Houdini

Coffey77, you just need to ignore those who think a rematch of last years finals will be a cakewalk. I think most of the Wings fans think we'll win (most teams fans think they will win if both teams are close in skill) but most don't believe it will be easy. It will definitely be a closer series than last year, and I'm a hell of a lot more nervous about a Wings/Pens final than I was last year. - Houdini

Am I one of the few Wings fans who will be worried if we face the Pens in the finals? I think us Wings fans are so used to always winning when we reach the finals (well, the last 4 times anyways) that we sometimes forget things don't always work out (*cough*95 finals*cough*). The Pens didn't really frighten me too much last year because they were too young and inexperienced and we were HUNGRY. Well, this year the Pens have the experience of making it to the finals and if anything they are more hungry than ever. We, on the other hand, just won the Cup and there is just no way we have that same hunger as we did last year. There's a reason the last time a team repeated was back in 97 and 98, because its so freaking hard to have that same drive the very next year. I think Vladdy was difference in 98 as he gave us something to play for. Not saying the Pens are going to win of course, but I think they are going to be a lot harder to play against than last year. - Houdini

Yeah, it's annoying listening to some of the stuff the Hawk's fans are complaining about. They are actually all up in fits that Abdelkader "body slammed" Sharp near the bench last game, and how it's proof that the refs are in the Wings pocket. Yet, if anyone actually SAW the play they'd have noticed that Abdelkader never did anything. Heck he didn't even take his hands off his stick while Sharp actually wrapped his left around around Abdelkader's back and his right arm around Abdelkader'd neck and dragged him to the ice. You can see the replay by playing the video on the left side of this TSN article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=279287. It's around the 55 second mark. It was textbook interference (doesn't get worse than this) by Chicago and the ref's looked the other way, but in many Hawk's fans eyes the Wings should have gotten a penalty on that play. :looney: - Houdini

Exactly. Lord knows we've blamed the ref's in plenty of losses (*cough*anaheim*cough*). The ref'ing in this series hasn't been good, but it's been pretty bad to both sides. The Hawks got away with 3 obvious interference calls and it looks like we got away with a couple of high sticks and the goaltending interference probably should not have been called. Officiating isn't the reason the Hawks aren't going to win this series, it's their lack of commitment. The Hawks remind me of a Red Wings team back in the early 90's, young, full of talent, and very offensive. It wasn't until Bowman came and taught us that defense wins championships that things started to go our way. Our most skilled players like Yzerman started killing penalties, diving on the ice to block shots, and racing back to play D. That still hasn't changed, as our best players are still the most committed defensive players we have. Kane was as responsible as anyone for that OT goal, as he was standing right next to Samuelsson but only took two hard strides before giving up and letting Sammy make the 2 on 1 a 3 on 1. And I believe it was Kane who also said he wasn't out there to "block shots". If Chicago's best players keep thinking like that they'll never take the next step required to win championships. - Houdini

Dom had two bad games. And I think most of us (except Dom haters) can agree Dom is a much better goaltender than he played in those last two games. He showed us that last year in the playoffs, and this year in the regular season. But I 100% agree with pulling him and putting in Ozzie. Dom is good, but he wasn't playing as well as we needed to win playoff games. Period. It happens. And when it does it changing things up is just what the doctor ordered. And Ozzie and the Wings have played fantastic BECAUSE we changed goaltenders. Now lets take a look at Colorado. Theodore was their better goaltender. He played great in his first series. But he wasn't playing very well against Detroit. Was it all his fault? No, the Wings were generating tons of chances. But he still wasn't playing great. There was a lot of talk about replacing him with Budaj. Their coach decided to stick with their goaltender who got them as far as they had. Personally I think they made the wrong choice, and we swept them as a result. Again, I will re-iterate. Ozzie has not played poorly in these last 3 games. But the fact of the matter is Ozzie has not played great these last few games either, certainly not as well as he had played in his previous 8 games, and as a result he is being outplayed by Turco. Is outstanding goaltending our main problem? No, but we may not be able to win without it. Now, I wouldn't want Dom in tonights game. I say stick with Ozzie, he's been our man! But if we lose AGAIN, and Ozzie doesn't play better then things have officially gotten "desperate". If we end up with 3 losses in a row, all momentum on the Stars die, Ozzie has had just 4 "decent" games, and we are on the brink of elimination then IMO we HAVE to change things up. But who knows, maybe the Wings will start scoring again. Or maybe Osgood will stand on his head again this series and pull us into the finals. Or maybe Babcock will decide to stick with Osgood for a game 7 and the team pulls together and wins. All I know is that Osgood has NOT been playing as well these last 3 games as he had his previous 8. And now is when we need him to play his best. If he can't do it (and that may be a big IF), then we need to try something different. - Houdini

Looks like I'm in the minority here, but the question isn't whether or not the Wings lose the next game, but how well Ozzie plays. For the first 8 games Ozzie has played fantastic! He posted a .935 save percentage average over these 8 games, and is a huge reason we are in the Western Conference Finals. I don't think we could have gotten this far with the way Dom was playing. However, in the last 3 games Ozzie has posted a .886 save percentage average. You can't win in the playoffs with that kind of save percentage. Has Ozzie been playing horrible? Nope, he's made some great saves and really hasn't let any bad goals in. But make no mistake, he's been outplayed by Turco over these last 3 games. Ozzie must play better than this if we are to get farther in these playoffs. If Ozzie posts another sub .900 game then yes, I believe we need to put in Dom. Sometimes just changing goalies can make a team play better, regardless of whether or not it was the goalies fault he was pulled. Right now the Wings need to play better, and Ozzie needs to be great again, not just "good". If he's played just "good" or "average" over the last 4 games straight and the Wings are on the brink of being eliminated, then it's time to see if Dom can play better. - Houdini

You could say the same thing about Hank scoring a hat trick, or Ozzie getting a shutout, or if Downey beats up TooToo. Sure, those things aren't near as important as winning the Cup, but that doesn't mean they don't mean anything! All players want to play well, and they want to win as many games as possible, and they feel proud when they beat a record that has been standing for a long time. Heck, if all I cared about was winning the Cup and nothing else I wouldn't even watch the regular season! Personally, I think it's great whenever the Wings break player or team records. It was a lot of fun watching Hank break the longest scoring streak for a Red Wings player to start a season! You feel proud when they beat another record, because it means your team or player is playing extremely well. I love that the Wings still have the record 61 wins in a regular season. Sure, I would have rather them won the Cup that year, but at least we were left with something to be proud of! - Houdini

I did read your post. You said: I named something other than preventing a goal that I considered a 'good play'. Where's the problem here? - Houdini

Ahem, McCarty sucker punching Lemieux in retribution for the Draper hit. Of course, I'm sure some would disagree with what McCarty did, but damn was that the best game of my life. - Houdini

First clip is perfectly relevant. No, you don't him skating out, but you see him way out of his goal sliding at the puck in the same fashion as he did to Gaborik, without taking out the player. Did you really have to see him skate out to know that he actually skated? Second clip shows how when the player doesn't have control of the puck (is trying to catch up to it) that Hasek has no problem doing a normal poke check. But obviously when the player has full control (the other clips as well as on Friday) Hasek will spread his body out to ensure the player doesn't try to flip the puck past him. Again, third clips makes my point, he didn't take out the skater because the puck was to the side of the skater and Hasek always dives at the puck. I don't see why you don't understand this. Show me a clip where Hasek purposely skates out and slides at the player and NOT the puck, because every other similar play I've seen has him diving at the puck, even if it means missing the opposing player completely. I can't see how you can say suddenly say that you are sure that in this particular incident that he wasn't trying to slide at the puck even though his body slid directly into it. He did if he wanted to stop the breakaway. Or Gaborik could have kept his head up like he was taught when he was 12 years old. Just because an opposing player is looking down isn't going to stop Hasek for going for the puck and do all he can to keep it out of the net. It's what he gets paid for. Bah, debating this really isn't doing much good at this point. It's quite obvious there are 3 or 4 posters who will try to find flaws in whatever Hasek does. Luckily most of us can see the play for what it was. - Houdini

What if they are both racing for a loose puck? Same thing could happen right? So I guess if there's ever a loose puck and two players could get there close to the same time, one must stop and wait for the other to pick it up, right? Geez, this is HOCKEY people. Next people will be saying you can't shoot a puck if someone is close to you, because you might accidentally hit them in the face with your stick. Or you can't shoot at the goal if opposing players are between you and the goal because you might hit them in the face with the puck. If Dom purposely dove at the players legs, sure call a penalty. But he dove at the puck, the fact that the player was directly behind the puck is coincidental. Next thing people will complain about is if a goalie poke checks a puck and the player trips over his stick. BAN POKE CHECKS! Geeez... Why would I? I've seen the play tons of times and I've never seen a penalty on it. The goalie dove for the puck and the opposing player falls over the goalie. Wow, what a horrible play! - Houdini

Funny, because I already listed 3 clips (which I list again below) where Hasek has done the same thing. He runs to the blue line and throws his body at the puck, and not his stick. The difference between those 3 clips and the one we are talking about? Simply that the player with the puck had it off to the side of himself, so when Hasek slides at the puck the player never got hit. Since below is proof that Hasek slides at the puck with his body all the time without hitting the player, how can you say that he would never do this unless he was trying to hit someone??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMf0ObSxP4 47 sec mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R00UkPAHBA 28 sec mark 51 sec mark Gee, and apparently if you don't criticize a player it must be because you have homer lenses on... - Houdini

It's too bad you didn't read the responses, because you would have seen my post where I linked to videos that show 3 other instances where Hasek ran out near the blue line to slide into the puck and take away a break-away chance, and in none of those 3 instances did he slide into the player with the puck. In all 3 he slide directly at the puck (just like last night), but in these other instances the puck happened to be to the side of the player instead of directly in front of him. But wait! When the puck is in front of the player and Hasek slides directly into the puck (just like all the other times he's done it in the past), all of the sudden he's not going for the puck, now his only intention was to hit Gaborik? LOL! Apparently you don't know Hasek too well. That, or maybe you just don't like him. - Houdini

If you're talking to me, no where did I say it was illegal. It would have been if Hasek purposely went for the player and not the puck, but it was obvious he went for the puck. I absolutely agree. But that shouldn't mean that Hasek shouldn't be able to go for the puck. Hell, if it was, then players would simply run into the goalie with the puck directly in front of them, so when the goalie goes down to make the save and the player flys over the goalie then the goalie gets a penalty. If you seriously think Hasek was going for the body and not the puck, then you need to look at his previous plays: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMf0ObSxP4 47 sec mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R00UkPAHBA 28 sec mark 51 sec mark Those are just 3 examples of Hasek doing the exact same thing, going straight for the puck even if going at the puck means missing the opposing player entirely. How someone can see how Hasek does this same play all the time, but suddenly says that he is going for the player just because the puck is directly in front of them is beyond me. - Houdini

Prove it? Sure, nobody can't prove exactly what Hasek was thinking, but he certainly went straight at the puck. I mean, that's like seeing a fantastic play by a Lidstrom where he dives after an opposing player who is on a breakaway, sweeps the puck away with his stick and then trips the opposing player with his stick on the follow through of the swing, then someone says "Prove Lidstrom actually tried for the puck and didn't just try tripping the defender and accidentally hit the puck first". You can't prove it without reading Lidstrom's mind, but it's obvious he was going for the puck. I mean, do you really think if Gaborik had the puck off to the side that Hasek would have slid directly at him anyways? What would possibly be the reason for him to that? It makes no sense. Yep, because the puck was centered on Gaborik. Of course he went after the puck when Gaborik had his head down. If Gaborik had his head up he would have simply skated by Hasek and dumped it in the empty net. - Houdini

So if someone makes a hip check and sends a guy flying through the air, should that be a "dirty play" since the player could get hurt? Of course not. Whether or not a player could get seriously hurt or not on a play has no bearing on whether or not the play is illegal. If a player has their head down and gets smoked by an opposing player (as Hudler did a few games ago) guess what? That's hockey. Do you expect players to tap each other on the shoulder and say "I'd like to check you please" before doing so? The main point of contention should be whether or not what Hasek did was legal, regardless of the outcome of the play. You are right, slide tackling is not legal in hockey. Guess what, neither is sliding on the ice and sweeping your stick into an opponents feet and tripping him when he's on a breakaway.... unless of course you are going for the puck and get the puck first. Then guess what? It's a perfectly legal play! Hasek went after the puck not the player. If Gaborik had the puck off to the side of him, that's where Hasek would have slid to. Hasek went after the puck, and got the puck. After that his momentum carried him into Gaborik and he went flying. No different than sweeping the puck away from someone on a breakaway, and the momentum of your swing brings your stick into the players feet and they trip. This happens ALL the time, and it's perfectly legal! I swear, next we're going to hear people complaining because a goalie made a pokecheck, and the opposing player tripped on the stick afterwards and went boom-boom. My God, what Hasek did I've seen close to 2 dozen times over the years by different goalies, and it's never been a penalty before as long as the goalie gets the puck first. If people on this board don't understand that, then they obviously don't watch much hockey. And if they understand but don't agree with it, then maybe they should watch figure skating. - Houdini

Quoted for truth. Seriously, if any of the goalies above played for the Wings as long as Osgood has they'd have as many wins as Osgood. The stats above prove it. This is why you just can't put a goalie in the HOF based on a team stat like wins. Bottom line is Ozzie was/is a good goalie. But he was never considered a great goalie. - Houdini

I admit I haven't been listing to the post games, but I can't believe they are saying Pavel needs to shoot more. I've noticed Datsyuk shooting a ton more this year compared to previous years. In fact, if he keeps up this pace his shot total for this year will more than double any of his previous years, except for last year. But even compare to last year he's STILL shooting 50% more. If he keeps up the pace he'll end up with 301 SOG which would have put him 11th place for most shots in the entire NHL last year. Of course, most of his shots have been 40 feet out as a few other posters have already stated. Still, Pavel has a wicked hard wrist shot and I've seem him score plenty of times out there. His goal scoring will come soon, I know it... - Houdini

Na, I wasn't trying to imply anything about this particular situation. It's that I took offense to the post that said anyone else would leave for an extra $500,000 even if you're making $5 million already. I've never understood why players hold out on contracts in hopes of squeeze out every cent they can from the owners. Not that the owners deserver all the money they make from the players either, but now I'm digressing. As far as the Bertuzzi situation, it sounds to me like he wanted that extra year and didn't go to other teams until it was certain he wasn't going to get it from the Wings. If that's truly the case, I have don't really have a problem with him leaving (even though I REALLY wish he would have stayed). - Houdini

Wow, apparently you never even read my post. Amazing. So let me re-iterate for you: 1) Never in my post did I say players should not be free to work for whoever they want, whenever they want, and for how long they want. 2) Never in my post did I say that I think Bertuzzi or any other Wing left because of money and not other reasons. 3) Comparing someone who makes enough that they don't need to worry about the future to someone who is living week to week trying to make ends meet is not a fair comparison. I for one, and many others, would rate teammates, how good the team was, how happy my family was living in that area, etc, over money when I'm already making millions a year. There's so much more important things than money. Now, if you'd like to have a rational discussion on what I've actually posted, I'm all for it. But I swear your last post was meant to be a reply to someone else's post... - Houdini

Please. I made decent money and had the opportunity to make about $15,000 - $20,000 more. Now, I make DECENT money, but I still have to worry about retirement and my family (paying for my kid's college, etc). However, I stayed at my current job because they decided to pay me about $7,500 more. Sure, I could have made more at the other job, but I LIKE my current job, and I'm not exactly hurting for money. But it was still a hard decision because money is still an issue. But if I was making millions of dollars and I had the opportunity to make a million more, who cares? My family would have already been taken care of ten fold, as well as my retirement. I certainly have no desire to drive a $300,000 car, or own a private jet, so what would I do with all of that extra money? Sounds like most of you would do whatever it takes to make more and more money, no matter how much you already have. That's cool, it's your life. But to actually compare pay increases for someone who's trying to make ends meet and a multi-millionaire who never has to worry about money (unless they are stupid enough to waste it all) is just plain dumb. There is nothing to compare. - Houdini

Neat!

Eh? .902% save percentage and he was stellar? Either you guys have a different idea of what 'stellar' means, or Nashville must have had a ton of glorious scoring chances for Nabokov to be considered stellar with that save percentage. Either way, I'm eagerly awaiting Thursday night... gonna be a great game! - Houdini

And yet Nabokov had a sub par .902% save percentage. For the playoffs that's not very good. There's no way he can play like that and expect his team to beat the Wings. Especially considering we have a league high 42.5 shots on goal this playoffs, and a league low 21.5 shots against. And FYI, we were also number one in both shots for AND shots against during the regular season as well, so no reason not to expect that season long trend to continue. - Houdini