hockeysattva

You guys don't like rabbits?

Thought this was an appropriate time to let you guys know what I really think.

Since this homework is being reposted, I just thought I would point out one thing that kind of bothers me. In his finally analysis he leaves out head to head games, they really only seperated by a point and three games in the against good teams catagory. Also, to add my thinking. I don't think they are so good really, but I think they kinda have Detroits number. Lastly, having the fifth best record in the confernce for the whole regular season does not necessarily mean the team is fifth best in the playoffs. SJ definitely finished better than the Nucks (for example). Seeding is probably not the best power evaluation IMO. But, ESPN is not either.

I clicked on the best ever Russian thread on that site, the players not listed is horrendous. NO Kostanitov, Fetisov, Kozlov, I could go on... I hate these kind of poll sites.

People in Cali like baseball and football more than hockey, but that doesn't happen there... Not sure what your point is, but it doesn't quite sound right to me. Just saying... not trying to be a jerk though, but seriously California has over a dozen professional teams.

Root for your big men as much as you want, but you don't have to share your dreams of the trip to manlove lake in the GDT. On another note: I was lost and now I am found. I was predicting a Wings loss, but I was thinking about how much better Hasek will play. The injuries will help him stay more busy, and that will help him keep his edge. An injured Red Wings team won't have trouble getting two goals tonight, and that all they will need. Aw yeah...

The handshake is sacred, and I assure you he did not avoid it. I was curious about the injury myself, and I am glad you have reminded me.

A Wings fan who is predicting a game one lose is a homer, I guess I do horribly under-rate the vastly superior Sharks because I only see through red lenses... Sorry, but that is exactly what you did. You have not been asking for clarification you have been building strawmen. In plain simple English, since the half dozen attempts have not worked: The play against the Flames was good enough to beat them (and throw them of their game). They said it would take grit to beat the Flames, therefor the Wings have grit. Again and again, we say, the argument is not about comparing the Flames and the Sharks, but you ignore the replies -- yet again -- and say "in order to make sense you must mean." You calling something a contradiction does not make it so. In case you haven't noticed we don't opperate with a single mind around here. Some people think only the playoffs matter and some people think the regular season or parts of it can be an indicator of likely playoff performance. But, you write well and use logic, so why are you playing dumb now? You complain about having been flamed when you refuse to take what people write at the face value of the words that are used. But, another attempt: The bottom line is that you have a seriously misguided understanding of your team. Nobody has made the comparison between the Sharks and the Flames, but you want to, because somehow it makes you feel more confident. In the same way that looking at regular season statistics does. [Hey there are a number of Red Wing fans that do it too.] The truth is that grit doesn't have so much to do with size... i.e. Iginla vs. Hatcher ...and the Red Wings showed that they could play a gritty team (yes, believe it or not the Flames are a gritty team). They make a big deal out of it, why? Because the Wings set records for fewest fighting majors, and play disciplined hockey. But, people know that things change in the playoffs, whistles are swallowed, and teams try to pick each other apart for survival. So, I will say what has previously been unsaid: your team is not as tough as you think, and the Red Wings are tougher than you give them credit for. I am not going to give you stats, and you will say "because you don't have any." But, at this point it has already been said, why don't you just wait to let the teams prove somebody wrong. Oh, and by the way, I know somebody who slept with Cheechoo, and she said normally size doesn't matter...

1. There are those who predict a San Jose win, but I have not seen a single expert -- anywhere -- who has claimed as you have that the Sharks are a vastly superior team. Most experts are willing to give an edge, but they do not use the word domination or anything like it. 2. Because we have enough Red Wing homers here already, and this is also not a Sharks site. Seriously though read my above post, and this one. Notice there are lots of well versed fans here, some who are even saying they expect a split at the JLA and give us some credit. We get real tired of hearing about how soft our team is, and on and on...

I believe the obvious frustration has kicked in as you have consistently avoided the claims the authors have been making. Nobody likes to see their words made into a strawman, and you seem unwilling to leave the scarecrow alone. Let me boldly say, one would have to be a true homer to think a team in this series is vastly superior to the other -- on either side. This has been hyped by professional analysts as the most exciting match-up so far; this does not happen because a blow out is predicted. [Note: any apparent advantage it seems has also been lost with recent injuries.] Passion about one's team is an excellent hobby, but we all should be careful to not let it get us into trouble. You have attempted to flame this board and gotten a variety of responses (did you expect anything less?). Granted you have given an appearance of civility, which we appreciate, but I think we would all appreciate it more if you did not insist on beating a dead horse. Example: the author explicitly informs you, "I am not comparing the Flames and the Sharks" but you insist, "why you had to have meant to compare the two otherwise you would not have made sense." Then to clarify further, "the argument does make sense because the Red Wings did play a gritty game..." Look you can think the Sharks are the best team ever if you want and you will find people here who are willing to play the game nicely, but don't tell people what their words mean and what they are really trying to say.

The guys around here are mostly good, but as you can see we definitely have some homers. I.e. we are suffering from some pretty important injuries and, ahem, we apparently don't have anything to worry about. I can definitely see close and OT games, but for some reason I don't think it will go seven.

Your link doesn't seem to be working.

The feed I got didn't show him shake hands, I had really wanted to see him out there to, but it sounds like he wasn't around.

I disagree with both of you and I am only short by a couple of years, but really I don't think you can compare the dual ref vs. the single ref eras, so I am gonna say that my 91 til today and 96 to today being a hardcore fan should count, not that I don't want to give you guys credit since you watched lots of games I only heard and read about. I think the officiating is consistent with what it has always been, which I will admit is inconsistent. I mean in the last two minutes of a close game or playoff OT has always meant swallowing the whistles, but only until the liberties got too obvious. Then it seems it is every other or every third infraction. I want to say "nothing new here." However, every year they talk about making it a more "family friendly" game and so every year we come to expect more from the officials. I really wish they hadn't stopped calling the dives though. I am think it was four or five years ago, they really started calling dives, and I thought that was pretty good for the game. Gave more of the impression that the game was actually won on the ice.

I'll predict a two or three goal win, but after the first 15 minutes everything should be just fine. I look forward to seeing the greatest tradition in all professional sports -- the handshake.

HOH, I actually think there is a better analogy. Its more like Hasek looks like he is doing one thing but he is really doing something else. He uses his stick like he is going to swing it at Iggy, but he (rather than changing his mind) is actually only trying to scare him. If it was not realistic to some degree then it wouldn't work, however, he clearly never intends to hit nor cause injury. As per the rest of the thread I must admit that I am frustrated. Ok, lots of "s***" happens in hockey, and there were lots of bad calls (non-calls) again. Many of them related to things the NHL says it wants to get rid of, but like the original poster (but not trying to sound like as much of a dick) how long should we complain about this? Also, the people who are saying "the sucker punch caused a concussion" I find your statement extremely embarassing. It was a classless move, and it deserved a penalty especially if the botched hip-check was going to get one. But, seriously, if you think "headaches" means "concussion" you are silly. I don't want to hear another bit about "intent to injur" in reference to this moment in playoff hockey.

The league can also review Langkow's sucker punch, even if there was no penalty on the play.

Plain and simple this is stupid.

You wanna go where everyone knows your name...

What? Yeah, reel it in now.

Maybe Hank can get a hatrick, yeah give him a shift.

Calgary has proven they cannot play playoff hockey and do not belong here.

Five on three rest of the game huh.

We need to see suspensions now.