Why isnt Osgood starting

[therock48880 14]

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.

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 just hate it when people can't show good sportsmanship and admit defeat. I agree, I felt the Wings were capable of beating the Ducks last year. But, they didn't do it. I'm not going to sit here and lament the "should haves". They lost, it's that simple. Move on and make the necessary adjustments to overcome those "bad breaks".

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

For me it comes down to this:

The Ducks found a way to win, and the Wings didn't. The series wasn't given to them by the refs, or by a series of fortunate bounces. They found a way to win.

Therefore the Ducks were the better team.

[therock48880 14]

For me it comes down to this:

The Ducks found a way to win, and the Wings didn't. The series wasn't given to them by the refs, or by a series of fortunate bounces. They found a way to win.

Therefore the Ducks were the better team.

I couldn't agree more.

[eva unit zero 271]

For me it comes down to this:

The Ducks found a way to win, and the Wings didn't. The series wasn't given to them by the refs, or by a series of fortunate bounces. They found a way to win.

Therefore the Ducks were the better team.

The Wings had been the better team through four games and 55 minutes. Then, a lucky bounce allowed Anaheim to avoid going down 3-2 in the series. Do you think Anaheim, who had never led the series until that point, would have won games 6 and 7 facing elimination? I don't.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The Wings had been the better team through four games and 55 minutes. Then, a lucky bounce allowed Anaheim to avoid going down 3-2 in the series. Do you think Anaheim, who had never led the series until that point, would have won games 6 and 7 facing elimination? I don't.

No they weren't. It was a very well matched series, but the Wings were not the better team through that much time.

As I pointed out earlier. The Wings won the first game because of two completely lucky bounces that led to their only goals. They won game one off two complete fluke goals.

If Anaheim wins game one and shuts out Detroit in their own building, do you think this series even goes 6 games before the Ducks win?

Edited October 19, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Isn't this thread about Osgood?

Just lightening the mood.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Isn't this thread about Osgood?

It hasn't been for a while now.

It's about how the Wings were clearly the better team but were robbed of the Stanley Cup by the refs and cruel cruel fate.

[eva unit zero 271]

No they weren't. It was a very well matched series, but the Wings were not the better team through that much time.

As I pointed out earlier. The Wings won the first game because of two completely lucky bounces that led to their only goals. They won game one off two complete fluke goals.

If Anaheim wins game one and shuts out Detroit in their own building, do you think this series even goes 6 games before the Ducks win?

Maybe not. But my argument was not 'Anaheim was the only team that had any fortune in the series' it was 'without this singular lucky bounce, Detroit wins the series.'

[Packer487 3]

It hasn't been for a while now.

It's about how the Wings were clearly the better team but were robbed of the Stanley Cup by the refs and cruel cruel fate.

It was about Osgood until you picked one throwaway line out of a pretty long post about Osgood and flipped out about it.

For me it comes down to this:

The Ducks found a way to win, and the Wings didn't. The series wasn't given to them by the refs, or by a series of fortunate bounces. They found a way to win.

Therefore the Ducks were the better team.

Pretty great sport we've got where the better team always ends up winning.

It truly is amazing that you can't wrap your head around the idea that sometimes things happen over the course of a series. That sometimes the puck bounces your way and sometimes it doesn't. That the perfect setup hits a rut in the ice and bounces over your stick. That you get the short end of the stick on bad calls.

I can appreciate the point that the Ducks found a way to win that series. Even with the BS penalty on Datsyuk, they still had to convert on that PP and still win in OT. Even with the BS tying goal that they were given, they still had to win that game in OT. But I 100% disagree that they were the better team in that series. And there's a lot more that goes into it than "They won. They're better."

Brendan Morrison said it best:

"Sometimes the best team doesn't always win."

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

It was about Osgood until you picked one throwaway line out of a pretty long post about Osgood and flipped out about it.

Pretty great sport we've got where the better team always ends up winning.

It truly is amazing that you can't wrap your head around the idea that sometimes things happen over the course of a series. That sometimes the puck bounces your way and sometimes it doesn't. That the perfect setup hits a rut in the ice and bounces over your stick. That you get the short end of the stick on bad calls.

I can appreciate the point that the Ducks found a way to win that series. Even with the BS penalty on Datsyuk, they still had to convert on that PP and still win in OT. Even with the BS tying goal that they were given, they still had to win that game in OT. But I 100% disagree that they were the better team in that series. And there's a lot more that goes into it than "They won. They're better."

Brendan Morrison said it best:

"Sometimes the best team doesn't always win."

Okay Captain Hyperbole, here's my first post on this topic. Care to show me where I flipped out? Was it the one exclamation point?

I agree with most of what you said, but this is a massive overstatement that's been thrown around a lot here.

Even aside from one "bad" call (are you referring to the one on Dats for interference? because that was a pretty solid call) or one bad play by Lilja, or whatever people claim is the one bad break that cost the Wings the series, they still had to win two more games against Anaheim. That's a tall order. And that was just the conference finals!

It's not like they lost in OT of game seven because of an unlucky break. They had to win 6 more games against two very good teams.

It is truly amazing to me that you only seem to recognize the bad breaks Detroit got but don't acknowledge the ones Anaheim had. Like I said, they lost game one of the series on two bad bounces. Imagine if Detroit lost that way. People would still be talking about it. Yet because it happens to the Ducks, no one mentions it when they talk about the series. It's like it never happened.

or they forget how Detroit went 0 for 7 on the powerplay in game 5. They only remember the "bad" penalty on Datsyuk and the bad play by Lilja.

Sometimes the best team doesn't always win one game. Over the course of a seven game series, they do. And beyond that, the really good teams find ways to win the game even when they've been outplayed. In my book if you're being outplayed or playing poorly and still figure out a way to come away with the W, you're the better team.

Since we're playing the quote game, I think Chelios summed it up well after the Ducks evened the series at 2 game a piece.

"We had breakdowns defensively. We've got one of the best goalies in the league, if not the best. But we somehow found a way to make him look bad, and we've got to find a way to correct that. You can say it was bounces or deflections or screens, but you make your own breaks. They worked hard, they were in position and made some plays."

or Babcock after the Wings lost the series.

"Games 4 and 5 where we played at every opportunity to win and let them slip away, that in the end cost us. You have to tip your hat to Anaheim. They've got a good team and they found a way to get it done, and they are going to play a good Ottawa team."

EDIT: And back to my original point, which wasn't really about Anaheim being the better team. It was that the Red Wings were not merely a bounce or two away from the Stanley Cup. Better or not, they still had to win another game against a very good team in the Ducks. And then they would've had to beat another good team in the Senators.

They were not a couple bad breaks away from the Cup.

EDIT: And apologies to all for my dragging this thread WAY off topic.

Edited October 19, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[norrisnick 1]

No they weren't. It was a very well matched series, but the Wings were not the better team through that much time.

As I pointed out earlier. The Wings won the first game because of two completely lucky bounces that led to their only goals. They won game one off two complete fluke goals.

If Anaheim wins game one and shuts out Detroit in their own building, do you think this series even goes 6 games before the Ducks win?

Then why is it so crazy to suggest similar situations led to the Ducks winning the series?

Did you not see the tying goal in game 5? How much luckier does it get than to have your wrister flip off Lidstrom's stick and over Hasek's shoulder after Franzen botched the clearing attempt?

A 1-0 shutout goes a long way towards building momentum for what would have been an elimination game (in our favor I might add) for game 6.

[Packer487 3]

Okay Captain Hyperbole, here's my first post on this topic. Care to show me where I flipped out? Was it the one exclamation point?

It wasn't necessary to bring up in the first place. What I said was a throwaway line that had almost nothing to do with the point of the post. And now we're completely off topic because you can't get it through your head that sometimes luck plays a factor in playoff hockey and you seem intent on trying to get me to admit that the Senators posed some kind of a threat. Right. So did the Capitals and Hurricanes. It wasn't a "massive overstatement" no matter how much you want it to be so. If we win that game, we're probably 80% to win the Stanley Cup. Losing it probably dropped us to 20%.

It is truly amazing to me

Ahh, I see what you did there.

that you only seem to recognize the bad breaks Detroit got but don't acknowledge the ones Anaheim had. Like I said, they lost game one of the series on two bad bounces. Imagine if Detroit lost that way. People would still be talking about it. Yet because it happens to the Ducks, no one mentions it when they talk about the series. It's like it never happened.

or they forget how Detroit went 0 for 7 on the powerplay in game 5. They only remember the "bad" penalty on Datsyuk and the bad play by Lilja.

As NorrisNick pointed out, if you think Anaheim lost Game 1 on two bad bounces, what's so crazy about me saying that similar bad bounces (or bad calls) played a key role in Anaheim winning the series?

Sometimes the best team doesn't always win one game. Over the course of a seven game series, they do.

But what if the best team doesn't win "one game" on a couple different occasions in a closely contested series. Which is what happened. What's the limit to how many times the best team can lose in a two week span? Is it only allowed to happen once? I think this needs further exploration.

And beyond that, the really good teams find ways to win the game even when they've been outplayed. In my book if you're being outplayed or playing poorly and still figure out a way to come away with the W, you're the better team.

Wait, so in your book if you win you're the better team. But above you just admitted that the better team doesn't always win. I'm officially confused. The better team lost, but the worst team got the W so it makes them the better team, but then the better team would always win and therefore the worse team would have lost. It's very strange...

or Babcock after the Wings lost the series.

"Games 4 and 5 where we played at every opportunity to win and let them slip away, that in the end cost us. You have to tip your hat to Anaheim. They've got a good team and they found a way to get it done, and they are going to play a good Ottawa team."

I'm not sure what the point in showing the Babcock quote is. I don't think anyone would argue that Anaheim was a good team and that they found a way to get it done. Or that the Wings let some opportunities slip away. All I said was that we were a bad call away from beating the Ducks (and therefore winning the Cup since the Senators sucked, disagree if you want). I could've just as easily said we were a bounce or two away, a post away, a lucky break away...it was a very close series and sometimes a bad bounce, a lucky break, a bad call is all that it takes to swing the series.

Say an official in the San Jose series blew a call and said that Lang was offsides before he scored his goal that saved our bacon....would I be allowed to bring it up then? Since I'm apparently not allowed to bring up bad calls that lead to a game-tying power play goal in the last minute or a game-tying third-period goal that shouldn't have counted......

EDIT: And back to my original point, which wasn't really about Anaheim being the better team. It was that the Red Wings were not merely a bounce or two away from the Stanley Cup. Better or not, they still had to win another game against a very good team in the Ducks. And then they would've had to beat another good team in the Senators.

If they disallow that tying goal and we go up 2-0, it's over. No way they beat us 4 of 5 after that. If we go up 3-2 we're probably 80% to win the series. We weren't losing to Ottawa. It's so cute how you keep trying to pretend that they were actually a threat to do something against the Western representative.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Then why is it so crazy to suggest similar situations led to the Ducks winning the series?

Did you not see the tying goal in game 5? How much luckier does it get than to have your wrister flip off Lidstrom's stick and over Hasek's shoulder after Franzen botched the clearing attempt?

A 1-0 shutout goes a long way towards building momentum for what would have been an elimination game (in our favor I might add) for game 6.

It's crazy to suggest that enough of those bounces only went one way, to the Ducks, to decide the series. When clearly the bounces and bad calls were going both ways.

So another way to say it is I don't think you can realistically pick and choose which bounces kept them from the Cup in a series like that one while ignoring all the fortunate bounces that kept them in the series.

It wasn't necessary to bring up in the first place. What I said was a throwaway line that had almost nothing to do with the point of the post. And now we're completely off topic because you can't get it through your head that sometimes luck plays a factor in playoff hockey and you seem intent on trying to get me to admit that the Senators posed some kind of a threat. Right. So did the Capitals and Hurricanes. It wasn't a "massive overstatement" no matter how much you want it to be so. If we win that game, we're probably 80% to win the Stanley Cup. Losing it probably dropped us to 20%.

Ahh, I see what you did there.

As NorrisNick pointed out, if you think Anaheim lost Game 1 on two bad bounces, what's so crazy about me saying that similar bad bounces (or bad calls) played a key role in Anaheim winning the series?

But what if the best team doesn't win "one game" on a couple different occasions in a closely contested series. Which is what happened. What's the limit to how many times the best team can lose in a two week span? Is it only allowed to happen once? I think this needs further exploration.

Wait, so in your book if you win you're the better team. But above you just admitted that the better team doesn't always win. I'm officially confused. The better team lost, but the worst team got the W so it makes them the better team, but then the better team would always win and therefore the worse team would have lost. It's very strange...

I'm not sure what the point in showing the Babcock quote is. I don't think anyone would argue that Anaheim was a good team and that they found a way to get it done. Or that the Wings let some opportunities slip away. All I said was that we were a bad call away from beating the Ducks (and therefore winning the Cup since the Senators sucked, disagree if you want). I could've just as easily said we were a bounce or two away, a post away, a lucky break away...it was a very close series and sometimes a bad bounce, a lucky break, a bad call is all that it takes to swing the series.

Say an official in the San Jose series blew a call and said that Lang was offsides before he scored his goal that saved our bacon....would I be allowed to bring it up then? Since I'm apparently not allowed to bring up bad calls that lead to a game-tying power play goal in the last minute or a game-tying third-period goal that shouldn't have counted......

If they disallow that tying goal and we go up 2-0, it's over. No way they beat us 4 of 5 after that. If we go up 3-2 we're probably 80% to win the series. We weren't losing to Ottawa. It's so cute how you keep trying to pretend that they were actually a threat to do something against the Western representative.

sorry if you're unable to follow my point. I think I've been fairly clear throughout the pages we've beat this topic to death. I notice you also didn't address what I thought were valid points, like the Wings power play was 0-7 in the game that had the bad call on Dats and the bad Lilja play. If their powerplay were working at all, neither of those moments are an issue.

And Anaheim did lose game 1 on two completely fluke plays, both redirected off Beauchemin. If you won't even concede that, then this has been a totally pointless discussion as you're apparently on crack.

At this point it's becoming semantics. And as I tried to point out once again (and to make it less about semantics) my original statement wasn't so much about who was "better" but about saying a few bounces kept the Wings from winning the Cup.

But this has been covered over and over and over. Apparently I don't see that series at all the same way you did.

*putting on my homer glasses*

oh wait. Now I see it!

This thread has gone completely off the rails and it was my post that started it all. I'm sorry for that. I'm done beating this to death and the posts are getting less and less civil. Feel free to make any last words or parting shots on the topic.

Edited October 19, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Izzy24 44]

What are you people talking about?

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

What are you people talking about?

Something that happened 5 months ago, even though the new season has already restarted. Come on guys, there's no sense talking about this now. We'll always have it in the back of our minds, besides we've had bigger disappointments in the past as far as I'm concerned. While we're at it, anyone want to talk about how the Wings should have won the cup in 1942 when they were up 3-0 in the series, before they blew it to the Leafs?

[Packer487 3]

sorry if you're unable to follow my point. I think I've been fairly clear throughout the pages we've beat this topic to death.

You call it being clear to say things like "The better team can lose one game" and then a paragraph later say "To me, if you win, you were the better team"?

I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm just telling you that it doesn't make sense.

I notice you also didn't address what I thought were valid points, like the Wings power play was 0-7 in the game that had the bad call on Dats and the bad Lilja play. If their powerplay were working at all, neither of those moments are an issue.

And in Game 1 the Ducks were 0 for 7. So I guess you can't blame that on Beauchemin after all.

Here's a quote from Hasek from that same article that you pulled the Babcock quote from:

"You have to be a little bit lucky, and [Giguere] was. He won the series for that team."

You can't win in the playoffs without some luck. Hasek gets it. And I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that he got some lucky breaks along the way back in 2002.

And Anaheim did lose game 1 on two completely fluke plays, both redirected off Beauchemin. If you won't even concede that, then this has been a totally pointless discussion as you're apparently on crack.

I don't have a problem conceding that. So now you've got a couple lucky goals in Game 1, the tying goal in game 2 which probably shouldn't have counted, a questionable call leading to the tying goal in game 5, a "fluky" GWG in game 5 and that's just off the top of my head.

But it was insane of me to say that luck plays a big role in playoff hockey? And it was insane of me to say that maybe, just maybe, the better team didn't win that series? When the two teams are evenly-matched as they were, a bad call, a bad bounce, a post, a hill of snow in front of the net, a broken stick, a rut in the ice...any of that can make the difference.

At this point it's becoming semantics. And as I tried to point out once again (and to make it less about semantics) my original statement wasn't so much about who was "better" but about saying a few bounces kept the Wings from winning the Cup.

But this has been covered over and over and over. Apparently I don't see that series at all the same way you did.

That much is obvious, but it's absolute crap that you just write it off to me being a homer and you being apparently unbiased as the day is long.

I don't think Ottawa was remotely a threat, so I have no problem making that statement that we would've won the Cup had we gotten past Anaheim. I would've said the same thing in 1998 or 2002 had we ended up losing in the WCF. The Wings lost two games in the Anaheim series that they dominated, both of which had some pretty fluky stuff happen (and Anaheim lost a game in that series that they dominated).

*putting on my homer glasses*

oh wait. Now I see it!

Really? You're going to pull the homer card again? I'm perfectly capable of watching a game and making my own judgments on what happened.

Sometimes the better team just doesn't win. I feel that the teams were pretty damn close, but the Red Wings were slightly better and just didn't get a lot of the breaks that Anaheim did--the biggie is obviously the tying goal in game 2.

It's not to take anything away from the Ducks because the series before we beat a team that I thought was better than us in San Jose, and I'm sure if we went back through, we had some pretty fortunate stuff happen. But I think we were the better team in that series. It doesn't make me a homer to say that.

This thread has gone completely off the rails and it was my post that started it all. I'm sorry for that. I'm done beating this to death and the posts are getting less and less civil. Feel free to make any last words or parting shots on the topic.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree on it. You obviously think that Ottawa was a better team than I do, which is fine. If we were on the same wavelength there, I think you'd find that what I said was pretty close to accurate.

We were damn close to beating Anaheim. Close enough that a bounce here or a bounce there could--and DID--make the difference. And again, while I'll acknowledge that it's easy for me to argue the point that we would've killed Ottawa since it can't be disproved, they weren't as good as SJ or Anaheim. And as is usually the case, the East sucks.

[Guest Jeremy88]

As a new (kind of, i was a wings fan before but lost interest after the lockout, then became a wings fan again over the summer) hockey fan, I didn't see the playoffs last year, but i heard about it. Whatever, congrats to anaheim i say, we'll get the cup this year

[vangvace 12]

David has been known to beat Goliath a time or two.

In a best of seven series the better team always wins. That's why it's a best of seven and not a "one and your done". Stuff happens, but the better team moves on. If it's because of lucky bounces, flukes, injuries, bad calls, or the easter bunny. It doesn't matter in the end.

Oh and the Wings were robbed in '42.

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

Wow, I'm starting to think I need to find a new team to watch. Red Wings fans are becoming pathetic. To be so spoiled that you'd actually consider benching one of the greatest goalies of all time (u all know it's true) after a few poor starts.... pathetic. I hope we miss the playoffs, put things into perspective.

In fact, lets bench Rafalski, he's -1 overall in +/-.. and bench Lidstrom he was -2 with no points against the ducks, that one performance shows us how bad Lidstrom actually is, the rest of his career has been a fluke (Norris? that goes to the worst defenceman right? Like that Vezina thing)... also bench Zetterberg, he's been getting to many points and is in danger of overshadowing his teammates.

You people deserve Tim Cheveldae in net, not Hasek or Osgood. Congrats on the dumbest thread I've seen here thus far.

[norrisnick 1]

David has been known to beat Goliath a time or two.

In a best of seven series the better team always wins. That's why it's a best of seven and not a "one and your done". Stuff happens, but the better team moves on. If it's because of lucky bounces, flukes, injuries, bad calls, or the easter bunny. It doesn't matter in the end.

Oh and the Wings were robbed in '42.

I'd love to hear your take on the '38 Hawks (14-25-9 Cup winner) or '91 North Stars (27-39-14 Cup finalist).

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Why the hell can't you all have a compromise and just accept that there can be a combination of bad/good bounces that can determine a series, along with a team that's good enough to overcome bad bounces or deflections?

But I guess nothing in here can be resolved so simply then.....

[norrisnick 1]

Because compromises suck.

[vangvace 12]

I'd love to hear your take on the '38 Hawks (14-25-9 Cup winner) or '91 North Stars (27-39-14 Cup finalist).

Cup winner* and Cup finalist. I'm not exactly sure what your asking for though. Are you implying that because they had losing reg season records they aren't worthy of making it as far as they did? If so, does that also mean that you don't feel the seventh or eighth seeds should be allowed into the finals now? (I'm asking not attacking)

*Was best of 5 then.

oh and...

Compromise would cause one page happy tree loving, bunny hugging, kumbaya singing, hippy induced, steaming pile of nothing. Now what type of fun is that?

Edited October 21, 2007 by vangvace

[norrisnick 1]

Cup winner* and Cup finalist. I'm not exactly sure what your asking for though. Are you implying that because they had losing reg season records they aren't worthy of making it as far as they did? If so, does that also mean that you don't feel the seventh or eighth seeds should be allowed into the finals now? (I'm asking not attacking)

*Was best of 5 then.

oh and...

Compromise would cause one page happy tree loving, bunny hugging, kumbaya singing, hippy induced, steaming pile of nothing. Now what type of fun is that?

I guess I would like your explanation of "better". Do you mean better as in better or do you take better solely as the one word reference to "won the playoff series"?

The '91 North Stars beat two teams that had 20+ more wins in the regular season as well as the defending champs in their run to meet Mario. As far as I can see the only thing you could point to in support of them being "better" than those three teams is the fact that they advanced, which leads to circular reasoning.

Why did the North Stars beat the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers?

They were better.

Why were the North Stars better than the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers?

They beat them.

...

[betterREDthandead 58]

Why the hell can't you all have a compromise and just accept that there can be a combination of bad/good bounces that can determine a series, along with a team that's good enough to overcome bad bounces or deflections?

But I guess nothing in here can be resolved so simply then.....

What would be the point of having a forum then?