betterREDthandead

Ahhhhh....the Lapointe goal that ripped off Patty's velcro extension to his catching glove. I have never forgotten that goal. For some reason I've always remembered exactly how it happened (only thing is, I sometimes mix it up and think it happened in the Crawford-meltdown game.) I really miss Gary Thorne's play by play. One of the very best. He's got a crystal-clear, Harwell-esque voice; he doesn't tell irrelevant stories or carry on inane banter during the action; and he's 100% in tune with the game. Tells it like it is, and really gets the viewer involved in the game. Always does his homework, never mispronounced a name, always knows who's who on the ice. Most underrated announcer of our time.

Hellz no I wouldn't. Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Eric Dickerson....I'd place a lot of dudes in front of Gale Sayers. I think, if you're talking about "greatest" lists, five or six years isn't enough. Sayers could have been astronomically great. But I value consistency and longevity quite a bit, and when you stack up what Sayers accomplished against what other running backs accomplished, it just doesn't add up. Sayers might make the bottom of the list if I were to compile a top ten, but I'd include all the above over Sayers, and probably Jerome Bettis, Tony Dorsett, Marshall Faulk, and even Thurman Thomas above Gale Sayers. That is a fair way to put it, though I'd take Lidstrom. It's part of the reason I did give Vladdy consideration and put him on my list. But when we talk about "top-ten all-time", first off I almost completely disregard any question of trying to figure out how a player from two generations ago would perform in today's game, because it's not fair. Ebbie Goodfellow was one of the very best players of his time, that's all I need to know. And second, as I said, I definitely value longevity and consistency.

I actually don't blame the bullpen 100% for this loss. It shouldn't have come down to the 'pen. The offense left some runs on the board with some damn good scoring opportunities, and Verlander made a bad mistake at a bad time. Yeah, the 'pen gave up runs, but they shouldn't have been in position to lose the game. Guess we can forget about that perfect season.

#2? Absolutely no friggin' way. When you look at what other guys actually accomplished, there's no way you can put Vladdy above them. At the absolute, most generous, highest arguable place, Vladdy's #5. Tops. Sure, he was a beast. For six years, he was a very, very good defenseman, and belongs on the top ten list, no doubt. But I think sentiment and dreamy oh-what-could-have-beens are elevating his status higher than it should be. What Vladdy did for six years does not overshadow what Kelly did for 12 or what Goodfellow did for 14.

Afraid not, I'm single right now but if any of you lovely ladies want to take me to a playoff game when I'm home in Detroit next month, I'm down

Yes, exactly my thoughts when I read the first lists. Goodfellow doesn't get enough credit but he was one of the best of the best during the first great era of the '30s. 1. Nick Lidstrom 2. Red Kelly 3. Ebbie Goodfellow Those three are the three premier defensemen during the three eras of Wings greatness; Lidstrom represents the '90s/'00s, Kelly the '50s, and Goodfellow the '30s. 4. Reed Larson - best of the dark times. 5. Chris Chelios - if he plays two more seasons with the Wings he will have played more games in a Wings uni than any other. Probably much fewer than two seasons if you count playoff games. That's amazing for someone who joined the team at 36. That's worth spot #5. 6. Marcel Pronovost - another longevity pick. Not an offensive dynamo but rock-steady. 7. Black Jack Stewart - Seriously? I know like zilch about him. But 10 years in a Wings sweater is worth something, and everyone says he's pretty good. 8. Vladimir Konstantinov - Partially a what-he-could-have-accomplished pick. 9-10. Who knows? The rest is a toss-up. Steve Chiasson, Paul Coffey, Gary Bergman, Larry Murphy, Slava Fetisov, Doug Young.....take your pick. Murphy was a good addition but he only played for the Wings a few years out of a long career. Coffey, same. Fetisov, same. Coffey would seem like a good addition as a Norris winner but I associate him too much with heaving the puck into his own damn net, and being traded away in essentially the trade that brought us Stanley for the first time in ages. I do have a #11 though. 11. Barry Melrose. Yeah, him.

I like the article too. But I doubt it's any better-written or much more "amazing!!!!" than an article picking the Sharks and pointing out the Wings' shortcomings. Just goes to show that, as usual, all articles praising the Wings are awesome!!!11!!11 and all the ones bashing them or praising someone else are terrible!1!11!!!!

NOT ANYMORE!!!!!! WOOOOOO!!!!!!

He was never a big fan of catching though. Inge is an infielder at heart. He was a shortstop at VCU and was only drafted as a catcher because of one session where he put the pads on as a joke and displayed an absolute cannon to second base. Unfortunately for his career as an infielder, scouts were watching.

PLAY BALL got my Extra Innings on, pleased to see it's not raining. Verlander looks Verlander-y. I am, however, vindicated in my earlier arguments that we will miss Inge's defense at third, as a Cabrera error has put the second KC hitter on base.

Yeah, I agree about IRL. Those guys are going fast and there really is much less margin for error than in a NASCAR race. Tony Kanaan got taken out yesterday in an incident that wouldn't have meant anything in NASCAR, but Indy cars are too fragile to allow that kind of contact. Short-track racing is all a matter of taste....if you like the style, you like it. I wouldn't dream of advocating that NASCAR stop racing at the short tracks, it's a big part of the history. But I'm not gonna watch any more, I'll stick with the speedways and the occasional road course.

Ugh. It is so stupid to call a penalty and a dive on the same play. Either the guy dove and there really was no infraction, or it's a penalty. I can't see how both can happen at the same time.

I just gotta say....short-track racing? It sucks. Martinsville would be a better go-kart track than a NASCAR track. I watched one of the Martinsville races last year and really didn't like it. Decided to give it another try today - nope. There's no room to pass and no room to speed up. The announcers are always talking about how cool it is that there's so much bumping and contact and whatnot. Yippee, bumping at 45 MPH. Someone loses control, they slide slowly into the wall and continue on their merry way. The point of watching auto racing is to watch really cool fast cars zoom around at absurdly high speeds. Don't think I'll be watching much short-track racing any more.

May as well eliminate the entire idea of divisions then.

Sure there are. I count 15 American cities that have at least one major professional sports team but no NHL team, and 10 that have at least two. Of course, I wouldn't want to see that damn much expansion, either. Two more teams and that's it - permanently. 32 is a really nice round number that works out great.

timothy's partially right. Normally when the NCAA puts a court in a football dome, they put it in an endzone with a big-ass curtain across midfield. This means temporary bleacher seating at one end of the court and wasted seating capacity. This way they can use the whole football stadium and sell more tickets. They raise the court for better sightlines.

Exactly, wouldn't it make things really interesting? Bettman wants to get regional rivalries going, and he's onto something, but in the end I think this way unbalanced schedule hasn't done the trick, and won't. But if you ensure these division rivals will also meet in the playoffs, then you have something that's almost guaranteed to spill over into the regular season, especially when those regular season games have more of a direct impact on who makes the playoffs in the first place. Preds fans and Blues fans hate the Wings because we've stood in their way every year they've tried to make something of themselves. Imagine the hatred and intensity of the rivalry if the schedule forced them to get past us or never contend. 32 teams is a nice round number, so move the Panthers to Houston and expand to some places like Seattle and Kansas City, split up into eight divisions....hell, I've even worked out a schedule that still has 82 games.

That's similar to what I'd "ideally" like to see, only there'd be 8 divisions of 4 teams each, and the first round of the playoffs involves the top two teams from each division playing each other. Then re-seed after each round.

For probably the first time ever I still feel great about my bracket! In my pool I'm the only one left with their Final Four still intact. I say this as of about halfway through the first half of the Kansas-Villanova game, so I'll probably jinx it all to hell so 'Nova pulls the upset. Even that wouldn't be too bad. I'm tied for third, but I'm the only one who picked UNC for the title, so Kansas losing would hurt my Final Four but hurt everyone else quite a bit more. It basically shakes out, that if UNC wins it all, so do I. Yay! Go Heels! They've been monstrous so far. Absolutely crushing the competition. I feel pretty good about this.

It's probably worth remembering that fighting is already illegal in hockey. The question is not whether they will ban it but how far will they decrease toleration of it.

I wouldn't want to see the playoffs reduced, either. Any team that has to win the Cup has to get through four series to do it, and that's part of what makes the NHL playoffs one of the greatest events in sports. 16 is the perfect number.

I have my own thoughts on an "ideal" playoff format that involves getting rid of the notion of conferences and focusing on divisions, but until the NHL sees things my way and implements it, it makes sense to leave the conferences and the playoff format exactly as is. Getting rid of the conference affiliations in the playoffs is a solution without a problem.

It would appear though that the QMJHL is going to go forward with banning fighting whether or not the Quebec legislature approves the measure.

"Only" 16 teams make the playoffs? That's more than half. If Washington misses the playoffs, that makes them a below-average team, not "one of the better teams in the NHL." Expanding the playoffs would be the worst thing ever. And that article is dumb. It asks, should a Maple Leafs team that went 41-33-8 miss the playoffs? You mean, should a team that went 41-41 miss the playoffs? Yes. Playoff-missing records appear inflated because some games are worth two points and others three. Expanding the playoffs would push the Stanley Cup Finals into July. Hockey in July? They'd have less than two months off and then right back to hockey. This when people are already complaining that the Olympic break extends the season too long. Oh, and there's this Victoria Cup or whatever it's called that is going to send an NHL team to Europe over the summer for another series. It's not as if a whole bunch of truly deserving teams are left out of the chance to get the Stanley Cup. If they expand to 20 teams as suggested, they might as well go for 24 or 26 or 28, each are just easily done as 20 and they wouldn't exclude so many wonderfully "deserving" teams. Expanding the playoffs is ludicrous.

Friday: Philadelphia @ New Jersey Atlanta @ Carolina Nashville @ Columbus Montreal @ Buffalo St Louis @ Detroit Vancouver @ Minnesota Edmonton @ Colorado San Jose @ Anaheim Saturday: Ottawa @ Boston Dallas @ Los Angeles Montreal @ Toronto Philadelphia @ NY Islanders Washington @ Florida Carolina @ Tampa Bay Chicago @ St Louis Edmonton @ Calgary Sunday: NY Rangers @ Pittsburgh Nashville @ Detroit Colorado @ Minnesota Boston @ Buffalo Columbus @ Chicago Dallas @ Anaheim Phoenix @ San Jose Calgary @ Vancouver