compiling upwards of 700 points, amongst other accomplishments.

Well, Zetterberg didn't, so I couldn't. but again, the list is meant to serve as a decade long comparison of worth, and statistical achievements were looked at cumulatively throughout the decade, so 2 cups > 1... 540 points > 450. Again, the list of top individual seasons already exists, no need to get redundant by including individuals based upon the results of only a hand full of seasons. This isn't an analysis of who is presently the best, or who has had a better career, but a look at the greatest impact over the entire decade. Crosby and Ovie certainly have had the most influence over the post-lockout era, but that's half the decade. Injuries, years off, changing leagues, all were factored into the inclusion and exclusion of players, as well as their rankings on the list (Thornton > Jagr because Jagr went to the KHL). With something as subjective as who was the best of X-Y-Z era, it helps to stick to one's own criteria for judgment. I agree categorically with the rest of the list, but the inclusion of those two players simply undermines the list, because it is not a list based upon who is best, who is the biggest star, but who had the most successful career of the decade.

Datsyuk only needed one year... no love?

I think it's a legit argument to say Ovie and Crosby shouldn't be on the list, because if you look at Puck Daddy's criteria and explanations, everything on there is cumulative for the entire decade, and playing half of it should be considered. He had a post already where he named the top 10 individual seasons of the decade, and Ovie and Crosby deserve to be on there, but not on the all-decade list.

we make all goalies look good don't worry, Toskala would win Vezina by the time we were done with him.