C-TownWing 0 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 I certainly hope Wings don't come out flat. They've been flat for the past month. That being said, this is my opinion, Babcock has rattled more urgency from this team than Bowman did in some of the past first round games. I'm not a stat junkie, but has Babcock ever experienced a 1st round upset when coaching the Red Wings? EDIT: Babcock and the Wings had a 1st round upset in 05-06 against the Oilers (and the Oilers rallied on to the Finals and were beat in 7 by Carolina Hurricanes) I think it's noteworthy that we've improved our playoff finish both years since then (obviously that streak ends this year even if we win the Cup). Put that together with his run with Anaheim, and it seems obvious to me that Babs is a great playoff coach. No disrespect to Hitchcock, because he's an excellent coach as well, but IMO he's been living on reputation for a while now. His record since leaving Dallas is 234-149-28-49 over 6 seasons, with one division championship and two 2nd place finishes, but also 3 4th/5th place finishes (I combined 2006-07 into one, since he split that season between teams). Three playoff series wins (hopefully that number stays put). An okay resume I guess, but not worthy of the platitudes thrown his way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RockyMountainWingGal 108 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 He is making a valid point that Columbus could very well turn out to be a formidable foe for the Wings. And the Wings haven't exactly done anything to impress anyone in the last few months.... Hitchcock is a good coach - his team is not as talented - save for maybe in goal, but they have nothing to lose by giving this their all - and they were pretty effective against us this season. As a long time Wings fan, I've seen too many first round flops to be comfortable no matter the team. Sharks, Kings, Ducks, Oilers... I still think the Wings will win this series but I have alot of concerns and I don't see anything wrong with an analyst pointing that out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 He is making a valid point that Columbus could very well turn out to be a formidable foe for the Wings. And the Wings haven't exactly done anything to impress anyone in the last few months.... Hitchcock is a good coach - his team is not as talented - save for maybe in goal, but they have nothing to lose by giving this their all - and they were pretty effective against us this season. As a long time Wings fan, I've seen too many first round flops to be comfortable no matter the team. Sharks, Kings, Ducks, Oilers... I still think the Wings will win this series but I have alot of concerns and I don't see anything wrong with an analyst pointing that out. When every analyst is only pointing out 2006, though? That's a bit annoying. Especially when many improvements have been made to the team, and we don't have the choking sandbag (language censored) of a goalie that we did have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) He talks about the '06 Red Wings like they were the only #1 seed to ever lose to a #8 seed. Get over it Clement, that was '06, this is '09. We don't have Leagace between the pipes to collapse on us. Also, the critics always bring up the '06 Wings. Always, every year. We did NOT lose that playoff series because of Legace. We lost it because scorers like Pavel Datsyuk never showed up for the Playoffs until the decent run in 2007. Likewise, we did NOT lose the 2001 series to the Kings because of Osgood. The only thing I hate about being a Wings fan is how people instinctively run the goaltender out of town every year our team of all-stars underacheives. That said, I don't know how anybody feels that comfortable about our goaltending situation heading into this year's playoffs. Not just goaltending, but our overall defensive performance. The only real rationale for Osgood to succeed is, "Hey, he's done it before". But you could've said the same thing about 1998 for, well, every year after 1998. I pulled out my three Hockeytown DVD's a few weeks back for and was watching the 1998 one...it was 11 years ago, and yet I could almost remember every goal scored. But what I had forgotten through my rose-colored lenses was how badly Osgood actually played for most of that Playoffs. The moral of the story is that the Wings recent championships have never been about elite goaltending--they're about competent goaltending, all-around team defense and backchecking, and big-time scorers (with an occasional D-Mac or Joey Kocur) stepping up big. Edited April 16, 2009 by StormJH1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
servo 15 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 I find it very interesting that there are many commentators that are picking the Jackets to make the surprise upset. I would love to put them away in 4 although I'm sure that WILL NOT happen. I also find it very interesting that when you listen to some of the pundits, they will discribe the sharks as being very Red Wing like, but then talk about how we can't do it. The team is so deep that it is easy to over look or not mention our stars. Being the underdog is always a good option, but the dressing room will never feel like they are the underdog. I wonder what people would be saying if Osgood had numbers like last year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 We did NOT lose that playoff series because of Legace. We lost it because scorers like Pavel Datsyuk never showed up for the Playoffs until the decent run in 2007. Likewise, we did NOT lose the 2001 series to the Kings because of Osgood. The only thing I hate about being a Wings fan is how people instinctively run the goaltender out of town every year our team of all-stars underacheives. Honestly, that's the only Wings playoff series in recent memory that I truly believe was lost because of sub-standard goaltending. Legace was NOT good. 18 GA in six games? A .884 SV%? Blech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mors 201 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 When every analyst is only pointing out 2006, though? That's a bit annoying. Especially when many improvements have been made to the team, and we don't have the choking sandbag (language censored) of a goalie that we did have. Agreed, I've come across 3 or 4 articles now from various analysts that continually cite 2006 as if nothing has changed since then. Agitating to say the least considering we did kinda, sorta win the cup last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted April 16, 2009 Agreed, I've come across 3 or 4 articles now from various analysts that continually cite 2006 as if nothing has changed since then. Agitating to say the least considering we did kinda, sorta win the cup last year. It's fine with me. I'm more focused on the Wings doing what it takes to win. Another championship is rubbing it in the faces of those douchebags unwilling to give credit to a good team when it's due. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 That wasn't anit-Wings. It was pro-Blue Jackets. I didn't really think it was either. I thought it was just an article about what the BJs had to do to be successful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 16, 2009 Honestly, that's the only Wings playoff series in recent memory that I truly believe was lost because of sub-standard goaltending. Legace was NOT good. 18 GA in six games? A .884 SV%? Blech. Forget the numbers. The sheer number of crushing, soft goals he gave up at the worst conceivable times are what did that team in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
