Doc Holliday

Howard earned this start, though I find it ironic that the game he earned it with was one I believed he didn't earn. But that's how it goes. If Howard stumbles again then give Osgood a game. If not, wait for a lower seed.

I see nothing wrong with lots of goals. I also see nothing wrong with few goals. I also don't know of bandwagon fans who wanted shootouts and lots of penalties (since the premise of the increased penalties was to keep players from clutching and grabbing and open up the game more). The term "bandwagon" seems to be thrown around a lot, and I don't see why. If the "new age" of hockey becomes increasingly popular, what's the problem? I will pretty much watch hockey no matter what kind of game is being played because I love the sport for what it is, and I don't think that "bandwagoners" are changing the sport in any way, shape or form. Also the guy you quoted seems to have the exact opposite opinion on what is entertaining than you: "Scoring off the rush is a thing of the past, & so is the entertainment value."

Well Howard has been doing well but this was a stolen game right after a relatively bad game. Is Howard going to get the next ten starts? I sincerely hope not. If he continues to play hot for the next HALF of the season then he may be able to take the reigns, but he is playing well in January. Who knows what will happen after the Olympic break.

Right now he does, yes. But at some point Osgood is going to need to come in there and play, and if Detroit is a lower seed you want your best playoff goaltender in there. Right now that is Chris Osgood.

http://lakingsnews.com/

Howard is a rookie. Don't you ever forget that.

I don't think it is being scared as much as it is updating the forumers on how teams in the same ******* division are doing, whether it is against each other or not.

Quote of the day.

Hey guys did you know that Chicago won tonight? Oh f*** Blackhawkdown beat me to it. Dammit, I was so excited to tell everyone the news too.

Did you see how rusty he was doing it though? He almost couldn't find the straps to his cage! This is proof that he is getting way too rusty sitting on the bench.

Those misconceptions have been coming since this thread was made, and even then they weren't true. You also tell me to sit back, but it is kinda hard when someone decides to call out the "Howard bashers" instead of sit back and enjoy the victory themselves.

Well have you seen his hair?

Nobody said that. Nobody said that. And this is bashing him, how? No one found it a travesty. Some thought it was a mistake but it ended up turning out very well. No one is bashing Howard.

Good job Jimmy. Glad I was wrong about Babs putting you in there.

Oh the irony.

Once again you dodge the point. Osgood won there. And won more games than he lost there. And made the playoffs for those teams. End of story. Zack: You cannot be serious to think that letting in two soft goals is a good game. Like, you have to be completely out of your ******* mind to continue to tell me with a straight face that two soft goals and a 3.00 GAA is somehow a "good" game. Explain this s*** to me. Because it could have been worse? Well honestly based on that we should forget the two softies Osgood let in against Chicago since he could have let in more in the third but played great then. And he only let in three goals just like Howard. How are these situations different? Well then it shouldn't matter if Osgood starts, then. Should it?

I did that just to make you cry.

I never said my opinion of Babcock's decision was more than an opinion. I am aware that I am not the all knowing authority that knows everything. However based on what I have seen it seems like it is not good to start Howard AGAIN after his game in Anaheim and keep Osgood on the bench AGAIN despite his very good third period against Chicago (though his first two periods were very bad). That is only an opinion and why I bring it here in the forum. To discuss it.

Yeah who cares that our leading scorer is out for a month? Oh wait, he doesn't fight. Yeah who cares!!?!?

Who is turning on Babcock here? I don't find any vendetta, just that his decision to start Howard does not make sense and that it is a mistake. We can do that on a discussion forum, right? Carman: No the situation didn't hurt, but they split games. 7 games in a row is not an even split by any stretch of the imagination. Pay attention. Howard let in two stinkers. And three goals total. That means over the whole season he would have a 3.00 GAA (most likely) if he played that same way. Now do you mean to tell me that in any circumstance that is an acceptable number? That a number like that is "good" or "decent"? And that is giving Howard the benefit of the doubt considering the Ducks are one of the worst teams in the NHL right now. Whether you say they are a "playoff team". It is irrelevant what you consider them because they have shown they cannot win on most nights. That was not a good game by Howard, and considering it is a seventh start in a row, that is not a sufficient performance to earn that seventh start. End of story. And the question is, do you consider it reasonable for Osgood to play like normal when he has been sitting this long? Especially since many people believed Howard's performances in the past years to be mainly based on the fact he only got one or two games in.

You don't think that playing well, having a goaltender start the next game and then play some stinkers himself without getting some pine would do something to any goaltender's confidence? He had a relatively bad game against Anaheim, and though it wasn't abysmal, it wasn't enough to warrant a SEVENTH start in a row. Osgood shouldn't be sitting on the bench waiting for Howard to play so badly that he would have trouble with beachballs, but that seems to be what it would take for people to believe that Osgood deserves a legitimate shot to go out there.

I think the most ironic thing is that is what everyone was saying about Helm's injury in the preseason. "Better now than midseason."

Conklin played 40 games that season. And it didn't seem like either goalie played a significant amount of games over the other in each given month (other than December).