J-Swift

My "No Devereaux, no Cup" theory has yet to be proven false either.

If Flip and Hudler continue to provide offence like they have been lately, I think we could do without the second-line scorer we've all been talking about since the off-season. I would, however, like the Wings to get a solid second-pairing d-main who can bring a bit of an edge (easier said than done, obviously). Lidstrom and Rafalski make for an awesome top pairing, but I think there's a bit of a drop-off after that. I really like Kronwall and what he's done lately, but injuries and consistency are still a bit of a concern for him. And we all know the kind of roller-coaster ride that Andreas Lilja's play can be. I can't say I really have any complaints about the third pairing, though. We have a veteran leader and a speedy puck-mover, which is about as good as it gets for your fifth and sixth defencemen.

Ozzie was the only one who really looked fresh tonight. Great game by him. I didn't honestly think we were gonna get our third win in four nights in Nashville's building, but it's nice to see we're still capable of beating teams in the Central division. Even if we maybe didn't deserve it.

Care to explain how Hasek admittingly "protecting himself" is the same thing as intentionally taking out Gaborik at the knees? So what you're saying is, no referee has ever made an incorrect call in the history of the NHL? Your logic is absolutely ridiculous on this point. Believe it or not, once in a while a player will indeed get called for a tripping penalty he doesn't deserve.

Nice cheapshot, dick. That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Furthermore, I'm sure if you asked Babcock if Hasek had an intent to injure, he'd say no. He probably wouldn't even think it was a penalty. And I'm pretty sure Babcock has a little more hockey knowledge than you do. If you think what Hasek did was an illegal play warranting a two-minute minor penalty, you're entitled to your opinion. I'd have to disagreee with that, though I could see how someone could come to that conclusion. But if you honestly believe Hasek was trying to hurt Gaborik as opposed to breaking up a scoring chance, you're stupid. Downright stupid.

That is a totally ridiculous over-exaggeration of what happened on the play. Sure people might be pissed off here. But I fail to see what that proves. We'd be equally pissed off if either of those two were smoked on a 100% clean open-ice body-check.

Lighten up. Ozzie should indeed get the start against the Preds. He plays them pretty well, doesn't he? Gee, I just love when people pull out this argument. You don't think Hasek plays hockey? And I'm pretty sure Mickey Redmond (a former hockey player no-less) was vigorously defending Dom when he was called for tripping.

Believe it or not, I had a feeling you'd react this way. If you think Dom had a weak Game 6, you're entitled to your opinion, but what I was taking issue with was the notion that Hasek was the reason we lost to Anaheim. I don't appreciate him taking flack for his post-season performance when he posted better numbers than in his '02 Cup run.

Here's Dom's take on what happened in the AP Recap:

Alright, how about this: Without Hasek, we simply do not win Game 1 of the Anaheim series. Furthermore, he carried a 1.78 GAA and .923 SP% through the post-season. And I think it's pretty clear that series was lost when the game was tied in the dying seconds of Game 5, and I don't know how you could ever blame Dom for that goal. And are you honestly whining about Dom's poke-check? Seriously. If you don't like Hasek, that's your problem, but try to be reasonable.

Very true. Having both goalies at the top of their game would be a nice problem to have.

That move Hasek pulled at the end of the game was pure Dominator. It's great to see him get a shutout.

I got to it first. Let's just say that their respective careers have taken two different paths since that season.

That chump stole Z's Calder.

Good move. Lilja was starting to get a little complacent.

Lang seems much more comfortable on the Blackhawks; it's hard to believe it's even the same player. Williams is better off in Chicago, too.

We've had more than our fair share of goals called off this season, so you're not going to get much sympathy from us.

The '02 defence had the Norris trophy winner and runner-up on separate pairings, with an up-and-coming Jiri Fischer playing far beyond his years. I think it'd be hard to say that the '97 defence was "much better" regardless of the fact that they had Konstantinov. That being said, I felt the '97 Red Wings felt more like a "team", whereas the '02 Red Wings felt more like the Yankees with the hired guns they had in their lineup.

Lidstrom looked fine to me tonight. He made a brilliant play on Holmstrom's first goal.

Totally agree. There is no way to justify that contract of his. Especially with that "no movement clause". Leaf goalies have given up quite a few goals this season, but it's almost imposssible to blame them for it. The D in Toronto has just been awful, and it's starts with McCabe.

Big game from Ozzie tonight. It is indeed very nice having him around.

That's vintage Draper right there.

I think it's pretty hard to compare records for a franchise like the Vancouver Canucks to records for a franchise like the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Where do you think Sundin ranks among the all-time Leafs, Mack? I mean, he has the major scoring records now, but he's never actually lead them all that far.

I don't see how it's a double standard when Lilja is praised while playing well, and criticized while playing poorly. Personally, I don't mind having Lilja around as a sixth or seventh defenceman. As he proved last post-season, Andreas can step in and play well in a pinch. But a full-time top-four defenceman he is not. That's kinda why I wanted us to re-sign Markov or some other decent complimentary d-man to play with Lidstrom on the top pairing.