Outsider

Funny you should say that, because in Babcock's first year here, he commented that Osgood kept the neatest face-off charts he'd ever seen. No lie.

No. You, (and many others here), simply revert to the Roman Cechmanek argument. It appears to be totally effective. Almost infallible. (Until it's not). And anyone who argues against it is quite obviously "skewing the stats" to support their argument. (Except the stats aren't skewed....they're "stacked"....and in the other direction). And the reason why they can't be taken seriously is because "the stats don't lie." (Until they do).

Well then, that's a definite upgrade over his actual play against Anaheim.

Jeebus.....It just never freakin' ENDS this Season, does it?

When you're angry, you play tight. That doesn't mean that you're scared. When you're tense, you play tight. That doesn't mean that you're scared. There are any number of scenarios where a player could be playing tight, but not be playing scared. Ville Leino, not scoring any goals, was playing tight. Was he scared? I'm thinkin' not. Franzen, when he comes back from rehabbing the knee, might be playing tight for a bit, before he gets his skates under him. That doesn't mean he'll be playing scared. Try again, Broken. Your feeble attempts at logic are amusing, at least.

Here ya go, Broken.....quoted just for you, so you can actually read it this time, rather than engaging in a lot of verbal masturbation over something which was never said.... Kindly point out to me where I stated that Osgood was playing "scared". Because I don't recall having said that, (and I have excellent recall, for the record), nor can I find any record of having said that. What I did say, (and what you would have read....had you actually read the post), was that Osgood was playing "tight". Rather significant difference between playing "scared" and playing "tight". Perhaps a reading comprehension course......community college...... <shrug>

From where? From practice? You want Ozzie to "beat out" Jimmy for a Start from practice? Well, I'd argue that with Babcock stating that Ozzie has "practiced real well the last little while", that he should have had the Start against the Kings tonight. Because "real well" is a fair sight better than Howard did against the Ducks on Tuesday night.

Since you obviously missed this, too.... From MLive.... "Ozzie's practiced real well the last little while," Babcock said.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice that you conveniently ignored my question about which Games have been "thrown away" simply because Osgood was in net. Or is this merely another of the salient points you "won't acknowledge" because you can't refute the facts? Come on, Broken. YOU threw it out there. Defend it.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits.... I've never argued that Howard should be pulled in favor of Osgood. Only that Osgood should be getting some ice time. He hasn't earned a permanent spot on the bench. Period. And the Wings WILL need him. You can count on that. When they DO, it will be in everyone's best interest to have him at least a BIT Game ready.

Name ONE Game since Osgood has been back from the flu that has been "thrown away" mainly due to the fact that Osgood was in net. ONE. I can name TWO, just last month, that were lost MAINLY due to the fact that Howard was just outright BAD: Edmonton. Dallas. BOTH Games which should have been Wins, but were not, mainly due to shoddy goaltending. You could argue that the shorty last night, five minutes into the Game, followed by a SECOND goal 2:01 later, (both of which were awful goals to give up), "broke the back" of the Team. Once Flip got them on the board, and Howard gave up the third goal 2:30 minutes later, you could argue that that "cost them the Game", too. At least be consistent in your criticism. You argue that the two bad goals that Osgood gave up in the 2nd Period against Chicago, (where his Team is outshot by nearly a 2-1 margin, and fails to score a single goal), took the wind out of the Wings sails, and they were unable to come back from that. Then you argue that Howard's equally bad goals, against a bottom feeder like Anaheim, on fewer shots, in a Game where his Team OUTSHOOTS the opponent, is a "fine" Game from him? And I am the one there's no reasoning with?

If you think I've ignored the question, then you haven't been paying any attention whatsoever. I've stated numerous times that I think that HOWARD should be getting the majority of the Starts in net, INCLUDING those against the "tougher" competition, based on the fact that he IS playing well, (aside from last night), and that he has alot of confidence right now. What I've been arguing, (for those like you with ADHD), is that there is NO justification for keeping Osgood ROTTING on the bench, when he is NOT playing badly. As I've said repeatedly, it is possible to play them BOTH, while STILL allowing the "hot hand" to get the majority of the Starts.

Osgood isn't "timid" in net. He just needs to get in a groove. An opportunity afforded to Howard due to Osgood's battle with the flu. That's not what I said. And you know it. You're being a s*** stirrer again. What I said is that Osgood has been expected to come in, ice cold, and instantly be "the best he can be". That's what Babcock has stated that he wants. And we've all seen Osgood at his "very best." When both goalies are at "their very best", Howard can't touch Ozzie. Not yet, anyway.

The goals that Osgood let in against Chicago, (with all the extenuating circumstances of that Game), were no worse than the first two goals Howard let in against the Ducks last night, at equally "bad times" in the Game. ALSO Against a VASTLY inferior Team. Under much better circumstances. You cannot deny that. And even YOU acknowledged it when you saw Babcock's comments about how "good" Jimmy played against Anaheim.

Of course Howard looks like he's battling harder, while Osgood is "sitting in his net". Osgood kows that a questionable goal could probably put him back on the bench for another TWO WEEKS. A goaltender needs to be relaxed in net, to "flow" with the play, to use every piece of equipment like an extension of his body, and for every move to feel instinctual - like something his body "should" be doing. Right now, Howard has the luxury of playing that way. Osgood does not. That's because Howard knows that even after a crappy Game against Edmonton, or a crappy Game against Dallas, or a crappy Game against Chicago, and now a crappy Game against the Ducks.....he's STILL going to get an opportunity to get right back at it. Osgood knows that if he doesn't play at "the best he can be", (again Babcock's EXACT words), he's likely to be benched, AGAIN, for another two weeks, before he's thrown out there and expected to be "the best he can be" when he's ice cold. He's playing tight. Howard is not. If you don't think that's going to have an effect on how a goalie "looks" when he plays, then you haven't ever watched hockey. And you know that's a fact.

Take a quick gander at the "blocked shots" stats over the last little while, Broken. The Wings are last in the League, but over the month of DECEMBER, (when the PK "mysteriously" improved), they improved dramatically in the shot blocking department. If I'm not mistaken, Babcock specifically, and very pointedly, made reference to it as the main reason why the Kill had improve. **Edit** Turns out I wasn't mistaken: Coach Mike Babcock pleased with Red Wings' improvement on blocking shots.... **snip** "Patrick Eaves set the whole thing up," Babcock said. "We never would get in the shooting lane. Suddenly now, we're all in the shooting lane and we're blocking shots, so they don't shoot it as much and you get way more guaranteed outs (puck clearings). "He's been excellent at that and it's been contagious. Now, Helm's doing it and (Drew) Miller's doing it. The more we have of that the better off we are." As I've been saying, ( a ) It's not all Howard, the Team is playing better in front of him than they were at the beginning of the Season and ( b ) It's also the Teams they're facing. It's much easier to play better against Teams which are not as offensively talented.

You're absolutely right, Statts. I haven't posted that anywhere before because I'm NOT going to cite the source. That being the case, I should've kept my big mouth shut on the matter. They were not my words, and I had no right to post anything which was disclosed in confidence. I I'll go back and *edit* my original post. I'd appreciate if you could do likewise, to remove the offending text. You're 100% correct. It should never have been posted here. No matter how heated the discussion.

Ask around for yourself. It's not exactly a secret, if you know how to ask, and who to ask. Hockey "people" aren't like folks in the other pro Sports. They're less insular. More "everyday" types of folks. They don't live in ivory towers, and keep themselves separate from the "little people". They hang out in bars, and drink, and socialize, and chat with "regular guys". And Osgood is very, very well liked - by his teammates. By people in the community. By people in the industry. By everyday Joe's who work at JLA, doing blue collar type of work. He's been treated rather shabbily at times since his return to the Wings. There are plenty of folks, not necessarily "important" types, but those who are "around", those who are in "the right place at the right time", who see......and hear......and recognize shabby treatment when they see it. And they don't like it. Not one bit.

Again, as per usual, you attack the poster rather than address the content of the post. You need to learn to recognize "patterns" when they're blatantly displayed in front of your eyes. Going with a career back-up, (Legace), over an established, Cup Winning Starter, based on a "hot" October? And refusing to deviate from that "plan", even when it proves to be flawed? Going with a career back-up, (Conklin), over the guy who just Won you the Cup the year prior, based on HALF a Season with the Team, and the Starter's struggles? And abandoning that "plan" only when the GM steps in and overrules your decision? Going with a green rookie, (Howard), over a seasoned Cup Winner who led you to the SCF's on the strength of a Smythe worthy performance, based on some mediocre, some good, and some poor, play with a struggling Team in front of your Starter, coupled with some good play in the first 30'ish games from the rookie? Who's wearing the tinfoil hat, here?

*Edited for very bad form*

Well, you could always go back to reading the funny papers, lils....

Babcock doesn't like Ozzie's relaxed attitude. Never has. Babs is an ultra-high intensity individual, and wants his players to be the same: Go! Go! GO!, 24/7. It bothers the Hell out of him that Ozzie is so relaxed and calm. But ask Ken Holland about the matter. He is at least Babcock's equal, as far as hockey knowledge goes. At least. And he has stated for YEARS that those very traits that Bacock find so repugnant in Osgood, namely his calmness and his relaxed attitude, are what have made Osgood so successful over a 16 year, Top 10, NHL Career. Holland would know. He scouted Ozzie. He drafted him. He's known him for his entire adult life, and has had a close, personal relationship with him since he was a kid. What Babcock is asking is that, after a 16 year, monumentally successful career as Chris Osgood, that Ozzie suddenly turn into Ed Belfour. And for no other reason than to conform with Babcock's idea of what the "proper attitude" is for an NHL Starting Goaltender. That's almost as ridiculous as it is egocentric.

Just as he thought Legace was "better". Just as he thought Conklin was "better." You've got to be kidding me. This is not about the hot hand. This is about Babcock exerting his authority, just as he did in 2005-2006, despite warnings from many that it was the WRONG decision. If you'll remember, Babcock had quite an attitutde about that decision, and the controversy it caused, too. The more people questioned that decision, the harder he came out IN FAVOR of Legace as the Starter. He went against all conventional wisdom for no other reason than to prove to everyone who the Boss was. He did it in 2005-2006 to prove that this was his Team, it was his decision, and it was not open for debate, no matter how logical that debate might be. He paid for it. Let's hope he doesn't repeat the same mistake. Again.

Nope. Apparently not. From Babs himself From MLive : Or this according to The Freep: So no. It's apparently not "attitude". Nor apparently is it about how he's practicing. At least, not according to Babcock from MLive today: What else ya got?

"That doesn't mean I'm right, but that's what we perceive as a coaching staff. And yet, Ozzie needs to play some games, but that individual part is after the team." Said Osgood: "Practice hard, that's it. That's all you do. It's pretty cut and dry." I find it a little hard to believe he thinks Jimmy played well against the Ducks. Either that shows just how deep in the doghouse Ozzy is with Babcock, or he doesn't want to come out criticizing his rookie goaltender. Either way, let's hope the Wings get out to a better start and Howard controls his rebounds better. Even the Ducks announcers were pointing out how he needs to get his stick on some of those low shots so the rebound goes airborne and doesn't just bounce off his pads flat along the ice. EDIT: Linky http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20...n_cleary_t.html Ditto. To all of the above.