Echolalia

There was a game a couple years ago around late December where Datsyuk scored with two tenths of a second left in overtime to win the game. It was all the more sweeter, because with 5 minutes left before the end of the third, the Wings were down by two goals.

That second picture is just wonderful

At least you got to see McCarty redebut

He's not on much of a line for offense, so the only time he'll be out there is to agitate.

Conference finals

Lets Go Wings Forums: A Biography

You're missing the point of my post. I referred to getting rid of checking and fighting all together because its such a ridiculous claim and should be a part of the game, as should icings ie sarcasm. If your only argument against icings is because once every 200 years someone gets injured, why don't you focus more on the neglected rules surrounding checking someone on an icing call. They aren't being enforced, and if anything should be made more severe. Then what little injuries that do occur will be punished more severely. No touch icing is for pee-wee hockey leagues, not the nhl where players get paid millions of dollars to play.

I don't expect he'll be back soon. He's been gone for a while already, and reports say he's still having trouble in practices- so much so that he's going in for another MRI. If he's back for the second round I would be fortunate.

Players get injured along the boards all the time, whether from an icing or not. I'm not saying injuries are good, but its hockey, not tennis, and if you're that worried about the possibility of an injury, why not vouch to get rid of checking and fighting all together? They do a heck of a lot more than icing injuries. Besides, there are rules in place to penalize anyone who checks on an icing, the thing is those rules aren't enforced very well, which is the only thing that should be looked at when discussing changing the icing rules.

What will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table if it were brought into the nhl? The only real argument I can think of is less injuries- but as people have already pointed out; icing's aren't an especially common thing in games (approx 5-7) and those where a race for the puck occurs are even rarer. Besides, as Eva has countlessly pointed out already, the only reason a player would get injured on an icing call is through an illegal act by the other player; one that would either result in interference or a check after the play ended- both penalties that should be enforced, but have somehow slipped below the radar even after the 'new nhl' era. So others may say "well if they're so "rare", and the chances of the opposition beating out an icing call are even rarer, why do we even need the rule how it is? The chances are practically 0 of anything happening. Actually, the chances are higher than that, and as I pointed out earlier a good example of this is Datsyuk's intercepting of Nabokov's pass in the playoffs last year which resulted in a goal that would've never occurred had no touch icing been in place. Even though they aren't especially common, they do affect the game, and they can only affect the game if the other team hustles their ass off to earn 100% of it. Also, if you're going to play the 'its not common so lets get rid of it' card, why not get rid of penalty shots while we're at it? They only happen a couple times a year, and there's only a 40% chance of a player scoring on it anyway. So to answer my original question of what will a no-touch icing actually bring to the table? The only actual thing I concluded is less opportunities for an exciting play to occur against the odds of beating out an icing. Instead, we'll have a face-off 100% of the time, and infringing players not even trying to skate because they'd rather save their energy that they'll need after the commercial break because they can't change lines.

1 out of 10 isn't considered "rare" by any means; especially when icings are as common as they are. And in that one scenario out of every ten, it could very easily change the course of the game. Even if it doesn't directly result in a goal, it could result in a face off in the opposition's end that results in a penalty, goal, or whatever you want. Also, that one out of every ten means the team who beat out the icing gets to change their tired players off the ice, thus preventing what could've been a good scoring opportunity for the other team. Also, I believe against San Jose in the playoffs last year, Nabokov had to come out of the net to beat Datsyuk to the puck for what was going to be a negated icing call (of course I could very well be mistaken), and Dats intercepted the pass and scored a playoff goal. Thats a pretty significant one out of ten.

Keep the icing rule how it is. Its the nhl, not pee-wee hockey. If anything the nhl should impose stricter rules against being checked on an icing call. Double-minors for any check on a play which was ruled an icing by the ref, at least.

Money isn't a problem at all. Our younger defensmen are at the point where they're making Lilja and Lebda fight for their jobs- they're obviously capable of playing at an nhl level, and probably at the same level as Lilja and Lebda and for cheaper. Get rid of Lilja and Lebda for an extra 1.5-2 million, bring Meech or Quincy up permanently for just under a million, and resign Stuart for another 3.5 million. So essentially were loosing Lilja and Lebda, and gaining Stuart, Meech/Quincy, and about half a million dollars in cap space. Plus, the cap is rising some more, so we're getting even more room. Lids Kronwall Rafalski Stuart Chelios Meech/Quincy looks fine to me

They are on such an insane hot streak (including destroying the Ducks last night; holding them without a single shot in the third period), have good physical players, good forwards, good defense, and you can tell they're hungry for a cup. In fact, I think a lot of last year's victory over the Sharks was based on momentum gained off of luck. Datsyuk stealing the puck from the goalie, Lang's (yes Lang) clutch shot to keep us in the game. I remember watching the first two games thinking, "theres no way we're getting past these guys", but somehow we did. i know regular season success doesn't mean much in the post season, but if we end up versing the Sharks, we're going to have to play out of our minds.

And this is regardless of what part of the state and what cable provider you have?

Yeah, can someone explain this whole FSN+ or regular FSN thing to me? Am I going to be able to watch the game tonight?

Hopefully when all these players start coming back the team will get huge morale boosters when we'll need it the most. Just think about it- a couple games before playoffs, McCarty debuts. Homer comes back soon after Cleary returns just in time for the post round More reinforcements come in when Stuart comes back; half way through the first round (or just before the second round begins)

you might go so far as to say he'll be his new Mac-daddy

So what game is McCarty planning on coming back, then? Thursday? Next Friday? This weekend?

theres already a thread on this, but whatever I definitely think a suspension should be placed. Its these types of plays that aren't necessary at all in hockey. Its a no-threat situation, he's obviously not going to win the race to beat out the icing call, there's no reason to smash him into the boards. Especially with how fast players generally skate to get to an icing. However, I don't think the nhl should adopt the no-touch icing rule. There are talented and quick enough players to beat out icing calls, and as long as there are in the nhl, then the rule should stay how it is. The players just need to be more respectful to each other, adn realize they can do a lot of damage out there acting as retarded as they do sometimes.

The Wings don't play on Friday

last year's Late Night Crew FTW

its on his facebook

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=page&a...rticleid=356632

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/recap?gid=2008031305 Yahoo credited Downey with the first star