San Jose Drops the Ball

[Echolalia 2,961]

Even though they lost tonight it appears the Wings managed to grab an extra point on San Jose. At least they're chipping away at the lead that the two games in hand could potentially be.

[Yzersyukstromberg 0]

It's good to know that when the Wings choke, the Sharks choke even worse, against worse competition.

[Jersey Wing 1,521]

I see the Western Conference like this come playoff time as far as favorites go:

You could pick Detroit, San Jose, Calgary or FIELD and right now FIELD is looking like a real sexy pick.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

It's good to know that when the Wings choke, the Sharks choke even worse, against worse competition.

Ahhh they let in 2 goals. 1 empty net (big wooop). The Wings had 6 goals go on their goals against (no idea why the SO goal counts against your GA, but that's what NHL has on their site).

Your team lets in 2 goals- playoff loss, possibly playoff win.

Your team lets in 5 goals- you're the Avalanche playing against the 07-08 Wings.

[Zetterling 16]

looks like 06' playoff revised! dag nabbit!

[cprice12 117]

San Jose choked?

Nah.

The Blues have the best record in the NHL since January 15th.

St. Louis is just playing very good hockey, getting solid goaltending...and has a shot at making the playoffs now...only two points out.

If only Eric Johnson, Kariya & Brewer weren't done for the season.

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

San Jose choked?

Nah.

The Blues have the best record in the NHL since January 15th.

St. Louis is just playing very good hockey, getting solid goaltending...and has a shot at making the playoffs now...only two points out.

If only Eric Johnson, Kariya & Brewer weren't done for the season.

Of all the teams fighting for the 8th spot, I honestly think *as much I hate to say it* that St.Louis will make it. They deserve it anyway for the tear they've been on.

[DatsyukownzU13 1]

Give the Blues that spot... I would love to play the Blues in the playoffs.

Central is looking very competitive next year with the arrival of Columbus and St. Louis getting some studs back and more experience. Nashville always turns out a competitive team as well.

[mjlegend 155]

San Jose choked?

Nah.

The Blues have the best record in the NHL since January 15th.

St. Louis is just playing very good hockey, getting solid goaltending...and has a shot at making the playoffs now...only two points out.

If only Eric Johnson, Kariya & Brewer weren't done for the season.

You're right, the Blues should have been expected to beat the Sharks. I don't know what the hell we were thinking.

[Rivalred 630]

The Wings better be paying close attention to Calgary. We could easily slipped to the 3rd seed.

[norrisnick 1]

The Wings better be paying close attention to Calgary. We could easily slipped to the 3rd seed.

Easily? No. It is next to impossible for the Flames to catch the Wings. There is no way in hell they put up 12 more points over the last 14 games. That's not happening.

Even if the Flames were to go 14-0 the rest of the way the Wings would only have to put up a very pedestrian 9-5 to still end up ahead.

Flames go 12-2 the Wings only need to go 7-7.

Flames go 10-4 the Wings still get the 2nd seed going 5-9.

It's more likely that Chicago catches us and that's not happening either.

[Guest Four]

Give the Blues that spot... I would love to play the Blues in the playoffs.

Central is looking very competitive next year with the arrival of Columbus and St. Louis getting some studs back and more experience. Nashville always turns out a competitive team as well.

Yeah rly, that seems to be the one team that we can beat without an uber meltdown:\

[Zion 93]

The Wings better be paying close attention to Calgary. We could easily slipped to the 3rd seed.

Wrong.

[stormboy 47]

Ahhh they let in 2 goals. 1 empty net (big wooop). The Wings had 6 goals go on their goals against (no idea why the SO goal counts against your GA, but that's what NHL has on their site).

Your team lets in 2 goals- playoff loss, possibly playoff win.

Your team lets in 5 goals- you're the Avalanche playing against the 07-08 Wings.

i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in your statement, but i think this arguement is at least worth debating. i think this is an extremely pessemistic and unfair way to look at the outcomes of tonight's games.

(let me note here that i agree that we essentially let in five goals last night--the game did not end in the way that a playoff game ended, and there's no reason to think that either team had the edge if continued play had occured. thus, i will assume that we had five goals scored on us last night.)

but here's my argument (it doesn't really flow in order, and i'm really tired, but see if it all makes sense together):

1. based on last night's game, i'm hearing, "we better watch out for the flames!!" and "any team that lets in 5 goals is not going to win a playoff game."

2. if this were the playoffs, some team would have won 6-5 after some amount of overtime. letting in five or six goals is such a bad sign for us, and shows us that we should be afraid of them, then the implicit assumption is:

a) other teams (e.g. calgary) will tighten up their defense, and our high-powered offense will never put up 5+ goals against a good team, and

b) we will NOT be able to tighten up our defense

c) thus, the flames would have likely won this game 5-2 or something.

3. furthermore, you're comparing the STL-SJS game and the DET-CGY game. i didn't watch the SJS game, but because the score was 2-1 until an empty-netter was scored, i assume it was a game that was much more tightly played by both teams. there was probably a lot less room on the ice and everyone was probably making the safe play all the time instead of high risk/high reward type plays, which i think we saw in the DET game.

4. thus, you're saying that tonight was effectively a 5-2 defeat of the wings at the hands of the sharks, because that is the amount of goals scored on them in their respective games. they were obviously different kinds of games, and let's not forget that the flames who we are supposed to be all effing scared of now also let in five goals, which you yourself implied is a playoff defeat, even though the flames won the game.

sorry for the numbers--i'm just trying to organize my thoughts. when i read you're post, i am instantly grumbling and saying, "that's an awful--and not necessarily accurate--way to look at the situation," and i'm just trying to itterate clearly why i think that.

i simply don't see many playoff games going the way tonight's game went. and if you want to argue that the flames will tighten up their D in the postseason while we will be unable to, i think it's worth noting that the wings have 205 total GAs this season; the flames have 206. obviously not a significant difference, but provides absolutely no reason to think that calgary will suddenly only allow 1-2 goals max a game while the wings will still routinely be letting in five or six.

i just get tired of the argument that's like, "well, we're in first place points-wise" [though not win-percentage, i understand] "right now, but we're not going to do well in the playoffs if we consistently let in this many goals." i agree that if we let in 4-6 goals a game in the playoffs, we won't go deep, but right now there's not reason to assume that's the case when the flames have played as bad or worse defensively than we have all year.

this has nothing to do with you, and sorry for such a long post, but i remember a post before a playoff series last year (it may have even been before the playoffs) that said, "their scorers will be ready...will ours?" i just don't why everyone assumes that every other team will be able to flip a switch for playoff hockey but the wings will play exactly the same as they have played all year, minus the scoring.

edit: sorry i kept mixing "tonight's" and "last night's games..." i work third shift so last night is still "today" for me, if that makes sense. i don't go to bed for a few more hours....sorry if that was confusing.

Edited March 13, 2009 by stormboy

[cprice12 117]

You're right, the Blues should have been expected to beat the Sharks. I don't know what the hell we were thinking.

San Jose was on the road, in St. Louis.

St. Louis is the hottest team in the NHL right now.

San Jose only had one win in their last five games going into the game vs. St. Louis.

The Blues had beaten the Sharks in two of their first three meetings leading up to that game.

I didn't say St. Louis was "expected to win". I'm saying it's stupid to say San Jose "choked" by not beating St. Louis.

And yeah, I don't know what the hell you were thinking either.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in your statement, but i think this arguement is at least worth debating. i think this is an extremely pessemistic and unfair way to look at the outcomes of tonight's games.

(let me note here that i agree that we essentially let in five goals last night--the game did not end in the way that a playoff game ended, and there's no reason to think that either team had the edge if continued play had occured. thus, i will assume that we had five goals scored on us last night.)

but here's my argument (it doesn't really flow in order, and i'm really tired, but see if it all makes sense together):

1. based on last night's game, i'm hearing, "we better watch out for the flames!!" and "any team that lets in 5 goals is not going to win a playoff game."

2. if this were the playoffs, some team would have won 6-5 after some amount of overtime. letting in five or six goals is such a bad sign for us, and shows us that we should be afraid of them, then the implicit assumption is:

a) other teams (e.g. calgary) will tighten up their defense, and our high-powered offense will never put up 5+ goals against a good team, and

b) we will NOT be able to tighten up our defense

c) thus, the flames would have likely won this game 5-2 or something.

3. furthermore, you're comparing the STL-SJS game and the DET-CGY game. i didn't watch the SJS game, but because the score was 2-1 until an empty-netter was scored, i assume it was a game that was much more tightly played by both teams. there was probably a lot less room on the ice and everyone was probably making the safe play all the time instead of high risk/high reward type plays, which i think we saw in the DET game.

4. thus, you're saying that tonight was effectively a 5-2 defeat of the wings at the hands of the sharks, because that is the amount of goals scored on them in their respective games. they were obviously different kinds of games, and let's not forget that the flames who we are supposed to be all effing scared of now also let in five goals, which you yourself implied is a playoff defeat, even though the flames won the game.

sorry for the numbers--i'm just trying to organize my thoughts. when i read you're post, i am instantly grumbling and saying, "that's an awful--and not necessarily accurate--way to look at the situation," and i'm just trying to itterate clearly why i think that.

i simply don't see many playoff games going the way tonight's game went. and if you want to argue that the flames will tighten up their D in the postseason while we will be unable to, i think it's worth noting that the wings have 205 total GAs this season; the flames have 206. obviously not a significant difference, but provides absolutely no reason to think that calgary will suddenly only allow 1-2 goals max a game while the wings will still routinely be letting in five or six.

i just get tired of the argument that's like, "well, we're in first place points-wise" [though not win-percentage, i understand] "right now, but we're not going to do well in the playoffs if we consistently let in this many goals." i agree that if we let in 4-6 goals a game in the playoffs, we won't go deep, but right now there's not reason to assume that's the case when the flames have played as bad or worse defensively than we have all year.

this has nothing to do with you, and sorry for such a long post, but i remember a post before a playoff series last year (it may have even been before the playoffs) that said, "their scorers will be ready...will ours?" i just don't why everyone assumes that every other team will be able to flip a switch for playoff hockey but the wings will play exactly the same as they have played all year, minus the scoring.

edit: sorry i kept mixing "tonight's" and "last night's games..." i work third shift so last night is still "today" for me, if that makes sense. i don't go to bed for a few more hours....sorry if that was confusing.

I wasn't implying the Flames are scary at all. They're not. Just watch their chemistry. The number of huge deadline splashes that resulted in stanley cups can be counted on one hand, one hand with a closed fist. Calgary will give someone a tough time, but they won't make it to the finals.

No, I'm worried about the pathetic, porous defense that sits in front of our sub-par goaltending.

14 games man. 14 games to start playing playoff hockey.

I'll be this nervous until we're past the first round in a convincing fashion (i.e. playing like the 07-08 Wings).

Anyone that thinks there's nothing to be worried about either has senile dementia or is utterly foolish.

If the Wings post 14 consecutive shutouts between now and April they still won't be first overall in goals against.

[Namingway 146]

San Jose was on the road, in St. Louis.

St. Louis is the hottest team in the NHL right now.

San Jose only had one win in their last five games going into the game vs. St. Louis.

The Blues had beaten the Sharks in two of their first three meetings leading up to that game.

I didn't say St. Louis was "expected to win". I'm saying it's stupid to say San Jose "choked" by not beating St. Louis.

And yeah, I don't know what the hell you were thinking either.

Well if you want to look at it that way. Otherwise I could say....

The Sharks were leading the west and the league for the most part this season.

The Blues were around the bottom for the most part this season.

That being said, most people would expect a top tier team to beat one that's been on a lower one for the better part of the season.

If you look at it from everyone else's perspective, that's how it would be. Not everybody pays attention to the Blues and how awesome they've been as of lately or how great they've played against the Sharks this season.

Sorry but not everybody follows your blues. Maybe the Sharks didn't choke to the eyes of Blues fans, but for a team that's in the top 3 of the league right now to only score 1 goal and lose against a team that no one would've expected to have a shot at the playoffs let's say a couple months ago and are currrently in 11th spot of the West, then yes they did kind of choke.

The Blues are decent, I think it's a bit far fetched to say they're the 'hottest' team in the NHL right now.

I could say the Canucks, Blue Jackets and Devils have been just as good in the past 10 games

Edit : Oh yeah, also our beloved Pens!

Edited March 14, 2009 by Namingway

[Namingway 146]

double post!

Edited March 14, 2009 by Namingway

[I Red Wings I 40]

Well if you want to look at it that way. Otherwise I could say....

The Sharks were leading the west and the league for the most part this season.

The Blues were around the bottom for the most part this season.

That being said, most people would expect a top tier team to beat one that's been on a lower one for the better part of the season.

If you look at it from everyone else's perspective, that's how it would be. Not everybody pays attention to the Blues and how awesome they've been as of lately or how great they've played against the Sharks this season.

Sorry but not everybody follows your blues. Maybe the Sharks didn't choke to the eyes of Blues fans, but for a team that's in the top 3 of the league right now to only score 1 goal and lose against a team that no one would've expected to have a shot at the playoffs let's say a couple months ago and are currrently in 11th spot of the West, then yes they did kind of choke.

The Blues are decent, I think it's a bit far fetched to say they're the 'hottest' team in the NHL right now.

I could say the Canucks, Blue Jackets and Devils have been just as good in the past 10 games

Edit : Oh yeah, also our beloved Pens!

Wouldn't that be called an upset? A choke is when a team is up by three goals after two periods and blow the lead. You can't always expect a team that's in the top three of a conference to beat a team who is eight to eleventh seed, that's why the game is played. In your case, Detroit has "choked" plenty of times.

[Namingway 146]

Wouldn't that be called an upset? A choke is when a team is up by three goals after two periods and blow the lead. You can't always expect a team that's in the top three of a conference to beat a team who is eight to eleventh seed, that's why the game is played. In your case, Detroit has "choked" plenty of times.

Maybe on your dictionary, sure.

choked, chok·ing, chokes.

v.intr.

To fail to perform effectively because of nervous agitation or tension, especially in an athletic contest: choked by missing an easy putt on the final hole.

e.g. the Sens Choked in the SCF of 2007. Did they ever have a lead in the series? Nop.

Learn your words before trying to preach on others on how to use em, kthx

[I Red Wings I 40]

Maybe on your dictionary, sure.

choked, chok·ing, chokes.

v.intr.

To fail to perform effectively because of nervous agitation or tension, especially in an athletic contest: choked by missing an easy putt on the final hole.

e.g. the Sens Choked in the SCF of 2007. Did they ever have a lead in the series? Nop.

Learn your words before trying to preach on others on how to use em, kthx

I never told you how to use any words, I simply asked a question. Your definition fits either way, a team that doesn't finish when leading or a team who loses to a lower seed team. I really don't care what you think it means, nine out of ten people here would say a team "choked" when they blow a game. You never hear anyone say, "oh they choked because they lost to a lower team"

[Namingway 146]

I never told you how to use any words, I simply asked a question. Your definition fits either way, a team that doesn't finish when leading or a team who loses to a lower seed team. I really don't care what you think it means, nine out of ten people here would say a team "choked" when they blow a game. You never hear anyone say, "oh they choked because they lost to a lower team"

That was just part of it. I considered the part of them only scoring 1 goal and overall them losing as the choking part. They did blow a game, like you said right? The Blues being a lower team is just another part of it, not necessarily their reason of choking. You said that 'upset' would be the right term for it and I'm saying that Choke could be used as well.

A choke is when a team is up by three goals after two periods and blow the lead.

lol wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_(sports)

Too bad it doesn't say anything about choke = blowing a lead in hockey. I guess wikipedia is part of the one out of ten others that agrees with me

I'm not saying that your usage is wrong. I'm saying it's not the only way it's used

Edited March 14, 2009 by Namingway

[I Red Wings I 40]

Fine, I never heard "choke" being referred to a team who loses when favored to win. I've always heard it as an upset.

[clutchngrab 12]

I see the Western Conference like this come playoff time as far as favorites go:

You could pick Detroit, San Jose, Calgary or FIELD and right now FIELD is looking like a real sexy pick.

I like Columbus alot for the FIELD. They smell like Edmonton when they went to the cup finals against Carolina.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

By the end of this month, San Jose's "games in hand" will be caught up. Both club's will have 6 games to play in April: Detroit with 4 at home, San Jose with 3 at home. San Jose will be finished their regular season on Saturday, April 11th; Detroit on Sunday the 12th, the last day of the regular season. It could be quite the sprint to the finish.