IndianaRedWing

What I see going on here is that fans are confusing themselves with players. When a goalie gives up an early goal, it's absolutely deflating to a fan, and I suppose it's not unreasonable for fans to assume the same thing happens to players. But I've been watching hockey a long time, and I honestly don't believe that it works that way. Have I seen a goal deflate a team? Yes. But when it happens, it almost always follows a certain script: 1. Underdog team works its arse off to build a lead against a favored opponent. 2. Underdog carries a lead into the third period, maybe even well into the third period. 3. Favored team starts acting frustrated, taking themselves out of the game 4. Underdog team's goalie gives up a bad goal (or two) 5a. Rest of underdog team collectively goes "Oh, FFS, we killed ourselves for 50 minutes only for THAT to happen?!?" 5b. Goal(s) lights a fire under favored team, which starts playing with focus 6. Favored team carries momentum over final 5-10 minutes, building pressure to the point that they finally score the game-winner to complete the comeback. That's why I (and others) are heaping so much scorn on the "deflating goal" theory tonight. The Wings never inflated in the first place. They never accomplished anything that they could be frustrated at losing. And, yes, if you pack it in after a goal with 50 minutes left on the clock, by definition you are not Stanley Cup material.

And they have absolutely no business staining the Stanley Cup with their name. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, simply repeating something like a mantra doesn't make it true. I would believe that the Wings were too mentally weak to compete if they had actually played with some level of fire or desire at the start of the game and then they quit after Boston scored. What happened was the exact opposite. They only started to compete at something resembling a playoff level midway through the second period.

So much denial here. Howard didn't kill the Wings' chance to win tonight. From the opening faceoff, the Wings never gave themselves a chance. When you score 2 goals in 3 games and you *aren't* facing elimination in game 4, there's a good chance that your goalie is your series MVP. Not because he's necessarily been lights out, but because everyone has been worse. And even then, it's not enough. Apparently, there's widespread belief that Howard has to keep track of when his teammates are having, ahh, that time of month. He has to wear the pants on the team. Okie dokie. It's unbelievable that people think the team that's showed up for the first 3 games could legitimately compete for the cup, but for Howard. Whatever makes the loss easier to take, I guess. It's probably better than booze.

If Detroit came out flying and then noticeably started slacking off after that goal, you'd have a point. How do you explain Detroit slacking off and playing with no sense of urgency to start the game, and only starting to play with some degree of focus once they were down 2 goals?

If that's really true, then blow up the team and start over with guys with some heart. Or, the other possibility . . . the Wings just aren't ready for primetime.

It can't be easy to face the President's award winning team when you know going in that the two possible outcomes are: 1) pitch a shutout 2) lose

Apparently, Rask can see through walls, because he reacted. He just missed. Datsyuk didn't shoot from behind Abdelkader - he shot around him. Not to mention that Abby was at the top of the circle - not exactly in front of the crease. Not that it really matters.

Good shift. It's a start.

When Datsyuk won game 1 with a similar wrister, do you think Boston fans were calling for Rask? That was a great shot. Maybe not unstoppable, but hardly a gimme. Rewind and look at it again. Just have to get organized, earn a couple chances and bury one. No score, no win.

I only scanned the last several posts. I'm sure I'm not completely up to speed on everything that's been written on LGW. It just seemed like "here we go again. If the wings are going to win, Howard needs to stand on his head. Howard proceeds not to stand on his head and the Wings lose. Ergo, Howard is a bum." I hear it from other people, I see it on other sites, and I thought I was seeing it again here. FWIW, I think my game 3-4 key is the power play. I expect Detroit to play with a jump back at the Joe, and think playing at home will help with the zebras. What they do with those chances will probably have a lot to do with how the series stands going back to Boston. Unless Howie follows up game 2 by giving up a six-spot in game 3. If that happens, I'll just disappear in shame until next playoff season, lol

Then prepare to lose. When was the last time a team won the cup by having their goalie steal 16 games? If Hasek, Brodeur, and Roy didn't steal every game (or even every win), you can be reasonable sure that Howard won't either. The problem here is that someone could just as easily rewrite that post by saying "This isn't the Wings of '02 . . . they don't have a Dominic Hasek in his prime. They can't afford to be scoring one goal per game, frittering away their power plays. The decision to accept lack of talent among 18 skaters but not the 19th is just baffling to me. It's completely and utterly arbitrary. Focusing on Howard just strikes me as lazy. It's easier to point fingers at one guy than at 18. Yes, having your goalie give up an early goal can have some vague effect on morale which can alter the course of the game. You know what else can have a vague effect on morale which can alter the course of the game? Not waiting until 30 minutes in to get on the board. Jumping on the opponent and making them second-guess themselves has that effect, too. This is funny - I don't think I've ever been fully on the Howard bandwagon. I'm not his biggest cheerleader. It's just that I don't agree with singling him out.

Two postgame thoughts: The other team is allowed to improve. There's no point sighing about how game 2 was different from game 1. Assuming Boston wouldn't be able to come up with a better effort in game 2 just isn't realistic. Howard didn't have a very good game, but the loss wasn't all on him -- or even mostly on him. If he had allowed 2 goals in each of the first two games, on the road against the #1 seed, he'd have a better GAA, and would have demonstrated consistency on the road, and the wings would be down 2-zip. If you score 2 goals in 2 games on the road against the 1-seed, and you go back home with a split, that's kind of incredible. Credit to Howard for stealing one. Now, it's up to the rest of the team to figure out how to win a game *without* needing Howard to steal it.

Welcome to the Stanley Cup playoffs, Torey Krug. Linked for Sparty fans...

Yep. Not looking for a fight, and we're on the same side anyway. I was just being more Bill Parcells than Ziglar. I don't remember what year it was - probably when he was trying to rebuild the Patriots back when they were a laughingstock - anyway, some reporter asks Parcells about team progress, and mentions something about moral victories. Parcells' famous response: "You are what your record says you are." Which always struck me as a perfect, no-nonsense way of looking at things. I wouldn't take it too far. Two teams separated by a handful of points over a full season = basically no difference. But 20 points in the standings over a half season? Putting aside all biases, that says the Hawks were better. Maybe not at everything, but definitely at enough things. They play the games for a reason, though, so you give it everything, and with a little fortune, maybe there's a happy ending. If not, use the series as a measuring stick and figure out what you need to improve before the next series. $.03

You misunderstand me. What you're suggesting is exactly what I'm saying Babcock should do. I'm also saying that it probably won't matter. Because if Chicago plays as well as they can, they're probably going to win, regardless. But you prepare just in case. Because as that other guy's signature says: hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

This. If I play the lottery and don't win, I don't need to go through hours of heartache and analysis. I don't need an academic study to explain why I didn't win. The problem with having the sort of history that the Wings do is that you're never going to sneak up on anyone. And they didn't yesterday. But this is still a series. Maybe the Hawks get a bit complacent in game 2. It's not the Wings' job over the next 24-48 hours to figure out how to be better than Chicago. It's their job to make sure they're ready to capitalize in case they get an opening - for whatever reason (Chicago complacency, fortunate bounce, whatever). A game 2 win isn't impossible, and that at least makes it a best of 5, with 3 at home...

I'm guessing the game wasn't televised in Russia? Disagree. Oduya's goal wasn't weak by anyone's standards. The Wings were gassed, couldn't clear the zone, and Oduya walked right done the slot, completely unmolested. Howard came out to challenge, and was squared up to him pretty well . . . Oduya just fired a laser that was, in a word, Datsyukian.

By "Reimer," do you mean "Van Riemsdyk?" If you're talking about the play that I think you are, it could easily be 2 minutes the other way for . . . well, what exactly do you call tackling a guy away from the play, then laying down on him, preventing him from trying to backcheck what appeared to be an odd-man rush developing for Toronto? I think that's pretty much the dictionary definition of interference. Should have been a power play for the Bruins. Kelly losing his cool negates the power play. Give the guy an extra 2 for drawing blood, and maybe it's a 2-minute power play for Toronto. JVR was asking for trouble. Shame on Kelly for indulging him, but let's not make it sound like the Leafs are skating Mother Theresas. That play worked to Boston's advantage, sure. But if the refs were out to get Toronto, they were doing a lousy job of it. See the roughing penalty on Lucic for (unsuccessful) instigation . . . which was no more and no less than Orr's strategy v Chara in the first period. Not to mention that Toronto is every bit as physical as Boston. Maybe more so. It wasn't the Leafs who were short 3 of their top-6 defensemen in game 7.

Couldn't have picked a better guy to get the game-winner. Have to love Bergeron. No-nonsense. Just hockey.

Well, there was that own-goal tonight. But at least that was just bad luck. I think it was one of the last national broadcasts in the regular season -- the B's Zdeno Chara (not exactly a slouch on D, either) tried a cross-ice pass in the defensive zone . . . and beat Rask the backup goalie short-side.

Though the culprits have changed. Now, Lucic and Horton are showing up to play, and Seguin and Marchand have disappeared. And Chara doesn't seem to be playing at 100% Also, My god, Jagr is slow. I know he protects the puck well -- when he has it. But he also has a bad habit of going for high-risk passes and turning the puck over. I'd wonder if he'd be a better fit on a better cycling line, maybe with Lucic and Horton, but (1) who's going to take faceoffs, and (2) Lucic-Kreicji-Horton is Boston's only reliable line. No way they blow it up now. I still think Boston wins in 7. Reimer's due for a stinker, and Boston's on again, off again work ethic should be back on . . . though nothing would surprise me.

Abdelskater!

I've been hard on the team in my few posts here, so I'll take a break today. The only thing better than game 7 is . . . game 7 later in the playoffs. This isn't a Stanley Cup year, so I'm going to enjoy this one. It's great experience for the younger guys, and it'll be even greater if they can dispatch a tough opponent on the road. But I'm not going in with that expectation. The Ducks were the best team in the conference not named Hawks. They earned the 2 seed. The way I see it, they're the screw-ups who can't seem to put this series away. The Wings are playing with house money tonight. Hopefully we get an early goal and make it stick for a while. Supposedly the Ducks are loose, but I have to think they'll start getting tight if they go behind, and can't solve Howard. They've come back before in the series, but that wasn't under game 7 pressure. Either way, thankfully my first meeting on Monday isn't 'til 10.

Howard isn't an elite goaltender. He's a good one. The rest of the roster isn't good, it's mediocre. That's the problem. Howard can outduel Hiller and still lose. He's got a harder job facing an Anaheim team that had one of the best powerplays in the NHL during the RS, and that ranked 8th in overall scoring . . . than Hiller does facing a Wings team that ranked 20th in scoring and 15th on the power play. On the one hand, it's true to say that the Wings aren't going anywhere this postseason unless Howard stands on his head, and he hasn't done that. But that's an incredibly misleading way to look at it. You could also say that nobody short of Ken Dryden is taking this squad to the finals, and even that would be less than 50-50. Absolutely, Jimmy needs to create his own legacy. If that's going to be in Detroit, though, he's going to need some help.

These west coasts starts are killing me. Eastern Conference move, ftw. Glad to see that Nyquist not only got that 1st playoff goal out of the way, but he also escaped the celebration intact! I have confidence in Howard. The entire team coughed up a hairball in the 3rd. Still, I have to admit . . . I'm going to have my fingers crossed in game 3.