Frozen-Man

Exactly. BewareThePenguin just shows up posts stuff he can back up, gets challenged on it and then never answers then acts as if he just sincerely wants to have a discussion about hockey. He is the worst kind of troll because he does it 95% of the time but then throws in obvious and undeniable compliments about the Wings so that he can pretend that he is rational and analyzing fairly, acting as if the way he acts the 5% of the time is his real nature and ignoring or feigning ignorant about the 95%.

:caution: And should the Wings win tomorrow night against the slightly younger and overpaid (comparatively to Detroit's stars) I guess they can tank for a few more years so that they can get some more 1st and 2nd draft picks, they obviously don't have the ability to draft well deep or entice free agents (just ask Hossa ). If in your opinion it is "game over" if the Pens win (and that wouldn't even win the Cup) what will it be for the Pens they will be down to the Wings again and lost last year - sooooo who should rebuild. Seriously though, you are the first and only moron that I have ever heard float this idea concerning the Wings.

That is hysterical.

Stupid thread, anyone who knows the Wings knows that they are not that mentally weak. Additionally, they are playing at home, good chance of Dats back, and are not accustom to losing 3 in a row. The Wings have a lot of pride and it is going to be much harder for the Pens to beat them for a third time in a row than it will be for the Wings to come back and win this next one. Anything can happen, the Pens could win game 5 but I doubt it. Again, stupid thread, and really just a flaming thread - a crafty hidden flaming but a flaming none the less.

Can't someone ban this dbag flame inciting troll. If he can't make anything but stupid and ignorant comments designed to cause problems can we get rid of him? I guess if we sucked for years on end we could get the "youth movement" too (even though there is just a couple of years between the finals roster teams ages) Um yeah you can have it both ways, because the concepts are not mutually exclusive. You should think before you post. The first statement does not negate the second statement, nor does the second nullify the first. They can both be true, the first statement "they won because they were the superior team then the Pens and their depth was too much for the Pens to handle" can be true and the Wings although the schedule screwed them (and it was not just Wings fans saying this go read almost any sports site and they were all saying it and how messed up it was and hadn't been done in 50+ years) were able to persevere as the superior and deep team. That being said 4 games in 6 nights and 5 in 8 wore on the Wings who played a much more physical team in Anaheim than the Pens did in Washington and then were hit by injuries depleting their team and wearing them down more than a team with an almost full roster. Wow two comments can both be true, who would have thought. An orange is the color orange and an orange has a peel, oh wait I can't have it both ways, . . . wait yes I can because more than one thing can be true, fella. Oh and to quote my friend thedatsyukian: Were the Pens, rather than the Wings, missing that much (minus a selke winner obviously ) the series would not even be over already rather than tied at two apiece.

QFT It amazes me that even pens fans would be so dense as to act as if the injury of Dats should just be ignored when discussing which team is superior. Drop their Hart finalist and I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way. Don't get me wrong the Wings have to find a way to get it done even if Dats can't make it back but if they were sitting tied after 4 games and Malkin hadn't played they would be bragging about it and claiming that they would be ahead if he had been playing.

And here are some more that wouldn't fit because there were too many for the size requirements of a post:

Well it did take some searching, I mean I could hardly find anything but here you go: I know not much there, I mean I guess technically you are correct I couldn't find "find one instance of me claiming either Detroit won because of luck and/or calls, or that the Pens lost for the same reasons." I couldn't find ONE but maybe if you had reworded it, I couldn't hardly find one where you didn't. Maybe that is what you meant. P.S. The forum wouldn't even allow me to post all of the quotes because there were too many so I will have to post the rest in a subsequent post.

Most posters didn't ride you because of your initial post claiming that the Pens would have a shot. In fact most posters complimented you on the quality of the post. Where you started gettting ragged on was after the 2 Detroit wins when you gave the Wings no credit (even though as a precursor to your excuses you acted like you did), you claimed that the Wings had all the luck and that the Pens got only bad luck (and that the refs had not been fair to the Pens). That is why you got ragged on, and not supprisingly I haven't seen one post where you attributed the Pens two wins to the Pens getting lucky and the Wings having bad luck. That is why you annoyed so many people and they commented on it - the Wings win and it is just because they were lucky and the Pens had bad luck and the refs helped the Wings however when the Pens win it was not good luck for them and bad luck for the Wings but the superior skill of the Pens.

QFT - still a long way to go. :clap: Thank you!

I found it, here it is:

In addition to my previous post: I think that it is largely a difference in rolls. In 02 Stevie was in the waning period of his career. He was still putting up numbers but he was really there because he was the heart and soul of the team. He presence was his most important asset to the team and his ability to play through the pain and the heart that he showed in doing it was what made him so valuable that playoff year. Dats is not in the same position. He is needed to play both ends of the ice, to ferociously back check, to "dangle dangle" and turn guys inside out. That is how he plays his game and it is where his value to the team lies. Dats might could come back and play the role that Stevie did in 02 but because he doesn't have they years, prestige, reverence, or severe injury that Yzerman did I am not sure it would have anywhere near the same effect. Also, if they have been honest that he really is day to day and a game time decision before every game because he is continuing to improve and become more healthy he is in a very different situation than Yzerman was. Without a very major surgery (one usually reserved for 60 year only people not professional athletes) there was no way that Yzerman was going to get better. IF they could have rested him for a week or two and he could have been totally healthy (or remotely close to it) I'm pretty certain that they would have gone that route, however that was not the case his injury was what it was and rest/therapy was not going to fix it. Yzerman was going to play at 40-60% health no matter what, so either you play him and get him at 40-60% (which I would take over almost any player at 100% health) and get the benefit that he provides (including the amazing inspiration, dedication, and heart that he showed) or you don't play him and you get nothing. That is not the same option that they have with Pav, they say there is no broken bone. Every day, before every game, and after every practice the team and Dats himself says he is getting better, getting healthier, and improving what he is capable of doing. The injury that Pavs has can be reagitated, its healing slowed, and with rest/therapy his health will continue to improve. Perhaps they know that they can sit him out, trust the team to keep them in the series and Dats can come back for the last 3 games of the series pretty close to 100% health. The difference in the two is that Yzerman's injury was so bad that it couldn't be fixed with rest/therapy nor (according to Yzerman) would it really be made worse by playing (unless there was a collision or other incident that would further injure it but playing itself would not make it worse) however Dats can/has continued to get better and playing could possibly inhibit healing. Basically (and this is just a guess obviously), they may have decided that having Dats 100% (or close to it) for the final three games was a better option than having him at 70% (and possibly declining as the series went on) for the final five games.

I think that it is largely a difference in rolls. In 02 Stevie was in the waning period of his career. He was still putting up numbers but he was really there because he was the heart and soul of the team. He presence was his most important asset to the team and his ability to play through the pain and the heart that he showed in doing it was what made him so valuable that playoff year. Dats is not in the same position. He is needed to play both ends of the ice, to ferociously back check, to "dangle dangle" and turn guys inside out. That is how he plays his game and it is where his value to the team lies. Dats might could come back and play the role that Stevie did in 02 but because he doesn't have they years, prestige, reverence, or severe injury that Yzerman did I am not sure it would have anywhere near the same effect. Also, if they have been honest that he really is day to day and a game time decision before every game because he is continuing to improve and become more healthy he is in a very different situation than Yzerman was. Without a very major surgery (one usually reserved for 60 year only people not professional athletes) there was no way that Yzerman was going to get better. IF they could have rested him for a week or two and he could have been totally healthy (or remotely close to it) I'm pretty certain that they would have gone that route, however that was not the case his injury was what it was and rest/therapy was not going to fix it. Yzerman was going to play at 40-60% health no matter what, so either you play him and get him at 40-60% (which I would take over almost any player at 100% health) and get the benefit that he provides (including the amazing inspiration, dedication, and heart that he showed) or you don't play him and you get nothing. That is not the same option that they have with Pav, they say there is no broken bone. Every day, before every game, and after every practice the team and Dats himself says he is getting better, getting healthier, and improving what he is capable of doing. The injury that Pavs has can be reagitated, its healing slowed, and with rest/therapy his health will continue to improve. Perhaps they know that they can sit him out, trust the team to keep them in the series and Dats can come back for the last 3 games of the series pretty close to 100% health. The difference in the two is that Yzerman's injury was so bad that it couldn't be fixed with rest/therapy nor (according to Yzerman) would it really be made worse by playing (unless there was a collision or other incident that would further injure it but playing itself would not make it worse) however Dats can/has continued to get better and playing could possibly inhibit healing. Basically (and this is just a guess obviously), they may have decided that having Dats 100% (or close to it) for the final three games was a better option than having him at 70% (and possibly declining as the series went on) for the final five games.

I posted this in another thread the other day but still think it is relevant:

I gotta agree the playoffs this year have been awesome. Lots of action, hitting, skill, and scoring almost every game. It has been great.

That's not really a fair comparison. I see what you are saying and have always been amazed by Stevie's heart and will (and have never been as impressed or amazed with anyone as I was with Yzerman that year), however his role and what he had to offer the team in 02 is very different from what Dats can provide the team now. Dats main assets are his ability to stop, turn, weave in and out of traffic, and basically do his dangle dangle. If he cannot do those things he is not really the asset that the Wings need and my even be a liability thus his playing might actually hurt the team rather than help them which is something that he, like Yzerman, would not want to do.

Funny, nice to have fans with a good sense of humor.

Wait. . . Shouldn't the Wings already be out of the playoffs after they lost to the Blue Jackets in 6 in the first round? Just kidding E_S_A_D. I don't think that the reffing has been that bias for or against the Wings there have been bad calls and non-calls both ways. I very rarely want to gripe about the refs but I must admit that the 25+ second too many men on the ice non-call is so unbelievable that it almost makes you think that there must be a conspiracy.

QFT Seriously when will this guy get banned. He is definately just trying to start flame wars. He starts threads at letsgowings about how horrible of a person Z is, his play is bush league, he is losing respect from everyone and the thread gets deleted. Now he starts a tread accusing Ozzy of stuff and saying he might be cracking up. He is much better a faking it and acting rational but he comes in one a year before a series with his team, compliments the Wings, then once the series starts proceeds to do not much but start thread (not just post in an existing thread) but starting threads about how one of our players sucks or is classless or is cracking up and then attributes any win the Wings get to good luck and any loss the Pen get to bad luck (I'll bet he doesn't think the only reason the Pens won last night is they had good luck and the Wings had bac luck). It's pathetic.

No the post did (well that and the fact that since the shot hit the post it wasn't actually shot on the net and could not have possibly gone in the net). What makes you lose credibility is that you ignore reality THE SHOT WAS NOT ON NET and Ozgood slid over to get into a position to make the shot much more difficult. You take things that did not happen and say if they had happened and then take things that did happen and say if they had not happened the result would have been different. Had the Net been bigger the puck would have gone in too but that is not the reality the reality is the Pens shot and hit the post not then inside of the net. I have never heard anyone on a hockey forum talk so much about imagining and luck and what if and what if not . . . I have an idea imagine if the Detroit players rode dragons and had cannons to shot the pucks out of . . . wow we would really be winning then. See my point yeah the Pens would be doing better if reality was other than what it is (assuming all those things in the Pens favor and all the negatives for Detroit) BUT it's not that's what makes it reality instead of fantasy. It reminds me of when I was little playing hockey on Nintendo if I started losing I would just turn the game off and ta da the score is zero to zero again and I'm not losing any more. You may not be trying to but that is not the way you are acting. You are calling most of what the Wings have done luck (which removes the skill and makes it a game of chance). If you are taking a test and get a 100% and I say oh you were just lucky, then yeah I am taking away what you have done. P.S. I notice you never discuss the luck of the Pens only goal coming from Stewie accidentally batting it backwards out of the air.

Nice, way to dodge my points while stating nothing. The point is it is pathetic to act as if everything has gone the Pens way and only bad stuff has happened to the Pens. How is it Detroit's fault or bad luck that Guerin can't score on a fairly open net? My point is not that the 1/2 inch is important it is that he should have shot it better and it wouldn't have been an issue in the first play. Again, tell me anything that is luckier than having an opponent's Hart trophy candidate, and reigning Selke winner out of the first two games (and likely the third). The play of the game is not luck but that certainly is. Please explain to me why you are not saying that the Wings should have won bigger except the Pens were so lucky that Dats was out. Finally, the Wings have outscored the Pens 32-19 in their last 10 meetings and have a record of 7-2-1 (and one of the losses took the Pens till triple overtime) so yeah I'd say they are better and better defensively, but go ahead and say that it is because of luck.

First of BewareThePenguin all this luck and bounces talk is just nonsense. We are playing without our Hart candidate, NOTHING that has happened to the Pens will compensate for that amount of luck for your team. You take away your Hart candidate then we can talk about luck. Psst - those board bounce for both teams, maybe the Pens should have practiced there before the games. Oh and I didn't hear that as an excuse last year, I guess it was just pretty far down the list and heaven knows the Pens fans have got to be getting toward the end of that long list. Yeah and if Pens goals counted quadruple they could have won too, but they didn't and they don't because what is important is what actually happened. Had other things happened / not happened the Wings could have won both games 8-0 but that is not reality. Furthermore, poor play by your goalie is not bad breaks or bounces IT IS POOR PLAY BY YOUR TEAM. Says the guy who starts a thread on the Wings site ripping Z (which in the converse would get you banned from pens forums, but it is more reasonable here) and then attributes Wings success to good luck and Pens failures to bad luck. Yeah its easy to debate who is more lucky. I love the ability to look at everything in this light. Anything that the Pens did that didn't result in a goal was bad luck. I have an idea how about instead of hitting the post they put it in the net, ultimately the reason that their post shots didn't result in goals was they didn't even get the shot on net. Had they managed to actually shoot at the net rather than the post it would be a moot point. I realize they were close but they were not shots that would go in the net. If the shots had been better i.e. 1 inch to the inside then yeah its a goal but that isn't where they shot soooooooo no goal. Most amazingly you attribute your team's goalie's bad play and inability to stop "soft" goals as luck. If that is the case every team wins because the other team is lucky that their goalie let in more goals. Everything that was positive for the Wings was good luck. The broken stick was the result of hard work on the part of Detroit and Hossa getting the defender turned so he actually hit Hossa's skate with his stick it, it happens both teams got similar "good luck" the difference is Detroit scored goals when they had advantages and the Pens didn't. Do you really think that the Pens never had any of the breaks (bounces, broken sticks, missed calls, etc.) that the Wings did? All teams get those it is just the best teams that capitalize. Please do not belittle the game, the teams, or the players with such nonsense. Those are some pretty important half inches and it is your players job to First off it was not as much luck as it was skill. The Pens had plenty of players around the puck on both plays, (2 to 1 on the second goal) and could not do what Abby did or there would have been no goal. Just because our players managed to do what yours could not doesn't make it luck. Second, IT WAS NOT A "BREAK" IT WAS A 1 OFFENSIVE PLAYER AGAINST 2 DEFENSIVE PLAYERS AND A GOALIE - NEITHER D MAN COULD GET THE PUCK OR STOP HIM FROM TAKING A SHOT AND THE GOALIE. IT DIDN'T CAROM OFF ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING WEIRD. IT WAS EITHER 1) A GREAT OFFENSIVE PLAY OR 2) HORRIBLE GOAL KEEPING / DEFENSE. Either way neither of those is a break it is playing well vs. playing poorly. Don't attribute your guys mistakes to a break for our team.

Before the series you were pretty good but now it is just turning into whining. Z diving on the goal line to keep the puck out, the slash by Hossa (which was no where close to a slash) bad breaks for the Pens, good breaks for the Wings. The Wings have outscored the Pens 6-2. Even if you take a goal away from the Wings each game they still win. I don't see how we have all the luck unless you didn't see the Pens only goal last game. I get tired of this worn out mantra, the Wings are sooooooo lucky. The first goal was because your team couldn't clear the zone, had to ice it, no one picked up Helm, your goalie was screened, and didn't stop the rocket from the blue line. The second goal was an amazing back hand shot by Flip nothing but pure talent. The third goal one of our AHL players kept the puck in the offensive zone a 1 on 2 and your goalie didn't stop a softie shot, how are we lucky unless you mean lucky that your goalie couldn't stop the puck. In fact the only goal that had much to do with luck is the lone goal the Pens scored. It was hit out of the air backwards into the net by one of Detroit's sticks. Great job getting the puck to the net and the Pens deserved the goal but it was the only one that involved any luck. As for the goal posts your team hit a couple of times, that's not luck by the Wings it is an inability to hit the net by the Pens. Z had one of those in the first game (as did other players) but there was no complaining that the Pens were lucky it didn't go in, if you want to score a goal shoot where it will go in the net not off the post, it was a skill issue not a luck issue. When you shoot at sharp angles or try to get the puck into narrow spaces you have to shoot near the post and sometimes your aim is a little off. Poor Pens.

The rules DON'T allow it. A player other than the goalie cannot cover the puck in the crease. Rule 55 C - covering the puck No defending player, except the goalkeeper, will be permitted to fall on the puck, hold the puck or gather the puck into the body or hands when the puck is within the goal crease. For infringement of this Rule, play shall immediately be stopped and a penalty shot shall be ordered against the offending Team, but no other penalty shall be given. The real question is if it counts as in the crease since it was laying on Ozzy's back not on the ice. Also, it looked like he covered the puck or at least grabbed/shoved it in front of Ozzy.

Don't bother us with facts. I want to dislike Crosby.