Why do we always have problems with the ducks?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

And that's why this dicussion is pointless. Because it's not about what actually happened on the ice, you're just tired of hearing a small group of people talk about how great the Ducks are. That they're big and physical, and can score. The skill versus grit debate.

For the record, I hate the Ducks. I hate Pronger. I hate their a-hole GM. I wouldn't want the Wings to be just like the Ducks. But I'd love for them to have a few more guys like the Ducks lineup. To have Z and Dats and Homer, but also have some big physical defenseman who can grind the opposition down. Or a big physical foward who can also pot a few goals. And a handful of guys who will drop the gloves and stick up for their teammates.

The Ducks weren't impossible to knock off, the Wings just weren't capable of doing it. Hence, Ducks were the better team.

[norrisnick 1]

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.

Don't forget that there are two teams. You don't think that with that win the Ducks suddenly believed a whole hell of a lot more in themselves? Wings got tight and the Ducks got confident. If the Wings get confident it's over.

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.

Quite possibly.

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

They clear that puck and they likely do hold on just enough. Then comes confidence. Wilson and the Sharks were/are a very fragile team mentally. That mistake at that point in the game and series killed them.

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.

10 flips is a small sample size, but 7 games isn't?

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.

No one has said that the bounces are the ONLY reason. I'm simply saying that a single bounce can and has been big enough to turn the balance. Franzen clears that puck and going 0-7 on the PP is irrelevant. There are a million different things that can change the outcome of a game/series. Size of the opposition, IMO doesn't rank very high.

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?

Must be.

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?

Roy corrals that puck in game 6, and that's more than possible.

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?

Babcock and Kenny have stated many times now that the regular season is greatly underappreciated. It means something to play 82 games and be the top team standing. That's not to take anything away from the Cup and the playoffs, but IMO it's stupid to completely disregard the season as meaningless.

And that's why this dicussion is pointless. Because it's not about what actually happened on the ice, you're just tired of hearing a small group of people talk about how great the Ducks are. That they're big and physical, and can score. The skill versus grit debate.

For the record, I hate the Ducks. I hate Pronger. I hate their a-hole GM. I wouldn't want the Wings to be just like the Ducks. But I'd love for them to have a few more guys like the Ducks lineup. To have Z and Dats and Homer, but also have some big physical defenseman who can grind the opposition down. Or a big physical foward who can also pot a few goals. And a handful of guys who will drop the gloves and stick up for their teammates.

The Ducks weren't impossible to knock off, the Wings just weren't capable of doing it. Hence, Ducks were the better team.

Not doing something does not mean you CAN'T do something.

[lets go pavel 2]

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?

yes! that's why i say we scrap the whole playoff crap and go to a bowl game format!

just kidding ... i agree with you, bounces go both ways, they may seem like a difference-maker but ultimately they're part of the game ... most of the good bounces aren't even considered bounces ... a puck of the crossbar is a bad bounce, but aren't all the ones that go in good bounces? the bottom line is it's just hockey ...

someone can argue all they want that the losing team was the better team, but the bottom line is that the league by consensus has agreed that the winner of the cup is the best team ... the very feat of winning it singlehandedly makes the winner the best, it overrides every other argument, statistic, what-if and shoulda ... it's why theyt all say that winning the cup is all that matters ... last year the ducks were the best team (ouch, that hurts to say) ...

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

What makes people think that luck plays such a huge role in events? Luck is what happens when you win the fuggin lottery, not necessarily what makes or breaks playoff series. A shift here, a bounce there, a non call here, yeah, those can affect a game but that's about all they affect unless you think professional athletes lack any fortitude whatsoever.

Anyway, WTF are we talking about here. The point was, and all those who've played can attest to this, that all the skill in the world doesn't amount to f*** all when you're 190 trying to move 225. Now, take that 190 pound guy and get 8 of his 190 pound friends to play up to the physical standards of the 225 pound guy and his 12 buddies who all weigh more than your buddies to a man, try beating them at they're on game and see how well you do.

Ask yourself this, would you rather get run for 7 games by a 6-0 197 pound guy who is somewhat skilled but can throw the body around some like a Cleary or Matlby? Or would you rather get pounded for 7 games by the same type of skilled guy, but that weighs in at 210-225 and hits harder and meaner?

Luck, schmuck, if we want to win playoff games by matching the intensity and physical style of bigger, tougher teams, common sense dictates you get bigger and stronger yourself. Only so many times you can throw a jeep at a tank before the jeep breaks down.

And that's why this dicussion is pointless. Because it's not about what actually happened on the ice, you're just tired of hearing a small group of people talk about how great the Ducks are. That they're big and physical, and can score. The skill versus grit debate.

For the record, I hate the Ducks. I hate Pronger. I hate their a-hole GM. I wouldn't want the Wings to be just like the Ducks. But I'd love for them to have a few more guys like the Ducks lineup. To have Z and Dats and Homer, but also have some big physical defenseman who can grind the opposition down. Or a big physical foward who can also pot a few goals. And a handful of guys who will drop the gloves and stick up for their teammates.

The Ducks weren't impossible to knock off, the Wings just weren't capable of doing it. Hence, Ducks were the better team.

all I have to say to this is amen, brother.

It never ceases to amaze me how people build their belief system and rationale around hypotheticals and what ifs. If Franzen gets more wood he gets the clear and blah, blah, blah.

That one play did not a series make or break. Were the Wings every bit as talented as the Ducks? I think so.

Did the Wings do their best to be as hard on the puck and as phsyical as they good in the hitting department? Sure. But when you match skill for skill against your opponent, usually some other variable comes into play to make up the difference. IMO, here it was size, strength and the penchant for the Anaheim players to play a nastier, tougher, more EFFECTIVELY punishing game than us. That made the difference. If anyone doubts that all they need to do is watch the Wings dmen flounder, fall down and get outmuscled by the Getzlaf line, Moen and others that entire series. Think about the Getzlaf, Perry, Penner line. Throwing out the dmen for the Ducks, who outweighed our dmen, odds are that at any given moment the Datsyuk/Zetterberg combo would've been going up against them and you have maybe 3 guys weighing in at about 600lbs even. Whereas those 3 Ducks forwards weighed in at 675 or so. That's 25 pounds advantage per man. Luck has nothing to do with that.

[norrisnick 1]

What makes people think that luck plays such a huge role in events? Luck is what happens when you win the fuggin lottery, not necessarily what makes or breaks playoff series. A shift here, a bounce there, a non call here, yeah, those can affect a game but that's about all they affect unless you think professional athletes lack any fortitude whatsoever.

Anyway, WTF are we talking about here. The point was, and all those who've played can attest to this, that all the skill in the world doesn't amount to f*** all when you're 190 trying to move 225. Now, take that 190 pound guy and get 8 of his 190 pound friends to play up to the physical standards of the 225 pound guy and his 12 buddies who all weigh more than your buddies to a man, try beating them at they're on game and see how well you do.

Ask yourself this, would you rather get run for 7 games by a 6-0 197 pound guy who is somewhat skilled but can throw the body around some like a Cleary or Matlby? Or would you rather get pounded for 7 games by the same type of skilled guy, but that weighs in at 210-225 and hits harder and meaner?

Luck, schmuck, if we want to win playoff games by matching the intensity and physical style of bigger, tougher teams, common sense dictates you get bigger and stronger yourself. Only so many times you can throw a jeep at a tank before the jeep breaks down.

Not my fault you're stupid enough to try and bounce a jeep off a tank... Trying to bounce a tank off a tank is nearly equally stupid as you're not going to achieve anything, since hitting each other is not how the game is ultimately going to be won.

Running or getting run is all part of the extracurriculars of hockey. It's one of many means to an end.

If your argument is magically adding a couple inches and 10-20lbs of solid muscle to every one of our players without them losing any over their previous skill, mobility, endurance, etc... I don't really see any down side to it. But as it stands, that's never going to happen so... yeah.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I'm not usually as vehement about my arguments here, but I know I'm right on this one like I know how to pronounce Steve Yzerman's name.

A team does not win the Cup by lucky bounces. Of course there are key breaks and momentum shifts and lucky bounces that affect the game. But through four best-of-seven series, the team that wins is the one that overcomes that adversity and capitalizes on the chances they do have. They're more resilient in every sense of the word than their opponent.

The Wings did not lose because of a couple tough bounces. They lost because the Ducks capitalized on their chances and beat them.

[swedishconnection 36]

Maybe I just suck at explaining things.

I think my previous argument over the longer sticks that Anaheim uses still stands.

Pronger able to keep a puck in on a clearing attempt.

Getzlaf able to reach further than Cleary on the half boards (2-3 inch difference in height does NOT equal the difference in lenth of sticks between the 2).

Perry able to reach around Lids (one inch difference in height does not equal the difference in length of sticks) in the corners.

All of these little things add up.

And no, Im NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN LENGTH BETWEEN PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT HEIGHTS!! I'm talking about the lengths of sticks between players of equal heights.

Be it as you may arguing about weight and size. I think its rediculous.

In watching the games between Anaheim and the Wings, hitting meant nothing so far this season. Yes they tried to his us as much as they could, but I cant count how many times Rafalski, Datsyuk, Zata, and Lids ducked the check and continued thier play. There were many times the Ducks looked to rough us up but came up short. Of course they hit us some of the time, but our players were smart enough to keep thier heads up for the game because they knew they were playing a physical team.

Again.... I have all of the games from last season vs. the Ducks (including the post-season) plus all of the games from this season on tape, and have watched them at least 3 times each all the way through.

When the Wings force other teams to play our game vs. thiers, it doesnt matter how big they are.

After watching all of that hockey between the 2 teams, I still conclude that the longer reach of players of equal height is an advantage that is sorely overlooked by members of this board.

I'm not going to beat my head against a wall, as it already hurts from reading previous posts.

All I have to say is watch all of the games again. The Wings make the Ducks play our game, and all but neutralize the physical game. It has a lot to do with stick length and reach.

A team does not win the Cup by lucky bounces.

No, Lidstrom from the blue line doesn't change a series at all.

Granted it wasnt for the cup, but one series further is one closer to Glory.

Oh, and foot in the crease, foot out of the crease doesnt win it either. Lucky or no? Kinda depends on who you talk to.

Lucky... maybe cause the whistle went your way. Here's Stanley... Hold it high.

Un-lucky? Yeah cause the ref didnt agree with what you thought. Try harder next year.

[Duck Guy 86]

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.

this guy?

[swedishconnection 36]

Is it scary that I revere that picture more than the ACTUAL pope?

Gross.

At least he plays the greatest sport in the history of man.

But still, that dude in the pic is a reject-f***-stick.

Also, I had a thought on the whole Chelios-length-of-the-ice stick theory.

It would have to be at least 3 feet shorter than the width of the rink. Otherwise he would not be able to turn around!!

Edited October 23, 2007 by swedishconnection

[WINGS TILL DEATH 9]

Ok, Size does matter, Our power play was a good point. We did not take advantage of our chances. I still can't full blame the Wings for that due to Giggy (God I hate him!!! I like Bryz though). I don't know how that guy turns it up in the playoffs. Have you seen his playoff OT record? Also his house got TPed the night we beat them 5-0!!! (size didn't matter there I guess), and he blames it on Wings fans. What about angry band wagon duck fans Giggy huh?

I'm a sore loser especially when I comes to the ducks. I really hate their fans. Duck Guy you might be the only one I have respect for. I don't know how you have it, or if it means anything, but yea no matter how small its there.

I mean have you been to a playoff game and heard someone wearing a duck jersey ask" Who is number 8 on the ducks? He's good!" While in the pond? Talk about band wagon fan. I wanted to shoot him. Even I knew the was T *** Selanne.

I've also seen regular season games were the guy I'm sitting by is wearing a Wings jersey, the ducks take the lead and he takes off his jersey to reveal a duck shirt, then the Wings lead again and he's got the damn Wings jersey on again. I hate Anaheim its seriously filled with band wagon Angel Duck and USC fans. Wait USC has 2 losses so I think they're Oregon fans now.

Edited October 29, 2007 by WINGS TILL DEATH

[Aeothe Kaear 0]

Anaheim scored like half their goals in that series by crashing the net, scoring on rebounds, muscling Dom into the net, etc. A crease-clearing defenseman or two would go a long way towards containing the point-blank chances generated by all those big forwards.

Unfortunately, instead of taking steps in that direction, they let Markov walk and replaced him with nobody. Wrong way to go.