12/1 GDT: Red Wings 2, Ducks 1

[stormboy 47]

yeah, i don't see any reason to be upset about tonight's game. like others have mentioned, we beat jiggy and were inches away from scoring three more goals, which would have been a 5-1 result. hossa also owned the d on a good pass from dats and just missed over the bar on a breakaway. obviously, those don't count, but it doesn't matter because we got the win. jiggy was good (amazing toe stop on datsyuk at one point), and it seemed like a fair amount of the shots were from the perimeter, but when we shoot almost three times as many shots as them, that means that we controlled play. they can't score if we're shooting the puck, even if we're shooting it into their goalies chest and then winning the vast majority of the faceoffs (draper and z were collectively 23 wins against seven losses-- that's almost 77 per cent).

we can't expect to blow out a physical team with a good goalie that often. what we can expect is to control the play, play solid d and get good goaltending...all of which we did tonight (save stuart's gaffe, which i missed, but sounded pretty brutal). it was one of the most exciting 2-1 results i've seen in a while and an important home win against a contending team (their start was horrible but they have an excellent record since then, putting them on par with the leagues best teams...and they're still fourth in the west) that we've had trouble with in the past.

plus, the only thing better than chris pronger taking that cross-checking penalty to negate a late ducks powerplay was watching the reaction on the board. i think "see you in box you dumb retarded f***" made its way into the mix, which just makes me laugh.

and anyone arguing the whole second-of-a-back-to-back thing, this is our third game in four days, with travel in between each one, and when we play there we're playing until one in the morning; when they play here, the game starts at four thirty in the afternoon. so i don't want your s*** and i don't give a s***.

go wings.

[The Mule 0]

On a side note -- hearing of Babcock's remarks this morning put a smile on my face. Love the challenge there and I think it was obvious that the club rose to it in effort tonight. Let's hope (again) that it's sustained. I think he knows as well as most of us that a long homestand + bad habits & lack of 100% effort are a bad combination.

Amen.

[Nev 1,085]

Nice to see the 07-08 wings make a welcome return

As for the Ducks being tired

We've been through a tough part of the schedule, but there's no excuse ever in this league. No one cares where you were or where you came from, you got to find a way to win games and compete hard

Now STFU about it.

[hamip1998 3]

Nice to see the team return to form. This is the type of game that I have been waiting to see from the team for a while. Not too much flash, just out hustling the other team and making smart decisions with the puck, and yes - puck control. This game could have easliy had a much higher score. Boy do we miss Homer on the power play.

Great effort.

[Johnny Law 15]

This game could have easliy had a much higher score. Boy do we miss Homer on the power play.

Great effort.

Agreed, some nights the shots just don't fall for you. Alot of good stuff to build off, they finally have some time at home so the practice schedule should be pretty good. I expect some of the finer points of their game will improve after a couple solid practices.

[egroen 384]

Best played game all year. I think the bad ice contributed almost as much to less goals than Giguere did.

[VM1138 1,921]

Why the pessimism? Giguere played pretty good, we slaughtered the rest of their team

I think some people misinterpreted my post. I wasn't being pessimistic, I just wanted those questions answered. Just like some people jump all over the Wings for a single loss, some people overstate a Wings win, you know?

Didn't mean to come off snotty or pessimistic.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

I think some people misinterpreted my post. I wasn't being pessimistic, I just wanted those questions answered. Just like some people jump all over the Wings for a single loss, some people overstate a Wings win, you know?

Didn't mean to come off snotty or pessimistic.

The only person not saying we played good was young guns, would you trust him?

[Opie 308]

So, let me get this straight, the Red Wings played the Ducks, with no enforcer dressed and still won, but huh, ahhh huh what how did that happen, surely 4 or 5 of the Red Wings must be headed to IR due to being run the whole game with no one there to stop it!

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

So, let me get this straight, the Red Wings played the Ducks, with no enforcer dressed and still won, but huh, ahhh huh what how did that happen, surely 4 or 5 of the Red Wings must be headed to IR due to being run the whole game with no one there to stop it!

I am greatly amused by this.

[esteef 2,679]

So, let me get this straight, the Red Wings played the Ducks, with no enforcer dressed and still won, but huh, ahhh huh what how did that happen, surely 4 or 5 of the Red Wings must be headed to IR due to being run the whole game with no one there to stop it!

Easy..., one goal game pretty much the whole way through. If it was 4-1 Wings in the third, you'd have seen more "messages".

esteef

[Opie 308]

Oh so enforcers are only needed in games that are out of hand, I thought it was every game the wings forwards got run and took dirty hits that without an enforcer would doom the team forever!

It is so hard to keep up with this, first they can't win without a real enforcer in the line up nightly, now it is they can't win without an enforcer in the lineup, in a blow out.

I think I got it now. I guess we will see on Wed the 10th when they play Calgary.

Can some one let me know the standards ahead of the game so I can keep track.

So far I have:

1. Can not win because teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers will man handle the wings and run them and cheapshot them all over the ice.

2. Red Wing Players will get hurt against teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers from dirty hits, and that will prevent them from winning another cup.

3. The rule only applies in a blow out.

Am I missing anything?

BTW this rant is not aimed at esteef, he just happened to answer the question in my first post.

Edit: not aimed at esteef sorry wrong poster.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Opie

[esteef 2,679]

Oh so enforcers are only needed in games that are out of hand, I thought it was every game the wings forwards got run and took dirty hits that without an enforcer would doom the team forever!

It is so hard to keep up with this, first they can't win without a real enforcer in the line up nightly, now it is they can't win without an enforcer in the lineup, in a blow out.

I think I got it now. I guess we will see on Wed the 10th when they play Calgary.

Can some one let me know the standards ahead of the game so I can keep track.

So far I have:

1. Can not win because teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers will man handle the wings and run them and cheapshot them all over the ice.

2. Red Wing Players will get hurt against teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers from dirty hits, and that will prevent them from winning another cup.

3. The rule only applies in a blow out.

Am I missing anything?

BTW this rant is not aimed at egreon, he just happened to answer the question in my first post.

Settle down man. Who said anything about not winning? I just don't like cheap hits on our players to go unanswered. When the score is tight there is usually less cheap play as to not put either team on the PP. Is this a surprise to you? Again, if the Wings don't hit posts or miss empty nets last night and the score is a little lopsided late, you definitely would've seen some run-ins. I KNOW you know this stuff, you're just trying to score some cheap little points in the fighter vs non-fighter debate.

esteef

[adtthosa 5]

Good game, we dominated. It may have been only a one goal game for 95% of it but let's be honest, we completely outplayed them. I'm so glad we won so we don't have to read 100 "why don't we have a George Parros?" posts.

[skacore 2]

Oh so enforcers are only needed in games that are out of hand, I thought it was every game the wings forwards got run and took dirty hits that without an enforcer would doom the team forever!

It is so hard to keep up with this, first they can't win without a real enforcer in the line up nightly, now it is they can't win without an enforcer in the lineup, in a blow out.

I think I got it now. I guess we will see on Wed the 10th when they play Calgary.

Can some one let me know the standards ahead of the game so I can keep track.

So far I have:

1. Can not win because teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers will man handle the wings and run them and cheapshot them all over the ice.

2. Red Wing Players will get hurt against teams like the Ducks, Flames, Flyers from dirty hits, and that will prevent them from winning another cup.

3. The rule only applies in a blow out.

Am I missing anything?

BTW this rant is not aimed at egreon, he just happened to answer the question in my first post.

Did you find the game last night entertaining? Personally I fell asleep mid way through the 2nd period. That's incredible because usually Anaheim games keep me up even at 10:30 starts

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Did you find the game last night entertaining? Personally I fell asleep mid way through the 2nd period. That's incredible because usually Anaheim games keep me up even at 10:30 starts

Maybe you missed Franzen or Dats with those sick deke's and Dats wiht ht ebig hit on moen who instead of challenging datsyuk like a true tough guy ran over to the ref and literally almost began to cry.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

So, let me get this straight, the Red Wings played the Ducks, with no enforcer dressed and still won, but huh, ahhh huh what how did that happen, surely 4 or 5 of the Red Wings must be headed to IR due to being run the whole game with no one there to stop it!

They took one run at Draper haha, Sammy actually boarded pronger then Dats went after moen

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Oh yeah, and big bad Hedican ran meech and ended up hurting himself

[Opie 308]

Settle down man. Who said anything about not winning? I just don't like cheap hits on our players to go unanswered. When the score is tight there is usually less cheap play as to not put either team on the PP. Is this a surprise to you? Again, if the Wings don't hit posts or miss empty nets last night and the score is a little lopsided late, you definitely would've seen some run-ins. I KNOW you know this stuff, you're just trying to score some cheap little points in the fighter vs non-fighter debate.

esteef

As I tried to type in my first post and screwed up, the rant was not aimed at you, however the throngs of people who claimed the Wings can not win without an enforcer, the people who flipped a lid when Downey then Mac were waived.

I don't post here a lot any more because the board has become full of posters who just want to point out the negative, for whatever reason.

But if you recall, teams like the Ducks, Flyers, Flames, etc. were supposed to steam roll and run the Wings every game and by the time the post season got around the Wings record would not matter because they would be so unbelievably physically beat that they wouldn't hold a candle to any team.

BTW what proof do you have that the Ducks would have started to run the Wings when or if the Wings got up big. Have they been doing that all year? Did they cheapshot the Sharks in the 4-1 loss, how about the Hurricanes in a 3-1 loss, 5-2 loss to Dallas, or how about a 4-0 win over the sharks, 5-2 over the blues, 4-1 over the lanche, 4-1 over the hurricanes?

I don't know I didn't watch those games.

You have a whole bunch of ifs supporting your points, where as all I know is the Wings beat the Ducks last night, I read a bunch of excuses on here (mainly from one poster) as to why the Ducks weren't up to the task.

The Wings just beat most of the fight fans flagship team, and I wanted to make sure I got my point in.

Because I guarantee you the day a Wings player misses as much as one shift from a check there will be a thread, not a post in the GDT, a thread complaining that an enforcer would have stopped it, and nobody would accept a "Well if it was a one point game that wouldn't have happened" answer.

[The Mule 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did a handful of Wings fans not predict a Detroit loss or a player injury prior to this game? Damn, talk about being nowhere close to hitting the nail on the head.

[Opie 308]

Did you find the game last night entertaining? Personally I fell asleep mid way through the 2nd period. That's incredible because usually Anaheim games keep me up even at 10:30 starts

Sure did, in fact I found the game I was at on Saturday to be entertaining to, it sucks they lost, but I find hockey in general entertaining, not just one aspect. I am a hockey fan, I like hockey fights, but they are a part of hockey, just like a sick deke is or a twisted wrister.

Are you a hockey fan or a hockey fight fan?

[Z and D for the C 712]

Did you find the game last night entertaining? Personally I fell asleep mid way through the 2nd period. That's incredible because usually Anaheim games keep me up even at 10:30 starts

No, it wasn't all that entertaining, but some dumb fight for fighting sake wouldn't have changed that.

[skacore 2]

No, it wasn't all that entertaining, but some dumb fight for fighting sake wouldn't have changed that.

could have

[skacore 2]

Sure did, in fact I found the game I was at on Saturday to be entertaining to, it sucks they lost, but I find hockey in general entertaining, not just one aspect. I am a hockey fan, I like hockey fights, but they are a part of hockey, just like a sick deke is or a twisted wrister.

Are you a hockey fan or a hockey fight fan?

both

[Tr!PoD#19 524]

No, it wasn't all that entertaining, but some dumb fight for fighting sake wouldn't have changed that.

Hahaha.