Packer487

As we learned earlier, there's no such thing as luck in these games.

I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a player with a tinted visor that wasn't a complete jerkoff. I've always felt that Kariya should have one...

I bet Tim Hardaway would hate Kyle McLaren. Nice gold visor, ******.

Yeah it will be. They're definitely showing at least 3 Michigan games this year: The games over Thanksgiving against Wiscy and Minnesota along with the late season game against Ferris State.

That's a complete bullcrap statement. Give me some credit. I think they were the luckier team because I think they were the luckier team. I'm perfect capable of watching a series and making observations despite by biases, thank you very much. That's great. It's not like their OT goals weren't just as "fluky". It's really not that hard to pick out which team is getting bounces and which team isn't. It happens. It doesn't mean I'm trying to take anything away from the Ducks, but they got the bounces and we didn't. Plain and simple. We got those bounces when we won the Cup those three times. What they also got was a goal awarded to them that should've been disallowed, which, had the correct call been made, would've very possibly led to us taking a 2-0 lead in the series. Yup. And they deserve credit for it. But as long as you want to talk about missing players, we were playing without 2 of our top 4 (and maybe 3 of the top 6? Lebda missed some time I think), were we not? I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Especially since what Fronger did completely warranted a suspension. I'd feel worse if you brought up Kunitz. But not really since he's a douchebag too. ::shrug:: If you say so. I completely disagree, but what I do I know. I'm just a biased Red Wings fan.

They weren't just lucky, but of course it took some luck. As bad of a goalie as Cloutier is, he doesn't usually give up shots from center ice. That goal turned the entire series around. How bout Patrick Roy doing the Statue of Liberty without the puck in his glove? No one has said that Anaheim completely lucked into winning that series. But they were definitely a luckier team than we were. And in a series between teams that are as even as we seemed to be, a couple breaks can be all the difference in the world. Against Anaheim the puck just wasn't bouncing our way. I remember one shot--and I don't remember what game it was--where the puck was bouncing toward the net, it hit a patch of snow, and took a 90 degree turn away from the goal. It was that moment that I kind of accepted that it probably wasn't going to be our year. And I do think the Sharks were a couple of bad breaks away from probably winning the Cup. The Red WIngs, SJ and Anaheim were all very close. And they were all better than Ottawa.

In a closely matched series, or even a closely matched game, sometimes a goal (or a touchdown) can make all the difference in the wolrd. It's easy to sit there and be like "Good teams can overcome a bad call" but sometimes it's not that easy when there's not a big margin for error in the first place. I have more of a problem with the bad call on the goal in Game 2 than I do with the Datsyuk penalty because we got bad penalty calls our way as well. We weren't, however, essentially given the tying goal in a game we had to have. It's a nice thought that "if we were better, we'd overcome it" but sometimes it doesn't happen. Especially when the series is as closely matched as that one was. I realize that it's easy for me to say "We would've beaten Ottawa easily" because there's no way to prove me wrong. But I don't feel that series would've been difficult at all. If you think differently, so be it. Whether you're being sarcastic or not, I'm with you about San Jose. Everyone around here knows that I was terrified of that team (I started a LONG thread about it). I thought the Sharks were the best team in the West. And had Lang not scored that goal, I don't doubt that San Jose would've won the Cup. Now, your use of the "same logic everyone else uses" would be closer to the truth if the Wings had been given a bulls*** power play immediately prior to Lang scoring that goal. Or if the Wings had been given the tying goal in a game they had to have in that series (say, game 2).

Ya know, if you ever come up with an extra ticket or two....

I've gone on record numerous times as saying that the refs didn't cost us that series. But it's also stupid to ignore their impact. Anaheim was given the tying goal for free in Game 2 when Hasek was pushed into the net. They were given a cheapie power-play in the last minute of a game they were trailing in Game 5. To their credit they capitalized on both those gifts by winning both games in OT. But it doesn't mean they weren't gifts. And it doesn't mean that we wouldn't have more than likely won each of those games without those gifts. This "The better team would overcome it" stuff is nonsense. Sometimes, in a series that closely contested, you can't overcome a team being given a free goal. I'm a believer that even in a seven game series, sometimes the better team doesn't win. You can feel free to disagree (I'm sure you will) but sometimes the bounces/breaks don't go your way, and it was obvious that was the case against Anaheim. But I know we were better than that team. As for your arguments why it's silly to dismiss Ottawa, neither of them make sense: 1) People say a one line team can't win the Cup, but people think our one-line team can win the cup. Yeah, and a lot of people are homers, myself included. The fact that people on this board still think this team can win the Cup doesn't prove that Ottawa could've beaten us. That's a huge leap in logic if I've ever seen one. And even I think we'll have a hard time unless Holland finds us another forward. I've said that numerous times as well. 2) Ottawa was beaten by the Ducks so the Wings could beat them too. But the Wings didn't beat the Ducks so how do you know? That's not at all what I said, but that's cool. I've never really used what Anaheim did to them as support for my theory that we would've run them. Ottawa would've been the third best team we faced in the playoffs. They would've had the 4th best goalie that we would've faced in the playoffs. The East sucks. And, here ya go: We played Anaheim a whole helluva lot tougher. Ottawa just wasn't that good of a team. But the East sucks so they do things like lose 1 game in regulation since January 1 or something. We had the horses to shut the top line, and I just don't see anyone else on that team hurting us. Put in the words "more than likely would have" into my original post if it makes you feel any better. Is it 100% that we would've won the Cup if we won Game 5--or if Datsyuk hadn't gotten called for that penalty? No. But it probably would've been somewhere in the 75-80% range (80-90% that we beat the Ducks, 90% that we beat Ottawa). So I apologize for pretending that it was that absolute. I'll be more careful with my off-the-cuff-comments-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-point-of-the-post next time...

Absolutely there was more than one call or play, but it was a very weak call, without it, we more than likely win Game 5. It was weak on its own, but when you factor in the s*** that Anaheim got away with the entire series, it made it even worse. It probably wasn't even in the Top 30 for "things that should be a penalty" in that game. But they call it in the last 2 minutes of a one-goal playoff game. Stellar. And Ottawa was completely a one-line team. Contain the top line, you beat them. We had the horses to do it. They would've been the third-best team that we would've played last post-season. Call it arrogant if you want, but I would've said the same thing had we lost to Colorado back in 2002 (if we had beaten them, we win the Cup). The East sucks.

This thread made me laugh a lot. Yes, Ozzie played really well the other night. Yes, Dom has struggled somewhat in the early going. But it's been 5 games for Dom (and 2 for Ozzie against two stellar hockey teams. It's a little bit early to be like "Play Ozzie until Dom gets his head straight". Dom starts slow every season. We're going to have the division clinched by March. We still won the Western Conference regular season title last year with Dom struggling in the early going. In the first 15 games last year, he gave up 4+ goals three times. Want to know how many times he did it the rest of the regular season? Twice. The guy posted a 1.79, .923 in the playoffs last year. I think he's probably earned the right to not have people calling for his head after 5 regular season games. Ozzie's doing a fine job in his role, but he's not unseating the greatest goalie to ever play the game. Especially based on wins over Edmonton and LA. There are a lot of things about this team to worry about, but Dominik Hasek probably shouldn't be one of them. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It has a happy ending. Don't worry. Worry about the fact that we can't score unless our top line (or Draper, strangely enough) is out there. Worry about the fact that Flip has shown exactly nothing this season. Worry about how I haven't heard Jiri Hudler's name once this season outside of shootouts. Worry about how our $3 million man on the blueline hasn't put a point yet and has the 2nd worst +/- on the team (though he has succeeding in going 2 weeks without getting hurt, so that's progress). But Dom? Dom's fine. And it's beyond asinine to suggest that he should be benched at this point, or that we shouldn't have brought him back, or that Osgood is the better goalie(??!!). I mean seriously? You guys do know that we tied for the top spot in the league last year and we were one bad call away from probably winning the Stanley Cup right? But Osgood is better. And to cite his consistency as the reason why? Jesus. He was pretty good last year--I gave him all the credit in the world for his performances against Nashville down the stretch--but the year before the guy couldn't stop a goddamn beach ball.... This is great stuff.

You and me both, sir. I said before the year that if they were 4-4 after 8 games this was a playoff team. Well they're already one game better than that with 2 more winnable games before the midpoint. .500 football the rest of the way probably earns them a bye in the NFC and 4 out of 10 probably gets them to the playoffs. That game against the Redskins was hairy, but I also think that two blatantly blown calls cost the Packers 11 points (Tauscher most definitely did not hold, and Bubba Franks was clearly pushed out of bounds on his would-be TD...and he still got 1 foot down and the other missed by about 2 inches). It wasn't a pretty game, but if the zebras get those calls right--the guy from Sirius radio on the NFL station called it the worst officiated game of the year--we win going away despite an off day from Favre. The best part is that I don't think we've seen this team's best game yet. The running game hasn't produced (though in the five games we couldn't/didn't run the ball, we were facing 5 of the top 11 run defenses in the league...Chicago is like 26th and we put up over 100 on them without really trying), and the defense hasn't been nearly as good as I expected. Cullen Jenkins has been nicked up a bunch, which has limited his effectiveness and AJ Hawk has regressed from a year ago. After the bye, we start playing some "easier" run defenses, in fact I believe Denver is last in the NFL against the run. I also like that our main competition in the NFC seems to be Dallas, who has NO secondary (and the Packers are a pretty darn good passing team so that should be a nice matchup), and two teams we've already beaten in Washington and the Giants. It ain't pretty, but they're getting the job done. The bye week comes at a good time. Hopefully they can get healthy (Jennings, Franks, Harris, Woodson, Jenkins, etc.) and we should find out tomorrow if we're going to get Koren Robinson back, which could be a BIG help to the return game if nothing else. He was a Pro Bowler at kick returner with the Vikings. 5-1 is a really nice mark, particularly since they've still got a lot of stuff that they should be able to improve on. I couldn't be happier.

I guess it depends what package you've got, but you should get a bunch of games on CSTV, ESPNU, Big Ten Network, and all the Fox Sports stations if you've got em. Fox Sports North in particular shows a lot of Gopher and Badger games. Through Dish Network I also get Altitude out in Denver which I believe shows the Colorado schools, plus NESN for the Boston games. It's pretty sweet. For Michigan, the Big Ten Network is showing both games in the College Hockey Showcase (against Wiscy and Minnesota over Thanksgiving), plus our late season game with Ferris.

You guys are missing out. Sure the quality of play isn't what the NHL is, but there are a lot of really fun teams to watch and a ton of talented players. The Michigan games this weekend were as good as it gets. Plus you don't really get the teams going through the doldrums of the Mid-January weeknight games in college hockey. Depending on what cable/dish provider you have, there's more games on than you'd think. I don't live in Michigan anymore but I'm still getting close to half of Michigan's games on TV. I'd get a few more if I was able to get Comcast Local. After having Dish Network, I'm really not sure why anyone would want cable TV anymore unless they're not able to get satellite. Back to the thread, I was really impressed with Michigan this weekend. They knocked off the #2 team in the country and while they didn't get a win over Minnesota, they outplayed the Gophers and they kept it close, which is something they haven't done in a long time. I like our chances back at Yost next month. Hagelin is going to be a special player for Michigan. I love that kid.

You said it. He shares all of those qualities. I don't like doing all-time rankings all that much because it's so hard. I never saw Unitas play. Montana had an absolutely ridiculous supporting cast, even though he did wonderful things with them and never really made a mistake. Marino never really had a running game. Favre had pedestrian receivers through his prime. Elway made like 6 Super Bowls, but didn't win until he had a ridiculous running back (and his team cheated the salary cap). And I'm biased. Favre is my #1. He's the best I've ever seen. He's the most fun to watch. He's started every game since I was ten years old. And he's in the process of breaking every passing record despite likely never playing with a skilled-position player that will end up in the Hall of Fame. So Favre is the best to me, but I certainly wouldn't turn up my nose at anyone who thinks that a guy like Montana was better. I could make a pretty compelling case that Favre is/was better, but you could probably do the same the other way. If he finds a way to pull out another ring, argument over. I won't even listen anymore. But I can't even begin to describe what it's like to have a player like this playing for my team. Guys like Favre come around once in a generation, and to have him end up on my favorite team is pretty special. And I'm going to enjoy every second of it. This league is going to be much worse off when Favre retires...

We're starting this already? The guy is a slow starter. It happens every year. And he really couldn't do much about that second goal. I said "Uh oh" the second I saw the Duck player coming in when our guys started backing up. Pretty obvious that was going to end up in the back of our net. Dom will be fine. He always is.

My theory is that if they had instant replay, they'd have better camera angles Now that is a great point! I can see the argument for not having it on the base paths (though I still want to know how the ump is supposed to make an accurate call when he's standing behind the catcher), but to review home run vs. no home run, it's a no brainer. It happens so rarely, and it makes a huge impact on the game if it's wrong.

The answer to arguing balls and strikes is easy. Let a robot do make the calls. Seriously though, no, you're not reviewing judgment calls like balls and strikes. Just like you can't review pass interference, hooking, or holding. But the absolutes: On a potential home run, did the ball go fair or foul? Did the runner touch home plate before he was tagged? Things like that shouldn't be judgment calls. How is an umpire from hundreds of feet away supposed to make an accurate ruling if a ball hit the yellow line or behind it? Even with the replay it was hard to tell. How do we expect an umpire to make an accurate split-second ruling without the benefit of seeing it again? That could've been a huge turning point in the game. If the Padres manager hasn't said anything after seeing the replay, then it's simply because he's classier than I would be in that situation. But it's not like bitching would make things any different. They're not going to overturn it now. I don't know that it's fair to say that Holiday was out if Barrett had the ball. After all, from the umpire's judgment Holiday touched home plate. Barrett never even attempted a tag, much less got his glove on Holiday. If what you say is true, and if Barrett had the ball Holiday was out, then the ump was even more wrong. And I still say that with how unemphatic the umpire was with his safe signal, it's pretty clear he was guessing. I've never seen a game deciding play at the plate where the umpire made a signal like it was the first inning of an exhibition game. He had no clue--and to be fair, how's he supposed to? Look at where the umpire is standing at 1:59 of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXdmfcMi4gY He's got the catcher's body blocking him. There's no way he can see the ball, the catcher attempting to make a tag, or if Holiday's hand somehow got around the catcher's foot. And he's trying to make a call that will end up sending a team home? Gotcha. Sorry for taking slight offense there. I don't like baseball, but even I'll watch some of the MLB playoffs. It's usually good stuff. It just seems stupid to me that games can end like the one last night. These plays happen so fast, I'm amazed they get as many right as they do. But for the ones they miss...why not help em out with instant replay, if you have the tools to do so?

Instant replay needs to be in baseball in some form. Even if it's just to review home run vs. no home run. You wouldn't think that they'd be able to mess that up, buuuut they do. And it's stupid to not be able to review it. If you've already got 3 hour long games, what's another 5 minutes to make sure that the right team wins? I mean, over the course of the season, these teams are playing games for upwards of 400 hours. Their fans are watching them for upwards of 400 hours. And all that goes away because an ump guessed if the guy touched home plate. I don't know what the perfect system is. Maybe each team should have 2 challenges over the course of the game, maybe replays should be called for by the booth, maybe the umpire should just be able to say "I want to see that one again". But it needs to be there in some form. I don't even care if it's just the playoffs (and extended regular season, playoff-but-not-really-a-playoff games). I think the booth review would be the way to go, myself. It's not hard to see when a play was close enough to review. And in most cases one look at the TiVo would be enough to confirm the call was right/wrong. You're talking a really, really small percentage of plays that need a closer look. And when that much money is on the line, when that many jobs are potentially on the line, when fanbases have invested hundreds of hours in watching the team and shelled out tons of money to do so, the league owes it to everyone to not let a game come down to a guess. That's what it was. I don't buy that "The delay was so he could see if the catcher had the ball" excuse. It was pretty obvious that he didn't. The Padres manager said to him that it looked like the guy touched home. Because it did at first. I was watching Sportscenter last night and they were breaking it down and one of the anchors goes, "Wait. Did he even touch the plate?" Then they watched it again and the other guy just started laughing and said, "No, he didn't! Ohhh man! He never touched home plate!" So I also don't buy that since there was no argument it means it was the correct call. It was pretty tough to pick up live. And I'm sure it was even tougher to see from the dugout. Get used to it? Really? Now think how more amazing things would be if, ya know, they guaranteed that home runs weren't called foul balls and whatnot.

I don't even like baseball (apart from watching Roy Oswalt pitch) but the finish in that Rockies/Padres game was amazing. I just want to know how many more blown calls in the postseason (or an extended-regular-season-but-not-technically-a-playoff game) are going to happen before baseball gets out of the stone age and allows instant replay? I can understand why they wouldn't want every checked swing or every close play at first to be reviewed, but at some point in games like this the emphasis has to be on getting the call right. There have been too many home runs ruled foul or vice-versa (plus whatever happened tonight, I missed the home run/no home run call) over the years, and it's completely avoidable. 163 games, an amazing finish in that last game, and it comes down to a blown call at the plate, where the umpire was clearly unsure what the correct call was. What the hell would be the problem in letting them look at the video. f*** the purists. And BTW, when that dude came in to start the top of the 13th and I saw his record was 0-5 and he had 0 saves in 7 opportunities, I just started laughing and said, "There's the guy you want in the game." He then proceeded to throw like 8 balls and 2 strikes, one of which was hit out of the park, before he got yanked. I wish I could've bet on that. I wonder if Rockies fans had the same reaction when that dude came in that my dad usually has when the Tigers put in Grilli...

It was that ugly on defense in the first half! Luckily they got it figured out. I don't like giving up 300 yards in a half to a team that lost to Duke, though. I thought they waited way too long to put Henne back in. Nothing against Mallett because I think he's going to be a great, great player, but Henne moved them on the first drive and then we really didn't do anything the rest of the half. That might be more because they're scared to let Mallett do anything. It wouldn't shock me if we ran on every single first down in the first half. It was getting ridiculous. You'd think that if they're completely loading up on our zone left run, a play fake would work pretty well. Not that we'd try one. Our FG kicking is an absolute disaster.

So is he the first player ever suspended before he played in an NHL game? Probably the first to draw a significant suspension at the very least.

Yeah but the Bears are really hurting right now. Brown and Dvoracek are out for the year, both their starting CBs (Tillman and Vasher) are going to miss the game, Archuleta is playing with a broken hand, and Lance Briggs is probably not going to play either. The Lions shouldn't have any problems throwing the ball on them, given that they don't have any of their starting 4 healthy. And if the Lions can put up 21-28 points, there's no way the Bears are going to be able to keep up with that. I've got every confidence that the Lions will sent the Bears to 1-3 this week. They were playing bad enough before their entire defense got hurt....

I thought that "Smiley faces and s***" automatically meant that you were trying to talk smack. Not that you were joking.

I guess I don't see what's so great about Dallas's. I'm biased since those jerseys (and the players in them) always kicked our ass in the mid 90s, but they're just kind of blah. They're almost identical to the old Lions jerseys, just with a different blue color. I like em ok, they're not ugly or anything, but there's nothing distinctive about them. Different strokes I guess.....