Theophany

Howard and Quick have the best, IMO. Howard because it's all Detroit (Mustangs, tachometer with retired numbers, gothic D on the front), and Quick because it's simple, related to the feudal concept of his team, and just all-around badass looking.

I really, really hate when people talk about how a club has done on this day or that day in the past, especially when it's over a large amount of time; it has no correlation to how the club will play today. You're basically grasping at straws. Talking about streaks this season is fine, or if a player has been particularly successful in the past playing against a certain team (because some teams players just play better against), but it's such and arbitrary number to throw up "record on this date". That said, I think Howard will play better in this game, and the Wings will rally after two depressing losses.

It's actually 116 (Hossa 40, Franzen 34, Hudler 26, Sammy 19), but it's cool. Also keep in mind we added other forwards—and Franzen will be back—and it's much, much less than that.

You need to hit to play good defense? You know a lot about hockey, bro. Hint: Lidstrom has 6 Norris Trophies that say you don't know what you're talking about.

Well, I know this is a complex concept, but keepers can't be expected to do everything by themselves, because there are these five guys in front of them that need to do their job as well. Right now, the problem isn't Ozzie, it's the team. And yes, he's had some incredibly clutch saves over the season thus far.

http://www.sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Red_Wings Of particular note to this thread: I can't believe people suggested Homer, who has been our biggest goal scorer thus far in the season (by uh, 3 goals?), or Maltby, who hasn't looked like this in years. YEARS. Both look to be in fantastic condition, and are playing much better than I would expect. The players I have a problem with are mainly the Lebda/Ericsson pair. I know people around here have a Big E fetish, but seriously, it's his first full season in a Wings sweater; it's to be expected that he's still adjusting. Lebda though, has been playing for a while now, and he still sucks. He never makes amazing defensive plays (solid at best), and he coughs up some ridiculous turnovers and lets odd-man rushes back for tasty shots on Ozzie. Other than that pair, I'm fairly happy with how the Wings play when they show up. Last night wasn't bad until the last 10 minutes of the third. We just need to get the team that started that game on the ice for a full 60 minutes. Babcock also needs to change his saying from "do your ******* job" to something that makes the Wings want to kill people, because we can't have May fighting every single game to get some killer instinct going. We sat back after we got up 2-1, and that's not something that we can do. Coaching and attitude are more issues at this point than the players are.

I really don't see the need to get rid of anyone or acquire anyone at this point. Our team is solid, and of course there are areas that could be better, but we can't always have what is essentially an all star team. Ericsson and Lebda fit very well with what's expected of 3rd pair defensemen; Howard is a crap shoot currently (i.e. we haven't seen enough of him thus far), and the rest of the team just needs to get healthy and start tightening up defensively. This team is actually really solid, if you look at who we've got. Every line has at least two guys I wouldn't mind seeing on the PK (though obviously some more than others), and that really does say a hell of a lot about our two-way play. Howard is the only move I can even think of making of guys actually on our NHL roster; the rest of the team is fine and can be coached to play better.

Food for thought on comparing Dats and Z (over the hill) vs OV, Crosby, and Malkin: For '08-'09: Dats was a +34, Z was a +13. OV was a +8, Malkin a +17, and Crosby a +3. OV, Crosby, and Z were basically first-liners all last year. Z was considerably ahead of his two peers. Malkin and Dats were both second-liners. Datsyuk was again, far ahead of Malkin. So can we draw the conclusion that this illustrates the difference between young vs old? That older players play more defensively as they get older? Or is it just an intangible that people don't really look at? Do people like Bucci only look at points and when Dats and Z are only (LOL) putting up 97 and 73 that they're past their prime?

For sure, 'buddy passes' in the neutral zone are killer.

Looking OK? He looks like one of the only competent skaters out there when the entire team is sucking. His line with Fil and Leino are the only guys that look like they're putting for the effort in all seven games thus far. If I had to compare the two and judge Williams in just seven games, I'd take him over Sammy. He runs point on the PP much better, he's been good with Fil and Leino, and I've at least not noticed any glaring defensive mistakes. He's also had the chance to be clutch, though he couldn't really help that no one else made their shoot out goals; he made his, though.

That's a hit of Kronwall quality. That's what happens when you've got your head down going through the neutral zone, though.

http://www.gregeno.com/?p=1037 Pretty good read, and he presents a good argument. I'm still of the opinion that if you need to think about it, you probably shouldn't retire the number (for the Wings; other teams don't have the amount of superstars we do), but I've also been of the opinion that by the end of Ozzie's career, the numbers will speak for themselves. Ozzie isn't a lock as Lidstrom is, but I think that his 30 should still hang up there with 5, 19, 9, etc.

Nope, I don't think all teams but the Wings are questionable. It helps to not try to infer anything beyond what I'm saying. The Sabers are solid. The Avs are solid. I never said that they weren't solid, just that we would have beat them, had we played against them like we did against the Hawks, Caps, Kings, or Avs. Personally, I know enough about hockey and sports to draw conclusions based on performance so far, and not just from the win-loss records. The Avs and Sabers are both solid teams, but the Sabers are going to have a tough time breaking into the top eight in the East. The Wings will be fine, though. They're a (mostly) veteran team with lots of playoff experience; they notice slides, and they do their best to correct it. They haven't missed the playoffs in how many years? People tend to jump to "OH MY GOD THEY'RE GONNA MISS THE PLAYOFFS" every time the Wings lose a game in the regular season. Relax. Just like Ozzie, the team knows when their back is up against the wall better than anyone else, and they know how to turn it on. They'll be fine. Though beating teams like Chicago (who are ridiculous outside Huet/Niemi), the Sharks, and others in the West will likely be as—if not more—challenging than the run to the SCF last year.

Pretty sure your "questionable Avalanche team" is 6-1-1 right now, bro. That's better than the Sabers who you're ready to give the Cup to right now. Hypocrisy is spelled B-r-o-k-e-n-1-6 now, apparently.

The Wings have already started to play better hockey; or did you miss the last two games? It'll be more telling when the Wings go on a long road trip like these next two coming weeks. If they can go on the road, come together as a team, and actually get their game back on track, it's safe to lock up the playoffs. If the Wings maintain their current level of hockey (i.e. vs the Kings and Avs), they'll still make the playoffs, but it might be as the #8 seed instead of the top four.

It is, because they're not. Had we played them like we played the Hawks, the Caps, the Kings, or the Avs, we would have won. Every team is gonna have off nights. The Sabers seem like they're playing great hockey because they haven't really been up against anything tough.

They lost in OT to Montreal, who's pretty bad. They also lost to ATLANTA. Good god. That we barely showed up to the game doesn't say anything about the season. This isn't the NFL or college football. One game doesn't mean you're out of the playoffs or in the playoffs. The teams Buffalo has beaten, BTW: Wings, Preds, Coyotes, Isles. Not exactly a prestigious list, barring the Wings. Edit: On topic, it's kinda cool, and the playoff predictions are similar to the teams I think will be going from the West. But as people noted, most hockey fans will vote with the heart and not actually think about what they're voting on, thus is not really a legit tool.

You don't pull a goalie if you're tied. You pull a goalie if you're down by one to tie it up. Just FYI.

So wait, putting the rockies on them is something that all Canadians can relate to (even the Canadians that live in Quebec and Ontario, who live NOWHERE NEAR the Rockies), and making the medals wavy like water or the region that the Olympics are held in isn't something that they can relate to, yet the Rockies are? I'm facepalming so effing hard right now. Just go watch hockey and keep drooling. Don't worry, we'll continue to discuss the medals without your circular logic.

It's actually THE oldest sporting event. Not the Winter Olympics, of course, but the Olympics in general.

Uh, they're honoring the history of the region, obviously. Learn some history, BTW. Aboriginals helped people settling in the region to learn about the environment that they found themselves in. Not knowing your own country's history. Oy vey.

I like them a lot. Then again, I live in the PNW, so I like the aboriginal designs and water-ish design. Plus, I don't think I'd really care if they gave me a piece of rock; if that symbolized getting Olympic gold, I'd be pretty effing proud of it.

May. BTW: OMG OUR SEASON IS OVE—oh, we won? YAY WE'RE STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS FOR SURE.

There's no way that the veterans on the team will LET the Wings be a 32-win team.

Really the only thing I'm taking away from this game is that Helm and Fil look good. The rest of the team look terrible.