truebladearmy

It's because most people are drunk, and looking to pick a fight. What. You know that's true

No. I been watching since 95. I never saw a team this good. Never. Not like this.

Versus are the worst announcers ever. Datsyuk made a play to Zetterberg, across the net, point blank shot, Fluery with an amazing save. Did they say anything about the nice pass, the nice shot, or the amazing save? No...they said, "Well if Pittsburg comes back they can credit it to that". Those guys are absolute retards. Bias as hell. If Wings were up 15-0 with 3 minutes left, and pittsburg got a powerplay they would say, Well, this is the Penguins chance to make a comeback!!" Those guys are horrible.

Boring? Sure, after we shut them down completely. Best offensive team in the playoffs........no goals in 6 periods. w00t.

I do agree the league needs new fans. I also believe the best teams should win. Typically the best teams have the most fans. So it's kind of a paradox. Let a crap team win like Carolina, and get a few new fans. Or, let good teams with good fans win. There's not really a middle ground. Anaheim, Tampa Bay, and Carolina each won cups....and it really didn't do much at all for the league. So simply having fresh new teams win, really won't solve the dilemma. My question with pittsburg is if they lose, how many of those fans will watch every single game they can next year? And how many will simply wait around until they get back to the finals again, to show any support? I know I watched at least 70 Wings games this year. I spent $300 to get the NHL package where I live, so I could watch them all. I'm also flying home to Detroit for games 3 through 7, an endeavor that will cost me a bit over a thousand dollars. I haven't missed a single playoff game in nine years. And, there are fans more fanatic than myself out there That said, my point is......it does no good to have crappy teams win, because it just brings fans out of the woodwork and they go right back into it when the team doesn't do well anymore. I think Pittsburg first off, had a lot of fans to begin with. Secondly, a lot of these fans will stick around. Pittsburgh is a good team to have in the finals at every level, both for skill, and for fanbase. You'd have to be a moron to give up on Pittsburgh even if they do lose the finals. But....places like Carolina, Tampa, Anaheim? Those fans don't actually watch hockey :-p

When all else fails, Gills motta has become, "Slash your own players in the face" Lets see if it works for them. heh.

Well any franchise wants to do well, because until they do merchandise doesn't sell, tickets don't sell, and so on. Pittsburg couldn't sell out a game a few years ago, now the stadium is packed. Same thing occured in Tampa Bay, but even though Tampa Bay actually won the cup.....their merchandise sales basically vanished by the end of the next year. I forget where I read that report, but it was basically comparing the popularity of a team during and after a cup win. I would say a fair number of people in Detroit became redwings fans in 95, 97, 98, or 2002 during the finals or conference finals In fact, I am positive of it. Every starts as a fair weather fan anyway. I haven't met many people who were born a sports fan. Usually your team has to do fairly well in order for you to really get into the sport. I like to differentiate. There are "new" fans, who just got into the sport due to a winning team. Then there are fair weather fans, who year after year, only show up when the team is doing well, and show no support when they're doing bad.

The people who crybaby up the forums after a loss are morons. Most of them are horrible fans.

Yeah I saw that nhl.com was listing him as likely to be in just an hour ago. Pittsburgh may dodge the mule once more

Also, think Fedorov. Another high talent player who just simply got lazy in his game. Malkin isn't there yet, but the warnings signs seem to be popping up. Only a few more years will really tell. For a few years Datsyuk and Zetterberg weren't showing up to the playoffs either. If we all recall So it can go either way. In Malkins defense, that was really his first genuinely bad game of the post season.

lol, the takeaway goal won't be forgotten for a while It's like one of those written math problems: Q. "If Detroit scores three goals in the first period, two goals in the second period, and one goal in the third period, how many goals did Detroit score?" A. "Uh....Maybe zero?" That's correct little Tommy!

Babcock does it all the time. He split them up for a few shifts during game 1. Why would you not split them from time to time? It's not like they require one another to do well, and keeping them always on the same line makes it easier for the opposing team to work out a defensive combination against them. After Sammy scored last game, Datsyuk played a few lines with him. Just short shifts, but Zetterberg wasn't out there with them. Then it went right back to Zett/Dats/Holm. The "Best" combination is also the predictable combination.

Filpulla - Franzen - Sammy. That's a good line. Maybe Hudler. I think Babcock might split Zetterberg and Datsyuk from time to time though. Draper and Helm are doing a great job along the boards against Crosby and Malkin. It might not be so critical to have them together. If I were coach, I would try to get Zetterberg out a bit more against low profile lines, get him some room to work. Maybe pit Zetterberg on a second line. Obviously, it will likely be Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom on most faceoffs, and first line in the powerplay though. Almost dumb not to Our second line scores a lot, but that first line really always sets the temp, and puts the opposition on its heels. One thing is clear to me though, and a little off topic. Draper and Helm must be on different lines. Draper is a master of defensive forwarding, and Helm is no draper, but he's well on his way. Helm is one of the most tenacious players I've seen in a long time. I watched him skating on one leg, swinging his stick at the puck, took a check, fell forward, and delivered a check while still swinging at the puck.....last game. That guy never quits.

With all his goals, and recent surge of offensive talent, I'd like to see him more physical than anything. I hope he doesn't try to be too offensive, since he's just coming back. I'd rather see him slam that huge body of his around a little bit, and take opportunities when they come. Also, hopefully he does get a goal or two relatively quickly, to get him back into the swing of things. If Franzen gets a goal early off, it's almost safe to say the Pens are done. Sincerely. The Pens haven't faced a Franzen yet. Nothing can stop the mule.

Look at who was winning last year, or the years prior. Anaheim? Carolina? Tampa Bay? They don't even have ICE in those places. The fans who did go to those games, couldn't most often even tell you who their teams goalie is these days. Check local listings. In Tampa bay the drop in fanbase is more than 300% this year over the playoff year. In places like Chicago, the listings are so horrible that they refuse to televise home games, just to get the few people who are fans to go to the games, because it's not worth a tv contract. Wings always have relatively good ratings. Pittsburg is also a very good sports fanatic town (Albeit, I've seen that most of their penguins fans are very new to the sport). But you get a crap finals like anaheim and tampa bay, and who really cares? Anaheim and Buffalo? Almost a waste of television, especially considering the styles of play, and the outcome of the playoffs. This year, Pitts and Detroit, is the best thing to happen to hockey in well over a decade. Two excellent teams, two teams with a lot of hype, playing for gold. Unlike say....Anaheim and Buffalo where even the home team fans can't list the players on the 2nd line. I know this because I watched Detroit get beat by Anaheim last year when I was in Iraq. I would sneak into the building with the TV with an anaheim fan every morning at around 3am (Time differential). We'd steal their food and their energy drinks, and watch the games. Good fun.....but this guy was convinced Anaheim was the leading point getter all year long. Obviously, this isn't true, but he was so convinced that I couldn't convince him otherwise (On that note, Buffalo and Detroit were the leading point getters). So it was very clear that this guy hadn't watched hockey all year long, and if I hadn't woke him up at 3 in the morning every morning to go watch the games, he wouldn't have gone period. Yes, I have a lot of weird stories

After a game 1 loss, he can't. He will never get a night off in the finals. Half a Malkin is better than no Malkin. He still has the "opportunity" to score big.....and that's what they need him for now. This isn't game 67 of the season. You can't sit your top guys when they get tired. If it was that simple, nobody would ever win a stanley cup. "Tired", simply means he's been carrying the team too heavily, and working too hard. Hence Pittsburghs success partially. A stanley cup team has to learn to rest guys daily, be it with shorter shifts when ahead, or games off during the run. You play a guy every game, relying on him every game....of course he gets tired. Hence, why teams who lack depth lose in the playoffs. Not saying pittsburgh lacks depth. Don't take this that way. I am saying.....maybe they burned out their top guys trying to push so hard to the finals. Maybe that spectacular run......has destroyed the energy of the guys who did it? At least, to some extent. That is a coaching flaw if anything. To no recognize your guys need a rest when you're up 3-0 in a series, is dumb. Chelious sat out game 1. He's not injured. he's not sick. He's just.....well a little bit old, and needed a little extra rest. Franzen sat out an entire series. He's certainly not old, and was having the time of his life. But he still sat out. It's possible, that pittsburg ran it's top guys into the ground. Detroit rotated all playoffs long. Even starting with one goaltender, and ending with another. Pittsburg hasn't been in the finals since the early 90's. Maybe too much of a push, too quick, too soon....if game 2 is the same as game 1......I'd say blame it on the leadership at that point. You can't play your top guys all finals long Duh. Some guys are marathon men and can do it....but rookies who have never gone that far? No way. No chance. I remember joining the army when I was 25. I could run with the best of them. I would outrun 18 year olds all day long.....for a day. But then it would get to me. By day 3, I was lagging. By day 5, I could barely run at all. Too much, too fast.....will kill ya. I'm not saying that is what happened here....but it is a theory.

This is correct. The last year ESPN hosted NHL games, the ratings were horrible in most parts of the country. For example. I lived in El Paso. For 3 weeks in a row they televised comercials to the effect of a Dallas/Detroit game. The night of the game I had a 30 rack of beer, and ordered two pizza's. Guess what actually got televised that night on ESPN in El Paso? Womens, college, Volleyball. About twenty effortless calls later with the network hanging up on me each time, I changed the channel to HBO. I have never once watched ESPN again. While ESPN is national, their programing is relevant to local areas. That said....if you live in El Paso you're more likely to catch college sports on ESPN, while simultaneously if you live in New York, the Yankees might be playing. Hockey is typically never high enough profile for them. In Detroit, other companies bid more than they are willing to bid, the same for other towns where hockey is notable. We all know now that Versus is the place to go to watch hockey, so it is worth their time to play the games.....but most people flipping to ESPN see a hockey game, and just flip onward for something else. As a result.....not only did ESPN cancel their contracts, but now nobody even thinks of going to ESPN for hockey games, so its doubly pointless for them to renew their coverage. Why bother, when in Montana college lacrosse, is so much more popular?

My thought is that Kronwall has been overall our best defenseman game by game in the playoffs. Most points. Most blocks. Most hits. Everything a defenseman can be credited for. I wouldn't say he's been more valuable than Lidstrom or Rafalski quite yet....but he's definately done far more than his fair share in helping this team succeed. A good way to look at this question is....if you had to lose either LIdstrom or Kronwall, who would you rather keep? I know I'd pick Lidstrom......but I would hate to lose Kronwall almost nearly as much.

My first impulse was no. But now that you bring it up......maybe a decent question. Rings aren't assigned based on names on the cup necessarily.

We didn't let up in game 1. We did dump the puck to neutral ice over and over once we were up by 2, but we didn't shut down our offense in the slightest. That's how game 1's are meant to be played. Get the win, and push for a few more goals just to seal the deal. I'm glad we didn't stop at 2-0. In the past, that has ruined us in the playoffs, and I think we finally realize that. The best offense is a good defense, but too defensive and you start opening up ice for the other team. Sitting on a 2-0 lead always ends up with the leading team getting boxed in. Suddenly a goal and it's 2-1. Another goal, and its tied with the team that was originally up on the down slope of momentum. This season we have never sat on a lead. We protect it and dump a lot more, but we go fight for it, and carry it down ice the entire game long. That is one critical difference between our success this year, and our losses in games where we were ahead in previous years.

Pretty much. Lets say, benefit of the doubt, malkin was sick and injured. He wasn't the only one out of gas out there. Hossa was the best forward I noticed, and Crosby was mostly out of gas too. Fluery obviously did well. Even with 4 goals agains.....it took 36 shots on goal, and about double that many shots at the net, to get that done. Fluery is the main reason it wasn't 4 nothing by the end of the second. I hate saying that because it sounds like I'm talking s***, when in fact Pittsburg is my second favorite team to Detroit. But, that's what I saw out there.

All due respect to the Penguins fans here. In truth you're overall some of the more cordial, and reasonable fans I've seen on Redwings boards in a while. Nothing like the Avs fans of old who had roughly the intellect of a peanut. But flu, injury, and all of the other trivial excuses don't mean a whole lot. A cup team needs to be able to play through these things. I highly doubt Malkin is the only player to have the flu in the finals, and I'm sure plenty of teams with the flu have gone on to win cups. They have the best doctors and medicine money can buy. As far as injury....I've never seen a team make it to the finals without an injury. The question there is always, "Can the team still win, missing this guy?" In Detrtoit's case we're missing our best goal scorer of the playoffs. The slack just gets picked up elsewhere. I'm going to avoid the slanderous "crybaby" comments, since those are a bit immature from our end....but realistically the ability to play through adversity and setbacks is a defining characteristic of a stanley cup team. As Wings fans a lot of us have seen a lot of adversity through the years. Not a single cup was easily won. Not a single playoffs went without injury. And more often than not when we lost, our adversity got the best of us, and we failed to adapt. I been watching the Wings in the playoffs since 1995, back during that first heartbreaking finals loss to Jersey. We had the best record in the NHL, and were HEAVY favorites that year. The news reporters claimed we were practically invincible. Then....we got swept in four games flat. In 97 Philly was the favorite, and Detroit was injury prone. The news said they were simply too big, and too skilled on their offense for Detroit to win. We swept them in four games straight. There's a lot more to it than flu's, injury, speed, talent, skill, goaltending, defense....etc. Even heart and hunger doesn't get a lot of teams through the playoffs. I once almost saw us lose a series to Colorado because a puck bounced off a board that had come out of place, and went in the net. We were down 3-2 in that series as the result of that goal. We barely won game 6. Game 7 was what we call the "Statue of liberty goal" in Detroit, because Roy saved it, raised his hands high in the air to show he saved it, and it trickled from his glove into the net. Granted, we scored 7 goals for a blowout that game...4 in the first period alone. But in that event......a board one inch out of place caused a funny bounce that lost us a game, and nearly the series. So the details....are really just details It's the overall picture that matters, and unless the entire team has the flu, I don't think things like the flu make much difference at all. Good luck on game 2. I expect it to be a much closer game.

I think NHL.com steals my analysis half the time "In order to get past Detroit's smothering defense, the Pens may have to change their tactics. Pittsburgh paid the price for its inability to get the puck deep into the Detroit zone and forecheck – Samuelsson's first goal came after Jarkko Ruutu turned the puck over in the neutral zone rather than dump it in." ""Yes, I think so. I think we have a lot of speed," he (crosby) added when asked whether the Pens needed to chip and chase more often in Game 2." "Detroit, not known as a physical team, out-hit the Penguins 31-25 – a rarity for a team that also controls the puck. The hitting appeared to take a toll on the Penguins, who were buzzing in the first period but seemed to play with diminished vigor as the game went on"

The visiting team wins something like 60% of the time if they take game one. They win 10% of the time if they lose game 1. Those numbers aren't exact. I didn't look it up again....but it's all there in the stats. Just takes a little research to dig them out.

Yes, but Detroit is the higher seeded team. So these stats are for the home team. To the post above this one, 78% is accurate, if you take into consideration the visiting team winning game one. So either way....nearly 89% of the time if the home team wins game 1, they win the series. And the team in general that wins game one, goes on to the cup 78% of the time, home or visiting.