calfan

Nah - its just you. Your link shows goal 1 by Iginla.

Sorry to nitpick, but it's late and I'm tired. The cut above his eye was from Phaneuf a couple of shifts earlier. Iginla scored that goal.

The Flames Eric Nystrom did this earlier this year in the minors. I think Avery is a tool and he proves it almost every game. There's no room for that in hockey. And the comment that a 10 minute misconduct could be given is exactly right.

Gotta hand it to the CBC announcers. As soon as SJ went up 3 they said that's the scariest lead in hockey and the hardest to hold. They're golden now.

We just slowed down the Nashville goal - and I do mean goal. That puck was in before the net was off. Not sure why they didn't go upstairs for a review.

And bulls*** has been called on the play. The off-ice officials can only rule on activity directly involved with the puck going in the net. Things like whether it was kicked, hit with a high stick, after the whistle, etc. They can't override a linesman's call. Have you ever seen the ref go for a video review because there was the possibility the guy was offside before the goal? Don't make things up.

I don't buy that. Many people would point out that Lidstrom's trademark flick of the stick in a guys hands to steal the puck is a hooking penalty against most other players/teams in the league. They would tell you the Wings are a "clean" team only because the refs let them get away with things that get called on other teams. What it comes down to is that it's all in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the only impartial beholder is the referee. The rest of us are just armchair critics.

Precisely. What goes around, comes around. Just hope y'all are as understanding when it comes back around on the Wings again The offside was one of two calls "missed" on the play. Many times, Zetterberg would have also been called for tripping as he knocked down Webber with his stick just prior to sliding away into the slot for the shot.

Nice textbook trap being deployed by the Wings.

So the road warriors won 3 of 4 games last night, a fairly common occurence. You have to wonder why the GM's haven't petitioned for the higher seeded team to choose whether they start at home and play 2-2-1-1-1 or start on the road and play 2-3-1-1. Due to a scheduling conflict, the WHL Calgary Hitmen began the second round of the playoffs on the road. They split the away games and have come back to Calgary and taken two in a row with an opportunity to win at home on Friday night. In 2004, the Flames opened on the road in every series and except for the first round, won every game. I think for some teams opening on the road is easier. Sure you have to contend with the crowd, but you have to sooner or later anyway. But you can get away from the distractions in your home city (family, fans, etc.) and get focused on the task at hand. There's also less pressure starting in front of the other team's fans. Lastly, a split away is vastly better than a split at home.

Sure 3-2-1-1. Might put a little more interest into the regular season for some teams. I won't advocate that though - my team isn't likely to be President's Trophy winners any time soon. I'm not saying mandating the 2-3-1-1, I'm saying that the top seeded team in a series gets the choice. You would have to weigh all the factors in making your decision and of course accept the criticism of making the wrong choice if it doesn't pan out. Suppose the team you're playing, for whatever reason has owned you in your own arena all year, but couldn't beat you in theirs. Do you start on the road? Maybe not because it might be motivation for them - they're scared of us. On the other hand, you might play better at home if you come in with a 2-0 series lead.

This isn't relevant. You get the same number of home games regardless because its a best of 7 series. 4 game series - 2 on the road, 2 at home is not different than 2 at home and 2 on the road. 5 games - game 5 is still on home ice. 6 games - 5 is still at home 6 is on the road and 7 is at home. There is absolutely no difference in the number of home games played.

I don't think any ref is biased against any teams per se. I have no doubt they have pre-conceived notions of players and perhaps to an extent teams that unconciously creep into their calls. If you turn and see a guy lying on the ice bleeding and Chris Simon is standing over him, you might have a different view than if its Lidstrom. Having not seen anything, you might be more apt to put your hand in the air, know what I mean? I also think that for some teams, certain referees are better than others. A ref that calls every little tug or calls a penalty everytime a guy falls in traffic isn't going to be a favorite of a team that likes to play with an edge. A guy who likes to "let em play" and only calls the clear penalties is better for that team, but worse for one that likes to get the PP unit on the ice a lot. Example last night in SJ. Two teams that like to play physical and a total of 5 penalties the whole night. They were all calls that had to be made. For the rest, they let them go. I know other refs would have called probably 5 times as many penalties. I think intelligent fans on both sides were probably happy with the officials. On the other hand, if either team had been playing the Wings, I think the avg Jane and Joe on this site would have been up in arms. I will get to one game for sure. The rest depends on the Flames.

Actually the Flames fans' fav ref to hate was McGeogh. He was honored for his 1000th game in Calgary. Wife and kids out on the ice for the presentation and everything. The crowd boo'd him the whole time. I was actually embarrassed.

Crap - forgot the Wild would end up with Nashville. Technicality got in the way of my ha ha.

Thanks for the advice. There's no tongue in cheek smileys and I wanted to make sure people knew I was (somewhat) kidding. McCready is a good ref so long as you aren't a Flames fan (oops was the my outside voice?)

If Calgary beats SJ in the first, they'll easily beat the Wild in the second.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah A game has yet to start and y'all are whining about the refs already. God knows the people on this site are far better equipped to officiate NHL games than the people actually paid and trained to do so. Hey mods, why not rename this the LGW WAH Page I was going to create one specifically for the playoffs, but this one will do. That way all y'all can post all your whiny cry baby comments about the officiating here and leave it out of the other threads and improve the intelligence of those discussions.

Now that I have your attention, there's an interesting little fact I noticed today. Of the 10 youngest teams in the NHL, 7 are not in the playoffs. They happen to be the youngest 7, followed by Mtl, Pitt and NYR. Of the 10 oldest teams in the NHL, 8 are in the playoffs. The 2 out of the playoffs are the 4th and 5th oldest in the league. Two of the leading favorites, Det and Ana, are 1-2 in terms of age. Now, let's make it clear there is only 5 yrs difference from youngest to oldest and just because the Wings are the oldest, it doesn't mean they don't have young players. And given their avg age is 31.8 yrs, they are hardly old. So clearly (based only on my limited sample of this year) age and experience are key factors to making the playoffs. Are they key factors to winning the Cup? Detroit is the consensus winner based on the betting line. No one in their right mind would suggest the Ducks don't have an excellent chance to repeat. However, lots of "experts" like the youth in the East and Mtl, Pitt and NYR also get serious consideration as Cup winners this year. Of course it doesn't hurt that these same experts assume the Western teams are going to beat each other up badly in the first 3 rounds. Personally I would take Lidstrom over any of his younger challengers on d. Hasek, on the other hand, is a disaster waiting to happen IMO. But with age comes experience, calmness and determination. Wiley veterans can make a huge difference to a team. On the other hand, younger players recover better and the long playoff grind doesn't affect them as much as older players. They can also lift older players to greater heights with their youthful enthusiasm. Many teams have that all rookie energy line they can use to build the big MO. The Oilers dynasty consisted of a bunch of young players running all around everyone on the ice. So, which will win out, age and experience or youth and energy? By the way, the perfect blend of both - San Jose sits right smack in the middle of the pack.

I think they'll be fine putting the goals in the net and I'm not that worried about secondary scoring except as to whether it can make up for my belief that there will be a drop-off in scoring from the top guys. And I'm not saying goaltending is a weakness, its just a question for me. If I had doubt about the team's ability to compete, it would be on the backend. Can Hasek keep it together, stay healthy and keep the GAA to 2 or less? I don't know. I do know he's going to see a lot of traffic and he's going to get snowed and bumped and everything else to get him off his game. No different than what every other goalie is going to see, but the other goalies aren't his age and known for his volatility. As for injuries, that's a big crapshoot in any case. You know there will be some, but who and how bad are the things that will make or break your team. I think the Wings can survive without one of their top 3 forwards. No such chance if Lidstrom goes down.

West Detroit 4-1 San Jose 4-1 Colorado 4-3 Anaheim 4-2 East Montreal 4-2 Pittsburg 4-0 Philadelphia 4-2 NYR 4-3

Of course they can - anything is possible. But to quote Captain Jack Sparrow "Not probable".

Calgary may beat the Sharks, but it won't be quick. The Sharks were the one team I didn't want to play. The Flames won the season series 3-1, but 2 of those games they were badly outplayed and Kipper stole the wins for them. I like the Wings chances, but while its not a popular opinion on this site, I still have questions about Datsyuk's and Zetterberg's ability to win the big games (same type of questions that dog Thornton). And I know its weird to think this of the Jennings winning team, but the biggest questions for the Wings are in goal. But as you said, playoffs is a crapshoot and the odds change on a nightly basis. Stay healthy, get key goals, limit shots against - the keys to winning for every team.

Cuz, like I said - simple strategy, but execution is key. I should have added that execution isn't easy. Quite frankly, that is the same strategy to beat most teams in one shape or another. I wouldn't necessarily say its a Wings strategy, at least not the pound into the boards part, but they definitely do their best to get on the d, rush that first pass and bottle teams up in their own zone. You hear ad nauseum how the Wings play a puck control style - when they don't have the puck they press very hard to get it back. Many people will tell you the key against the Wings is to keep the puck away from Lidstrom as much as possible. Dump it to the other corner. Get on him quickly to force him to pass before he wants to. If other teams know this, so do the Wings. Don't you think the coaches will have good strategies for defending against that strategy? I don't think the Wings are easy pickings - I just think that if you are going to beat them, that's the way you will have to do it. A team like the Calgary Flames certainly isn't going to win playing the Wing's game up the centre of the ice. That's an easy strategy for losing.