eva unit zero

I saw all I needed to see with 1:50 remaining. Play of the year to date.

Hudler was never given a chance last year, and this year his 'chance' was a joke. He is now basically a point-per-game third line player. He has made many impressive and timely defensive plays this season as well.

Five. Osgood returned to the team as Legace's backup, remember?

You don't get a plus on the PP.

You know what? If Hudler can have offensive success playing on the PP with Zetterberg and Franzen, then what says he can't at even strength? All three players are above average defensively or better, and all are top-six caliber offensive forwards. Based on numbers coming into tonight, Hudler's 6 ES points in 18 games, or one even-strength point every three games places him solidly as a second line forward as far as even-strength offensive performance is concerned. Beyond that, he is tenth among all forwards in the NHL in PP points, which ranks him not only as a first-line forward in that respect, but as a team's #1 forward. He has a better PP points-per-game than Zetterberg, Hossa, Datsyuk, Crosby, or Ovechkin too. He has better PP and ES numbers than Teemu Selanne. Let's give Hudler some credit...this guy is one of the league's better offensive forwards, and it especially shows when he's allowed some room to work with some talented linemates.

Hudler leads all Wings forwards in PP points, and also leads all Wings forwards in PP points PER MINUTE. He plays with Z and Franzen on that line. If Hudler is the most dangerous offensive player on that unit, why doesn't he get to play on it at even strength? Seems like he has no trouble keeping up with them on the PP, huh? Let's see what it looks like at even strength.

The only thing Gary Bettman wouldn't be interested in about a return to ESPN is if they tried something like what they did the last time they attempted to negotiate a deal. ESPN tried to negotiate a contract which would see the NHL receive zero guaranteed money, and basically see a percentage of the profit after ESPN's costs had been covered. If ESPN tries a similar proposal, they should expect it to be shot down quickly. If they offer something like they had agreed to with the NHL, then the NHL will likely agree to it without difficulty. It's ESPN's bush league treatment of the NHL that resulted in ESPN losing the NHL, and nothing else. There was no bush league behavior by the NHL and ESPN was not entitled to any contract from the NHL.

I have to imagine my opinion on this is unpopular...but I prefer when they call the same chincy stick fouls ten seconds into the first or with ten seconds to go. A penalty is a penalty is a penalty. So long as it's called the same way each time, and the same way both ways, then I am fine with when penalties are being called. If it's genuinely not a penalty? That's different. But there shouldn't be different ways of calling penalties for the first period, second period, third period, and overtime period of the regular season and then more rulebooks for the postseason. The rules stay the same; if you barely slash a guy on your first shift on the first game and it's a hook, it should still be called in triple overtime of game seven of the Cup finals. Normally, I consider you one of the more knowledgeable posters harold...but you missed one thing. If refs called a game inconsistently based on the clock, THAT is what made the refs a factor. Not the fact that they called the penalties. If you commit an action that was called earlier in the game or series by the same ref, you should expect to go to the box. You can see on players' faces and by their body language when penalties are called that they KNOW what is being called even before they are told, even if it's not obvious. Perhaps I see this more than most LGW posters having been a hockey ref, but players know when they are up against the rules and know when they cross them.

You didn't even watch the game did you? Hudler's goals came from positioning, not backing down when crashing the net, and not letting the other team get to the puck before him. Hudler wins.

Filppula is not nearly as offensively capable as Datsyuk was at the same age. However, he is noticeably better defensively. The best description I have found for Filppula is a 'B' version of Zetterberg; a two-way forward who won't quite be the same dominant offensive and defensive package. As far as Datsyuk is concerned, I think Hudler is a much closer comparison. He's playing a similar role to what Datsyuk played at the same age, but is outperforming him offensively by a large margin and is better defensively than future-Selke-winner Datsyuk was at the time. Also...has anyone else noticed that Filppula is playing more ES time than Hossa?

We don't see it over and over again; he's only played like 3 games on the second line in his career. He only plays 12 minutes a game. Give him more time, see if he scores more.

If Franzen costs 5, no thanks; he's not worth that. Especially the way Kopecky looked tonight, who says Kopecky can't plug into Franzen's role. Fortunately, Franzen doesn't have anywhere close to the resume to demand that kind of coin.

Just a note for all of you who feel Hudler should be on the fourth line: Red Wings forward scoring, arranged by points per game: 1. Marian Hossa 18GP, 10g-13a-23pt, +6 (1.28PPG) 2. Henrik Zetterberg 16GP, 10g-8a-18pt, +2 (1.13PPG) 3. Pavel Datsyuk 18GP, 6g-12a-18pt, +7 (1.00PPG) 4. Johan Franzen, 13GP, 9g-3a-12pt, E (0.92PPG) 5. Jiri Hudler 18GP, 6g-10a-16pt, -2 (0.89PPG) 5. Mikael Samuelsson 18GP, 4g-12a-16pt, +1 (0.89PPG) 7. Tomas Holmstrom 17GP, 7g-6a-13pt, +8 (0.76PPG) 8. Dan Cleary, 13GP, 2g-4a-6pt, -3 (0.46PPG) 9. Valtteri Filppula, 18GP, 2g-5a-7pt, -1 (0.39PPG) 10. Tomas Kopecky, 18GP, 1g-2a-3pt, E (0.17PPG) 11. Kirk Maltby, 17GP, 1g-1a-2pt, E (0.12PPG) 12. Darren McCarty, 11GP, 1g-0a-1pt, -2 (0.09PPG) 13. Kris Draper, 18GP, 0g-1a-1a, -8 (0.06PPG) 14. Darren Helm, 2GP, 0g-0a-0pt, E (0.00PPG) If Franzen fails to post a point next game, and Hudler registers one, Hudler moves into fourth on the list. Given that Franzen plays a lot of minutes with a guy ahead of him on the list, and Hudler does not, as well as the difference in overall minutes played, I wonder if we'll be seeing a 'Hudler is a Top 20 NHL forward' thread soon.

Good number, and doesn't do justice to his performance. I lost track of how many times I screamed at the TV for the Wings to clear the puck after they had MULTIPLE failed attempts in a row.

GST, we all know the refs should put the whistles away in the third period like they used to so that teams can goon it up and knock out star players. That's real hockey.

This is how it actually works. Food for thought, for all you Bettman-bashers.

Feel bad for the guy...but honestly given his contract he's better for the Ducks injured 6 months. He's overpaid as is, and his cap hit is going to double at the end of the season if not more. Best part is...Anaheim could really use a guy like Ken Klee right now, and they are paying more this season for Klee than they will for healthy days from Beauchemin. Mathieu Schneider is gone, and TODD MARCHANT IS STILL ON THE ROSTER!

You mean the end of last year going into the playoffs? He was playing with Zetts AND Dats.

Neely had a sustained level of excellence? WHEN? It's not 'full career' because his career numbers are laughable for Hall selection. So it must be over a specific couple of seasons, right? Which seasons? Neely must have been the dominant RW in the league at the time, right? No, you say? He never once was named to the First Team? So where's this "sustained excellence" you speak of? Sure, Brett Hull was dominating the position in the early 90s...but was Neely on the second team in those years? Meanwhile, Stevens was first or second team every year for four straight from 1990 to 1993, and could have kept going had he not been injured in the 93 postseason. Argue his teammates all you want, he had more in awards and stats than Neely. It's like saying if Luongo gets injured this year, he belongs in the Hall of Fame over John Vanbiesbrouck. Some guys get the media and fan love, and some guys don't. But the facts bear out that Stevens accomplished more than Neely. EDIT: I didn't downgrade Neely for being the third greatest player on his team. I was pointing out that it's silly to downgrade Stevens for being arguably the second or third greatest player on his team behind Lemieux and possibly someone else when Neely is in the same sort of slot. Stevens was certainly the team's second best player in his prime, which cannot be said of Neely, who was behind Oates and Bourque.

Hmm....let's look at Kevin Stevens, WITHOUT Mario. in the 90-91 and 93-94 seasons, Mario Lemieux played fewer than 30 games. In the 94-95 season he did not play. Kevin Stevens scored better than a point per game in all three seasons. Of the three, only in 93-94 did Stevens fail to reach the .5 goals per game mark, scoring 41 goals in 83 games. Stevens was a great player in his own right. Neely was probably the third greatest player on his Bruins teams, behind Bourque and Oates (in later years) Stevens was the best player at his position multiple times and scored more than Neely. He achieved more. He set single-season records for his position and he was an all-around dominant player. Pens fans often said that having Stevens around made room for Lemieux and that was key to Lemieux's best years. Both Stevens and Neely are, without a doubt, HHOFers if they don't have their injury issues. It's not even a debate. But IMHO, Stevens had the better ACTUAL career, and if Neely is considered good enough to be in, then Stevens should be in unless he's being kept out for his off-ice issues. That's likely what's keeping Ciccarelli out also. The thing about the HHOF is it's not about "what ifs" it's about "what did" and Neely was treated to a what if because his career was not an HHOF career.

I didn't see the game because I was at work...but the fact that Osgood outright stole the New Jersey game is not debatable. So those of you who want to send him packing because he faced a lot of chances where the defense didn't do much to help him tonight look at it this way...Osgood has played two games without seeing significant defensive help and has won three of a possible four points. That's pretty good. Most goalies can't do that well regardless of the defense in front of them, let alone a defense playing poorly. Osgood has CONSISTENTLY done that well or close to it over his career, regardless of how well his defense is playing.

The point you are missing... Gallant, Sheppard, Ogrodnick, Primeau, Ciccarelli? None of them should be in the Hall. And neither does Neely. 5 shutouts in a row is amazing, but Brian Boucher doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame does he? The HHOF is for the elite players of an era....not players who reach an arbitrary number that can be easier depending on when you played. Neely and Gallant were very similar players...Neely was injury-prone, Gallant wasn't. Why doesn't Gallant get in then? How about Kevin Stevens? He was a first or second team all-star more often than Neely and was the first player other than Lemieux score more points than Gretzky in the same season. His career was also ruined by injury; a much more gruesome injury than Neely suffered. Why isn't Stevens in the HHOF? Stevens was certainly more dominant than Neely was during the late 80s and early 90s, and despite suffering a more severe injury he lasted longer too.

Gallant is the only one who made the postseason all-star team. He makes it first on the Cam Neely scale; the peak of greatness is apparently more important than the overall length of greatness when considering HHOF ramifications. Although Ogrodnick had a higher peak than Gallant, Gallant had a higher peak than Ciccarelli, Sheppard, and Primeau. Sheppard started his career at the end of the 80s and was good enough right away to IMMEDIATELY get votes for the postseason all-star team. The only reason he never scored 100 points is because he didn't play his best years in the 80s like Ciccarelli did; Sheppard was definitely a better player. Better vision, better passer, better hands, better shot. He was even better defensively. The only thing Dino could do better was skate.

Sheppard and Gallant outlplayed Ciccarelli in the 80s and early 90s...and this board adamantly supports his candidacy.

I got to watch it from the ER. Hope you guys had fun!