SylenT 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Ok how about this Save percentage: Osgood> Hasek WIns: Osgood> Hasek GAA:Osgood> Hasek Games:Osgood> Hasek Negative Articles about one's attitude: Hasek>Osgood Penalties:Hasek>Osgood Instead of comparing Hasek to Osgood, why is no one happy we have 2 great goalies? They are both on our team and yet some members hate Hasek! I am for sure happy that we have Osgood and Hasek both great goalies. and ye this thread is pathetic stop it with the "Hasek intended to injure Gaborik" please... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duck Guy 86 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Instead of comparing Hasek to Osgood, why is no one happy we have 2 great goalies? They are both on our team and yet some members hate Hasek! I am for sure happy that we have Osgood and Hasek both great goalies. and ye this thread is pathetic stop it with the "Hasek intended to injure Gaborik" please... and bingo was his nameo... some teams only have 1 goalie they can rely on and the other is fresh out of the AHL and yet to prove their worth hint hint... wings are lucky to have 2 great goalies... cant you all just get along Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Booster313 138 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 and bingo was his nameo... some teams only have 1 goalie they can rely on and the other is fresh out of the AHL and yet to prove their worth hint hint... wings are lucky to have 2 great goalies... cant you all just get along It was a classy move on Burkes part to get Bryz the starting job he deserves, plus it helped make room for Scotty! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Ozzie should start the game in Minny. You know that he's going to pull a "Crawford" and oder one of his players to run Hasek. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mudvayneowns91 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Instead of comparing Hasek to Osgood, why is no one happy we have 2 great goalies? They are both on our team and yet some members hate Hasek! I am for sure happy that we have Osgood and Hasek both great goalies. and ye this thread is pathetic stop it with the "Hasek intended to injure Gaborik" please... Yeah, I agree totally with that. I'm a Wings fan, I'm thrilled that Ozzie has been playing well. I'm also glad that Hasek has let 1 goal in in his last 2 games. I was under the impression that you cheer for the guy with the winged wheel that's in the net. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringHomeTheCup! 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) Funny, because I already listed 3 clips (which I list again below) where Hasek has done the same thing. He runs to the blue line and throws his body at the puck, and not his stick. The difference between those 3 clips and the one we are talking about? Simply that the player with the puck had it off to the side of himself, so when Hasek slides at the puck the player never got hit. Since below is proof that Hasek slides at the puck with his body all the time without hitting the player, how can you say that he would never do this unless he was trying to hit someone??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMf0ObSxP4 47 sec mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R00UkPAHBA 28 sec mark 51 sec mark Gee, and apparently if you don't criticize a player it must be because you have homer lenses on... - Houdini The first clip is irrelevant as you can't actually see the play, just Hasek sprawling. The second clip would help prove my point, he didn't dive at the puck body first. He made a simple poke check. The third clip is more of the same. Hasek doesn't take out the skater. All I'm trying to say here, is Hasek didn't have to take out Gabby. Plain and simple. It wasn't a perfectly legal play, as evident by Hasek receiving a minor penalty for it. To the individual who tried to compare this to the Vladdy hit on Lemieux, what the hell are you smoking?! Vladdy laid a perfectly legal hip check. The only thing similar about that hit and the Hasek/Gabby hit is that both players on the recieving end went flying through the air. Edited December 9, 2007 by BringHomeTheCup! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stormboy 47 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 i read about the first four pages and the last one, so forgive me if this has been stated already. i watched some other clips of hasek doing this, and even if he its the guy, most of the time the other dude doesn't go flying like THAT. if you watch the replay of the gaborik clip, it seems like he sees hasek a split second before the hit and straightens out his body from the crouched rush stance he was in. what was probably a split-second reaction of defense actually had the opposite impact: by raising his center of gravity and lengthening his body, i think that gaborik made his vault that much more spectacular. i'm not saying it's his fault: it was just a reaction. but i think it could be argued that in this case, if gaborik hadn't seen hasek at all, he would have remained more crouched and, though he probably wouldn't have gone down, most likely wouldn't have flipped in that fasion, which would not have made the risk of injury so high. i think it's true what some have said: if this happened to a wings player like datsyuk, we'd probably be pretty upset about it. but that's part of being a fan, i guess -- always having your boys' backs. but, at the same time, i think that the argument that we would be wrong in that situation has some merit. if you contrast this to the pronger hit of last year's playoffs, driving a player's head into the boards from behind usually has about the same result: injury. however, looking at this from hasek's perspective, he's done this move many times and, though there is often an impact, it is usually one that isn't even close to injury and is not called for a penalty. so, i mean, statistically, you could argue that dom is making what he thinks will be a clean hit that won't injure anybody. like he said, he's never gotten called for that before, and i think it's fair to say that no one's gotten hurt before. still hasn't. and since gaborik didn't get hurt, and it's pretty clear that hasek wasn't trying to hurt him, i think it's fair to sit back and watch the fireworks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tweekvp 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) EZBAKE you need to stay on topic for your own thread. It started as Hasek's allegedly dirty hit and then your next post was an Osgood > Hasek post. After the game Friday I thought this board would be nothing but happy posters. It seems we have two Goalies in good form hopefully pushing each other to be better. We got to see the second hattrick in Hanks carreer. Our secondary scorers are getting the job done and our defense is great. Why some of you just want to ***** is beyond me. Also as I pointed out in another thread as long as Gaborik doesn't do a faceplant than the play was more flash than substance. It looked spectacular but the energy was disappaited through helmet/ pads/ sliding on the ice. The impact on Gaborik was not as bad as it could have been because the energy went elseware. It's called physics. Now stop your bitching and enjoy your team. You get to see Osgood again vs Nashville. Edited December 9, 2007 by tweekvp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Yeah, I agree totally with that. I'm a Wings fan, I'm thrilled that Ozzie has been playing well. I'm also glad that Hasek has let 1 goal in in his last 2 games. I was under the impression that you cheer for the guy with the winged wheel that's in the net. Unless his last name rymes with Chevrolet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Louisville 112 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Gaborik had no idea that Hasek would do that? How do you not see a goalie baring down at you? Maybe you should keep your head up, breakaway or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cicada 4 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...007/1167/BLOG11 Dare I say Lemaire knows a little bit more about hockey than the majority of posters on this site? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dominator2005 558 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 To illustrate the difference between Oz and Hasek this season: for Hasek to catch Osgood's numbers as they stand right now, he would have to play the next five games, including ten minutes of overtime, and make 159 saves without giving up a goal. That's AFTER a two-game stretch that has seen Hasek allow one goal on 35 shots in 120 minutes. Not saying Hasek can't end the season with better numbers han Osgood...but the 'Osgood is better' sentiment has been based largely in REALITY, whilte 'Play Hasek' has been coming from people who hate Osgood and don't believe he can win in the playoffs (Hasek needs to find a groove if we want to have a chance at the Cup) or from people who can't accept that maybe age is catching up with Hasek (He's started slow and won the Vezina before, he'll obviously do it this year too) when in reality, Hasek is starting to come around but even in the last two games he hasn't played any better than Ozzie has all year. As far as the Gaborik play...no, Hasek didn't have intent to injure. But to argue that you can't call a penalty on that play is just as ignorant. it was a borderline play where it could have gone either way, and calling the penalty is at the referee's discretion. And guess what; the ref felt it was a penalty. It could have been let go on another night, but that doesn't make it any less valid of a call; I've seen blatant penalties left uncalled some nights and phantom BS called on others. And no, not just this year either...pretty much every year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DetroitIan Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Ok how about this Save percentage: Osgood> Hasek WIns: Osgood> Hasek GAA:Osgood> Hasek Games:Osgood> Hasek Negative Articles about one's attitude: Hasek>Osgood Penalties:Hasek>Osgood The one and only reason for all of what you said, Not being injured: Osgood > Hasek. Had Dom never got hurt, Osgood wouldn't have had the amount of opportunities that he's had. You might wanna keep that in mind buddy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,793 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 When I saw that happen Friday night, I never thought it would inspire so many posts. I just can't wait for the next game so we don't have to talk anymore about this overrated story. Just to put my final touch on it, Hasek made what was probably a dumb move, but I don't think that he was trying to injure Gaborik. Lemaire was just defending his star player with his comments. We see that all the time from coaches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 STFU man. If Lemaire really believed that Dom tried to injure Gaborik, Dominek wouldve gotten run by Rolston, Fedoruk, the Wild's big players. Lemaire would've gotten a rucus going. HE DIDNT BECAUSE HE KNEW THERE WAS NO DIRT THERE. Holy s*** what have these boards come to, last year Hasek does this on Nash and everyone loves it. You change the situation and everyone hates it? I love both Ozzie and Dom so dont give I'm a Hasek slappy, your just looking like an idiot, I mean what I you trying to proce by giving us that article? Next you'll be saying that Burke's explanation of Pronger's hit on Holmstrom was correct because "he knows more about hockey than we do." What do you expect the coach to say? And dare I say that Hasek has done this move dozens of times in his career? It's meant to stop a breakaway. Great post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Dynasty 267 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 Since were in third grade, MAKE ME Jeez, defensive much. Gotta bring the same weak argument points to another thread. Plus, I was talking to the Wild, not you. Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Houdini 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 The first clip is irrelevant as you can't actually see the play, just Hasek sprawling. The second clip would help prove my point, he didn't dive at the puck body first. He made a simple poke check. The third clip is more of the same. Hasek doesn't take out the skater. First clip is perfectly relevant. No, you don't him skating out, but you see him way out of his goal sliding at the puck in the same fashion as he did to Gaborik, without taking out the player. Did you really have to see him skate out to know that he actually skated? Second clip shows how when the player doesn't have control of the puck (is trying to catch up to it) that Hasek has no problem doing a normal poke check. But obviously when the player has full control (the other clips as well as on Friday) Hasek will spread his body out to ensure the player doesn't try to flip the puck past him. Again, third clips makes my point, he didn't take out the skater because the puck was to the side of the skater and Hasek always dives at the puck. I don't see why you don't understand this. Show me a clip where Hasek purposely skates out and slides at the player and NOT the puck, because every other similar play I've seen has him diving at the puck, even if it means missing the opposing player completely. I can't see how you can say suddenly say that you are sure that in this particular incident that he wasn't trying to slide at the puck even though his body slid directly into it. All I'm trying to say here, is Hasek didn't have to take out Gabby. Plain and simple. It wasn't a perfectly legal play, as evident by Hasek receiving a minor penalty for it. He did if he wanted to stop the breakaway. Or Gaborik could have kept his head up like he was taught when he was 12 years old. Just because an opposing player is looking down isn't going to stop Hasek for going for the puck and do all he can to keep it out of the net. It's what he gets paid for. Bah, debating this really isn't doing much good at this point. It's quite obvious there are 3 or 4 posters who will try to find flaws in whatever Hasek does. Luckily most of us can see the play for what it was. - Houdini Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Booster313 138 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 NICE!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J-Swift 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) Ok how about this Save percentage: Osgood> Hasek WIns: Osgood> Hasek GAA:Osgood> Hasek Games:Osgood> Hasek Nice cheapshot, dick. That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Furthermore, I'm sure if you asked Babcock if Hasek had an intent to injure, he'd say no. He probably wouldn't even think it was a penalty. And I'm pretty sure Babcock has a little more hockey knowledge than you do. If you think what Hasek did was an illegal play warranting a two-minute minor penalty, you're entitled to your opinion. I'd have to disagreee with that, though I could see how someone could come to that conclusion. But if you honestly believe Hasek was trying to hurt Gaborik as opposed to breaking up a scoring chance, you're stupid. Downright stupid. Edited December 9, 2007 by J-Swift Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arcticpicasso 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 I was glad to see Hasek get his confidence back and challenge Gaborik like that. Seemed like the past couple of games when he gave up easy goals, he was acting hesitant to leave the crease. Nice play in my opinion, this is what makes him the fan favorite to watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 What exactly is Lemaire trying to do, because he sure as hell ain't trying to punish us for that "attack". Oh yeah, lets suspend Dom for a game, and force the Redwings to put the hottest goaltender in the league into the next game- that'll show em! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yzerfan1999 81 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...007/1167/BLOG11 Dare I say Lemaire knows a little bit more about hockey than the majority of posters on this site? Hahah, You can also say that Colin Campbell knows a few things about intent to injure, and if it was - he would be handing down a suspension. I doubt he even blinked when he saw the tape...IF he saw the tape. P.S. So how about them Wings being 20-6? Great times for Detroit fans...wooo! Edited December 9, 2007 by Yzerfan1999 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tiribulus 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) When I saw that happen Friday night, I never thought it would inspire so many posts. I just can't wait for the next game so we don't have to talk anymore about this overrated story. Just to put my final touch on it, Hasek made what was probably a dumb move, but I don't think that he was trying to injure Gaborik. Lemaire was just defending his star player with his comments. We see that all the time from coaches. This is close to what I was going to say except that I don't know how dumb the move was overall. I'd rather kill a 2 minute penalty on a night when the opposition PP was non existent than face a determined Gaborik alone. Hasek wasn't trying to hurt anybody. He's just a goofball full of unconventional style and it showed. Edited December 9, 2007 by Tiribulus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted December 9, 2007 (edited) Of course, had Harding done that to Hank or Pav, it would be all like, "he was trying to stop a breakaway from a talented player....it's perfectly legal to do that, they're over-reacting" Maybe he should be worried about how badly his team got embarrased, both offensively and defensively instead of bitching about a great defensive play by Hasek that unfortunately for them, sent Gaborik flying. Hasek has done that countless times, although this is probably the first time that the oppopsing player has done a full 360 before landing on the ice. And like a previous poster said...Hasek gets suspended as punishment to the team? No problem, we have a 13-1 goalie with the leagues best GAA. Edited December 9, 2007 by Hockeytown0001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
