Why do we always have problems with the ducks?

[Izzy24 44]

Is it cheating that Michael Jordan is taller than me and can therefore dunk and I can't?

Yes.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Well, I get called crazy whenever I bring this up but I've always believed that we have trouble with the ducks because on top of being skilled, they're way tougher (argue all you want people, the Ducks would destroy us if things got out of hand) and they're size is too much to overcome in a long series, as was somewhat proven out last year. You can look at stats all you want and say we outshot and outhit and blah, blah. Well, 225 lb guys hitting you will wear you down more than Cleary, Malts and Drapes hitting you over time. We had no answer for the Getzlaf line, even Lidstrom couldn't contain them due to their size and strength.

First, the Ducks have alot of guys with skill

Second, they have pretty good team speed

Third, they're tough as nails and can ice guys who'll drop the gloves on any forward line combo or d pairing they have which I believe plays a part in winning battles, lifting morale, energizing teams and winning games.

Bert 6-3 231

Getzlaf 6-3 221

May 6-1 218

Moen 6-2 215

Niederma 6-2 200

Pahlsson 6-0 203

Parros 6-5 229

Perry 6-3 209

Beauch 6-0 213

Hnidy 6-2 204

Huskins 6-3 209

Odonnel 6-3 224

Pronger 6-6 213

vs the big bodies on our squad

Cleary 6-0 210 (i seriously doubt cleary weighs more than 200lbs, just an observation)

Downey 6-1 215

Ellis 6-0 207

Franzen 6-3 220

Holmstrom 6-0 203

Kopa 6-3 200

Sammy 6-2 213

Lilja 6-3 220

There's really no comparison at all. To a man the Ducks are a bigger, stronger, more agressive team and so long as they have skill to match, we're going to have problems with them. If they were a bunch of giant pilons with no skill sure, we've beaten teams like that forever, but not teams that combine the size/toughness factor with skill

You're crazy Gordie. We lost because the refs made a bunch of bad calls against us and the Wings got most of the bad bounces, that's all. It had nothing to do with the superior size and skill of the Ducks.

/sarcasm

Edited October 22, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[HkyTwn 5]

wild wing thats why.. and i hope for multiple meetings in the playoffs

haha that cracks me up!

[Dabura 12,232]

Why do we always have problems with the ducks?

They're the anti-Wings -- big, strong, nasty, cocky, consistently strong in net, mostly lacking in morality, etc. They know the only thing they need to do to beat us is to simply play their game, and they're going to keep doing that and giving us a hard time until one of these two teams experiences a sea change of some sort.

[Guest jaytan]

We have problems with the Ducks? How could that possibly be?! They're only the best damn team in the entire league.

It sure would help if we were anywhere near as big and tough as they were, or if our guys at least played like they wanted it more.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

You're crazy Gordie. We lost because the refs made a bunch of bad calls against us and the Wings got most of the bad bounces, that's all. It had nothing to do with the superior size and skill of the Ducks.

/sarcasm

Yeah, somebody pointed out how we have a winning record against them during the regular season the past 2 years. Whoopdefuggin do right. It all comes down to the playoffs where everybody throws their weight around and the intensity picks up. More bigger guys on the other team hitting harder and playing more intense during the playoffs is going to give us trouble until we can match. And god love 'em, the boys gave it all they had last post season. The Lilja bad bounce really put a dent into that series but I think it showed on our guys. Guys were getting banged up and the constant wear of the Getzlaf line, which had the behemoth of Penner on it, along with Moen really wreaked havoc in our defensive zone. They banged and banged, cycled and scored and there wasn't much Lids or Chely or Schnides could do about it let alone Lebda.

It really makes me wonder how strong this team would be if we still had a guy who was 6-5 and 225 lbs by the name of Jiri Fischer.

[Izzy24 44]

Well, my question is :

Is there any rule on length of sticks?

I've read over the summer than Perry (a.k.a. Douchetard) prefers to use a longer than normal stick.

Take a look at Getzlaf's stick too.

But most of all take a look at Pronger's. His reach is unfathomable with his stick.

Doesnt it seem a bit like cheating when you can reach a foot (exaggeration, but you get the idea) further than Rafalski can?

And dont give me that "They are much bigger than us" crap. I'm 6'2" myself, and my stick still comes only to my chin when I'm standing on my feet (no skates). I was always taught that the stick should come to your chin. I understand that people like different lengths based on the way they play... Homer preferring a shorter stick to deflect shots, etc, but this seems to be getting out of control.

At least Don Cherry is with me. He's been ranting about longer sticks for a while now.

To me, it just seems like the Ducks can out-reach us... which helps with winning battles, recieving passes, shooting around other players, defending against attacking forwards, blocking passes...

Zdeno Chara - I'm watching you !

What's to stop Chelios from using a 100-foot stick and playing the entire game from center ice?

[kylee 727]

What's to stop Chelios from using a 100-foot stick and playing the entire game from center ice?

i love this go round on the boards this year.

its kind of like the "Lang is lazy and he sucks" saying from last year.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

We have problems with the Ducks? How could that possibly be?! They're only the best damn team in the entire league.

It sure would help if we were anywhere near as big and tough as they were, or if our guys at least played like they wanted it more.

Take a look at these figures as well:

2006 we lose to the Oilers in the Quarters

Edmonton had 16 players in the playoffs at 6-0 and 200lbs or bigger. Detroit had 7.

2004 we lost to Calgary in the semis.

Calgary had 14 players in the playoffs at 6-0 and 200lbs or bigger. Detroit had 8. 9 if you count Rivers who played on 2 games.

2003 we lost to Anaheim in the Quarters.

The Ducks had 13 guys at least 6-0 and 200lbs or heavier to Detroit's 7.

Yeah, we beat some teams that may have been bigger than us but the bottom line is that every team that beat us was to a man a bigger, stronger, tougher group than what we had. From my perspective you can forget about 97-2002. The players are bigger and teams are getting bigger on average yet we still 12 regulars under 200lbs. The only Detroit D-man over 200 lbs is Lillypads. And let's be honest, Lilja does not use his weight in as punishing a fashion as a Sean Odonnell or Perry or Getlzaf does. And this will always be a problem for us until we get bigger and stronger and frankly, a hell of alot meaner.

[toby91_ca 620]

The only Detroit D-man over 200 lbs is Lillypads. And let's be honest, Lilja does not use his weight in as punishing a fashion as a Sean Odonnell or Perry or Getlzaf does. And this will always be a problem for us until we get bigger and stronger and frankly, a hell of alot meaner.

Never really thought much of it until you say that. Detroit really does have a small D.

I did a quick comparison to the rest of the league:

1 team has 8 D greater than 200lbs

6 teams have 7

9 teams have 6

7 teams have 5

6 teams have 4

and Detroit has 1.

[Yzerfan1999 81]

Keep in mind the longer the stick is, the less control you have. Thats why a lot of guys use short sticks, its easier to stick handle with them. If I were a defenseman I would go long - if I was a forward, like Datsyuk, I would want a shorter stick to stickhandle around guys.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Never really thought much of it until you say that. Detroit really does have a small D.

I did a quick comparison to the rest of the league:

1 team has 8 D greater than 200lbs

6 teams have 7

9 teams have 6

7 teams have 5

6 teams have 4

and Detroit has 1.

Wow. I knew they were small, but when you put it like that, it's just sad.

As much as people still complain about the Hatcher trade and how bad he was here, I still understand why management did it.

EDIT: and you can talk about skill all you want, but when you're a defenseman trying to move a big guy from out in front of the net or keep him from cycling the puck in the corners, it's harder to do when you're giving up 20-40 pounds.

Edited October 22, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Guest Canadian Wings]

You're crazy Gordie. We lost because the refs made a bunch of bad calls against us and the Wings got most of the bad bounces, that's all. It had nothing to do with the superior size and skill of the Ducks.

/sarcasm

You make it sound like they were really that superior to us? Did i miss something, or did we play just as good as the Ducks in that series and just as deserving to win it!?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

You make it sound like they were really that superior to us? Did i miss something, or did we play just as good as the Ducks in that series and just as deserving to win it!?

I'm not going to get into this argument again here in this thread. If you want to review my thoughts on the matter, you can see the thread about Osgood starting.

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1170909

Edited October 22, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[norrisnick 1]

I'm not going to get into this argument again here in this thread. If you want to review my thoughts on the matter, you can see the thread about Osgood starting.

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1170909

So you can snipe, but we can't? Conveeeeenient.

One bounce and the Ducks go from big, strong, and skilled to big and plodding that couldn't keep up with our style of play.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

So you can snipe, but we can't? Conveeeeenient.

One bounce and the Ducks go from big, strong, and skilled to big and plodding that couldn't keep up with our style of play.

You're welcome to snipe all you want. I just don't want to rehash the entire argument.

The bad bounce thing is just such unbelievable homerism, which is an accusation I rarely throw around, that I can't believe people seriously think that's why the Wings lost.

Since you're picking and choosing, one bounce goes the Ducks way in game one and the Wings get swept.

[Guest jaytan]

A lot of teams (including a few high school hockey squads) are bigger than the Wings, but the Ducks are bigger and nearly as skilled.

[norrisnick 1]

You're welcome to snipe all you want. I just don't want to rehash the entire argument.

The bad bounce thing is just such unbelievable homerism, which is an accusation I rarely throw around, that I can't believe people seriously think that's why the Wings lost.

Since you're picking and choosing, one bounce goes the Ducks way in game one and the Wings get swept.

I don't know what your trying to achieve here since that's what happened in '03. Luc's shot goes in off the crossbar and we advance. It didn't and we got swept.

Hockey is a game of millimeters, harold. I'd have thought you'd have figured it out by now. Luck isn't even. Bounces aren't even. Calls aren't even. Any little detail can swing the balance of a shift, period, game, series.

Franzen gets better wood on his clearing attempt in game 5 and we win the game and the series after that.

It has nothing to do with homerism either, since if Marleau and Guerin, I believe, get their heads out of their asses in game 4 we don't make it out of the 2nd round.

[Kp-Wings 3]

What's to stop Chelios from using a 100-foot stick and playing the entire game from center ice?

[wingnut40 176]

I hate the ducks with a passion. Pronger is nothing but a complete douchebag. Most of the team is the same.

I hate the ducks more than anything else. I hat them so much that their name doesn't even get capitalized! Every single person on that team is a total a$$hole. They don't care about their team, others, or fans. All they care about is themselves and winning. Did you see Neidermayer when they won the Cup? The dude was talking and when he was done Neidermayer went to go grab the cup, but he had to let go of the Cup to shake hands with the guy. Then the guy lifted up the Cup to give it to Neidermayer and stops so people can take pictures. Instead of waiting he's basicly ripping the Cup out of the presenter guys hands. What a greedy a$s. I hate everything about them. I was hoping that after they knocked us out that they'd gather at center ice and the score board would fall and crush them to death!

[Guest jaytan]

All they care about is themselves and winning.

Sounds like they're on to something.

The only thing any team should be trying to do is WIN!

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I don't know what your trying to achieve here since that's what happened in '03. Luc's shot goes in off the crossbar and we advance. It didn't and we got swept.

Hockey is a game of millimeters, harold. I'd have thought you'd have figured it out by now. Luck isn't even. Bounces aren't even. Calls aren't even. Any little detail can swing the balance of a shift, period, game, series.

Franzen gets better wood on his clearing attempt in game 5 and we win the game and the series after that.

It has nothing to do with homerism either, since if Marleau and Guerin, I believe, get their heads out of their asses in game 4 we don't make it out of the 2nd round.

Luc's shot goes in off the crossbar and we win that game. Who knows what happens and how that affects the other games. Maybe the Wings lose in 5. Because last time I checked Nick, the Ducks had to win three more games against the Wings because it's a best of seven series. I thought you knew that by now.

Are you saying that if Luc makes that one goal, it not only changes the result of that game, but the three games after it? That the Wings were such a fragile team that they couldn't overcome that one unlucky bounce? One bad bounce somehow broke their spirit and they couldn't manage to come back from it? Because that makes makes they would've lost the series anyway. Good teams overcome those tough breaks and capitalize on the good ones.

But if what you say is true, then my earlier statement also holds true. The Ducks had the first big bad bounces of the series with those two own-goals. Those don't happen, they win game one and shut the Wings out in their own building. Yet somehow that doesn't lead to them going on to win the series? Do these series-changing bounces only work when it comes to the Wings?

It doesn't make any sense. If the Wings bad bounce later in the series cost them the series, then doesn't the Ducks bad bounces in game one win them the series back? how does this fictional fate stuff work exactly?

And Marleau and Guerin didn't get their heads out of their asses and got outplayed by the Wings. Funny how that works.

Luck isn't even, bounces aren't even, though over the course of 7 games, the bounces are generally pretty close. You and a couple of the others who claim it was all about bounces have never even really addressed the bad bounces I brought up that the Ducks had. You're picking and choosing your bounces. I also don't hear a lot about the Wings not capitalizing on their plentiful power play chances. Maybe because it's easier to pretend they were the better team than to admit they got outplayed by a physical team that everyone here hates.

You want to believe that the Wings were somehow the team of destiny that fate cruelly robbed, go for it. You apparently can can see the inevitable results of events that never happened, and I unfortunately don't have that superpower.

[norrisnick 1]

Luc's shot goes in off the crossbar and we win that game. Who knows what happens and how that affects the other games. Maybe the Wings lose in 5. Because last time I checked Nick, the Ducks had to win three more games against the Wings because it's a best of seven series. I thought you knew that by now.

Are you saying that if Luc makes that one goal, it not only changes the result of that game, but the three games after it? That the Wings were such a fragile team that they couldn't overcome that one unlucky bounce? One bad bounce somehow broke their spirit and they couldn't manage to come back from it? Because that makes makes they would've lost the series anyway. Good teams overcome those tough breaks and capitalize on the good ones.

Confidence and the lack thereof can make all the difference. That shot not going in let Giggy's aura of invincibility continue (he stopped 60 some shots that night I believe). Wings started gripping their sticks. Cujo didn't make some of the stops needed and we couldn't recover. Good for the Ducks for willing their way to game 7 of the finals but IMO they weren't a better team than the Wings.

But if what you say is true, then my earlier statement also holds true. The Ducks had the first big bad bounces of the series with those two own-goals. Those don't happen, they win game one and shut the Wings out in their own building. Yet somehow that doesn't lead to them going on to win the series? Do these series-changing bounces only work when it comes to the Wings?

It doesn't make any sense. If the Wings bad bounce later in the series cost them the series, then doesn't the Ducks bad bounces in game one win them the series back? how does this fictional fate stuff work exactly?

With the ebb and flow of momentum. There was a shift there as well, because after that 1st game we started controlling most of the play for the rest of the series.

And Marleau and Guerin didn't get their heads out of their asses and got outplayed by the Wings. Funny how that works.

I was talking about that one specific shift when Filppula kept the puck in and fed Lang for the tying goal with seconds left. The Wings weren't outplaying the Sharks. It was a colossal error of judgment (starting with Wilson who had them out on the ice when they weren't doing a damn thing all series long) that cost them the game and ultimately the series as again there was a massive momentum shift.

Luck isn't even, bounces aren't even, though over the course of 7 games, the bounces are generally pretty close.

What cosmic law dictates that bounces and luck even out over a 7 game series?

You and a couple of the others who claim it was all about bounces have never even really addressed the bad bounces I brought up that the Ducks had. You're picking and choosing your bounces. I also don't hear a lot about the Wings not capitalizing on their plentiful power play chances.

It's not all bounces. The Ducks are a good team. So are the Wings.

Maybe because it's easier to pretend they were the better team than to admit they got outplayed by a physical team that everyone here hates.

Or conversely it's easier to say a team is better when you hope and dream your team were like theirs?

You want to believe that the Wings were somehow the team of destiny that fate cruelly robbed, go for it. You apparently can can see the inevitable results of events that never happened, and I unfortunately don't have that superpower.

You should it's nice. The Wings weren't the team of destiny that were cruely robbed. They were a team good enough to win, that sadly didn't. My biggest sticking point in this argument is my belief that the Ducks were not the towering team of destiny that were impossible to knock off because we weren't big, strong, good enough to do so. We were just as good (IMO better) than they were. But some just want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they were better so they don't have to deal with the disappointment.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Confidence and the lack thereof can make all the difference. That shot not going in let Giggy's aura of invincibility continue (he stopped 60 some shots that night I believe). Wings started gripping their sticks. Cujo didn't make some of the stops needed and we couldn't recover. Good for the Ducks for willing their way to game 7 of the finals but IMO they weren't a better team than the Wings.

With the ebb and flow of momentum. There was a shift there as well, because after that 1st game we started controlling most of the play for the rest of the series.

I was talking about that one specific shift when Filppula kept the puck in and fed Lang for the tying goal with seconds left. The Wings weren't outplaying the Sharks. It was a colossal error of judgment (starting with Wilson who had them out on the ice when they weren't doing a damn thing all series long) that cost them the game and ultimately the series as again there was a massive momentum shift.

What cosmic law dictates that bounces and luck even out over a 7 game series?

It's not all bounces. The Ducks are a good team. So are the Wings.

Or conversely it's easier to say a team is better when you hope and dream your team were like theirs?

You should it's nice. The Wings weren't the team of destiny that were cruely robbed. They were a team good enough to win, that sadly didn't. My biggest sticking point in this argument is my belief that the Ducks were not the towering team of destiny that were impossible to knock off because we weren't big, strong, good enough to do so. We were just as good (IMO better) than they were. But some just want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they were better so they don't have to deal with the disappointment.

Well, you've answered virtually none of my questions.

So with Lucky luc's unluck bounce, you're seems to be saying that yes, the Wings psyche was so fragile that not winning that game caused them to lose the next three. If that's true, then it seems clear to me then that they were not equipped to win that series.

You also seem to be saying then that if those earlier bounces go the Ducks way, that would have had an impact on them winnign the series. So those two bounces in game one should be a whole lot bigger than the ones that came later, shouldn't it? Again, I'm not an expert in these fictional outcome scenarios, but you seem to see it pretty clearly.

The Sharks had the Wings on the ropes but couldn't close it out.

as for the cosmic law about bounces. Think of the massive probabilities involved. Take a coin flip for an example of a bad bounce. The Wings are heads, the Ducks are tails. Statistically there's a 50 percent chance of it being heads. Filp a coin ten times, and you may end up with 7 heads, 3 tails. Behold! The laws of the universe are all cattywompus!

Not really, it's just a small sample. flip that coin 100 times and you'll come out a lot closer to 50 percent. a thousand times you're even closer. Take one bad bounce and it could lead to a goal. But those bounces taken over 360+ minutes of hockey (plus overtime) and they're bound to be fairly even. They only look skewed one way when a team doesn't capitalize on the opportunities they do have, so a bad break ends up looking like it cost them the series.

I will say this for the thousandth time since no one cares to acknowledge or address it. The Detroit Red Wings were 0 for 7 on the power play in the game they lost on the "bad" call against Dats and then the bad play by Lilja, including a power play in the Overtime.

But I guess it was those couple bad bounces that killed them, not their complete inability to make anaheim pay for taking penalties. Not to mention as the series wore on, the Wings were getting more and more pushed to the perimeter.

That's hilarious! I'm the one sticking my head in the sand because I won't admit that the Wings, who lost in the conference finals in game 6, are better than the Ducks, who won the Stanley Cup?? Am I in the f-ing bizarro world?

Let's change the teams around a little. When the Wings won the Cup, a Colorado fan comes up to you and claims that in spite of losing to the Wings, they were the better team and if not for a few bad bounces, the Cup is theirs. Still a reasonable argument?

Why even hold the playoffs then? It's clearly an inadequate system if a team as good as the Wings can lose to the inferior Ducks. If a few bad bounces allow an inferior team to win.

If four best of seven series do not decide what team is best in the NHL, if the team that wins the Stanley Cup is not the best team in the league, then isn't the whole playoff system and sport flawed?

[Louisville 112]

I'd give the Ducks about 1,000,000 respect points if they didn't have that TOOL of a defenseman who's name I can't utter..

Until then, go to hell Ducks.