Why isnt Osgood starting

[Packer487 3]

Either way, the point is that it was more than that one call or play that kept the Wings from the Cup. To say that if they get that break, the Cup is theirs is unfounded and pretty arrogant.

Absolutely there was more than one call or play, but it was a very weak call, without it, we more than likely win Game 5. It was weak on its own, but when you factor in the s*** that Anaheim got away with the entire series, it made it even worse. It probably wasn't even in the Top 30 for "things that should be a penalty" in that game. But they call it in the last 2 minutes of a one-goal playoff game. Stellar.

And Ottawa was completely a one-line team. Contain the top line, you beat them. We had the horses to do it. They would've been the third-best team that we would've played last post-season. Call it arrogant if you want, but I would've said the same thing had we lost to Colorado back in 2002 (if we had beaten them, we win the Cup). The East sucks.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Packer487

[therock48880 14]

And Babcock isn't really a big Osgood supporter.

That's a great point. I don't think I've ever heard Babcock say anything good about Osgood.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The loss in the WCF had nothing to do with not being good enough.

I guess I see it more black and white. If you lose something, then you weren't quite good enough to win it. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. If they were good enough to win, they would have won, in my opinion.

[lomekian 201]

Re

1- the ducks were the best team built for playoff hockey in the NHL last year..pure and simple...size, grit, spread of goalscoring, great defense, very good goaltending and a few players sensing it may be their last shot, and quite a few with a lot of playoff experience.

2 -Injuries to wings d, and a few players not fully fit in the playoffs...prob only about 1/2 were at their best in tersm of fitness and niggling injuries

3 - the ducks seige mentality after pronger's suspensions served to strengthen not weaken them

4 - Our covering players we'ren't up to it.....Lilja had a good play offs, but will always have the potential to bea liability, and missing schneids was a big blow

5 - Dom is, was last year, and always has been a better goaltender than Ozzie. Yes his style is unconventional and sometimes backfires, and he is getting older and less agile, but I bet his save % and gaa will be better than Ozzie come the end of the season. Ozzie's a good second or 3rd tier starter or a 1st tier backup and seems happy in his role, and he's a steady eddie for the msot part, but will never steal games like Hasek and doesn't have the same mental strengh bloody mindedness and psychological impact as a fit DOm.......that said, I'd be amazed if this isn't hasek's last year, as he is slowing a little, and I think the wings will look to test Howard at least as backup in 08/09

[edicius 3,269]

And Babcock isn't really a big Osgood supporter.

That's the main reason I'm really surprised about Babcock's choice for starter tonight. Babcock must be really fed up with Dom's performance thus far to go with Ozzie this frequently already.

[HuntsVegas Baby 0]

Thank god smoeone started this thread!

OZZIE OZZIE OZZIE!

[puckloo39 5,686]

That's a great point. I don't think I've ever heard Babcock say anything good about Osgood.

I don't think he dislikes Ozzie... I personally don't know how anyone could dislike him -- although I know some fans have the same level of distaste for Oz as others do for Hasek. But Babs does seem to have certain players that he favors (Sammy?) and gives more time to than others (Hudler?).

As far as Ozzie "bumping" Dom from the net tonight goes, and the gleeful, hopeful noises coming from those assuming this is the end of Hasek's career, don't bet on it. I think this season, there will be more rotation between Oz and Dom, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Dom had to play 56 games last year, since Ozzie was injured for a good part of the first half of the season. That was a lot, and he did it well. By the time Oz was OK, Dom was in a groove (as usual) and there was no point in making him ride the pine just so Ozzie could play. Given the chance, Hasek will be back in form.

The Wings need to get it in gear and play well in front of both goalies. Perhaps taking Dom out of the net vs SJ was a message to the team, and not just aimed at Hasek.

That's the main reason I'm really surprised about Babcock's choice for starter tonight. Babcock must be really fed up with Dom's performance thus far to go with Ozzie this frequently already.

Dom got steamrollered in the Anaheim game, late in the third. No one's said anything, but I wonder how much of that he can take this season. If Babcock is fed up with Dom, I haven't seen that anywhere. If anything, Babcock has been supportive.

[TheBadOne 0]

Babcock's the most underrated coach in the league, IMO.

I don't think any one goalie is getting preferential treatment more than the other. Dom's the guy on the $2M salary, Chris is the one on the $900K salary, therefore the guy with the $2M salary is the starter and the other's the backup. If Chris plays in more games this season, its entirely because of Babcock's philosophy that he who wins plays more. The Wings might not be loud about their love for Ozzie, but considering they brought him back after being claimed from waivers, that to me shows that they've always liked the guy. If anything, I don't think Bowman's ever gone to the media and said Ozzy should be grateful he plays for a team that's great defensively, unlike other goalies wearing a Winged Wheel.

I do feel this should be Dom's last season though. Age is starting to catch up with him for one, and the other being that a Howard/Ozzie tandem for next year is starting to look better and better as the season progresses.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

That's a great point. I don't think I've ever heard Babcock say anything good about Osgood.

I guess I see it more black and white. If you lose something, then you weren't quite good enough to win it. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. If they were good enough to win, they would have won, in my opinion.

Exactly!

Because the better team would have been able to overcome the alleged bad bounce or call. Or beyond that, they would've been able to put the game away so that bad break wouldn't cost them the game.

It's funny to me how we beat San Jose soundly. No bad breaks for that team. We were just better and showed them. But when basically the same thing happens to us against the Ducks, then it's that we had a couple bad bounces that cost us the series we would've otherwise won.

And it's ridiculous that people are outright dismissing Ottawa, for a couple reasons. First, everyone says how they're a one line team. Just shut down that line and you beat them. Yet the majority of people here think our one line team has a good shot at winning the Cup this year! But beyond that, Ottawa was beaten soundly by the Ducks. So maybe it's easy to think that the Wings would beat them too. Only the Wings couldn't manage to beat the Ducks either.

It's ridiculous.

The Wings had a great run, but they were not robbed of the Cup. they were not the better team that caught a bad break. They lost to the better team.

[Opie 308]

The bigger question is why not put Downey in net and let him fight the other netminders. After he knocks both of the netminders out, they will not be able to play. The team can then put another goalie in and it will be an easy win. Especially if Chelios has Downey's back!

[Packer487 3]

Exactly!

Because the better team would have been able to overcome the alleged bad bounce or call. Or beyond that, they would've been able to put the game away so that bad break wouldn't cost them the game.

It's funny to me how we beat San Jose soundly. No bad breaks for that team. We were just better and showed them. But when basically the same thing happens to us against the Ducks, then it's that we had a couple bad bounces that cost us the series we would've otherwise won.

And it's ridiculous that people are outright dismissing Ottawa, for a couple reasons. First, everyone says how they're a one line team. Just shut down that line and you beat them. Yet the majority of people here think our one line team has a good shot at winning the Cup this year! But beyond that, Ottawa was beaten soundly by the Ducks. So maybe it's easy to think that the Wings would beat them too. Only the Wings couldn't manage to beat the Ducks either.

It's ridiculous.

The Wings had a great run, but they were not robbed of the Cup. they were not the better team that caught a bad break. They lost to the better team.

I've gone on record numerous times as saying that the refs didn't cost us that series. But it's also stupid to ignore their impact. Anaheim was given the tying goal for free in Game 2 when Hasek was pushed into the net. They were given a cheapie power-play in the last minute of a game they were trailing in Game 5. To their credit they capitalized on both those gifts by winning both games in OT. But it doesn't mean they weren't gifts. And it doesn't mean that we wouldn't have more than likely won each of those games without those gifts.

This "The better team would overcome it" stuff is nonsense. Sometimes, in a series that closely contested, you can't overcome a team being given a free goal. I'm a believer that even in a seven game series, sometimes the better team doesn't win. You can feel free to disagree (I'm sure you will) but sometimes the bounces/breaks don't go your way, and it was obvious that was the case against Anaheim. But I know we were better than that team.

As for your arguments why it's silly to dismiss Ottawa, neither of them make sense:

1) People say a one line team can't win the Cup, but people think our one-line team can win the cup.

Yeah, and a lot of people are homers, myself included. The fact that people on this board still think this team can win the Cup doesn't prove that Ottawa could've beaten us. That's a huge leap in logic if I've ever seen one. And even I think we'll have a hard time unless Holland finds us another forward. I've said that numerous times as well.

2) Ottawa was beaten by the Ducks so the Wings could beat them too. But the Wings didn't beat the Ducks so how do you know?

That's not at all what I said, but that's cool. I've never really used what Anaheim did to them as support for my theory that we would've run them. Ottawa would've been the third best team we faced in the playoffs. They would've had the 4th best goalie that we would've faced in the playoffs. The East sucks. And, here ya go: We played Anaheim a whole helluva lot tougher. Ottawa just wasn't that good of a team. But the East sucks so they do things like lose 1 game in regulation since January 1 or something. We had the horses to shut the top line, and I just don't see anyone else on that team hurting us.

Put in the words "more than likely would have" into my original post if it makes you feel any better. Is it 100% that we would've won the Cup if we won Game 5--or if Datsyuk hadn't gotten called for that penalty? No. But it probably would've been somewhere in the 75-80% range (80-90% that we beat the Ducks, 90% that we beat Ottawa). So I apologize for pretending that it was that absolute. I'll be more careful with my off-the-cuff-comments-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-point-of-the-post next time...

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I've gone on record numerous times as saying that the refs didn't cost us that series. But it's also stupid to ignore their impact. Anaheim was given the tying goal for free in Game 2 when Hasek was pushed into the net. They were given a cheapie power-play in the last minute of a game they were trailing in Game 5. To their credit they capitalized on both those gifts by winning both games in OT. But it doesn't mean they weren't gifts. And it doesn't mean that we wouldn't have more than likely won each of those games without those gifts.

This "The better team would overcome it" stuff is nonsense. Sometimes, in a series that closely contested, you can't overcome a team being given a free goal. I'm a believer that even in a seven game series, sometimes the better team doesn't win. You can feel free to disagree (I'm sure you will) but sometimes the bounces/breaks don't go your way, and it was obvious that was the case against Anaheim. But I know we were better than that team.

As for your arguments why it's silly to dismiss Ottawa, neither of them make sense:

1) People say a one line team can't win the Cup, but people think our one-line team can win the cup.

Yeah, and a lot of people are homers, myself included. The fact that people on this board still think this team can win the Cup doesn't prove that Ottawa could've beaten us. That's a huge leap in logic if I've ever seen one. And even I think we'll have a hard time unless Holland finds us another forward. I've said that numerous times as well.

2) Ottawa was beaten by the Ducks so the Wings could beat them too. But the Wings didn't beat the Ducks so how do you know?

That's not at all what I said, but that's cool. I've never really used what Anaheim did to them as support for my theory that we would've run them. Ottawa would've been the third best team we faced in the playoffs. They would've had the 4th best goalie that we would've faced in the playoffs. The East sucks. And, here ya go: We played Anaheim a whole helluva lot tougher. Ottawa just wasn't that good of a team. But the East sucks so they do things like lose 1 game in regulation since January 1 or something. We had the horses to shut the top line, and I just don't see anyone else on that team hurting us.

Put in the words "more than likely would have" into my original post if it makes you feel any better. Is it 100% that we would've won the Cup if we won Game 5--or if Datsyuk hadn't gotten called for that penalty? No. But it probably would've been somewhere in the 75-80% range (80-90% that we beat the Ducks, 90% that we beat Ottawa). So I apologize for pretending that it was that absolute. I'll be more careful with my off-the-cuff-comments-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-point-of-the-post next time...

Saying a better team would've overcome it is nonsense?? I happen to think it's true. There are bad calls and bad breaks in any playoff series. the better teams overcome that adversity.

I don't want to get into dissecting your post or what I think are large leaps in logic.

Mainly, my post wasn't directed only at you. I wasn't trying to pin you down on semantics here. My post was directed at the group of people here who offhandedly say things like the Wings just got a bad break and otherwise would've won the Cup, because it's so far from the truth. Even if the bad break cost them that OT game, Anaheim still beat them in game six and won the series 4 games to 2. It didn't even make it to 7 games. And all the claims of momentum and one line teams is pure conjecture.

Could the Wings have won the Cup? maybe. But so could San Jose.

Following the logic people have used, maybe if San Jose had gotten a bounce or two their way against the Wings, they would've defeated us. If not for that late Lang goal, San Jose wins the game and goes up 3 games to 1, which is almost never come back from. So the Sharks likely would've closed out the series against Detroit. Then they probably would match up better against Anaheim than Detroit did, plus they're a familiar opponent an in the same time zone. So they could've beat the Ducks since the Wings almost did, and Detroit only got by San Jose because of a couple lucky bounces. Then on to Ottawa, who is a one line team...

Edited October 18, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Packer487 3]

Saying a better team would've overcome it is nonsense?? I happen to think it's true. There are bad calls and bad breaks in any playoff series. the better teams overcome that adversity.

I don't want to get into dissecting your post or what I think are large leaps in logic.

Mainly, my post wasn't directed only at you. I wasn't trying to pin you down on semantics here. My post was directed at the group of people here who offhandedly say things like the Wings just got a bad break and otherwise would've won the Cup, because it's so far from the truth. Even if the bad break cost them that OT game, Anaheim still beat them in game six and won the series 4 games to 2. It didn't even make it to 7 games. And all the claims of momentum and one line teams is pure conjecture.

Could the Wings have won the Cup? maybe. But so could San Jose.

Following the logic people have used, maybe if San Jose had gotten a bounce or two their way against the Wings, they would've defeated us. If not for that late Lang goal, San Jose wins the game and goes up 3 games to 1, which is almost never come back from. So the Sharks likely would've closed out the series against Detroit. Then they probably would match up better against Anaheim than Detroit did, plus they're a familiar opponent an in the same time zone. So they could've beat the Ducks since the Wings almost did, and Detroit only got by San Jose because of a couple lucky bounces. Then on to Ottawa, who is a one line team...

In a closely matched series, or even a closely matched game, sometimes a goal (or a touchdown) can make all the difference in the wolrd. It's easy to sit there and be like "Good teams can overcome a bad call" but sometimes it's not that easy when there's not a big margin for error in the first place.

I have more of a problem with the bad call on the goal in Game 2 than I do with the Datsyuk penalty because we got bad penalty calls our way as well. We weren't, however, essentially given the tying goal in a game we had to have. It's a nice thought that "if we were better, we'd overcome it" but sometimes it doesn't happen. Especially when the series is as closely matched as that one was.

I realize that it's easy for me to say "We would've beaten Ottawa easily" because there's no way to prove me wrong. But I don't feel that series would've been difficult at all. If you think differently, so be it.

Whether you're being sarcastic or not, I'm with you about San Jose. Everyone around here knows that I was terrified of that team (I started a LONG thread about it). I thought the Sharks were the best team in the West. And had Lang not scored that goal, I don't doubt that San Jose would've won the Cup.

Now, your use of the "same logic everyone else uses" would be closer to the truth if the Wings had been given a bulls*** power play immediately prior to Lang scoring that goal. Or if the Wings had been given the tying goal in a game they had to have in that series (say, game 2).

[Guest jaytan]

Secondly, as mad as I was at Hasek after Monday's game, there is no denying his talent.

Yes there is! The man's gotten old. It happens.

[norrisnick 1]

Exactly!

Because the better team would have been able to overcome the alleged bad bounce or call. Or beyond that, they would've been able to put the game away so that bad break wouldn't cost them the game.

It's funny to me how we beat San Jose soundly. No bad breaks for that team. We were just better and showed them. But when basically the same thing happens to us against the Ducks, then it's that we had a couple bad bounces that cost us the series we would've otherwise won.

And it's ridiculous that people are outright dismissing Ottawa, for a couple reasons. First, everyone says how they're a one line team. Just shut down that line and you beat them. Yet the majority of people here think our one line team has a good shot at winning the Cup this year! But beyond that, Ottawa was beaten soundly by the Ducks. So maybe it's easy to think that the Wings would beat them too. Only the Wings couldn't manage to beat the Ducks either.

It's ridiculous.

The Wings had a great run, but they were not robbed of the Cup. they were not the better team that caught a bad break. They lost to the better team.

I might agree with you saying had we been better (ie better than we were not better than the Ducks) we would have advanced. Because I don't agree that the Ducks were better than us last playoffs. The "better" Ducks were never there on display during that series. It was two very evenly matched teams with the Wings actually carrying the play more than Anaheim did. The Ducks got the bounces in the WCF. We got the bounces in the 2nd round (though the Sharks did help by rolling over and dying in the 2nd half of nearly every game).

In the game of hockey the better team doesn't always win. That holds true for games, and it holds true for series with enough bounces. Unless you are significantly better than the opposition, you're going to need a healthy dose of luck to make it all the way through 4 rounds of NHL playoff hockey.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I might agree with you saying had we been better (ie better than we were not better than the Ducks) we would have advanced. Because I don't agree that the Ducks were better than us last playoffs. The "better" Ducks were never there on display during that series. It was two very evenly matched teams with the Wings actually carrying the play more than Anaheim did. The Ducks got the bounces in the WCF. We got the bounces in the 2nd round (though the Sharks did help by rolling over and dying in the 2nd half of nearly every game).

In the game of hockey the better team doesn't always win. That holds true for games, and it holds true for series with enough bounces. Unless you are significantly better than the opposition, you're going to need a healthy dose of luck to make it all the way through 4 rounds of NHL playoff hockey.

So were the Wings just lucky to get past St. Louis, and then Colorado in 97?

To get past Dallas in 98?

Vancouver and Colorado in 02?

And once again, using this line of reasoning, then it's safe to say the Sharks were also a couple bad breaks away from winning the Cup.

[Packer487 3]

So were the Wings just lucky to get past St. Louis, and then Colorado in 97?

To get past Dallas in 98?

Vancouver and Colorado in 02?

And once again, using this line of reasoning, then it's safe to say the Sharks were also a couple bad breaks away from winning the Cup.

They weren't just lucky, but of course it took some luck. As bad of a goalie as Cloutier is, he doesn't usually give up shots from center ice. That goal turned the entire series around. How bout Patrick Roy doing the Statue of Liberty without the puck in his glove? No one has said that Anaheim completely lucked into winning that series. But they were definitely a luckier team than we were. And in a series between teams that are as even as we seemed to be, a couple breaks can be all the difference in the world.

Against Anaheim the puck just wasn't bouncing our way. I remember one shot--and I don't remember what game it was--where the puck was bouncing toward the net, it hit a patch of snow, and took a 90 degree turn away from the goal. It was that moment that I kind of accepted that it probably wasn't going to be our year.

And I do think the Sharks were a couple of bad breaks away from probably winning the Cup. The Red WIngs, SJ and Anaheim were all very close. And they were all better than Ottawa.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

They weren't just lucky, but of course it took some luck. As bad of a goalie as Cloutier is, he doesn't usually give up shots from center ice. That goal turned the entire series around. How bout Patrick Roy doing the Statue of Liberty without the puck in his glove? No one has said that Anaheim completely lucked into winning that series. But they were definitely a luckier team than we were. And in a series between teams that are as even as we seemed to be, a couple breaks can be all the difference in the world.

Against Anaheim the puck just wasn't bouncing our way. I remember one shot--and I don't remember what game it was--where the puck was bouncing toward the net, it hit a patch of snow, and took a 90 degree turn away from the goal. It was that moment that I kind of accepted that it probably wasn't going to be our year.

And I do think the Sharks were a couple of bad breaks away from probably winning the Cup. The Red WIngs, SJ and Anaheim were all very close. And they were all better than Ottawa.

You think they were a luckier team than we were because you are a Wings fan. That doesn't make it the truth.

For every bad bounce or bad call the Wings got, you're ignoring all the breaks they did have that they didn't capitalize on. Or all the bad bounces Anaheim had that they overcame.

Detroit won game 1 against Anaheim on two completely fluky goals, both last touched by Beauchemin. Those were two extremely unlucky breaks for Anaheim, because it was the only goals they gave up to Detroit that game. But Wings fans here somehow forget those goals. Or I guess didn't think they were lucky. I'm not sure.

The Ducks beat us without Pronger in the lineup in game 4 for chrissakes. The Wings had a golden opportunity to go up 3 games to 1 with one of Anaheim's best defenseman out of the lineup. A guy who plays almost half the game for them. And the Ducks beat us.

In game 6 facing possible elimination, the Wings let Anaheim get up 3 unanswered goals in the first two periods before they finally dug in and mounted a comeback that was painfully close to winning.

It was a close series and the Wings gave them a better run for their money than most people predicted. But Anaheim was the better team.

[norrisnick 1]

You think they were a luckier team than we were because you are a Wings fan. That doesn't make it the truth.

For every bad bounce or bad call the Wings got, you're ignoring all the breaks they did have that they didn't capitalize on. Or all the bad bounces Anaheim had that they overcame.

Detroit won game 1 against Anaheim on two completely fluky goals, both last touched by Beauchemin. Those were two extremely unlucky breaks for Anaheim, because it was the only goals they gave up to Detroit that game. But Wings fans here somehow forget those goals. Or I guess didn't think they were lucky. I'm not sure.

The Ducks beat us without Pronger in the lineup in game 4 for chrissakes. The Wings had a golden opportunity to go up 3 games to 1 with one of Anaheim's best defenseman out of the lineup. A guy who plays almost half the game for them. And the Ducks beat us.

In game 6 facing possible elimination, the Wings let Anaheim get up 3 unanswered goals in the first two periods before they finally dug in and mounted a comeback that was painfully close to winning.

It was a close series and the Wings gave them a better run for their money than most people predicted. But Anaheim was the better team.

That's just the rallying cry of losers that don't want to accept they were good enough to win, but didn't. Using the ol' cop out of "oh the other team was better than us!!" It's crap. Sack up and accept the pain that comes with knowing you should have won but didn't!!

Nancy boy!

[Packer487 3]

You think they were a luckier team than we were because you are a Wings fan. That doesn't make it the truth.

That's a complete bullcrap statement. Give me some credit. I think they were the luckier team because I think they were the luckier team. I'm perfect capable of watching a series and making observations despite by biases, thank you very much.

For every bad bounce or bad call the Wings got, you're ignoring all the breaks they did have that they didn't capitalize on. Or all the bad bounces Anaheim had that they overcame.

Detroit won game 1 against Anaheim on two completely fluky goals, both last touched by Beauchemin. Those were two extremely unlucky breaks for Anaheim, because it was the only goals they gave up to Detroit that game. But Wings fans here somehow forget those goals. Or I guess didn't think they were lucky. I'm not sure.

That's great. It's not like their OT goals weren't just as "fluky".

It's really not that hard to pick out which team is getting bounces and which team isn't. It happens. It doesn't mean I'm trying to take anything away from the Ducks, but they got the bounces and we didn't. Plain and simple. We got those bounces when we won the Cup those three times.

What they also got was a goal awarded to them that should've been disallowed, which, had the correct call been made, would've very possibly led to us taking a 2-0 lead in the series.

The Ducks beat us without Pronger in the lineup in game 4 for chrissakes. The Wings had a golden opportunity to go up 3 games to 1 with one of Anaheim's best defenseman out of the lineup. A guy who plays almost half the game for them. And the Ducks beat us.

Yup. And they deserve credit for it. But as long as you want to talk about missing players, we were playing without 2 of our top 4 (and maybe 3 of the top 6? Lebda missed some time I think), were we not? I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Especially since what Fronger did completely warranted a suspension. I'd feel worse if you brought up Kunitz. But not really since he's a douchebag too.

In game 6 facing possible elimination, the Wings let Anaheim get up 3 unanswered goals in the first two periods before they finally dug in and mounted a comeback that was painfully close to winning.

It was a close series and the Wings gave them a better run for their money than most people predicted. But Anaheim was the better team.

::shrug:: If you say so. I completely disagree, but what I do I know. I'm just a biased Red Wings fan.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Sorry. I just can't agree.

If winning the Cup were really determined so much by lucky bounces as you guys make it seem, I probably wouldn't watch hockey. It would be too frustrating to watch teams win so randomly.

Edited October 19, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[norrisnick 1]

Sorry. I just can't agree.

If winning the Cup were really determined by lucky bounces as you guys make it seem, I probably wouldn't watch hockey. It would be too frustrating to watch teams win so randomly.

When there are two evenly matched teams, what else is left to decide the outcome?

It's also no mystery that the Cup winner is usually one of the healthier teams. I believe in either the '97 or '98 Cup run we only had 1 man game lost to injury and that was because Joey caught the flu. Any winning team will tell you, that you need to be healthy and you need to get the bounces. It's incredibly hard to win without them on your side.

How many times in his two years here have you heard Babcock say "we weren't the better team tonight, but we found a way to win"? Particularly in '05-'06 we did that a lot, relying on special teams and late game surges.

Hit posts, funny bounces, iffy penalties, etc... Any number of minor things can sway the outcome of a game.

Do you at least agree that the better team does't always win a single game? If you do, why does that magically change just because you play the same team a couple times in a row? The bounces don't always even out.

[BlueMonk 102]

I thought the Ducks were the better team last year, at least better built for the playoffs, but it was pretty close. Regardless, I do believe that luck is a huge factor in the outcome of games. Especially the outcome of a (relatively) short playoff series.

[therock48880 14]

That's just the rallying cry of losers that don't want to accept they were good enough to win, but didn't. Using the ol' cop out of "oh the other team was better than us!!" It's crap. Sack up and accept the pain that comes with knowing you should have won but didn't!!

Nancy boy!

You're calling HIM a "Nancy Boy" when he's man enough to admit that the Wings lost to a better team? Yet, many others are whining that they lost because of "bad bounces" and "bad officiating"? That's comical. So, to be a man, he shouldn't accept defeat and SHOULD complain and blame the officials?

Nice seventh grade mentality. Lose and blame everyone else. (I teach 7th grade and that's what the students do EVERY time they lose a football game)

Edited October 19, 2007 by therock48880

[norrisnick 1]

You're calling HIM a "Nancy Boy" when he's man enough to admit that the Wings lost to a better team? Yet, many others are whining that they lost because of "bad bounces" and "bad officiating"? That's comical. So, to be a man, he shouldn't accept defeat and SHOULD complain and blame the officials?

False humility has nothing to do with being a man. I guarantee you not one Wing honestly believes the Ducks were the better team last spring.

Nice seventh grade mentality. Lose and blame everyone else. (I teach 7th grade and that's what the students do EVERY time they lose a football game)

The point is not that I'm blaming everyone else. The point is that the Ducks were not the better team.

I agree that the Wings weren't quite good enough, but I disagree that the Ducks were any better.

[toby91_ca 620]

The point is not that I'm blaming everyone else. The point is that the Ducks were not the better team.

I agree that the Wings weren't quite good enough, but I disagree that the Ducks were any better.

I'm not sure. I think the Ducks probably had the better team, but either way, the teams were close (on paper).

In terms of luck and bounces, people just have to accept the fact that games are sometimes decided that way. Everyone has to remember that the guys out there playing the game are human, they are not robots.

The games are won and lost on the ice, not in some room with people comparing rosters.