Hank

Big deal! Yesterday I got a paperclip that made me cry for a mere 2 minutes. And despite the pain I was still able to get in 4 hours of watching TV on my leather couch. I'm a warrior.

So I think it's safe to say that Illitch makes money on the regular season alone now. If the Wings needed a Conference final birth to break even with an $80 million roster, just imagine how much money he's rolling in with only a $45 million roster. Me thinks it's time for Mr.I to reduce playoff ticket prices. Or at the very least reduce regular season prices. I still think the NHL should have forced every buildling to sell 2000 tickets at $10.00 or less after the lockout. This would help bring in new fans, kids and families. Not to mention real fans that can't afford to go.

Not going to happen. CBC will have Canucks and Senators. (Kisses Bell Express Vu and Centre Ice Package)

Played in an over-35 tourny this past weekend and we ended up winning it all (I'm only 32 - soon to be 33 - but each team was allowed one exception of -5 years in age). I played defense the entire time (which I normally don't play) but I really, really enjoyed it. I found the challenge of keeping forwards to the outside and battling for pucks along the wall and in the corners extremely fullfilling. I definately have a new found respect for rearguards. You have to be a lot smarter with you decisions with the puck and you have to be aware of so many other things happening on the ice. The best part of the tourny was the final game. I wasn't going to play as I had a family reunion but when I got home after our semifinal win, my wife said something that really made me feel good. She told me that I HAD to play in the final game as I was easily their best defenseman. I started to laugh. I asked her "Didn't you see all the mistakes I made out there?". She said that I did make some mistakes but far less than any of our other dmen and that I was their strongest defenseman. She said that I worked harder than any of them, won more battles, had more energy and that I could really fly up the ice when making my rushes. It sure was a huge confidence booster. We ended up winning the final game 1-0 and I scored the lone goal halfway through the 2nd period. It wasn't anything spectacular as our centre won a clean draw right to me and I wristed a hard, low shot along the ice that was screened. It definately had eyes as it went through several pairs of skates and sticks before going through the goalies 5-hole. I don't think he saw it at all, as he was a very good goalie, and would have made the stop if he had. Anyway, that was easily the most fun I've ever had playing hockey and as strange as it sounds, it felt like our own little Stanley Cup. It was a great feeling. What made it even better was that this team was put together very half-assed with most guys playing in spots they've never played before. We gelled very quickly and everyone had a great time. I can't wait to do it again next year. Anyone else have a fun hockey triumph story?

I don't blame you. Windsor is a crap town. I've been to Spitfires games at that old barn and the 'fans' there are one in a million. I saw a game a few years back against London. Steve Ott hit a guy from behind, head first into the boards. The guy didn't move while lying on the ice. The crowd starting going nuts calling the kid a 'baby' and when the trainer came out they started chanting "Waterboy! Wateboy!". Totally classless. But that's Windsor to a T. (It also says something when half the crowd has combs in their back pocket - what is this? The 70's?)

Windsor's a hole. I know because I have to drive through it every day. The downtown is great if you're looking to get drunk, see some strippers or gamble. So I guess if you're into drunken debauchery, it's a great place. It was fun when I was younger, but now, as a married man with kids, I never go downtown. I work in Detroit now and I'm amazed that the downtown area is 100x cleaner and nicer than downtown Windsor. I'd probably even feel safer walking around downtown Detroit at midnight than Windsor.

I'd much rather play the Blackhawks 8 times a year than LA. That was my point. And I wouldn't call the Ducks a 'dominant' team in their division. They had fits with some of their opposition as did Detroit in theirs. Nashville also ran into injury trouble down the stretch that made the fight for the Central less interesting. My whole point was that regular season records mean nothing in the NHL these days. It's just like when the argument was raised about whether or not U of M should have played in the National Championship game against Ohio State. Florida got the nod because they had a much tougher division. And in the end it was a wise decision. Your whole point about Detroit being a better team is based off their record and losing less than 20 games. But that doesn't mean a whole lot when you look at the bigger picture. Detroit plays in a much easier division than San Jose. And like many, many NHLers have said, playing on the Left Coast is extremely tough with the travel. Sure, Detroit is an EST team, but they still have it easier than western teams. Luc Robataille and Bob Errey have both have the privaledge of playing for the Wings and a PST team and they've both said that playing out west is much tougher because of the travel. In the end, San Jose had 6 measly points less than the Wings and they played within a tougher division and had a worse travel schedule, so you can't say that Detroit is the favourite just because of records. This is going to be a very tough series for both squads. I don't think there's an overwhelming favourite on either side and I won't be shocked with the outcome either way.

I find it humerous that you believe the Sharks aren't getting respect. Almost everyone and their dog (including Wings fans) are picking the Sharks to win this series. While I agree that I don't share the same reasons for the Wings winning as Wings_Dynasty, most here don't feel that this series is a cake walk and we know how good the Sharks team is top-to-bottom.

Not to mention that using that logic Atlanta should have beaten the Rangers. And divisions do make a big difference. I'd much rather play Columbus, Chicago and St.Louis 24 times a year instead of Anaheim, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

I think you seriously underestimate the Sharks. Nashville is a tremendous club itself that can make teams look bad at certain times. While the Sharks don't have any 'big name' defenseman, they do have a great collection of dmen-by-committee. If there is one negative thing you can say about it, it's inexperience. But I'm pretty sure we're all going to get to know, and hate, Scott Hannon before this series is done. And their 12 forwards are an excellent group. All can skate,most can grind, and a lot of them can score. Remember, the Wings have been beaten by some teams while we were the ones with the 'big name' defenseman and forwards. The Wings shouldn't be taken lightly either but if the Wings do beat them in 5 it won't be an easy 5. There won't be an easy game the rest of the way no matter how far we get.

Like Draper said, seeds in the Western Conference mean nothing. The Sharks had only 6 points less than the Wings and they were in a much stronger division. Switch teams and the Wings are probably the 5th seed. For me, I'll wait for the real expert to pick - Maggie the Monkey.

Chicago is a very poor example. There are some radio stations there that refuse to talk Blackhawks because of what Bill Wirtz had done to that team - home game blackouts for example. In fact, if you want to talk hockey in Chicago you better call about the Chicago Wolves. They actually draw much better than the Hawks.

I couldn't agree more. Some here have been very vocal about the lack of availability of Versus, but their NHL coverage is 10000 better than what ESPN had. They have a pre-game shows, post games shows as well as highlights, talk about stuff happening around the league, player inteviews, etc, etc. They treat hockey like it deserves to be treated. And they don't hide their games like ESPN did on ESPN2 or whever else they'd stick it. They don't cover sports, they cover THEIR sports. If ESPN lost the rights to the NFL the would barely talk about it.

Hmmm. That's strange. I watched it on the channel too but it was in 4:3 HD not true widescreen. I could stretch the picture out but it wasn't the same.

What station? (I have Express Vu). I did get the game in HD but it wasn't in 16:9, true widescreen. I could stretch the picture but it wasn't the same.

Thank you. But I will say that I had a very good feeling going into last nights OT. The Wings looked a lot 'hungrier' and determined than they had entering the 3rd period of game 4.

I agree. I'm a Canadian but even I was getting sick of the homerism pouring from the CBC. There was a hit early on in last nights game that involved Maltby and I think Langkow and the CBC announcer made it sound as if Maltby got clocked when it was Langkow that got the worst of it and went down. And in the beginning they always show a small video montage with highlights from the series. If you were to have been in a cave for the past 2 weeks and only saw those highlights you would have thought Calgary was up on the Wings 3-0. They barely showed any Wings highlights. Now I know that a lot of people here might say "Well it is a government run channel and they have to remain true to all things Canadian". If that's the case then they're a bunch of hypocrites. If they were trying to remain truly Canadian then why would they thrust Maple Leaf hockey down our throats every single Saturday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Maple Leafs haven't made the playoffs in 2 straight seasons right? And the last time I checked there were 5 other Canadian teams. Another thing that really bothered me about the Wings-Flames coverage was that the CBC didn't show every game in HD. I had to watch NBC on Saturday and non-HD coverage last night. But I wasn't too disappointed. Bill Clement and the gang do a very good job and I enjoyed the NBC telecast - which I will continue to watch because the CBC has lost my viewership for reasons mentioned above.

I completely agree! I had the Sens winning the Cup this year. They remind me so much of the Wings in 97. And if you consider that they have a much easier Conference they should be more rested and fresh for whoever scrapes and crawls out of the west.

I agree that questioning their 'manhood' was out of bounds. Although I do think they played more of a sissified system in games 3 and 4 (remenicsent to 04 and 06) compared to their victories. That's why I was worried. After seeing how well Detroit played in games 1 and 2, to seeing how they played differently in games 3 and 4, I was genuinly concerned that they couldn't play in the same fashion as they had at the joe. I'm glad I was wrong. I'm glad Lidstrom and Babcock challenged the team to get back to what got them the 2-0 lead. And I hope this has shown the entire team that they have to play with that kind of physicality the rest of the way. If Calgary had more than 2 forwards without cement hands, we could have lost games 3 and 4 by wider margins. We need to keep the peddle on the gas the entire time and outwork teams 100% of the time.

I will say this, out of all the teams still remaining the Sharks have the 'weaker' goaltending. Kippersoff trumps both Nabakov and Toskala big time.

I don't agree with the Hasek reasoning, but I would rather face the Wings than Anaheim too. The Ducks are the best team in the West right now. Hopefully we can play the Stars so the Sharks and Ducks can beat the crap out of each other.

The difference was that last night the Wings played a lot better with more sustained forcheck pressure and worked harder along the walls than they did in games 3 and 4. If they had lost last night it would have been from Kipersoff and I would have lived with it - it wouldn't have been from not playing their 100% best. I didn't think Kipersoff was the difference in the two previous games in Calgary. I felt the Wings changed their strategy and lost because of it. And just because some of us here question how our team plays, how does that make us non-fans? How does it make us Bandwagon jumpers? If we were bandwagon jumpers we would have left here entirely. We wouldn't have been here all year round because band-wagon jumpers don't show up until the playoffs. Many of us 'nay sayers' have been on these boards for years. And I guarentee you I've been fan longer than most here. (going on 30 years). I was at games where there was only 5,000 in the seats. When the only guys to watch were Reed Larson and John Ogrognick. If anything, there are fans here who are braindead followers. They have no clue how the team is built, or the intangibles the team has. They simply put on their replica jersey and yell "Go Wings! I love the Wings! Stevie's so hot! Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!". That's a fan alright, albeit a dumb one. Just because I wrote them off doesn't mean I'm any less than a fan. I've been a Tiger fan for years too. In 2003, I told people, we won't make the playoffs. I guess I wasn't a true fan then either eh? Nevermind that they had an abysmal lineup, with questionable pitching and managing. But I guess to be a true fan, you should just stick your head in the sand and say "We're awesome! Go Tigers! We can never lose a game! Bless you boys!!!". If that's the case then I guess the Lions don't have any "TRUE" fans either because I've yet to find one that has told me that they will win the Super Bowl this year. What a bunch of fickle fans!!!

Oh, we're still here. But I stand by my past statements. Detroit played much differently in games 1,2,5 and 6 than they did in games 3 and 4. Nick Lidstrom said as much himself. I'm just glad that the Wings realised what they had done wrong in those games to correct it.

No. He's too close to the guys on the bench. He needs to seperate himself longer. Who would be a good coach? Two words; Pat Burns. Oh yeah.

No, but the papers have been suggesting that Hudler is 100% in for game 5. Who's he going to sit? Lang? Nope. Sammy? Nope, he was still on the PP last game and given prime minutes. Calder with only 4:56 TOI. I'd say it's a lock. The difference between Lang and Zetts is that Z produced all year long and didn't seem to float every game like Lang. He's also been working very hard in this series despite putting up 0 points. Lang got 2 points from two good shifts and even then, Bertuzzi had a lot to do with it. I think Lang has the talent to take over games. But it's the classic saying "All the tools but no toolbox". EDIT: wanted to add why you think Chelios can't do the same job as Sammy? Seriously, Sammy never hits the net. The only time he does is when he's 2 feet away from it and then he hits the goalie right in the chest. He also needs to learn to keep the puck low on point shots. Instead he wires them off the end boards.