Cern

FREUDIAN DEFENSE MECHANISMS ARE GO

Christ, how many blown leads is it going to take to sink into these guys heads that SITTING ON LEADS DOSEN'T WORK?

Edmonton Oilers are 0-8-1 yet have a one-game losing streak? They're sucking so bad they actually broke the League's own standing chart.

At least the Flames have actually won a game in 2010, more than can be said about Edmonton Getting Kronwall back is huge - our top four look a lot more solid, fingers crossed he might get our 2nd PP unit producing, and hopefully his return puts the team at large in better spirits knowing that the injury list is becoming far more manageable.

It just sounds much too abrupt to be reliable. He's been out a solid year and now out of the blue he's set to return in a week?

I'm gonna need to see a source on this

I keep it on as a reminder not to get too cocky.

Choked a bit in the 3rd but salvaged it in the shootout.

And Hawks scored a few minutes ago

MILLER (according to the live scoreboard since I can't find a ******* working stream ANYwhere)!

Well, we needed the Kings to lose when we lost to Washington and they did. And Eastern team or no Buffalo has been playing fairly solidly. I'd say if there's any opportunity for the Wings to hop back into the playoff picture it'll be these next two games.

The Wild are starting their backup with a sub-.500 record? f***, we're screwed.

See, the thing that you're failing to get through your head is that a relatively even matchup is the key to a good rivalry. Think about it; it would definitely have been satisfying if the Wings beat the Avs every single time they met during the 90s, but it would have made for a terrible rivalry because it would be so one-sided. The result is some awesome, intense hockey, and the US-Canada matchups during the WJC rarely fail to disappoint in that regard. Because of that I for one am perfectly willing to acknowledge the US regardless of whether or not we happen to beat them; it's not like in the Olympics where Canada always feels the need to choke against Switzerland or Lichtenstein or whoever, I can count on both teams to bring their A-games against one another come the WJC. Obviously I can't speak for everyone in the country, but I can't help the fact that people are idiots. In contrast, the abundant message that comes across from the aforementioned WJC thread (given how immense that thread is, I'd contend that pointing the finger at every American member of LGW isn't nearly as much of a hyperbole you seem to think it is, by the way) and in this one is this mysteriously-generated notion that Canada's entire hockey legacy has been reduced to rubble on the back of one tournament win, which is completely ridiculous. But this of course applies to those who follow hockey in the first place; even more prevalent than that is the more general attitude of complete apathy when they lose because the US apparently couldn't give two s***s about hockey, then scream from the rafters when they win purely because they did. tl;dr - being proud/disappointed in your team's performance should never be above acknowledging your opponent, it's the fundamental element of good sportsmanship. This applies to Tane too; I wasn't going to touch this thread with a ten-foot pole until the Americans started entering en-masse refusing to let this WJC stuff die.

Right, because what a single Canadian says outweighs what every single American member of LGW has been ranting about non-stop since the WJC ended. Unless you're implying that Canada is SO sparsely-populated that one guy constitutes 'his nation'. If I'm delusional, you're delusional AND a proudly-xenophobic moron. Canada gets proud when they win the WJs, no doubt. I've never encountered such a sustained berating of other countries because of it, however. More than I can say about what you guys have been doing so far.

Actually I think you'll find an American started this bulls*** in the aftermath of the WJC, a thread in which you acted like a complete jackass in as well. I'm sorry your nation is so insecure about itself it finds the need to chest-pound over a junior-hockey win, then dismiss the AHL as insignificant just because you happened to lose (something Americans have been guilty of the last several WJCs as well, it should be noted. How conveniant). It's bad enough you're woefully ungraceful in both victory AND defeat, you then have the nerve to say you're anti-troll in doing so.

LGW - Classless Anti-Canadian Xenophobia Is Our Specialty! It wouldn't bother me nearly so much if you hypocrites didn't worship the ground Yzerman and Howe walk on. I don't exactly hold much weight in the AHL All-Star Game either but come on, people. Discrediting Canada's hockey legacy because of one WJC is moronic in the highest degree.

lmao, the Pearly Gates of Theodore

Honestly, I wasn't expecting the Wings to get any points out of this one, so two points in the last two games is on par with what I was anticipating anyway. Still a shame they didn't pick up that third point given how awesome the OT and shootout goals were

It's my birthday - please win today Wings D:

If that's your personal choice (and you have dual citizenship), sure.

Wow, there's a team out there with an injury list that's longer than the Wings'? I think I've entered the Bizarro 2009-10 NHL season.

I see the two sentences preceding the one you quoted flew clean over your head. I'll say it again; see how the offseason pans out, assess who's on the roster and who left, and reaquire Hudler if there's space. If Frolov is a free agent acquisition (which I find doubtful but for the sake of argument say it does happen), I doubt there's going to be the cap space for Hudler anyway. If the management can somehow justify requiring damaged goods like Williams, why is Hudler so improbable?

Have you SEEN our power play recently? "Great on the PP" should spark serious consideration in and of itself. That said, I'd wait and see how the offseason pans out. Lidstrom's career is possibly up in the air, and we have a handful of one-year deals to sort through. If there's room for him, though, why not?

Oh I see. When the evidence bites you in the butt, start fusing separate events to skew the numbers (as though anyone holds the results of women's hockey above mens hockey in the first place). Gotcha. But hey, you're welcome to continue butting your head against the wall that is the objective fact that the majority of Canada's gold medals in hockey are well over 50 years old. Sorry, there's no underhanded manipulation of the numbers you can make that counters the fact that Canada's hockey record in the Olympics isn't anywhere even close to as mind-numbingly predictable as the US' in basketball. The analogy is flawed, live with it. Irrelevant. The bottom line is that India and Australia didn't invent the sport, and none of the players on either team are British (I imagine you'd get into some trouble if you ever told them such). Saying that Britain can indirectly steal credit for either country's success in the sport is ridiculous, that's like saying Britain has a strong hockey legacy purely by connection to Canada. Oh, so now it isn't about how the sport originated after all, it's where it flourished. Hey moron, you can't just backtrack on criteria YOU set when you get evidence telling you you're wrong. I never once said that Canada is the odds-on favourite in the first place, dumdum. That's what my entire argument has been from the start. You keep putting words in my mouth - every team you mentioned have a reasonable shot of winning the gold. This homerism you constantly refer to is both nonsensical to anyone with decent hockey sense and completely unproven by you beyond the constant assertion that it apparently exists - something you can somehow magically gauge from all the way over in Germany. Are you ******* kidding me? That's like whining that Versus focuses more on American games than ones between Canadian teams, or that ESPN covers basketball and football far more thoroughly than hockey. It's a CANADIAN tv station for f***'s sake, of COURSE they're going to focus on the Canadian teams. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of their viewers support Canadian teams, it's in the network's own interest to focus on regional games. It's like you have no concept whatsoever of geography. I seriously feel like I'm talking to an eight-year-old here. You can't even keep your arguments straight, let alone demonstrate any kind of rationality or foresight behind your argumentation.

No, it isn't. The US has been out of the medal count one time in the history of basketball being played in the Olympics (that was 1980, when they didn't even attend), and has won gold four of the last five games. Canada has won the gold in hockey a whopping two times in over 50 years. Seriously, do you bother actually LOOKING at the evidence before you start making arguments? The statistical facts completely undermine everything you're saying. There are as many examples of that being untrue as there is of that being the case. England invented cricket yet has a terrible national team. Same with soccer, yet England is terrible in international play. A Canadian invented basketball, yet Canada is largely irrelevant when it comes to the sport - certainly not 'dominant' by any stretch of the imagination. Not to say that Canada isn't a contender for gold at the Olympics, but saying they're the odds-on favourite to win it because they happened to invent hockey is ridiculously misguided.