aarond

Yzerman was behind Mess when edicius stated that he was perturbed to find Mess in front of Stevie Y. The only thing I find perturbing about that list is Brendan Shanahan coming in at #12. Is that a joke? It reminds me of a few weeks ago when we saw a similar list on goalies, and they had Osgood in the top 10, or near it. Come on now...

It's a coin-toss between the two. Mess has 3 more cups, scored two more career goals, and 130 more career assists.

It's actually even better than 12-2. In 1998, they weren't 2-2. They were 4-2, since they won all four rounds. IN 99, they swept the Ducks in the first round before losing to Colorado in round 2. So they're record that year was 1-0. btw-in 97, they lost game 5 to the Avs when they had them down 3-1 in the series.

The only games (since 97) that I can think of that the Wings have lost when they had a chance to eliminate their opponent are the following: 1997 conference finals vs. Colorado: Wings led series 3-1, got routed 6-0. 1998 conference semifinals vs. St. Lous: Wings led series 3-1, lost 3-2, or maybe it was 3-1. Can't recall exactly 1998 conference finals vs. Dallas: Wings led series 3-1, lost in OT I can't think of any other times the Wings have lost in that type of situation. By my calculation, the Wings have won 16 playoff series since the start of the 96-97 season. So if I am correct about those being the only games they’ve lost when having an opponent on the brink, that would mean their record is 16-3

I was following the gameday thread during game 4, and when the Sharks took the lead in that game, there were no less than 5 Wings fans declaring "series over, thanks for showing up, Wings." If the Wings can swing that game back in their favor, the Sharks can certainly swing this series back in their favor. You'd think it was the first time witnessing a Stanley Cup playoff season for some of these people.

Case in point: anybody who thinks this series is over isn't keeping an even keel.

I wish he would post on this forum a little bit so we could keep some of these fans on some semblance of an even-keel.

I knew the Sharks were better than their record before this series started. But now that we're four games in, this team is even better than I thought they were. Their forecheck is absolutely brutal. It takes everything the Wings have just to clear the zone sometimes. Their top line is fierce. Probably the best line the league. So I knew these guys weren't your average 5 seed, but when these guys are on, they look like the best team in the league. So why did they finish so low?

I disagree. We got lucky to win last night, and we were pretty lucky to win game 2. That's not to say that they haven;t gotten some lucky breaks, but this series could have easily been a sweep for them, with a few inches here or there in their favor. You can't say that for Detroit. They clearly dominated game 1, and they dominated most of game 3. Think about it...they had a player with possession of the puck in our zone when we had an empty net. Luckily, he didn't manage to put it in. But if he had, we lose game four and we're down 3-1 right now. With that said, I think we'll win this series because the Sharks left the door open. They haven't capitalized and I think we'll make them pay for that (I guess we already have in some respects).

Yea, I can see that. The question I am asking, put another way, is this: in your opinion, why didn't the Sharks have a better record? Not that it's bad, but the 5th seed seems low for a team this good. I guess there's no good answer for it. They just got unlucky having the Ducks in their division, which meant that 4th seed was the best they can do. While we're on the point, does anybody think the NHL's seeding system is retarded? Personally, I like the system the NBA employed this year. The only thing I don't like about the NBA's, but which I do like about the NHL's, is they don't reseed after each round, whereas the NHL does. If they combined systems, it would be a good system. But nothing can beat the old division system from the old school. Did I say we're not?

Uh, no. I didn't expect them to be easy. Show me where I said or implied that. In fact, I specifically said that I thought they were better than their record. I think he might be talking about winning percentage wise.

lol Thanks. What a brilliant theorist you are.

We've had the puck for most of the series, and we've obviously taken a lot more shots. But that has more to do with style of play. The Wings are a puck possession team. The Sharks are a chase and forecheck team. When their forecheck is buzzing, they are all over us in our own zone. That's why we've had so many sloppy turnovers. They've forced a lot of that stuff. We've had a hard time generating truly quality scoring chances. Luckily, we have a better minder, thus, a higher percentage of our quality chances have wound up in the net than theirs.

After 4 games, one thing has become increasingly apparent to me: the Sharks are better. Their forecheck is nastier. There have been times in the series where it took everything the Wings could muster just to get the puck out of the zone. THe x-factor, however, is Dom. We need him to steal this series. And I think he's gonna do it. So while my better hockey sense tells me that the Sharks ought to win this series, they've left the door open and I think the wings will steal it in 7.

I second that quest for understanding. I also am a Spartan alumn, and nearly a life-long metro-Detroiter. The only non-Detroit team I root for hardcore is the Dallas Cowboys. I lived in Texas when I was younger for about two years, and I went to several Cowboys games and became hooked. But other than that, the Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons, and Spartans are all teams that I have sunk a great deal of heart and sole into rooting for. To me, there has to be some tangible reason to root for a team. It's usually geographical. So what is it for Americans who are "die-hards" for some European soccer club?

But it in this case, I think they deserved it because of the way they let their team down. They didn't let their team down by making an honest mistake in the midst of still playing hard. They let their team down by being selfish. There is no way in the world a guy should get a one-on-one deep in your zone with a one-goal lead that late in the game. I can't believe that was simply a mental mistake in the heat of battle. I gotta believe that was because of some guys loafing it, looking for a puck to spring in their direction so they could fill an empty net. That deserves public humiliation.

It's amuzing how an inch here or an inch there in these games can determine the general theme of the posts we see after each game. For example, if those two post-kissers that Schneider had in game three are an inch in the other direction, the Wings win game 3 and everybody would have come on here lauding their play, saying things like "they played great," "they played with heart," "they played like they wanted it," "they outplayed 'em," etc. But since those two pucks didn't go our way, we saw lots of "they got embarassed," "they got totally dominated," "they got completely outplayed," "they didn't show up." The same thing happened tonight. The Wings fell behind 2 goals, one of them very flukey, and with another dinged post, and there were a bunch of people dogging their effort again (check out pages 3 through 7 of the game thread to see what I mean). Then they come back with a couple of breaks in their favor (the Lang goal was soft, and Holmer got kinda lucky to make the play he made), and the evaluation of the game changes entirely. All because of a few inches. Bottom line is this (and I've been saying this over and over again for the last two weeks but some just can't get it through their heads): just because the Wings are losing, just because they make a mistake and the puck winds up in the net, doesn't automatically mean that they aren't trying 110%, aren't playing hard, aren't playing with "heart," or any other sophmoric nonsense. It doesn't even mean they are playing poorly. Hockey is such a fine game and it's pretty flukey at times. Don't sell the Wings down the river just because a few things don't bounce their way from time to time. btw-to the knee-jerk negativists, doesn't the other team factor into your analysis? Do the Sharks deserve any credit for the bad things that have happened to Detroit in this series, or is it all because Detroit didn't "play with heart" or didn't "want it"? Are the Sharks not a hell of a hockey team? Do they not have one of the most oppresive forechecks in the league? Is that top line not the most dynamic and frightening line in the NHL?

[sarcasm] this team has no heart [/sarcasm] [sarcasm]They don't want to win. [sarcasm]

More cliched non-sense from knee jerky fans. I've been talking about this for two weeks now. YOu types never go away. The Wings played pretty well in that period. If that dinged post was two inches in the other direction, we're tied right now. If those two dinged posts in game 3 go our way, we're up 2-1 in the series. But since they were off my a mere inch or two, it forces knee jerks like you into the reaction that "they don't have heart," or "they don't want to win" or some cliched b.s. like that. Annoying.

You're an idiot.

How come there's no shortage of people like you on this forum. Unreal. One freaking goal and you're already throwin in the towel.

they just got unlucky that the pick managed to stay in the zone.

The best thing about Cherry is his absolute inability to correctly pronounce any semi-unique names. He pronounces Luongo “Lalongo†or simply “Longo’ He pronounces Koivu “coy-voy.†Lecavlier is “la va cava lee air†St. Louis is simply pronounced like it’s St. Louis, MO. He can’t pronounce Jaromir, so I think he’s given up on trying and he simply calls him “Yammy.â€Â

But I did. Again, you're taking a figure of speech, a cliche if you will, a little too literally, imo. The reason for the cliche, at least when I use it, is because they: a) spend a lot of dough; b) are extremely well recognized and talked about; and c) have a seemingly endless amount of value. There might be teams that spend more money. I doubt there are any teams that are more recognizable and I'm positive that there aren't any clubs that are more valuable. So there may be teams that spend more money, and maybe the cliche "Yankees of soccer" would fit those teams as well. "Yankees of soccer" is another way of saying that they are an uber-franchise.

It makes perfect sense. I wasn't trying to "back out" of anything. I blatantly admitted that I'm not a soccer expert. Although, I guarantee you I am far more familiar with it than about 75% of the American public. I know it's not saying much because Americans don't give a crap about soccer. But what percentage of Americans even know that Champions League just finished the semi-final stage? What percentage even know what Champions League is? I'm not trying to get off the hook for anything either. I have a hard time believing that Real Madrid, Arsenol, Bayer Munich, and Chelsea are just as recognizable to fans around the world, let alone America, as Man U. Analogous statements like "The Yankees of soccer" aren't meant literally. They're figures of speech. All of this fuss over a figure of speech. But if Man U isn't the Yankees of soccer, they're at least the Yankees of the Premiership. As for me dissing the sport, I'm not dissing the sport. I'm dissing the players. I'm not even dissing all of the players. I'm dissing the ones like Ronaldo (either one of them actually) and Drogba. Guys who go down and act like they were shot in the back when somebody barely breathed on them. The sport could be great. I wanna love the sport. It's a great concept. But the diving and the faking is too much to stomach sometimes. All contact sports that call penalties have divers and fakers. But soccer seems to have a lot more than most. Otherwise, it's fun to watch.