Doc Holliday

He was bad during the Ducks game. If you think that performance over the season (3.00 GAA mind you) is acceptable then you need your head examined. And if Howard played well THAT game then we might as well say Osgood played well against Chicago with his soft goals. Against a much better team.

When Babcock mentioned that the number one spot was up for grabs Conklin faltered and Osgood played well.

Howard is starting tonight, after having a poor performance in Anaheim. You should get YOURS straight, since you think riding the hot hand is a good idea when that "hot" hand just cooled off in the Anaheim game. The issue is Osgood is not getting his starts and Howard did not earn this last start. Howard CAN get tired with so many starts considering this is his first year with more than one or two games, his first year with NHL competition, and his first year with seven starts in a row. If you aren't used to it then you are going to be affected by it. End of story. Not everything is physical. You can ignore the fact Howard did not have a good game in Anaheim (which you have been doing consistently) but the fact is he did not have a good game and suddenly giving him his seventh start after that is a bad idea. This isn't the Calgary Flames where you need to start the goaltender in 70 games. Osgood CAN win if he plays. He has proven that this year plenty. Osgood isn't playing that poorly, and it is irrelevant. Toskola is a terrible goaltender and is still getting more starts. That isn't a good thing. And I don't think it has to do with the fact Osgood slept with his wife or that he just doesn't like Osgood. I disagree with the assertion Outsider believes that as well.

The entire point was to disprove the assertion that Osgood wasn't winning. Strange that the guy hasn't had a losing season yet in the NHL, even when playing with the Isles and Blues. Your argument doesn't discuss the issue at hand, so it's useless for you to bring up the "hurr plays with the system" nonsense.

Sure as hell wasn't good or hot. There were two bad goals (Osgood had two bad bad goals against Chicago but his play in the third is overlooked simply because of the fact he let in two soft goals). Same panic that entices people to think that Howard deserves 7 starts in a row over Osgood simply because they think that Howard may play better. He is getting overworked, and it showed last game. And switch it up when the hot hand cools off. That was the Anaheim game in a nutshell. Well when a goalie who lets in two softies gets the next start, after the other goaltender did the same thing but hasn't played since, it isn't simply about how well you do in the games anymore. And based on Bab's comments it isn't about how well you do in practice either. So what is it? Well the simplist answer isn't always the correct one, and since Howard did not have a good game against Anaheim it would seem like Babcock would want to start Osgood. This isn't about performance if you saw the Anaheim game. Of course you can shrug it off and call me an Osgood fanboy. I personally hope I'm wrong and Howard leads Detroit to a win tonight. However I believe that Howard is getting worn out when it isn't necessary to. And once again if you are going to discuss things logically with a poster, bring some of your own. You haven't been too hot with the logic yourself, and have chosen to ignore some of my posts as well. Should I call you a homer and fanatical? Or is it just for those who don't justify every one of Babcock's decisions.

Yup, focus only on the statistics despite the fact a 3.00 GAA is pretty bad (I'm aware that isn't Howards GAA) and he did not play well. And I think this team should be focusing on how to be the best in the playoffs right now, considering every game is a big deal and if Osgood doesn't get the starts he needs, we will be looking at an untested Howard against a high-seeded team.

And who gave us one of the worst shots at winning last game? Howard. And who is continuing to rust on the bench and get even more useless the more games his counterpart plays? Osgood. And regardless of the record, you need to be reasonable with the amount of starts each goaltender takes. Babcock has shown he is not an expert on goaltending (can't be perfect at everything) and while it is noble to give Howard the rookie a lot of starts because he has done well so far, the fact remains that Howard is going to get tired with the workload he is being given right now and it is going to backfire (if you don't consider the Anaheim game that already). The monster in Toronto has been playing better than Toskola. And his point is still valid. Worse goaltenders are getting MORE starts than him despite Osgood playing with of a solid (not unbelievably good) rookie netminder. I don't believe Outsider ever mentioned that Babcock had it out for Osgood.

Howard is no longer hot. And he will not be reliable when the playoffs start. At least not as a rookie.

I would have loved to see the guy who lacerated my spleen (on a hit I was making) get suspended just cause.

So does Osgood. And to call Outsider blind just because he has an Osgood bias is a cop-out from actually attempting to discuss the issue.

They can, but don't the majority of the time. That's the point.

Yes, because Osgood didn't steal ANY games for Detroit in the playoffs the last two years. And I guess I was mistaken when I saw Hasek pulled in favor of Osgood in 2008.

So basically continue to tire out a rookie because you don't want to risk putting in a cold goaltender when that same rookie just crapped the bed against the 25th best team in the league. What?

When have they ever let themselves get bullied? Sometimes teams play a more physical game, but I have never seen the Wings LET themselves get bullied just so they won't get injured.

Did I say "Uber young dude"?

I think we should start calling Holmstrom Homestrom just to spite Miller Brew. Who's with me?

And it's amazing how two goals can suddenly make you the most clutch player since Clutchy Clutcherson of the 50s.

Yeah, I suppose a rookie with a potential high upside and very low salary wouldn't be a nice pickup for absolutely nothing.

I really don't care which team is "tougher". I care which team beats the other in the end. The Wings ended up doing that despite the "***** euro" team getting "bullied" by the "big bad ducks".

The powerplay is still the only time during a Wings game that I expect a goal. Of course I have high expectations when the Wings have the puck in the other team's end for almost two minutes at a time.

Dammit esteef stop hotlinking!

When a guy is getting peeved for not getting a Stanley Cup ring after playing a whopping six games, you don't think that is going to factor in? The guy who may feel entitled to things? I'm sure it did. And Holland has to call it how he sees it. In a tryout, you have to pick the guys who are doing the best for your team, and Quincey just didn't do it. He ended up doing well (with a convenient amount of powerplay time) with OTHER teams, and that apparently means that Holland should shoulder the majority of the blame. I seriously disagree with that. Players sometimes need to be responsible for where they end up, and I wholeheartedly agree that Quincey played his way off the team. I don't have some serious problem with the guy. He just didn't show what it took to stay on this team, and if he was still on the roster it is completely plausible that he would be the same guy that lost a roster spot in training camp. An ad hominem is an insult used to attack a person's position. I didn't do that. I called you out on being incorrect and subsequently insulting me when you couldn't respond to such. Nothing about that is ad hominem. Anyways, have fun ignoring me. I'll see you next time you feel the need to ***** that we lost a world-class defenseman in Kyle Quincey.

When someone is called out for their leap of logic, they tend to resort to personal attacks. Not surprising. If you have three players fighting for two roster spots, who are you going to take? And if you take the best two players, is that honestly a poor decision? It may not be the correct decision down the road, but that doesn't make it a bad decision. I also don't credit Holland as some god for getting Franzen, because he was not picked as a player to do what he is doing now. He was picked as a hard-working defensive forward that could chip in on occasion. That's what I give Holland credit for. Picking up a workhorse.

No, Quincey's fault was not playing better than the players who were selected above him. This is the same guy who got bothered he didn't receive a Stanley Cup ring after playing six games. Hindsight showed that Quincey was better than Meech and Lebda. That doesn't mean at the time Holland made the wrong decision.

Strawman arguments are great. Let me know when your arguments aren't ripe with logical fallacies.