eva unit zero

I maintain that, had the Wings been able to acquire Hossa for Flip straight up (or less) and sign him to an extension that would have fit under the cap, it would have been a good deal. Even with Flip's crazy goal, i'd still make that deal.

Sundin is one of the four guys in the league I would have considered for that award this season. The others being Lidstrom, Sakic, and Brodeur

Yzerman's first 1st place vote for the Selke came in 1989. He was 24. Datsyuk's first 1st place vote for the Selke was in 2007. He was 28. Crosby is 20, Malkin is 21. So based on the Yzerman/Datsyuk standard, they have 4-8 seasons and 3-7 seasons, respectively, to produce a 1st place vote for the Selke.

The thought I just couldn't shake tonight... "Ozzie's totally in their heads." Think about how many posts or complete misses the Pens had tonight. And the fact they kept running Ozzie to try and get him off his game....yeah, not gonna work. Ozzie has crawled inside the Pens' heads and every time they come flying down the ice, they see a goalie who is 8 feet tall with 60 inch long pads that are two feet wide.

The call against Dallas was a joke; Homer was completely outside the crease, and did not contact the goalie. Ultimately, he did impede the goaltender's ability to make a save in that instance, but because there was no contact and homer was outside of the crease, it didn't matter. In the call in Game 1, Homer initiated contact. Admittedly, it was very weak contact, but the rule does not specify 'significant' contact. And even if you rule it as incidental; Homer made no attempt to avoid hitting Fleury with his stick. Yes, it was called tighter that is typical; but by the letter of the rule it cannot be called as a 'blatantly wrong' call. Much like what Malone did in Game 2. It could be argued that Osgood initiated contact, and did not do so in attempting to establish position with the intent to make a save. They still called it goaltender interference. Apparently, the NHL must want it called tighter than some of the more well-known refs have been calling it.

IMHO...Fleury could have, and should have stopped it. Amazing individual effort by Flip, but ultimately it goes down as a bad goal because Fleury should have stopped that puck. Hell, it went in off his paddle. If he had bee moving laterally with proper technique; in other words, his pads more square to the shooter, then that puck never makes it past Fleury.

Osgood has better numbers than those two did those years. And both of them won the Smythe those years.

Because it was a rebound and he was going after the puck. Had he been there before the puck, and not actually contacted the puck, they would have waved it off.

I thought his physicality was greatly diminished during his time in Toronto as compared to his time with Calgary. Not to say he was ineffective physically...but Gary Roberts with the Flames is best described as "how Toronto fans like to remember Wendel Clark." Clark was a great player, and Toronto fans like to remember him as arguably the best goal scorer and the best hitter. While he was good at both...Roberts was top-three in the league in both departments in his prime. Honestly...I can't remember the last time I saw a true power winger as dominant as Roberts was in Calgary in both respects.

And Dallas had controlled play all series, and was DOMINATING the OT. My only point was that people like to say 'Buffalo should have won the Cup" even though they were down a game in OT of game 6. The chances that they come out of that with a win, and then win in Game 7 AT DALLAS were extremely slim. It wasn't a goal/no-goal that decided the Cup. Dallas was still very likely to win the Cup if Hull's goal had been disallowed.

Loo, Just because it wasn't Hasek's fault doesn't mean the goal was bogus. It's as I said; the goal was legal on a loophole in a rule intended to preserve breakaway goals. A mid-season modification to the crease rule to allow someone with legal possession of the puck the remain in the crease even as they brought the puck out, so long as they maintained control. The wording was not the best chosen, as it was intended to preserve breakaway goals that had previously been disallowed by the crease rule. The wording basically read "A player who has legally obtained the puck and legally entered the crease may remain within the crease so long as he retains possession of the puck." This is why, even though Hull drew the puck back out of the crease while in it, the goal was a good goal; because he never lost possession. the closest he came was bouncing a shot off hasek's pad, which does not constitute a change of possession; see delayed penalty rules for further information about that. Hasek did everything you could have expected of him on that goal; sometimes, goalies just get beat and there's nothing they can do about it.

Gary Roberts had 50+ points once in Toronto; 53 points in 82 games on the first line. That's a decent second liner, not an impact player. By contrast, in 1992-93, he scored 38 goals and 79 points in 58 games. 1992-93 was an 84-game schedule...if you project his numbers out, it works out to 55 goals and 59 assists, for 114 points. Such numbers would have tied him with Mats Sundin for 11th in NHL scoring. He wasn't nearly that good offensively when he actually played with Sundin. In Toronto, as compared to in Calgary, Roberts' defensive game was also worse...and due in part to a severe back injury that nearly ended his career in the mid 90s, his physical game was greatly diminished. Gary Roberts was one of the ten best hockey players in the world at his best; with Toronto, it is a stretch to say he was one of the ten best players playing home games within 200 miles of the city. Usually, "impact player" refers to the kind of guy who can and does on many nights determine the outcome of a game by himself. Someone like Z, Dats, Crosby, Malkin, Lidstrom. Not someone like Mikael Samuelsson, who might have a big game now and then but can't really be counted on for consistent, reliable production on a regular basis. That's what Roberts was in Toronto; he was a top-six forward who scored some points, but disappeared for long stretches as well.

Just to shoot this bulls*** down... If Hull's goal is disallowed, Buffalo does NOT suddenly win the Cup. It would still be 3-2 Dallas in OT of Game 6, and Dallas had controlld the OT to that point. The chances of Buffalo winning the Cup were slim at best.

Gary Roberts hasn't been an impact player since Calgary. He was once the best power forward in the game; ahead of guys like Cam Neely, Kevin Stevens, and Brendan Shanahan. But now, he is Pittsburgh's LW version of Chris Chelios; a once-great player who now is nothing more than a depth player who provides some grit and leadership, but not much else.

I was expecting your post to say "Crosby will hand it to Malkin" or something.

I think it goes to Ozzie. Yzerman wanted to hand it to Ozzie in 98 and on the spur of the moment gave it to Vladdy. Ozzie has been even more important this time around, and has been the ultimate team guy. It'll happen.

The referee could technically call that interference, but only if the player doing the staring were inside the goal crease. If the GOALTENDER is outside the crease, then it requires contact. Meaning, you can't interfere with the goale who is even partially in the crease, regardless of whether any part of you is in the crease.

I said that according to the rulebook, they can interpret that play as goaltender interference. That is not to say that it is usually interpreted as such, but certainly is is not a 'blatantly wrong call that misinterprets the rules' as you suggest.

Thought I'd bump this thread with some projections. In Osgood's four seasons as the undisputed starter for the Wings, he averaged 57 starts and 57 decisions. He just signed a three-year extension. He has played two healthy seasons since revising his style during the NHL lockout. If we take those two healthy seasons, and assume that he starts 57 games and gets 57 decisions per season at the same kind of average performance he has posted over the past two seasons, we come up with the projected addition to Ozzie's numbers: 171 games 108 Wins 34 R.Losses 29 OT/SO Losses 10175 Mins 371 GA 4195 SA 3824 Saves 11 Shutouts That would make his career stats, as of the end of his current deal: 471W-229L-66T-44OTL 48196 Mins 1910 GA 20757 SA 18847 Saves .908 Save % 2.38 GAA 58 Shutouts Them's pretty good numbers. Anyone think they keep a 470+ game winner who is a top ten goalie in most career stats both regular season AND playoffs out of the HHOF?

For goaltender interference to be reviewable, they would have to make the rule more specific. The other instances have a very specific criterion that you are looking for on review. Goaltender interference does not; it has a set of guidelines but ultimately is a much broader spectrum over a much larger time frame. Reviews would take forever. Largely without significant changes in rulings.

And Osgood is posting numbers better than any goaltender who has ever won the Smythe. Ever.

Stats are not everything, but they often play a factor in awards. The fact that Malkin is nominated for the Hart over Lidstrom proves that. Zetterberg's numbers are not unusually good for the leading scorer of a Cup winner. Osgood's numbers ARE unusually good. That is my point; Osgood's numbers and play have been further outside of the norm than Zetterberg's.

According to the rulebook it can be called interference. Saying it wasn't or shouldn't have been called because of the severity doesn't change that according to the rulebook, the call is legit.

Since everyone seems to love still photos, take a look at the photo still posted earlier in the thread so see if Homer was looking in Fleury's direction or Lidstrom's. it's pretty clear that Homer uncharacteristically turned around and was facing the goaltender before the goal was scored.

Zetterberg's numbers are not outlandish. Yes, he is the leading scorer, and the leading scorer often does not get the trophy. Osgood has easily the best numbers of any goaltender, and the Wings would have been at best a second round upset had they not inserted Osgood. Ozzie's presence changed the dynamic, and changed the team. His consistency and reliability gave them a boost that Hasek couldn't the way he was playing, and his calm demeanor helped the team stop panicking and start playing like they were capable of. That and for all the talk about how Marty Turco is like a third defenseman; Osgood is also one of the best puckhandling goaltenders in the league. That especially cannot be discounted for a team with a puck possession system. Osgood is the team's MVP at this point, because he is the player who has had the greatest impact on the team's positive success. Ultimately, the Penguins' best candidate was probably Crosby, and if things continue the way they are, Crosby has no chance at it. It's virtually impossible for a losing player other than a goaltender to win the trophy; and even then, there have been times the losing goaltender probably deserved it and did not win it due to an amazing performance by a player on the winning team; John Vanbiesbrouck in 1996, for example.