• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
haroldsnepsts

Buccigross on the Red Wings

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm not worried about Dats not scoing in the P/O this year as if they stick to our current 1st line he'll be ok. Its our 2nd line that worries me at present, and not just for their current slump. In terms of playoff's if we put Sammy in the equasion as well the 4 of them have played a total of 111 games scoring 18 goals and 44 points in all. The concern is that Langer has 37 of these points himself. The other 3 have a combined

to play 42 games for just 7 points, kinda worries one doesn't it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about Dats not scoing in the P/O this year as if they stick to our current 1st line he'll be ok. Its our 2nd line that worries me at present, and not just for their current slump. In terms of playoff's if we put Sammy in the equasion as well the 4 of them have played a total of 111 games scoring 18 goals and 44 points in all. The concern is that Langer has 37 of these points himself. The other 3 have a combined

to play 42 games for just 7 points, kinda worries one doesn't it!

The Wings will add a guy like Guerin and all that will most likely change our 2nd line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..............wow. huffin glue there bud?

oh c'mon you know he's right. hasek gets credit only when it would make the writer or analyst look bad if he/she didn't give it. open your eyes.

This year he has a 2.05 gaa and he has 6 shutouts already. His two previous years with us in 01-02 and 03/04 he averaged 2.17 and 2.20 gaa and had 7 shutouts total. Obviously he is having a better year this year for the Wings statistically than he has in the past. I will admit in the playoffs he was outstanding 2002. I just don't see why you think that was so farfetched

Edited by Mudvayneowns91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude arguably should've won the conn smythe that year. he's playing great now but without him in 2002 there's reason to believe we go home without a cup.

He was amazing in the playoffs, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I'm shocked he's having a better regular season in 07 than he has had for us in the past and that in the regular season in the past, he did seem shakey at times. Let us not forget in 2002 we had one heck of a team in general. Hull, Luc, Shanny, Feds etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh c'mon you know he's right. hasek gets credit only when it would make the writer or analyst look bad if he/she didn't give it. open your eyes.

Yeah, 5am, wee hours in the morning eating breakfast getting ready for work, I'm so tired! Maybe I should chug some more coffee to wake me up...

I think it is you who needs to realize that it is not a travesty if he isn't mentioned or given credit everytime, everywhere. That doesn't take away from the fact that he's a great goalie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt nothing we dont know. But nobody can deny that goaltending has been as good as it has been since...well 2002, and the defense could be the best since then as well, in terms of its chemistry and balance between stay at homers and offensive guys.

Of course the front needs some work, but a top 5 of Hank, Dats, Homer, Lang and Bert, Guerin, or Tkachuk does wonders when you consider the guy being replace will likely be Williams and/or Hudler.

Hank - Dats - Homer

Sammy - Lang - Guerin/Tkachuk/Bert

Hudler - Draper - Lapointe/Mayers

Cleary - Franzen - Maltby

That doesnt look so bad when you consider the defense and goaltending package that goes along with it.

Ive got a 5 buck bet that says if Detroit gets Lapointe, it will be Willy heading to Chicago.

Guerin!! I saw him play Columbus last night and he looked real good.

I would do anything to get Lapointe back. Then maybe we'd have protection for Datsyuk.

dude arguably should've won the conn smythe that year. he's playing great now but without him in 2002 there's reason to believe we go home without a cup.

2 million reasons.

($2 million bonus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dom makes it through to the playoffs and continues the way he's playing, he should be a top contender for the Masterson, if not the Vezina (too political, he won't win). The fact that Dom's been injured in the past isn't unique. A lot of players get injured and can't continue -- they just don't become the center of controversy because of it. Being out injured seems to be somehow blameworthy, when it comes to Hasek. He's Hasek, and he's always been a lightening rod for the media.

I find it interesting, therefore, that the media are ignoring the proverbial 800 pound gorilla this season. Bucci and a few others were high on Dom in the past, and have made predictions that turned out bad, so it appears they won't make that mistake again this season. That way, they can't be wrong in print. I heard Darren Pang say, after Dom was injured in Ottawa, that he would not make the mistake of "trusting" Hasek to stay healthy all season. As if it's a matter of integrity or personal worth that Hasek was not able to get back and play? Why wouldn't he play and win and make millions in bonuses, if he were physically capable of doing it?

When Dom isn't mentioned or noticed when he's the NHL player of the month (December), breaking records for wins by a goalie over 40, or when his other contributions go unnoticed or are dismissed and/or diminished (he's number 1 in the NHL again in GAA), it makes sense to me. Sometimes, I think it's a way of reverse-jinxing the possibility that Hasek could get hurt and "let everyone down" again.

PS - We all have to make up our own minds which players are valuable and which aren't. This is just my opinion... no need to try and contradict or chastise me for thinking what I think... OK? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree as well. Bucci's right..Wings aren't a championship team...YET. Give it a couple days and all could be totally changed. ;)

We have about as good as shot as anybody, dont you think? We're a handful of points away from the best record in the league and it's not like we haven't had a fair share of rotten luck with some injuries. If we're not, who is? The Preds? Buffalo? I think we have the talent to take them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time buying this Conspiracy To Discredit Hasek (Or Whatever) based on all this non-evidence...

I mean, let's get real here people, the article mentions ONE PLAYER, who is clearly our best at this juncture, and that is Hank. Lidstrom, Cleary, Dom, Homer, Pavel, etc. have all been great but it mentions ONE GUY and that it happens to not be Hasek is no slight against him or any of the others.

Everyone knows he's the Dominator and he gets all the credit he deserves for being a bazillion time everything-winner and Stanley Cup winning legendary goaltender. Speaking of which...

Vezina (too political, he won't win)

Let's get real here, too. He's won these awards a gazillion times; it really ought to put to rest any "political" whatsits. If he doesn't win it this year (he won't) it'll be because Martin Brodeur or maybe Roberto Luongo was the better goalie.

Edited by Heroes of Hockeytown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have about as good as shot as anybody, dont you think? We're a handful of points away from the best record in the league and it's not like we haven't had a fair share of rotten luck with some injuries. If we're not, who is? The Preds? Buffalo? I think we have the talent to take them down.

We've had the best record in the league for a few previous years - see how far that's gotten us in the playoffs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone who has followed hasek thorughout his career knows he's been discredited and to be frank, s*** on whenever someone gets a somewhat credible chance.

I love statements like this one, because they have built into them the logic that if you disagree with the statement, it therefore must follow that you are not anyone who has followed hasek throughout his career.

so simple. such an elegant pre-emptive strike on any dissent. genius.

I think Hasek is a great goalie and generally gets plenty of credit and praise for his abilities and performance.

I guess I must not have followed him throughout his career then.

Edited by haroldsnepsts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add a bit further to Heroes of Hockeytown's last post...

15 teams.

1 or 2 paragraphs a team that probably consist no more of 5/6 sentences.

There’s only so much you can write about or people to talk about before pissing off your targeted audience when they figured out they are reading a 20-page essay instead of a 1-2 page synopsis.

Bucci doesn’t even mention guys like Niedermeyer or Pronger from Anaheim, Iginla or Phaneuf from Calgary, Modano from Dallas, Nash from Columbus, or Lidstrom from our favorite team. These are guys I’d definitely consider high impact players as well.

Some of you are making too much of a big deal is being made of this IMO when other big guys like the ones I mentioned above aren’t mentioned as well positively or negatively. There’s not really any spilled milk to make a fuss over with.

Maybe Buccicross and other media outlets just don’t care as much about mentioning Hasek one way or the other, positively/negatively, especially when there are no groundbreaking events that might have just happened about him or anybody else. There’s nothing wrong or slighting about that. Sometimes no news is good news.

anyone who has followed hasek thorughout his career knows he's been discredited and to be frank, s*** on whenever someone gets a somewhat credible chance.

Yeah, those 6 Vezinas he won are nothing then. He clearly had noting to do with winning them. Discredit all around. :rolleyes:

Give me a break...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting question here is: How do you guys think the Red Wings will react going into the playoffs not as the favorite? Do you think there is less pressure? Will that help them or maybe harm them? The expectations don't seem to be as high, from what Buccigross is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buccigross is good. His analysis is usually spot on. I think it is in this case, obviously, since I say the same thing all the time.

Speaking of Zetterberg and Datsyuk, one of my pet peeves is when people lump Zetterberg into the "has to prove he can score in the playoffs" pile with Datsyuk. Zetterberg doesn't have to prove any such thing. He potted 6 goals in 6 playoff games last season. For some reason, people aren't doing their research and Hank gets stuck with a label he doesn't deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tunbo Batman   
Guest Tunbo Batman

lol, ive even seen hank labeled with "guys who have won a stanley cup as a rookie and thus are not hungry in the playoffs" ...how ignorant do you have to be? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately Nashville and Anaheim are better teams than Detroit, but do you guys think that San Jose and Calgary have a better shot at the cup than Detroit does? and Dallas is 11th? or are these what he guessed before the season started?

before the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had the best record in the league for a few previous years - see how far that's gotten us in the playoffs...

I know what you mean, but Idk.... Having the best record in the NHL is what every team aims for before the playoffs begin. Winning the Presidents Trophy is an honor. but it doesn't guarantee a cup.

Definately Nashville and Anaheim are better teams than Detroit, but do you guys think that San Jose and Calgary have a better shot at the cup than Detroit does? and Dallas is 11th? or are these what he guessed before the season started?

How do you figure? The Wings are higher in the standings than both teams.... I know it doesn't mean we're necessarily better, but..... How can you justify "definitely"

Edited by Mudvayneowns91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this