Buppy

It's not a matter of what I want or even what theoretically would work. Just an observation of the situation. Our coach doesn't like Hudler's game. I think that's obvious. So my conclusion is that, barring a change in roster that leaves no other options or a change in Hudler's game to make him indespensible to the top lines or a change in coaches, he won't be there. And I think you're overlooking the value he can have as a depth scorer. Granted you can same the same for Flip, Mule, Bert, Cleary or whoever gets pushed down. But no matter what someone is going to be less productive than they otherwise would be. Cleary and Homer, with their ability to play the front of the net and work in the corners compliment Pav/Hank better. Franzen is maybe the closest thing to a pure goal scorer we have. Bert, Flip, and Huds are all good playmakers capable of playing well with star players. Huds may be the best offensively, but Flip offers a much more complete game, and Bert is at least a big body capable of being physical and doing the dirty work. Both, IMO, outweigh Hudler's extra offense. We'll likely lose some of those players, but if we do I think we'd be better served finding replacement options other than Hudler. If we can do that and still afford to keep Hudler on as a 3rd-liner/PP specialist all the better. I just don't see him ever being a top 6 forward on this team.

I'm not from there, but I would be somewhat surprised if any place would actually sell one right now. Might have to head of town, or rent some scuba gear and catch one yourself.

Hudler not being a big, banging forward or having rocket fuel in his skates does not mean he is not capable of top-end scoring. Hudler's numbers from Feb 7th to Feb 28th this season are virtually identical to Datsyuk's playoff stats. Hudler went 4-10-14 in 11 to Dats' 3-11-14 in 10. That scoring pace would have put Hudler at 30 goals and 105 points. And an Art Ross trophy. But no, that's not top-end scoring ability. 11 games does not a season make... Happy is good offensively, and when he tries hard he can be good defensively. But he has three things working against him: 1. Too slow and too small to consistently play good defense. Takes too much energy, especially if he had to face top line players (as the Wings typically match top lines). 2. We already have too many playmakers on the top lines. He's more of a passer than a shooter and he's even regressed in that area from his last season with us. 3. Most importantly, he has an ultra-short leash from Babs. Too often he gives less than full effort and/or makes dumb mistakes at crucial times. Maybe it isn't entirely fair, but it's there. He could overcome one, maybe even two. Just not all three. Barring any major change in roster, coach, or Hudler's play he won't be more than a depth forward on this team.

Games 6 and 7 - Wings/Avs 2002

While they do seem to look great together, spreading them out makes us more balanced and we always have the option of sticking them together for a shift here and there when we need a push. That said, since it's a game 7 and we have a handful of forwards not playing up to par (including Flip until tonight) I'd be inclined to basically roll three lines with just spot shifts for the 4th liners. Assuming Mule isn't good enough to go: Flip-Pav-Homer Bert-Hank-Cleary Draper-Helm-Eaves Huds-Mo-Miller Miller can step up into Homer's spot when we need better defense, and play the PK. Huds and Mo for PP duty and rotated in for a shift here and there in the top 6. Abby and his dumbf*** penalties and lack of production should sit. The physical play is nice, and Babs loves him so Huds or Mo will probably sit.

Are you saying Hudler is our 13th forward and Ericsson our top defenseman?

Taking Flip and Happy out would be ridiculous. They weren't great today, but overall they've both been very good so far in the playoffs. Hudler was maybe our second best forward in game 1, and Flip was top 5. I do think we need to do something with the 3rd line. Abby isn't cutting it at center, and that line is getting pinned way too much. The best thing may be to move Flip down, maybe both of them to make the 3rd line a scoring threat. Mule - Pav - Homer Bert - Hank - Cleary Huds - Flip - Miller Abby - Helm - Eaves Maybe even bench Abby for Drapes, or work Mo in somehow.

Wow. Ok, let me rephrase that. You implied (and still are) that being passive is some deliberate, conscious act. I know you weren't suggesting the Wings were passive, because I was the one that originally called them that. You misinterpreted that and tried to make it look as if I intended your meaning, and you're still doing it even after I tried to clarify. I'll try again. Passive = Not aggressive. The Wings were not aggressive. Not because they chose not to be. Not because it was their strategy. Not because they lack heart or determination. My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts. You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks. So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years. Long layoffs can be harmful. Just try not to be so impressed with yourself that you overlook all the other factors as well.

By melodrama I was referring more to the quoted text as a whole; with all the emphasis, defining of terms, and implications that the Wings committed some unforgivalbe, unimaginable sin by deliberately not playing their best. You're a hockey fan, I'm sure you're well aware of what I meant. I'm sure you've seen it from the Sharks, the Wings, and every other team. I'm sure you know I meant nothing even similar to way you chose to couch it in your reply. And you can say you're not referring to the result or score, but when you're saying things like "NOT the Wings' fault" and talking about "what happened in the game" then I think what actually happened in the game is pretty relevent.

It's not 'his' theory. It is literally discussed every single time any team has a long layoff in the playoffs, even before the very game we're discussing. I'd say it's even common knowledge. Give a team a week off, they'll probably be a little rusty. Don't be so melodramatic. It's not like the Sharks dominated the entire game. It was a portion of one period. Teams sit back all the time, especially when leading on the road. The home team comes out firing, the road team gets over-cautious...no one wants to be the guy that makes a mistake, or takes a penalty that leads to a tying goal. Every single team in the league does it at times. We got better toward the end of the second and in the third. That wouldn't have been possible if it was all some physical handicap from the layoff, as you seem to think. The layoff was probably a small factor, mostly for Zetterbarg, who hadn't played in over 3 weeks. Next game it shouldn't really be a factor at all. You're acting like the Wings are doomed and incapable of playing with the Sharks. You weren't half as dominant as you seem to think. You didn't blow us out. You didn't even score during your most dominant stretch. It was a very close game that could have easily gone either way. A little more luck and the Wings would have won, and there'd probably be a thread here on how much good the layoff did us.

I hate to detract from all the hard work you put in to patting yourself on the back, but you're kind of stating the obvious here. Everyone already knows that too long of a layoff can have a detrimental effect. Though I'd say the effect was marginal, no matter how many quotes you picked out of the GDT. Aside from the PPs, which had nothing to so with rustiness, the 3rd period and OT were pretty even. So was the 1st. I'd say being at home and down by a goal had more to do with the Sharks energy in the 2nd. For our part, I think we were just too passive. Trying too hard to not make mistakes or take penalties. Trying more to 'weather the storm' than increase our lead. Since we did in fact weather the storm, I'm inclined to say the 2nd period really meant nothing to the game. 1st and 3rd periods were basically even. We scored in one, Sharks scored in the other. The OT goal was a lucky bounce. No need to over analyze anything. Close match between two good teams; the breaks went to the Sharks.

Speed: It's no secret the Wings aren't a young team, and our defensemen are not particularly fast. Speed in transition can cause a lot of problems for our defense, and result in good scoring chances and/or power play opportunities. Aggressiveness on the forecheck and PK: We have a number of defensemen who are prone to turnovers when pressured. Even Lidstrom can be forced in to mistakes. Our D is the cornerstone of our PP, so when on the PK you need to pressure the points. Of course, aggressiveness needs to be tempered with responsibility. We will kill you in transition if you leave too many openings. Offense from behind the net: Our defense is not very physical. We don't clear the crease well, which can lead to focusing too much on players down low, creating opportunities for players moving in from the points. Our defensive rotations can get out of sync from this too. Quick transitions: We rely a lot on defensemen for offense. We pinch often which can lead to odd-man rushes if you can win battles and move the puck out quickly. Collapse on defense: We are more than willing to play a perimeter game if it's offered. Clog the middle, block shots, clear the crease. Grab the loose pucks and counter-attack in transition. We're not that soft: Despite what most people around here think, playing 'tough' isn't going to rattle us. Play physical of course, but trying to bully us is just as or more likely to backfire on you, especially if you're already behind. And if I was a ****** I'd tell you to dive at every opportunity.

Never used to hate Vancouver until they allowed the Hawks to salvage some little bit of respect. Despite myself, I wanted Chicago to win just to punish the Canucks. I was actually happy when Chicago scored that late goal. Then you go and screw up both a historic event and avoid your just desserts by winning. Then you had the gall to act like winning (finally) was some epic achievement. And now you get the Thursday game when we've already been waiting a week for some Wings hockey. You suck. Go Preds!

Sharks That is unless the NHL imposes a ban on train whistles in Nashville. Then I'd go for the Preds for the better game times.

IMO, both Chara and Weber playing in front of a Vezina nominee nullifies much of the +/- disparity, and the point difference makes up for the rest. #7 for Nick

So it's official. Even the refs don't know what cross-checking is. That wasn't. "59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent." Roughing probably comes closest, if they had to call something. Maybe butt-ending if the refs really wanted to screw the Hawks. Mostly it was just a very flagrant dive during a pretty routine post-whistle shoving match. Being a rule doesn't mean it isn't stupid. Personally, I think diving/embellishment should be a double-minor. PP against the diving team whether there's an original penalty or not. That (if actually enforced) would get rid of it.

Carolina with 9 I think

Since we're dreaming of $6 mil cap raises, might as well dream of some other unliklihoods as well... FORWARDS Ryan Kesler ($5.000m) / Pavel Datsyuk ($6.700m) / Tomas Holmstrom ($1.875m) Johan Franzen ($3.954m) / Henrik Zetterberg ($6.083m) / Zach Parise ($5.250m) Todd Bertuzzi ($1.937m) / Justin Abdelkader ($0.787m) / Daniel Cleary ($2.800m) Jan Mursak ($0.550m) / Darren Helm ($0.912m) / Patrick Eaves ($1.000m) Drew Miller ($1.000m) / Cory Emmerton ($0.533m) DEFENSEMEN Nicklas Lidstrom ($5.000m) / James Wisniewski ($3.500m) Niklas Kronwall ($3.000m) / Johnny Boychuk ($1.875m) Brad Stuart ($3.750m) / Brian Rafalski ($6.000m) Jakub Kindl ($0.883m) GOALTENDERS Jimmy Howard ($2.250m) / Evgeni Nabokov ($0.570m) CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter) (these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion) SALARY CAP: $65,400,000; CAP PAYROLL: $65,212,044; BONUSES: $0 CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $187,956 Osgood, Draper and Modano retire, we promote Mursak and Emmerton Re-sign Eaves, Miller, and Nick to friendly deals Let Salei, Ericsson, and MacDonald walk Sign Wisniewski as a UFA, decent deal since he's a hometown boy Trade a 7th rounder for Nabokov, since he wasn't going to play for the Isles anyway Trade a 4th, 5th, and 6th for Boychuk. No reason Boston would want a bunch of trash picks, but there're three and Bruins are easily impressed. Make 1-year RFA offer for Weber, Nashville matches of course (more to come...) Make RFA offer for Parise, Devils don't match since they've gone retarded, we have to give up our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. So what. Trade Filppula and Hudler for Kesler. Canucks want to build a line for Sammy. So what if we don't have any draft picks left. We upgraded two good young forwards to two superstar young forwards, and added two solid, young, physical defensemen who are also RH shots that can move the puck decently. Then after we win the Cup, sadly, Nick and Homer retire, making room for Smith and Tatar. Nabby, Rafi and Bert are let go or retire, and we sign the now UFA Weber and after a few small raises here and there we still have enough to get a solid backup goalie and stopgap tweener forward while we wait for Pulkkinen, Jarnkrok, and Nyquist...

Still in the bottom 3rd of the league in attendance, and according to Forbes (as of last season) they have lost money every year since the lockout (even with a low-end payroll). Granted, I'd still be shocked if they let Weber escape, but they are far, far, from 'thriving'. No kidding. Basically one line + Selanne, and a defense that looks horrible on paper...I figured they'd be eliminated by Chirstmas.

My favorite (in the same vein)... "If people aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of food?"

Another simple fact is that the ref's perception does not determine if a call was right or wrong, as you seem to suggest. In some cases, the ref has some discretion but that's not the same thing. Making a 'correct' call based on faulty perception is still a mistake by the ref. People need to complain about mistakes. Otherwise, there's no incentive for improvement.

Ok, so I suck at fonts. Sue me.

I think Mo's injury just killed any chance he had of really finding a niche with the team. Helm really took a step forward. Abby coming on strong late. Draper holding up well. Miller and Eaves always work hard and find a way to pitch in... Add that to 8 top-6 forwards, and Mo is #14 on the depth chart. I've always liked Mo and had hoped he'd find a nice place on the team, hopefully go out in style...but now I think he (and his fans) just have to accept being an injury replacement. It'll be a tough enough choice finding someone to sit once Hank is ready to go.

NHLN just showed the "boarding" call on Helm...wow. I think the interference on Flip, like the Franzen cross-check and Bert slash, was iffy. Chincy stuff that didn't need to be called, but I don't have huge problem with the calls themselves. The boarding was ridiculous. No different than half the other hits in the game. Then the interference on Helm...was as much an arm drag by the Phoenix player. Calling it that way when the Wings were already short-handed just reeks of "we need to help even the score".