eva unit zero

I wouldn't trade Lids and Z for Ovechkin. They bring more offense combined than Ovechkin does by himself. They EACH bring more defense than Ovechkin does. Ovechkin is average defensively....Nick and Hank are elite defensively. Even if they were both average defensively, I would have to think long and hard about trading BOTH for anyone, even Ovechkin.

There is nothing that is 'perfectly legal' about a check thrown on an icing play. It's either interference because the player doesn't have the puck, or it's unsportsmanlike conduct for hitting after the whistle. Never during an icing play is there a legal opportunity to hit a player because the moment he touches the puck, and not a nanosecond after, the play ends. I am personally of the opinion that the current rules say a penalty should be called on any check that occurs on an icing play, the league simply needs to enforce this.

Nabokov should not receive a vote for either Vezina or Hart. Nabokov has played 71 games. Four other goaltenders have started 65+ and played between 65 and 70....so it's not like he's the only guy in that range of games. Two of the guys who have played that many games are Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo, who are contending for the Vezina on much weaker teams than Nabokov has in front of him. Nabokov, at BEST, is the third most valuable goaltender in the league. And even that is ruling out guys like Bryzgalov, Vokoun, Lundqvist, and other top netminders who play a large number of games.

Kudelski was traded from Ottawa to Florida. He was named as Ottawa's representative, but he was traded before the game. So Kudelski and John Vanbiesbrouck represented the Panthers, and super rookie Alexei Yashin was named to represent the Senators.

Datsyuk does not deserve consideration...he's probably the 3rd place candidate on his TEAM. As far as Ovechkin...Washington's final game this season could conceivably be the difference between making the playoffs and missing them. What happens if the Caps are in the playoffs as of game 81, but Ovechkin is hurt and the Caps lose game 82 by a scored of 2-1? Does the fact that his team losing one game, and costing them a playoff spot, while he was NOT in the lineup mean the difference between him deserving the Hart and not deserving it? As far as defense..Malkin is probably better than Ovechkin defensively. But just being good offensively and better defensively doesn't make him the more deserving of MVP. If that were the case, Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, and many others would never have won a Hart. Ovechkin is easily better than those two defensively, and is the most dominant offensive player this season. Mario Lemieux in 1998 led the league in goals and points on a team that finished last in their division and 9th in the conference, and missed the playoffs by two points. Ovechkin is in the same spot with the Caps, with the same kind of huge margin over the second place scorer in goals. Why should Lemieux get it in 1988 and Ovechkin not this year?

You do realize digital cable is like only $3 more and looks ten times better?

The funny thing about this thread? Yzerman played 84 games that year, but there was a Wing that season who played more games. Jimmy Carson, who was traded to Los Angeles halfway through the season, ended up playing 86 games that year. Carson's total games played, including playoffs was a then-record 104 games, tied with Montreal's Vincent Damphousse, set in the same season. They would drop to a tie for 6th place after the 1993-94 season, which saw Trevor Linden play 108 games, Brian Leetch and Adam graves see action in 107, and Esa Tikkanen and Geoff Courtnall play in 106 contests.

That was the Kopecky fight where Kopecky destroyed Scott May, yet the homer announcers were acting like May was Bob Probert and Kopecky was Craig Janney.

Those of you suggesting Malkin has been as valuable to the Pens as Ovechkin has been to the caps... Just no. Even though Crosby missed some time, Crosby has still played the majority of the season. The Pens without Crosby have a better lineup than the Caps with Ovechkin. So you consider that Ovechkin has outperformed Malkin with significantly worse teammates. When making that comparison, there is absolutely no way to come up with Malkin deserving the Hart. None.

The only defenseman this season who has been better than Z is Lids. Z has been one of the three best forwards in the league. So unless you are saying that two of the top five players this year have been goalies...which with the close race for Vezina would mean seven of the top ten or twelve players are goalies, then Z is a top five player this season. The Wings would be trading two elite level talents AND a first rounder, including the league's best player, for one elite level talent and one decent one-way defenseman. No thank you.

If his contract means he shouldn't be MVP...then Crosby shouldn't have won last year. Ovechkin is more proven at this point than Crosby was last year, and the cap hit will be less than a million different. And if Crosby takes a contract with an average cap hit of 10.17 million over the final three years of Ovechkin's current deal, his cap hit will actually have been higher over the seven years. Being among the five best players in the league and not taking a league max contract when you could EASILY demand one is not being selfish.

If he lost every chance he had to keep WVU undefeated...they'd have lost the opener every year. Y'know...just sayin. As far as being a big game coach...Tressel seems to lose an awful lot of big games. As far as strength of schedule... Michigan has typically played a tougher schedule than OSU. OSU the past few seasons has only scheduled cake teams, and has only won the games they were supposed to win. That they didn't schedule any nonconference teams that were a threat, and that they have been the best team in the Big Ten, doesn't mean they were ever the best team. Even OSU's 2002 championship run is tainted by some very questionable calls, or lack thereof, at key moments in a couple of games. In 2005, Notre Dame finished in the top 10. Michigan only narrowly lost the game, and even then it was due to the officials failing to call a Chad Henne touchdown, and then reviewing the next play, which while worthy of review, was not nearly as obvious. This was also the year that Nebraska used an innovative 55-man spread in the secondary to win the Alamo bowl. Removing those two officiating errors, Michigan is 8-3. In 2003, Michigan played USC, who ended up as the AP champions. They also played Iowa and Ohio State, both of whom finished in the top ten. Why don't you show me who of consequence Ohio State played in the years you are questioning? Their slate seems pretty bare most years.

The league played 80 games through the late 70s and into the early 90s. In 1992-93, the league jumped from 22 to 24 teams, and the schedule was changed to an 84 game schedule that included two neutral-site games. This schedule was also used for 1993-94. The lockout of 1994 caused a shortened schedule of 48 games. After the lockout, the league dropped the neutral site games and gave way to the current 82-game slate.

Well, let's take a few things into account. -Samuelsson will be in the lineup, likely on one of the top two lines. -Franzen will be the third line center. -When healthy, the defense pairings will be what was used for the brief period we had our top four healthy. That said, I would expect something along these lines: Filppula/Datsyuk/Holmstrom Cleary/Zetterberg/Samuelsson Draper/Franzen/Maltby Hudler/Kopecky/Drake Lidstrom/Rafalski Kronwall/Stuart Lilja/Chelios If Babcock feels a need to change things up to spread out the offense, he might go with something like this: Filppula/Datsyuk/Cleary Hudler/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Kopecky/Franzen/Samuelsson Maltby/Draper/Drake Lidstrom/Rafalski Kronwall/Stuart Lebda/Chelios What I would start with if I were making the lines would be: Hudler/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Fippula/Datsyuk/Franzen Cleary/Kopecky/Samuelsson Maltby/Draper/Drake Lidstrom/Rafalski Kronwall/Stuart Meech/Chelios

My favorite save of all-time was Ed Belfour on Sergei Fedorov in the 95 playoffs. The Wings were pressuring down low, and Belfour had dropped to the ice. He fell on his back by the right post as Bob Errey scooped up his own rebound and dished it over to Fedorov who was standing on the edge of the crease on the other side. Fedorov roofed the puck, and everyone in the building cheered. Only the puck had somehow ended up in Belfour's glove-he had just snatched it out of the air without being able to actually SEE it and while lying on the ice. Just sick stuff.

I find it somewhat sickening that you don't seem to understand what a losing record is.

Michigan typically will try to have at least one solid nonconference opponent. In 2005, Michigan had the 3rd hardest schedule. In 2006, Michigan had the 2nd hardest. In fact, since 1999, Ohio State has only played a tougher schedule than Michigan twice...and has only had a top five schedule once; in 2005, when they had the 4th hardest.

I love how people see a freak injury and immediately start with the 'that's why we need no-touch icing' as if this sort of thing happens once every game instead of once every five years. Glad to hear Foster didn't hurt his neck or back, though. EDIT: Spelling.

Malkin doesn't deserve it. He has been good, but if you suggest him as having been more important to the Pens than Crosby for any time other than when Crosby was out, you are nuts. Even with his injury, Crosby has been the Pens' MVP. Which automatically rules Malkin out of the running. If Ovechkin doesn't win it, it should go to Brodeur or Lidstrom.

Reminds me of this save.

Ah ok. I wasn't familiar with the play...I thought from watching it with no sound that the play was stopped because the Stars' left winger was tripped right off the faceoff. Anyway...should have been no goal...but not for the reason that it was prevented.

It does. However, winning the Conn Smythe trophy does not mean that you singlehandedly won the Cup for a weak team like people tend to suggest in the Roy debate. Brodeur also could have easily won the Conn Smythe in any of his three Cup seasons. He was just as good as Giguere in 2003, and he was my pick for Conn Smythe in 2000. New Jersey started him as a rookie in 1993-94, and suddenly after years of futility they were having SIGNIFICANT success almost overnight. With basically the same roster, making only a handful of changes; Brodeur in as starter over Chris Terreri, Tommy Albelin seeing a few more games on D and Slava Fetisov and Bruce Driver each seeing a few less, Dave Barr replaced by Mike Peluso, and Peter Stastny replaced by Bobby Carpenter were the only changes to the regular roster from 92-93 to 93-94. Yet the Devils went from a team that gave up nearly five goals per game in the playoffs in a five game, first round departure, to a team that gave upjust over two, and got within a period of the finals. They scored exactly 2.6 goals per game in 93 (13 goals for in 5 games), and repeated that scoring output in 94 EXACTLY (52 in 20 games). Going further, the Devils replaced veteran center Bernie Nicholls with veteran center Neal Broten, top-sixers Alexander Semak and Valeri Zelepukin with rookies Brian Rolston and Sergei Brylin, and Slava Fetisov replaced by Shawn Chambers. The Devils' offensive output increased from their 2.6 in 93 and 94 to 3.35 goals per game in the 95 playoffs, while they gave up only 1.7 goals per game, down from 2.45 in 94 and 4.6 in 93. So let's straighten this out real quick... Over two years, the Devils replaced Dave Barr, Bernie Nicholls, Peter Stastny, Alexander Semak, Valeri Zelepukin, and Slava Fetisov with Mike Peluso, Neal Broten, Bobby Carpenter, Brian Rolston, Sergei Brylin, and Shawn Chambers, respectively. As far as on-ice performance, most of those moves are a wash at best. Yet the only other change involving regular roster players was the installation of Brodeur as starting goaltender. Oh but that's right...Brodeur had NO noticeable effect on the Devils' playoff results.

What exactly was wrong with calling a penalty and disallowing the goal there?

The 86 and 93 Canadiens didn't win because of Roy standing on his head either. Each team only played one team that accumulated more points in the regular season; both times it was a difference of two points. Combined with the fact that those are two of Roy's best postseason performances matched with two of his worst regular seasons, and it's apparent that it was not a great goaltender lifting a mediocre team in the playoffs, but rather a great team dragged down by an underperforming goaltender in the regular season.

Has Sammy been looking this good all night?