KonstantAdvisor

Check this bench clear from 1991. The announcer estimates a 10 game suspension when Probert clocks a guy after the game is over. A team doesn't get to that point if they feel like things were fair on the ice. Now, compare with Peca's situation. "Set back hockey 30 years" is also part of the announcer rhetoric, but the fact is that the only guy at serious personal risk in the 1991 game won his fight. Boston And Detroit fans ate it up. The guy at risk in the Columbus-Dallas game? Not only did he lose his argument with the ref, but the guy making the dirty play in the game did not get penalized either. I was just trolling the thread, though, because it's Chicago. Chicago just needs Roenick to come out of retirement and sign a "No speaking to the press" contract so Bettman feels like it's okay for him to win.

Just gonna troll this thread right here (nothing to do with Chicago). Claude Lemieux got a two game suspension for sending Draper to the hospital in Game 6 of that WCF. Michael Peca got a 10 game-suspenion (later reduced to five games) for trying to get the ref's attention and making physical contact with a ref. Every time I look into the Peca suspension, I basically get the idea that a (Morrow trips Peca on a 5-on-3 in Dallas, then he gets a goal to tie the game 1-1) blew up into a "make hockey players act like businessmen on Wall Street, put the integrity of individual ref calls over the perception of recorded video" (NFL-style) type of solution and Peca just figured he would retire. Otherwise Columbus could be making a playoff run right now (they started 12-6-3 without Peca). Peca on the PK might have avoided the 9-1 pasting they got from Detroit this year - it would have been only 7-1, much easier on the confidence level of young guys who just saw their career +/- and value as players hit the s***ter in one game, just because they are young. It makes no sense because the NHL has always relied on video replay to be accurate, too. I mean, sure it doesn't get as much money every year when Florida or New Jersey is in the Finals for checking tight and getting garbage goals all year, but I think the NHL needs to be consistent about the difference between clean hits that result in injury (double-edged sword, the Red Wings know) and cheap shots that result in weaker teams winning more frequently. People watch NASCAR, they will enjoy tight checking if every player on the ice is highly skilled. And they really are, now. The NHL continues letting cheap shots go if it fits a Cinderella-story narrative while handing out hefty suspensions for what can only be described as poor, but not dangerous, conduct (Peca was a serious dumbass for touching the ref, but wtf Morrow doesn't even get 2 minutes and the goal counts?) - certainly no personal risk in comparison to a linesman jumping into the middle of a scrap. I think that's lame because it puts players at more risk of injury and encourages irresponsible conduct on the ice by people portrayed as 'enforcers.' If they want to start handing out suspensions for open-ice, concussion-rendering, hits that get the crowd on their feet, people will understand it's for the better, just like helmets. Hockey doesn't need to prove it's as tough as any other sport, I think - it's a proven fact. If players put their emotion on the ice, the crowd will get into it. Good players and people cheer at AHL and junior games both. I guarantee if they had the tech in the 1950s to do multi-angle video replay, they would have put cheap shots in the past long before they put masks on the goalies. What the NHL should start playing up is that if they work at it consistently. Anyone can be a star no matter who tells them they suck. Anyone can be a star no matter how long it takes. But seriously, , it seems sometimes, and that doesn't get fans fired up to watch hockey. Detroit can't sell out playoff games? If it's a small market 'old city' team and it attracts star players for less expensive contracts, it's bad for NHL owner receipts, I get that. If it's a blown call, though? Instead of trying to balance ***-for-tat on ref calls, why not just institute mandatory power plays if replay finds something the refs miss. And have the refs call the mandatory penalties right before the period ends, when the penalized team will get hurt the worst if they get a PP goal scored on them right before they go back to the dressing room. Addressing the issue would be calling into question all those past decisions, though, right? Got to keep up appearances. So I predict Chicago and New Jersey in the Finals, Chicago wins - all the kids have been trained in the art of being professional off the ice. It probably won't matter whether they acquire someone or not, because San Jose (or whoever puts up the challenge) just has to let them win, like Detroit let Pittsburgh win last year. As long as they don't talk to the press they can make the rules up as they go along, clear $2 mil/year easy even if they never get to the 'next-level' and count on a great health plan if an lands them in the hospital. Make a stink about fairness? Kiss your career goodbye.

Columbus should (dunno about the GM), but they are in the Central, too. They have one guy who has seen the other side of 35 on the team and will probably get a good draft spot (not sure what they've traded already). On the upside, anyone who got traded and didn't want to move away permanently would still be pretty close to "home". I would rather a team in the East, though - second-guessing early round playoff exits is frustrating.

Come out and say? Nobody has a hard time admitting Osgood's performance was not good in his last start, including Osgood. You just don't seem to be willing to view the situation objectively. There's no point even discussing the rest of your post. You're in no position to talk about shame when I'm quoting the captain about the team failing the goaltender as well. Vernon played 33 games that year, more than any season before for Detroit, despite putting up a much better record the two previous seasons. So apply your logic filter regarding goaltenders and when to bench them/trade them. I'm just referencing what actually happened in the 1996-97 season. Detroit 'just had better players' then? Their coaching sucked? Vernon sucked? That's before we even get to your critique about Osgood's butterfly and how fast he jumps up from the ice. Saying Hextall would have won with a more talented team is not considering how much faith everyone had in the Philadelphia team led by Lindros and others at the time. He had a better shot at winning than Cujo ever did, but making it to the final games is only part of the contest. Saying the goaltender was great and the skaters in front of him weren't good enough isn't telling the whole story. Here is some - teams that lose their composure usually don't win Stanley Cups either. My point here is to draw a line between 'Osgood is terrible, as a longstanding opinion' and 'Osgood did not match his capabilities the last few games.' Every game is a test and it can build or undermine confidence well beyond the goalie. When a goaltender wins the Stanley Cup, I think it's a much bigger edge in the playoffs than +0.29 Save% or -0.29 GAA. The goalie's performance is a function of the skaters in front of him plus his own confidence and play on the ice. We agree that Osgood played badly in recent games, but you ignore the rest of the season and the team on the ice when you suggest Osgood is done. Osgood proved Howard was the starter already, but when did it become cause to say "Osgood is s***" instead of praising Howard? Is that what you meant to do when you started posting in this thread? It wasn't your intention to go on about why Osgood should never play another game for the Wings after only two starts in thirty days? I'd like playoff position to be cemented as well. Your opinion on goaltenders just doesn't make sense - making them look bad doesn't help your team whether you want to trade them or not. Howard started 0-2-0 and was 1-8-0 all-time in NHL starts before a comeback against Vancouver (one where Osgood put us in a hole early). This crowd would have been so unbearable if Osgood had not taken some heat during that stretch of injuries and given the younger guys from GR some latitude to make mistakes and learn to play better. Neither Osgood nor Howard looked consistent early on and once Howard picked up steam, I think it was a good plan to keep the focus on getting Osgood ready to play a cold start at playoff level because he still isn't there. Some players do respond to being poked, whether a negative or positive response. This year's Osgood drama started when Babcock made comments to the press about Osgood's performance against Chicago in their second game of the regular season. Afterwards they interviewed Osgood, he was candid about his perspective and fans have been giving him grief about how unprofessional he is, weak five hole, lost cause and 'he's s***' ever since. And not distracting our star goaltender when he has an off night. I guess it is win-win for Babcock, but it will be much better win-win for fans if Osgood just wins instead of giving Howard advice. Best examples are made on the ice.

No, I rephrased what you suggested without your 'it's complicated' bit. So you're pissed at Osgood because of this season, but you don't cut him the same slack as the rest of the team. A little bit like your critique of Chris Osgood's goaltending. Washington, San Jose, Chicago, LA. That's from October, not last season. Now 1997 doesn't count either, apparently. I like the sheer amount of words you pull out to describe the way Osgood put up a lousy game in front of Minnesota for his second start in thirty days. Talk about ridiculous some more...this is from the article linked at the beginning of this thread:

The Red Wings were pretty much a best-bet in the NHL from 1994 to now, even when they didn't win the Stanley Cup. Draper missed his fifth ring last year. Maltby would not risk being a healthy scratch on a lot of younger teams. Detroit is still a contender this year and fighting hard, but it's no Team Canada. It probably comes down to how involved they want to be with the office and press duties and how much they want to stay on the ice for a few more years. And how much they believe we have a shot this year. I'm guessing it is their decision, if there is any decision to be made. Now watch, someone is gonna say we should trade Lidstrom

I think a hero will show their true colors when it counts and Zetterberg's perspective counts for a lot since he can't carry the play and keep the puck in the opposing zone all by himself. I made your point for you? You've got it mixed up, bub. Seriously, though, people in this thread are going on about how Fuhr and Roy weren't that good now? Sure. Grant Fuhr and Patrick Roy are overrated. Fuhr didn't have the best GAA in 1986-87 when the Wings missed the finals by 1 goal margins during Yzerman's first year as captain. Same for Roy in 1995-96 when Colorado snuck past Vancouver in three 1-goal victories and Chicago with two, many in OT periods. The same year Roy won the Stanley Cup, Osgood lead the league in GAA tied with Hextall at 2.17 and posted a better record in the playoffs than Vernon as well - including two shutouts. Was Vernon a lost cause at 13-11-8 with an .899 save %? The next season seems to suggest otherwise but the established pattern in this thread likes to chalk everything up to having an 'unbeatable team' and the 'goalie wasn't a factor' if the Red Wing goaltender doesn't face a shooting gallery. Unless they didn't win the game. Then they're a lost cause. Howard is gonna start until he shows some fatigue or stops posting wins. He's doing great and there is no reason to second-guess that. Projecting fear on Osgood after this team is healthy and firing on all cylinders is a dumb move, because Osgood is going back in the net eventually and everyone knows he can win and has done so against the top teams in the league already this season.

Lost cause. Those are your words. If contract and salary cap didn't make it complicated, you would get rid of him, based on this season. When a rookie is marginally adequate, you don't call the performance 's***.' There is no reason to call a starter's performance that is adequate 's***.' And Osgood is not even close to "one of the worst shootout goalies in the league." You're not really talking about regular season performance, though. You are talking about performance when the team isn't playing its best, when guys are injured early during the regular season, when half the team is called up from GR, when guys coming off injuries miss defensive cues. It is too bad Osgood has not lived up to your standards, but you do sound nuts. Winning the starting job and not having confidence in your backup are two different positions that mean different things. At the beginning of this year, people knew Osgood was not going to play a huge number of games, but he was "behind Jimmy 100 percent." Osgood is winless since December 12th in Nashville (4-3) but started the season 6-2-2. Howard has taken his game to the next level, from 'average' in October to 'phenomenal' almost every night. Now you can say we have confidence in Howard, but why trash a goalie who won all those games with Franzen out the first week against the top-tier, healthy, teams in the league (Chicago, Washington, LA, and San Jose). I've read the above-type crap about Osgood not being that good since 1994 and it has never, not once, helped the team win. If you're taking the perspective that Osgood is a liability to the team, I think you're wrong. You quoted clutchngrab, but I don't see how your posts relate to the one you quoted. Nowhere do you suggest Osgood was 'marginally adequate'. You say you've defended Osgood before, yadda yadda. Now, according to you, Osgood is a lost cause who mouths off to the press and let's just be done with the conversation unless we're gonna bash him. Do I have that right? Don't let me put words in your mouth, here. It's one thing to build Howard's confidence by giving him more starts when he is hot but it's another to project only the recent past on a goaltender's abilities and write them off when the team isn't playing their best. If you're pissed about the loss, that's one thing. I'm not going to defend Osgood's play during the Minnesota game - he knows what is expected of him and he has to bring it every night, cold or not - but you all seem to have a shoddy recollection of exactly how the season started this year. I'll just leave it at that.

For the record, I think shootouts to break ties are lame and the league should get rid of them. If a weak team makes it to the playoffs with this strategy and they can't score with a defense in front of them, they will choke in multiple OT periods, if they make it that far. It's for the best. If a team misses the playoffs because they can't win in regulation or OT, it's hard to feel sorry for them, even if weaker teams are making it via shootout.

Does anyone else find themselves getting sick after games more this year? This seems to be direction of emotions when we have a 2 goal lead. -> :beerbuddy: -> -> -> -> -> ->

That was a pretty hilarious obvservation. Lidstrom has multiplied his total goals in a relatively short span and it's way better than seeing 1 goal on 100 shots, that's for sure. I saw Cleary parked in front of Fleury, where Holmstrom and Franzen usually would be. If he is the guy who will step up, don't hold him back and make sure nobody gives an inch if they are taking cheap shots. I'm optimistic about Howard, who has been playing the lights out. I'm not sure it will be good enough for the playoffs and I'm not sure Osgood will have what it takes to match or raise Howard down the stretch. This isn't a 1993 situation, though, so I don't think people will hate on Howard the same way they hated Osgood for losing to SJ when we're the #1 seed. Less goalie drama and more wins is always nice, whatever the case. I'm also hopeful that Babcock has some master plan as to getting more physical play out of the defense. I agree with a lot of others about lazy passes. Lidstrom has always led with two-way play, but the Wings need to have enforcers with speed and hitting ability, if not finesse and scoring ability. And protect the goaltender, don't play goaltender. When I see Red Wings defensemen in the goalie crease down on the ice and they make a save it bugs the crap out of me because somebody should be blocking that shot with their body at the point, either taking the shooter off the puck or with a stick check.

Not what I remember. Constant hand-wringing by fans about sitting him when other goalies were playing better is what I remember. Not that other goalies were getting more starts than him, but that he was being made to sit. Like Vernon. Nobody wanted to believe Dom was a Vernon-level goalie, even though he had a Hasek-level salary. Thankfully, "he was a professional." Is that a fact? I heard the only reason Osgood was interviewed was based on comments by the coach to the press. I'm sure you've got some references here. Well, let's have 'em. The way you have framed this argument, though, you would think starting Chris Osgood 1 our of every 6 games would still be unreasonable. So you hate Osgood. We get it.

Look, you can read into what other people have written all you want as well, but stick to what I wrote. The sample size you appear to be operating on is the game against Minnesota. It doesn't even sound like you watched the games from November, but I'll take your continued smack-talk as evidence that you're watching now. You want to continue bashing Osgood? Proceed forthwith. Just understand you can bash the guy on the bench all you want and it still won't get your team wins, even if you do succeed in keeping him benched.

I never even defended Osgood's play as an individual. Much less acted like goalie is a lifetime position for anyone. Hockey is a team game and what you wrote about Osgood not showing anything is patently false. Go watch the games he starts in from November again because countless times you will see Osgood make a save, the announcer will comment about him saving the Red Wings' asses and then five minutes later it will happen again. And again. Breakaways, giveaways, open shots in the slot, massive screens - things that no goalie would have a chance on but they were stopped. Did it change the end score of 1-3? It wasn't 1-7, I guess that's all I can say. You can interpret reality however you like and if you like Howard that's fine by me, I'm just making sure people understand your statements should be taken with a huge grain of salt, even if what you are saying about the future is correct.

You guys want? Everyone wants Howard to succeed and do well. I think everyone wants Howard to play the majority of starts the rest of this season, too. I think what most of us don't understand is the rampant, pointless bashing of Osgood. Osgood played most of November through a lot of injuries for the Red Wings and actually did an okay job through that. He wasn't great against the Wild his last start, but you're pretty much precluding the fact that he can return to form now that the Red Wings are getting healthy. Everybody understands Osgood is closing in on retirement, but 23 playoff games less than 12 months ago says the reality of the situation now isn't what you're making it out to be. You need to stop projecting on the team, because they have scored 9 goals in one night this season. It's not something they can't do. I have watched the Red Wings play, maybe you should too. I'd be surprised if Howard wants to remain a Red Wing with fans like zackmorris. A good goalie can get paid to play anywhere, but you really have to be a glutton for punishment or making $X million (like Hasek and Cujo) to not get completely sick of those certain fans that always project excrement on the goalie when their favorite players aren't scoring. Sorry, I mean be "confident and secure in himself and for good reason" when you lose and the team in front of you is playing great.

Reminds me of another Red Wing that most Detroit fans were not so easy to give up on. You have a pretty intricate critique, but the fact is that Osgood's performance was equal to Howard's until he was given a month off. Those are the facts and the present suggests a whole different set of rules apply. Whoever is in net against SJ will get shelled if our defense decide to play goaltender and stick check instead of taking the body to the guys screening Howard and Osgood. Stuart got a goal tonight because Fleury was triple screened and nobody on Pittsburgh was willing to move Cleary, it looked like. To look at your post, you have been spending the past month not watching Osgood ride the bench while Howard soldiers on. The people who are in the best shape when they are older get a better rhythm the more they play, just like young people. So yeah, I would still start Osgood against SJ, since Howard has two games in hand, and then put Howard back in against Anaheim, whatever critique you've got. That's about the pattern I think we would have followed in '96, if we didn't know the team was full of champions already and were trying to get the #1 seed rather than clawing for eighth place. Nonetheless, I think your comments are disingenuous. If Osgood was winning, you wouldn't care how fast he gets up from the butterfly and you wouldn't be telling me you know whether he's acting on instinct or reaction-based. He's the guy with the Stanley Cup rings.

I saw a video of Joe Corvo on YouTube where he gets attacked by Boris Valabik and turtles. Does he always do that when other players go after him? He seems to throw a pretty good check, so I can't imagine he does. I read he is on the trading block in Carolina and I think he might be worth grabbing before the deadline. I really don't know that much about Corvo except that he scored a hat trick on Ottawa after they traded him and is coming off the IR soon and used to play with Patrick Eaves. I would trade Stuart in exchange for Corvo and a draft pick. Stuart is younger and I think he might score more for another team as well. Corvo is a combined +39 for his career, Stuart is -11, but other than that Stuart looks better on paper and has been stuck with a lot of teams that haven't made him look great. I think his playstyle just doesn't fit Detroit right now and Corvo fills in a void that Rafalski or Lidstrom might leave later.

Before I saw Brett Hull play with the team, I thought trading for him was wasting money on a team that was already very capable of scoring goals. Did not review that gut feeling because Stanley Cup > all. This year goal scoring is a serious problem, so I think getting Modano would be great because I think he could add lift on a team with less pressure to be the top scoring guy. D and Z are both expected to produce now and in the future. Modano is a clutch scorer and he's not a lazy skater even when he doesn't score - I don't think the Dallas crowds appreciate what they've had, but all those chances Bert gets and doesn't finish while D and Z are tied up by defenders would get put away by Modano. Franzen and Holmstrom will come back eventually, too, though. I've thought searching for another Konstantinov to complement Lidstrom would be a high priority for a long time, but Detroit seems to be the team that players who know they will be taking a pay cut on their next contract go to. I really don't like the "Last Stop Before Retirement" trend that nets us the highest average age in the NHL but for Modano I would make an exception this year, plus he is from Michigan and will still get his retirement honors in Dallas. Otherwise I would say put the moves off until next season and get a young, but tested, player like Letang in Pittsburgh.

When the crowd perceives emotion on the ice, they feed it back to the players. The Red Wings had the lead early and so the LA game seemed to be in hand and the crowd was quiet (also weird thing with people in the rafters?). Against Chicago, when they came from behind, things were louder. The crowd wants to see a show, and the emotions are higher if it is a close game. I'd still rather the show was 5-1 instead of 1-0. Scoring goals is the real weakness of the Red Wings right now. When the Wings are up 2-0, they let teams back into it instead of running up the score (Columbus and Anaheim games from November excepted). Lidstrom passed to Bert instead of shooting against LA in the closing minutes when they were down 2-3. It was practically the same setup as his goal against Chicago, but he didn't take it. Boston is the only other team that is in playoff contention and upside-down on the goals-for/goals-against stat. Going into the last game, even after the loss to the Capitals, I felt good about this team. After the LA game I felt like the Wings were not mentally prepared. The way Meech, Lebda and Ericsson appear on the +/-, we can see that the D still works through breakdowns on a regular basis in their own zone. Stuart plays a goaltender better than he clears screens in front of the goaltender. We are not wearing down their teams as much anymore, and they are wearing ours down. The crowd is naturally quieter (so the Wings can concentrate?) because the letdown was palpable and in-your-face - the Wings were crumbling in the face of adversity instead of rising to meet it. It stands to reason that if the players rise to the occasion on the ice, the crowd will cheer.

People are stating on this forum that Ozzie shouldn't have made comments in public. Like they know better and the precedent of all the times they've heard Roenick or some other guy run his mouth. I don't hear Babcock saying he (Osgood) made the wrong call, but people on this forum are saying sit him another month, etc, based on his comments and not based on his play between the pipes. Which has not been nearly as bad as you have made it out to be, either. Like I said, food fight. Who is a goodie two shoes? You're just covered in special sauce right now.

Your other posts could have fooled me. Ozzie is not a rookie and he hasn't said anything even close to inflammatory. The people on this board have, though. Osgood was not 'whining' and Osgood's fans have not been demanding he be the goaltender forever. The people who need to shut the hell up probably didn't see the game where Babcock made the comments to the press which has prompted them to keep interviewing Osgood. The fact that Osgood has a role while he is on the bench now (with the press?) doesn't excuse the petty and basically unforgivable rudeness displayed by Wings fans on this forum. It really looks like some of you are just Chicago or Colorado fans trying to turn this thread into a food fight.

That's true. Osgood knows that Jimmy is hot right now, too. He is keeping Babcock honest. Fans who haven't missed his performances know that Osgood has done fine. Twelve straight starts for a rookie goaltender is not very normal. We are not talking Patrick Lalime-type numbers, either. Howard could win the Calder, but he is also now on pace for more complete games than Patrick Roy played in his first five years. There is optimism but there is also benching the team you know you have and letting it get cold. I agree it is a bit of a distraction, but Osgood really hasn't being given a chance to compete the past month. Howard was doing well, but Osgood was being actively denied starts, it appears, because the Wings got blown out against the NYI at the end of a long road trip and it was Howards nth start in a row. Osgood was doing fine early in the season but then saw his playtime drop after the Chicago game where Babcock made comments to the press about Osgood's weak play. Which was a complete joke because Ozzie played awesome that game, could have easily been 0-7, had maybe one weak goal, while the Wings sleepwalked through the game and barely got a shot on net. I just don't get why you are piling on the "run Ozzie out of Detroit" train. Is Chris Osgood a career backup who doesn't deserve a start even one out of six games? No. Even hot rookies get cold and Babcock letting the go-to guy get cold seems pretty bone-headed to me. Osgood wants Howard to win and we all appreciate that Jimmy Howard is doing great. Everything else you said was fine. This is dumb. Babcock just needs to know that Osgood has a point about not giving him starts often enough. I want Howard to do great every game. I don't agree with what you said about Osgood sucking. You are probably right about this and it's all a head game for the opposition. Detroit was controlling the zone most of the last game. They are feeling stronger, no matter which goaltender is behind them now, but there is still some weakness and inconsistency on occasion. I notice the exact opposite body language, though. There is more pinching and less body checking, more pretty passing and more risky plays trying to force shots when there aren't scoring chances. The stats bear it out too...Osgood will claim the loss at 1-3 and the Wings will have 40 SOG. When they play 'simple' they seem to spend a lot more time in the defensive zone pounding forwards on the boards...then we get these amazing forward passes and much better scoring chances with fewer shots. Tonight the Wings were doing the latter in front of Osgood, for the most part. They carried the play to the Caps and for a little bit during the second the Wings really wore them down and got some amazing scoring chances. The Wings could easily take the Kings' 8th spot if they play at that level and avoid that 60 seconds of miscues for the next two games.

I'm pretty sure they went to Osgood seeking comment. His comments reflect the history of the Wings under Bowman, too - there is a lot of precedent for not working your goalie like Babcock has been working Howard. Osgood has had time off for 'hot goalies' before and blaming him for sour grapes now is unfair because Osgood is the one who was between the pipes in November when the Wings couldn't put up more than one goal against some of the bottom-feeders in the league. He was nice and quiet for that. There is a lot of precedent outside the Wings, too, for what Osgood said. Howard has lived up to a lot of high expectations, but so has Osgood and the stats this season bear that out, whatever the W/L ratio. I still support Babcock, because he's picked the lines that have brought us back to contention through all these injuries, I just think some people are anti-Osgood when they keep repeating 'weak 5-hole' and push the coach to deny Osgood opportunities to play or Howard time to rest. The Calder Trophy is not that important. Forcing things leads to turnovers, losses and injuries and Howard would be on a better pace to win that Calder if Osgood had started against the Islanders. You can't debate that. By all means, call it a cheap shot, though.

I agree with you. It bothers me that people are giving our goalie more grief than he is already giving himself at this point. The only decision I would second-guess in hindsight (as someone who has seen the Wings before '96) was not starting Osgood against the Islanders at the end of that last road trip. Hodson also started a few games under Bowman when Vernon was injured and he wasn't given the task of carrying the team alone, much less being allowed to do so with a healthy Osgood. Martin Brodeur lost to the NYI 0-4 just the other day, if anyone needs some perspective. Wings fans should respect what Osgood brings to the team and stop with the character assassination. Trollbait. Matt Bradley has more NHL experience, so it's bound to happen occasionally. The power play was weak, but despite the letdown of zero points, I thought it was a great game to watch and I thought I saw a lot from the Red Wings that I know can dominate. It's going to be an uphill battle with or without fans weighing in with their opinions, that's why Babcock makes the tough calls and the rest of us are supposed to just support our team. I'm not taking sides against the guy I want to win the Calder, but it's a disservice to the team the way Osgood has been treated. If Babcock has been 'poking' Osgood, he needs to start giving him even chances for the team to gain momentum in front of him as well.

I'll take the 2-1 win over Columbus. Detroit was scoring fine up until Atlanta 11/26 and injuries are a huge part of it. The D has held up, for the most part, but Lidstrom is in a scoring slump and he's obviously logging a lot of ice time. Gooning it up means more PKs. Everybody respected the Red Wings with Joe Koecur and Bob Probert, before Fetisov, Konstantinov, Lapointe, Draper and Maltby, but knowing when and where to play out the conflict is how teams win championships. If you watch Kane's first goal in their last game, Stuart gets caught flat-footed on a PK and Howard gets screened without a challenge. Detroit is fighting for the puck and fighting for goals just fine, but they are banged up and not getting lucky bounces. I can't believe people are making the Wings out to be soft. Just out of curiosity, were you all finding things like this to complain about when Detroit was scoring 9 and 7 goals a night? We knew Detroit wasn't going to lead the standings from the beginning of the season and they have battled hard in a tough division. If people want to see a fight between Detroit and Chicago, the logical time for it to play out is March 7 or thereafter. Chalking up more Ws is more important than adding insults and cheap shots to the Wings' injury list.