Heroes of Hockeytown

Pretty sure they aren't obligated to do anything.

This is a throwback to a simpler time, when Stevie Y was getting older and once a week someone would stumble along and ponder who gets the C next. Goalie wars, post your line combos; everything is cyclical. I guess there's only so much to talk about.

Agreed on Kopecky. He got hot and was good for about a half dozen games and hasn't done anything since.

I wasn't directing that at you, just saying it in general.

Well, he's been in the US for like eight years and his English is still pretty bad, so I'm not sure he's very concerned with picking it up.

Go back to your paper routes, you Mighty Duck f***s!

Bottom line, the Red Wings are a better team with Lilja in (and, say, Meech out). So, get well soon, brah.

The final goal was a lousy one, no two ways about it. He was on the post, the pass came out from behind the net, he came off the post, which is of course where the puck then went. He was where he needed to be and didn't make the save. So, I can live with the defense surrendering shots (which is going to happen no matter how hard you try anyways) that the goalie can stop.

Seems completely natural and normal that the scoring would go back down after power plays were being handed out left and right in '06. The hockey's good, I'm not worried about how many guys hit arbitrary benchmark X.

More thoughts: A.) Is the smaller amount of funding conducive to inferior training or just fewer participants in women's hockey versus men's? B.) What exactly is the effect of this so-called inferior training? There are players in the NHL who didn't start skating until they were 10 years old or even older. Either you have talent or you don't; you can teach the rest later. C.) Related to B, how is it not a leap to assume the best women players in the world presently (who for the sake of argument we can assume have received inferior training to men) from competing with boys and in second and third tier men's leagues to being in the NHL?

Yes, that must be it. Even though two were scored immediately following dump-ins and another right off a faceoff?

As I said in the GDT... Didn't think the defense did that bad a job tonight. You look at the goals that went in, two were the result of bad decisons by the goalie, the other two were from bounces and tips, and then just one was an individual play where Ericsson got his pocket picked. The main problem was that the goals that happened happened because the Wings collectively didn't come out there with any jump. They found themselves in a 2-0 hole as a result of their listlessness, and when they tried to make a comeback they were sabotaged by goaltending gaffes and another tip. Those goals are gonna happen, and if you don't put yourself in a bad place to start with they won't necessarily cost you the game, is basically what I mean.

I am willing to exist in any universe wherein the Detroit Red Wings carry at least one of the following players on their roster: Marian Hossa, Johan Franzen Any reality that features neither I will not find acceptable.

A few things. For one, Yzerman does have the advantage of being with the Wings for his entire career, whereas the Oil traded Gretzky for cash, so that doesn't reflect poorly on him. His impact in LA was significant, but that was never a strong hockey market anyways so in time that faded -- unlike Detroit, which is both a strong hockey market and still fresh off the Yzerman era. By the time he left LA he was getting older and his skills were diminishing (as they had also been post-Suter hit), so they didn't really get Grade-A Gretzky in those places. I realize it's a whole lotta coulda woulda shoulda, but if Wayneo had been allowed to stay in Edmonton for the balance of his career I think he'd be even more of a legend than he is now and his so-called long term impact on that club would've been as strong as Steve's is with Detroit.

To start, let me say I appreciate the research you have done. I love your response to my imaginary rebuttal. Again, the animosity is lovely. All I've ever asked of you is to support your claims. This is good info, I appreciate it. However, I've already acknowledged that the situation between the sexes is unequal. That's unfortunate, but the main thrust of my argument was the kind of treatment the top players in the sport have gotten. To that end... Right now let's say it's a given that this inadequate training rift is what's keeping women out of the NHL. What does this say about the women that compete in the Olympics? Are their programs receiving inadequate funding? Have these women, considered the best in the world, been stunted developmentally? If not, why haven't any of them shown the ability to compete at the NHL level? I would be all for that, but to date even the best trained women players in the world have been unable to compete at the top level with their male counterparts. You seem certain that with a broader talent base a woman that's head and shoulders above any other we've ever seen will appear and be able to compete in the NHL, but that's not very logical at all.

ZzzzZzzzz... Huh? Wha? Is the season over yet? No? .... ZzzzZzzzz... Conklin wasn't very good, defensively I thought they did OK, Big Rig got his pocket picked on that first one which was unfortuante; as a whole that second period was just a result of not coming in with any jump and spending the whole time in your own end. They turned in on in the third, because that's what they do, but Conklin's gaffes combined with two lousy periods of hockey came down on them for the L. If they cared, maybe I'd care, but as it is they're second in the West and that's not likely to change, so whatever.

Let me put this to you in a roundabout way. What reason do you have to believe that the training in developmental leagues for women is inferior to men? You seem to be certain of it, but haven't given any reason to believe in it, other than your experiences in what, small town Canada? Do you think that's representative of the types of service all women get? What about the best women hockey players? You mentioned Haley Wickenheiser to try and bolster your point, even though she went through a developmental league and became one of the best ever. You haven't provided me with any reason to think that the best women hockey players in the world are given inferior training. I get that your average girl may have a harder time, but at the top of the ladder where's the difference? Let's make it a given for a moment that women do get "equal training." It's still a leap in logic for you to go from that to "women competing in the NHL." Is that what you think about the Olympic programs for the United States and Canada? Or just in general? If the former, what reason do I have to believe you? Why wouldn't Hockey USA and Hockey Canada give their Olympic hopefuls adequate training?

I wasn't asking for anything unreasonable; just something that indicated that the best women hockey players in the world didn't receive proper training or development. I realize that the situations are not equal, and that it is harder in some places for girls to get their start in hockey than boys. That's unfortunate, but doesn't change that even the best women hockey players in the world compete against boys to gear up for tourneys, and those that strike out into pro leagues like Haley only compete in second and third tier men's leagues. These women, with obvious talent, go through developmental leagues just like men, but have never been able to compete at the highest levels with them. After which she went to under-17 women's league like men do. Uh, no, a hypothetical would be "what if." The OP lists the reasons typically used when this question arises and his own reasoning for why he thinks women could compete. You brought up this "if only they had proper training and development" what-if scenario, where you haven't even established that the best women hockey players today go without it.

I saw some anecdotal evidence, but we're not talking about your experience with women's hockey; I'm talking about the athletes that compete in international tourneys. The entire purpose of this thread was to pose the question "Can women compete in upper tiers of hockey?" So far there hasn't been any reason to suggest they can.

Do the women that compete in international tourneys not get the right training and development? Even if they didn't for some reason, you're just posing a hypothetical.

That would be ideal, but not really practical for regular season play. I meant to get back this earlier, but Hank you are right when you say some coaches would just play for the tie instead of an OT win. In their minds sitting back and getting one point is better than playing it out and trying for two but maybe getting none. But for starters, that's not too different from teams hanging on in regulation to get that OT charity point; either way you are subjected to "don't lose hockey" instead of "just win" hockey. Two, sitting back and entering a defensive shell is always a recipe for disaster -- teams that play that way will lose net points over a season by maybe averaging more ties but getting less wins.

All of those guys signed deals when they were over 35, so the cap hit would remain even if they retired. I think Mac's on a one year, two-way deal anyways.

The times I've seen him he is literally hovering at the top of the circles or even the dot virtually every time the Caps were cycling in the attacking zone. Not every once in a while, not when the opportunity arises, that is his default position on offense. It's amazing they don't get burned for odd-man rushes more than they do -- or maybe they do, but I don't see that many games of theirs. A couple months ago I mentioned how if his numbers stay as high as they were in relation to his peers, he'd get the Norris for sure, and at this point they're even better than they were then, so I don't see how they won't give it to him.

The Boyd's numbers were similar to Pavel's that playoff year (2-4-6 vs 3-3-6).

Hey, cool, don't stop believin'. I've not seen anything you said backed up with any sort of proof, whereas all the evidence you need against is staring right at you.