-
Content Count
4,053 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Articles
Store
Downloads
Member Map
Everything posted by Doc Holliday
-
I didn't say it was random, but I said that putting Detroit's playoff hopes on giving your rookie goaltender every game and keeping your backup completely cold was incredibly risky. I'm not talking playoffs. Yes. That is incorrect, as Babcock stated numerous times his goal was to make the playoffs, which was what his decision was based on. That wasn't what I said at all. I'm not talking playoffs. I'm talking if Howard simply was on a hot streak, got cold and then we had nothing else to go for. Howard was not an established goaltender and did not impress until this year. It is a huge gamble to give him Marty Brodeur type playing time in his first real season when that didn't need to be the case. I think you aren't grasping my position correctly, here.
-
My qualm was you seeming to ask WHY I was asking the question about his decision in the first place, simply based on the fact that the results ended up in Detroit's favor. It came off as a "since it worked out why question it at all?" I do not think at the time it made sense, and I stated numerous times why. Did it work out as good as it could have? Yes. Does that mean that the right decision was made at the time? Not from my perspective.
-
I made my point based on how the conversation unfolded. I didn't bring it up in this thread, so I don't see why you berate me of all people for talking about it. Can we not discuss the decision making of our team's staff if we think it wasn't the right move at the time? That wasn't directed at you.
-
Did I now? Eh. I agree, but in general there has not been as much grit going around. How many power forwards could you think of in the 90s? Now how many power forwards are there? Although there are still teams that keep that grit all around in the system, not as much of it is going around which could be attributed to the greater focus on European players than years past. Perhaps not. Understood. Very well then.
-
I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum. Not my fault you would rather attack me than actually attempt to discuss the issue. I didn't even start the discussion about Babcock and Osgood, I simply participated in it.
-
-
First off, I would like to thank you for taking the time out to discuss this in a reasonable matter with me. And considering how things unfolded in the scenario we were given it would be very hard to, yes. But at the same time I do not believe that Osgood should have been plugged in a few starts with the same variables in the equation. I would have first given him a shot in at least one of the three games prior to his start in Chicago (the 3-0 stinker). He had just come off a great win in Nashville, in which Babcock rewarded him with three consectutive trips to the bench to get him cold for a very talented division rival. That is where I think Babcock slipped up first, and I think his job would have been easier if he had started with there. It was a factor of a few things which I discussed previously. Howard did have three very good games, but if Osgood was so weak, why not start him against Tampa? Even start him against Dallas and let Howie take the Chicago start if he is such a hot commodity. You'll have to be more specific with your timeline here. I'm having trouble following which specific games you are referring to. Perhaps, but once again I wouldn't base it on the variables involved. Too many ifs or buts to assume something based on other starts that would be given to Osgood in the past. Fair enough, and I respect your analysis of the season and the goaltending, though I disagree considering the statement I had after your first quote. Just seemed like things snowballed from there.
-
I don't think you understand the problem with using the one thing that Babcock didn't have to make his decision and use it to justify why he should have made that decision. Just think about that for a second. In hindsight, yes. But I never said that in hindsight it was a poor decision to make. Of course it worked out the best and I am completely happy with the fact that it happened, but I don't think putting all your eggs in one basket was the way to go. Go ahead and disagree with me and I will gladly discuss your reasons why you think that Babcock made the right choice, but you have to put it in the perspective of the coach making the decision. Babcock didn't know how Howard was going to do with all those games. Babcock didn't know how well Osgood would do without seeing too much time (which would be a reason why he would stick with Howard but has not been brought up by any of you). All Babcock knew was the team wasn't doing well in November, and with only 5 months (down to the wire eh?) to get back on track he needed to look at all the factors. Did he? I would think so considering he is the best coach in the NHL right now. Did he make the right decision based on those factors? Not in my opinion, no. Not surprised you of all people would take pot shots at me for having an opinion. Name one post where I was "butt hurt" about Osgood riding the pine. I stated that at the time it was not the best situation when it came to all the factors involved. And I stated why, which you dodged like Patches ******* O'houlihan. Hmmm, interesting. Let's use your "results are everything" logic: Should we lambast Holland for signing Hossa just because of the results? No, because at the time it made the most sense for the team to take him. But unfortunately for some of you here the results are all that matter when looking into the decisions of the Red Wing's staff. Perhaps if Yzerman does a better job than Holland at GM you guys are going to get on Illitch for not getting him to take the GM position? I mean, results are all that matters, right?
-
Call them whatever you wish, but they were scenarios that the coach did not appear to address in the proper fashion. He put the team in a high risk situation, end of story. Because I believe Babcock to make a mistake and you are simply handwaving what I say away based on the fact "well it worked didn't it?" Let what go? I'm discussing a coach's decision in a discussion forum. And once again, the ends don't justify the means. Wonderful bias based on hindsight. Other than the results, what do you have that implies that Babcock made the best decision at the time?
-
If Tallon doesn't overpay Campbell and doesn't severely overpay Huet they are in a much better position already. The ends do not justify the means. My scenarios were perfectly plausible. You are simply adding more scenarios in to belittle my point, which you haven't addressed. As a coach you have to look at all possibilities and I find it odd that he would back himself into a corner like this when he hasn't done so much in his career. This has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I did not like his decision and while it paid dividends, it was a very risky move and you can't honestly tell me otherwise. Yeah, I guess potentially evening the series up 2-2 and potentially getting swept aren't that different. Don't worry Howard, you can relax. The special teams let you down when you let in that backbreaking goal. The special teams were not good at all, but neither was Howard. He was uncharacteristically bad. Niemi sucks, and everyone knows that. Just because Osgood's terrible games in the second half of the season were better than one or two goaltenders' other games doesn't mean he didn't play absofriggen horrible in his few starts.
-
This logic I don't like. Just because it worked it can't be looked at as a high risk situation? Just because it worked means that there was no better alternative (not speaking in hindsight of course)? It is the same thing as saying you can't second guess Dale Tallon's contract management simply because the roster he created won the cup. Howard shined, yes. But left zero room for error. What if Howard lost it? What if he became injured? What if Howard began to noticeably decline due to fatigue?
-
Yeah after one year with a depleted lineup. Pshaw. Also, if you want a guy like Clutterbuck to answer to his hits, then hit him back. Fighting for a hit (unless it is completely blatant in which case I don't care if the guy declines to fight you or not) is just retarded. Be like Gordie Howe and be nasty. Let him know you're there.
-
If Billy Guerin can't be a 30 goal scorer with Sidney Crosby as his center then he isn't going to do s*** here on the third line.
-
Oh exploitable. I'll have some fun with this one. Also what is with Zetterberg's hat? Hey, Sammy's there too!
-
Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan of Drake when he was on St. Louis (but I can't stand St. Louis unless they play a rival of ours) but I respected the s*** out of him. Good for Dally.
-
More time to bounce back than in February.
-
Osgood sat in December.
-
Likes this. Moreso his owner, since Lou cannot stand long term contracts and was apparently told by the Devil's owner to take the contract.
-
It wasn't a risk because they gave up a weak defenseman and a 4th round pick for a guy who could very well perform some magic on TB's roster. And yes it was a good move to trade Mezaros. The guy did not perform well in Tampa and he was ridiculously overpaid.
-
Well I would like to say a few things to that. 1. The guy was a headcase. 2. I didn't initially try to agitate him, but considering he was their best player and me stating simple things got him pissed I went with it. 3. I didn't get in his face and act like a hardass, and he never actually challenged me. He just got pissed. I understand it may not be the best thing I did, but I wasn't going out of my way to be a douchebag either. As soon as the guy got kicked out both teams were perfectly friendly towards one another. His son was cool.
-
Yeah. The police came and escorted him off the premises. I think since he didn't land any solid punches on him they didn't bother pressing charges. The guy completely embarassed himself anyway in front of his own kid (who was on the ice during the incident).
-
What part of "fight one of my teammates" don't you understand? I would have traded blows if I didn't have a full cage and if the guy went after me. He probably would have if he noticed me on the ice. Yeah, I was amazed. The ref actually yelled "f*** you" to the guy after he let go of him. I was like what? I'm in the blue pants and white helmet. Malice: nice hit.
-
I was able to cause a former AHL (short time NHL) enforcer to freak out and fight one of my teammates. We were playing in a charity tournament, and I was put on the Redford Firefighters team as a ringer because I knew a couple of the guys. We had one more game in the prelims against the team that we were going to face in the finals win or lose. Their best player was a former NHL/AHL enforcer named Jason Simon. In the first game he would continuously cherrypick and attempt to get a pass and go out on a breakaway. Towards the end of the game I inadvertently high-sticked him, and after doing so he crosschecked me in the back. I told him "calm down there, Tiger" to which he replied "don't ******* high stick me." In the final game he was up to his old tricks, and making sure the defensemen on the ice knew it I yelled "WATCH THE CHERRYPICKER". He wasn't too happy about that and told me to "shut the f*** up." Realizing he was getting off his game I continued to yell it during the first 5 minutes of the first period. He ended up challenging one of my teammates and finally: He was kicked out of the game and we dominated the competition. I am actually in the video. Fun time.
-
I never said I hate him because he is tough. I don't want him on this team because tough is virtually his only asset available. YOU are one who seems to overrate a player (Steve Downie especially) simply because they can fight or are "tough".
-
Then focus on them. Walker is not what Detroit needs and he is not good enough to be a 3rd pairing defenseman for 1.7 million.