kipwinger

That's like saying it's impossible to say whether life without one of your arms would be good or bad because it hasn't happened. Sure, but you can speculate with a pretty high degree of logical validity. Datsyuk and Zetterberg are two of the best players in the world. It's always better to have them than not have them...just like both your arms.

Don't be such a curmudgeon.

Don Cherry: Proponent of obnoxious teams, opponent of obnoxious fans.

If he's this good hungover just wait until he settles down a bit.

This rules so much! I want to hit up a Tatar party.

Agreed, I definitely don't think that being competitive is bad. Although after re-reading what I typed I understand why it would look that way. I suppose my point was, injuries or no, if you can take leads in games then you should be able to win games (especially with multiple goal leads). We should be winning more with the lineup we've currently got. Sure we'd win more with D and Z, but this lineup has shown it can compete too. I just wish it was competing a bit more successfully after 60 minutes. But then I have to remind myself that even when we didn't have all these injuries we were still blowing leads. So maybe it's a product of something else. While I'm no expert, my guess is that a combination of a healthy D, Z, Weiss, Ericsson, PLUS the infusion of the kids, PLUS a little work on the back end is probably the recipe for success...but I don't know.

It would be impossible for me to hate the fans of a sports team more than I hate fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. And that includes the New York Yankees.

I do agree that the effect of losing guys like D and Z (and even Helm and Weiss, who are both good defensively) lead to an overall propensity to blow leads. But, it's not like we weren't doing it before the injuries. Most of those games we lost during the streak of overtime/shootout loses were blown leads as well, and we had our regulars in the lineup then. But I don't want to make this about blowing leads, I already created that thread. I do think injuries have played a part, and when you combine that with the fact that it took this long to get the kids into the lineup AND the fact that our defense is severely underqualified you've got a recipe for games lost. Next year, a healthy lineup, PLUS the kids, MINUS the old timers will be much better. Although without changes to the defense it still won't be near the top of the league in my opinion.

I'll say this, for me it's not a matter of thinking that the team is sinking or that there aren't (some) reasonable excuses for (some) of the loses. I agree, the injuries tore this team up all year. BUT we're in every game we lose, tied in a lot of games we lose, and leading in almost a third of the games we lose. When you're leading by two goals going into the third you need to win more often then we do. It would be one thing if, because of injuries, we rarely got leads in game. It's another thing entirely to have leads so often and blow them. And you can't blame that all on injuries.

Well if that's true then all the team's success belongs to Holland too. If he's going to get blamed for one he needs to get praise for the other.

Except that it wasn't Holland at all. Babs, Dats, and Z, wanted him back. Holland's got a lot to be ashamed of (Tootoo, Sammy) but this one ain't on him. Here's the quote... "Nyquist could have made the Wings to start the season. But Holland signed 40-year-old free agent Daniel Alfredsson, and then he re-signed 34-year-old Dan Cleary in training camp. Cleary was a surprise, because he had bad knees and better offers elsewhere. But coach Mike Babcock wanted him back. The team leaders wanted him back – from Howard to Zetterberg to Datsyuk. And he came back on a one-year deal worth $1.75 million, when he turned down the Wings’ offer of three years at $2.25 million per on July 5 and the Flyers, Florida Panthers and Winnipeg Jets were offering three years at $2.75 million per." And here's the link... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-s-hottest-scorer-gustav-nyquist-shooting-for-goals--glory---playoffs-after-starting-the-season-in-ahl-161232581.html?

Tatar w/the hatty in the final minute of play. Calling it!

Thank god for that.

Must be I just needed to show up before they started playing. You're welcome everybody.

Dang, I missed the first period but at least it looks like all of you guys and gals are on an even keel tonight.

I don't know why you keep referencing my "agenda". I've admitted to having one. It's to prove that Smith isn't a top pair defenseman. You keep saying it like it's some sort of revelation and not a blatantly obvious thing I've spent the better part of six pages trying to prove. Here's the link to where I got my numbers. It's got Smith ahead of Kindl and behind Lashoff (5-on-5). Last time I checked (about a week ago) Lashoff was behind Smith too. So no, I'm not "lying". Also why are you excluding neutral zone starts? Because it's convenient for your argument? Smith starts in the o-zone more than Dekeyser, Kronwall, Quincey, Ericsson, and Kindl (according to my numbers). You don't get to exclude facts just because you feel like it. Also, why do you keep saying Dekeyser should have more offense to show? He's a defensive d-man who's never put up big numbers at any level. You know who should have better numbers? Our talented young offensive d-man with all the "upside". http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=63&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=D&f5=DET&c=0+1+3+5+63+67+57+58+59+60+61+62+64+65+66

While I agree that Gus was pass first in Grand Rapids, he did not play center down there. He was a wing and largely played with Andersson, Sheahan, and Jarnkrok (a little this season) at center while in the AHL.

I like the line changes, with the exception of Andersson on the wing. I realize, however, that there's nobody else so it'll have to do for now. Can't wait until Abby's back and in that spot though.

It doesn't mean that at all. He get's more offensive zone starts than any other defenseman on our team. It's not hard to bring the puck into our zone when you already start with the puck in our zone.

Just saw this over at Winging it in Motown and got a kick out of it... "Gustav Nyquist once ate three 72 oz. steaks in an hour. He spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress."

I'm glad we're in a playoff position and lord knows I'd like to kick back and feel good about the fact that our team is playing decently well, but sadly I can't. Yesterday we left another point on the table after leading 2 to nothing in the first. In a race this tight we can't afford to give points away, but we blow leads every game. It's Babs' stated goal to get early leads and then lock down defensively. As such, this shouldn't be happening. So, the topic for discussion is...why? Let's talk about problems, and let's talk about solutions. And for the love of god can this thread not devolve into a "Player X sucks" discussion, because surely we can all agree that if an entire team strategy is failing there are more issues than one or two players.

Ummm...Herman Melville?

Really pushing this "cray" thing huh?

Yeah, I have no idea what the answer to that question is. Seems like they'd have to go with just calling the penalty rather than awarding a goal, but you never know with this league.