egroen

I'm actually really suprised he would want to head back to Russia.

In Detroit, defensemen are naturally compared to Lidstrom, and they all fall short. The bar has been set abnormally high here -- so the fact he has not been tarred and feathered yet tells me he has done an awfully good job.

For once, I think the refs are doing a great job... Chicago is playing dangerous; thank you for calling all these!

The league is still over 70% North American -- with europeans and simply increased population in N. America, the hockey population has increased about 5 fold since the Original 6 era. There are now thirty teams (uhhh, Phoenix pending), exactly 5 times the NHL teams from the Original 6 era (though there are also more players per team). This is the first time since the league first expanded that the league has even approached being as competitive from team to team and top to bottom as that 6 team league was. WWII and the 70s (expansion and the competing WHA) are when the league was at its weakest - not the Original 6 era. Anyways, yeah... it's hard to make comparisons, but it is possible to do so rationally, and I think it is fun. If the Norris was around back in Shore's time, he would have had 8 Norris trophies (in addition to his 3 Hart trophies). Source: Total Hockey (which compiles All Star Team Selection voting from the time to award retroactive awards).

I'm not going to argue if we magically transported a 30 year-old Shore into the present, that he would be better than Lidstrom -- I am arguing, based on his accomlishments against the best hockey players in the world at the time, that if he was born in 1979, and had all the modern training, equipment and nutrition that today's players have enjoyed -- chances are, he would dominate today's game as well. Mathieu Dandenault would dominate Shore's era if we teleported him back in time to play in it -- so what?

Yeah, Crosby just rubs me the wrong way... and he apparently rubs a lot of fan and players the wrong way, so I do not think I am crazy. It's simply enjoyable to make fun of the NHL's golden boy, especially after the whole All-Star Game fiasco, which really pissed me off. No amount of Crosby Apologetics is going to make me start liking him, sorry.

No -- most would definitely put Hasek up there with Roy and Plante -- with Sawchuk and Hall rounding them out and Brodeur and Dryden a bit of a step below. Hasek had longevity (especially if you consider his time stuck in Czechoslovakia) as well as the best peak ever - comparable only by Sawchuk. He is actually older than Roy, and destroys him in all categories but Conn Smythes and Cup wins. Once Hasek became a starter in the NHL, Roy never won a Vezina again. The teams they played for might have more than a bit to do with that. Orr, Shore and Harvey are all solidly ahead of Lidstrom according to most ranking I have looked at. Bourque has a strong case for being ahead of Lidstrom as well - but I think Lidstrm is better than the rest, including Potvin.

It is utterly asinine to compare today's players directly to players of the past. Instead you have to compare their accomlishments relative to their peers of the era. Someone like you would state Brandon Inge is much better than Babe Ruth, right?

1) Hasek 2) Lidstrom 3) Jagr

And even if Malkin outscores him...

Fleury lets in a lot of softies as well as bad rebounds and the Pens D is awfully porous... can't keep the Canes from waltzing through with speed.

Why else do you think Ozzie built that lodge in his back yard? He's making hooch!!!

Ted Lindsay Hat Trick 1) Goal 2) Assist 3) Fight with a fan

I play a pretty mean game of bubble hockey (if I do say so myself), and Datsyuk is good -- his pass setting up his first goal against Trevor was particularly sweet.

Lidstrom would be my choice right now. Followed by Franzen and Osgood, with Zetterberg trailing a little.

It is completely unfair to compare Detroit to Chicago - we may as well be comparing Grand Rapids to Atlanta.

They've done a good job at drafting guys with size the past few years -- but they are sticking to their forte and drafting euros, who rarely know how to fight. Big North Americans, with even a little skill, are still being drafted WAY before they should be by most NHL teams... and most of them bust. As long as the Wings keep winning, it is going to be tough to draft any of those chippy N. American boys.

I don't think the officiating in this series has been good - as it has been very inconsistent, but at least both teams seem to be getting screwed over nothing calls while at the same time letting blatant penalties go, but I have not had the sense yet that the refs are having a large influence over the game. Hawks fans should just be happy the Wings special teams have been so awful. That's 11 straight games the Wings have given up at least 1 PP goal - nice handicap. They should just be thankful the officiating thus far has not resembled the Anaheim series, which is just plain the worst I have seen in some time.

I agree - Wings did not look too good, but the Hawks looked worse.

Chicago better hope Osgood starts playing like Luongo!

Maltby will kick ass, guarantee it!

It is pretty damn incredible Detroit's first line can be so invisible, and yet they still continue to win.

LOL! Touchy? That was a bit harsh for a mere observation.

I'm starting to think Sammy + Hudler > Hossa

Sammy had plenty of opportunities to get that game winner earlier, but great job there!