thegerkin 189 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 5 reasons Detroit can win the Cup Yahoo! Sports * Part 3 of 4 in Ross McKeon's Conference Finals analysis. Agree/Disagree/Discuss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 I like this guy. "We could be talking about the Wings going for back-to-back Cups right now instead of gliding to No. 11 in franchise history." The truth hurts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ifonlyicouldskate 11 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 I agree somewhat, but if this guy is right, then why are we playing the stars? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hallelujahlogic 1 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 if you read the other ones he's written, the reasons he gives sound sorta ridiculous next to these ones. i'm looking forward to reading the pittsburgh one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeyfreak_09 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 This guy has some good points. I like how he thinks but I think we should try to get #11 under our belt before we start talking about back-to-back Cups. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
va Winger 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Bringing up last years loss in the WCS is a moot point. So this happened and that happened , thats Hockey....you win or you lose and what makes great teams great is learning by your mistakes. Perfect example the play after scoring against Nashville this year. the team came together and decided they would not allow quick goals after they scored (enter Ozzie too). Seems to have worked so far..............I like the present ......we need solely to concentrate on The Stars and what we can do to shut them down ! I think we are ready.........I think it won't be nearly as close as some are predicting..................this team knows what it takes to win.......................!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimace1970 81 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 It is so wierd reading an article that has positive things to say about the Wings' chances. I just don't know how to react. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T.Low 1,011 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Fun little read. But as we all know too well, while it all seems to add up on paper, you've still got to play the game. And thats the beauty of it. The Wings need to maintain focus throughout the entire playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaayze 25 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Some nice comments, but like T.low said paper doesn't mean anything, thats why we play these games. ;D! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swedishseven 9 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 It is so wierd reading an article that has positive things to say about the Wings' chances. I just don't know how to react. i agree,i'm so used to the experts always saying stuff like;..yeah the wings are good but they dont have enough________(add generic reason) etc.etc. So i want to cheer this guy,but because he's not bashing them,you wonder if he's really a pro sportswriter..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 It is so wierd reading an article that has positive things to say about the Wings' chances. I just don't know how to react. same Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
high_stick69 7 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 I laughed when I read that the Wings are a team that won't play dump and chase. If this guy knew anything about the Wings he'd know that their ability to play dump and chase when needed is what has made them so much more difficult to play against. That was one of the many huge things that Babcock brought to this team. They are no longer somewhat one dimensional, and susceptable to neutral zone traps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Another one by Larry Lage http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/preview;_ylt=A...805&prov=ap Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evil204 4 Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Well, I disagree with the part where he claims the Wings don't have any flaws.. That's just hilarious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted May 9, 2008 i agree,i'm so used to the experts always saying stuff like;..yeah the wings are good but they dont have enough________(add generic reason) etc.etc. So i want to cheer this guy,but because he's not bashing them,you wonder if he's really a pro sportswriter..... Well, he picked Nabokov for the Vezina, so there's no guarantee about how much he actually knows about hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted May 9, 2008 (edited) Well, he picked Nabokov for the Vezina, so there's no guarantee about how much he actually knows about hockey. This coming from the guy who thinks D shouldn't have been nominated for the Selke!! Does that show your knowledge too?? BTW please do enlighten me as to why that is a bad choice for Vezina? I am aware, thanks to your post, you don't think he should win it. Any reasons why? Did he kick your dog? You could treat this like you did the Dats for Selke conversation, when some one asked you why you think Dats is so far behind Z in defensive play, you could not respond. Or you could overload the discussion with your interpretation of stats, which is more you Modus operandi. But at least using stats backs up your statement some how. Nabokov, Lundquist, Broduer those are the three finalist as voted, which I have to assume you were not part of that voting experience. SO why would choosing any of the three be a bad idea. I am not saying the award is Nabokov's, but I am not eliminating him from the running, as you appear to have done. Edited May 9, 2008 by Opie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
