GDT: 10/8 - Blackhawks, 2 @ Red Wings, 3

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Thanks for the win, boys. Now I can take off my "Oh God, Let's Panic" hat off for at least a day.

I am SOOOO Looking forward to attending my first two EVER games at the Joe next week. I'll be there for the Kings and the Nordilanche games as my 10th wedding anniversary present from my wife. She's sending me out of town, away from her and the kiddos for a whole weekend. If that isn't a reason to marry a woman, I don't know what is.

Regs,

Jeff

I'd get married just for that gift, but ten years is a long way off.

Wouldn't it be great.

Hopefully Matt will give me some special permission to be a mod for a week. Or maybe we could do a LGW contest, where the winner becomes a mod for a month or so.

I'd vote for Jake Ryan just to witness the chaos.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Drake_Marcus

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Stay on topic, please, or you won't be allowed to be a mod for one minute.

Hopefully the fire that killing the 5-on-3 privided will give our PK something to shoot for. Malts was in the box at the time. Add him to that group. Dats/Kron/Stu can kill the penalty, and Malts can pot the SHG's.

Do you really want to get into a present flame war with a future mod?

As for the PK, they did a good job of blocking shots, but they still suck at clearing pucks and gave up too many chances, including one PP goal. Lots of work to be done there still.

[55fan 5,133]

Do you really want to get into a present flame war with a future mod?

As for the PK, they did a good job of blocking shots, but they still suck at clearing pucks and gave up too many chances, including one PP goal. Lots of work to be done there still.

A present war! Cool. You can give me the first present. Then I'll declare you the winner.

Good to see the shot-blocking, although we still will miss Lilja in that department. After some of the PK's we had last year, there's no where to go but up.

Ozzie was pretty darn sharp tonight too. That makes or breaks a PK.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Are younger NHL fans really this clueless (on this particularly issue, that is not a sweeping condescension). Do you not remember why the instigator rules were put in place? And then the addition, as players were obviously taking advantage of the final minutes in a game.

It was exactly for what happened in that game - a larger player going after a skilled, non-fighter player from the other team after a loss to A) Do it and not have to suffer much consequence from the penalty itself and B) To send a message

It was not just "goons" doing this.

Watch the tape - Pittsburgh was down 0-2, was obviously frustrated (particularly Malkin who had been completely shut down at that point) and he went out of his way to target Zetterberg (the cazuse of much of Pittsburgh's frustration) and throw punches at him. 99.9% of the time no one goes after Zetterberg like that for holding another player. This was exactly the type of situation the rules were created for - like it or lump it.

Do you really think that was a spur of the moment fight there between two willing combatants?

Once again I find myself agreeing with you 100%.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Are younger NHL fans really this clueless (on this particularly issue, that is not a sweeping condescension). Do you not remember why the instigator rules were put in place? And then the addition, as players were obviously taking advantage of the final minutes in a game.

It was exactly for what happened in that game - a larger player going after a skilled, non-fighter player from the other team after a lose to A) Do it and not have to suffer much consequence from the penalty itself and B) To send a message

It was not just "goons" doing this.

Watch the tape - Pittsburgh was down 0-2, was obviously frustrated (particularly Malkin who had been completely shut down at that point) and he went out of his way to target Zetterberg (the cazuse of much of Pittsburgh's frustration) and throw punches at him. 99.9% of the time no one goes after Zetterberg like that for holding another player. This was exactly the type of situation the rules were created for - like it or lump it.

Do you really think that was a spur of the moment fight there between two willing combatants?

You really have to be a Penguins hater to think that Malkin would be on the ice, for any situation, to send a message.

Rule 47.22 states: "A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five minutes or at any time in overtime shall be suspended for one game, pending a review of the incident. The director of hockey operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not be limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc..."

Following that review, Campbell said: "None of the criteria in this rule applied in this situation. Suspensions are applied under this rule when a team attempts to send a message in the last five minutes by having a player instigate a fight. A suspension could also be applied when a player seeks retribution for a prior incident. Neither was the case here and therefore the one game suspension is rescinded."

Happened with players prior. This isn't special treatment. Malkin was not trying to send a message in the last five minutes and was not trying to seek retribution for a prior incident. His situation did not apply.

Also this:

"was obviously frustrated (particularly Malkin who had been completely shut down at that point) and he went out of his way to target Zetterberg (the cazuse of much of Pittsburgh's frustration)"

Does not mean that Malkin was trying to send a message. I have taken runs at other players before because of frustration, and so have many other players in the NHL. That isn't message sending. That is getting angry.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[egroen 384]

You really have to be a Penguins hater to think that Malkin would be on the ice, for any situation, to send a message.

Did you think the coach was required to order a hit for message sending to happen?

Happened with players prior. This isn't special treatment. Malkin was not trying to send a message in the last five minutes and was not trying to seek retribution for a prior incident. His situation did not apply.

Which is exactly why I don't think you were watching hockey much before the instigator rule was created. Knowing your age, I also know this to be true.... but it also shows.

Does not mean that Malkin was trying to send a message. I have taken runs at other players before because of frustration, and so have many other players in the NHL. That isn't message sending. That is getting angry.

You seem to think it was this cool, calculated move -- in 90% of the cases it was not.

Edited October 9, 2009 by egroen

[Doc Holiday 0]

Did you think the coach was required to order a hit for message sending to happen?

I never said that. Not once.

Which is exactly why I don't think you were watching hockey much before the instigator rule was created. Knowing your age, I also know this to be true.... but it also shows.

Irrelevant. Me "not watching hockey long" or "me being young" has NOTHING to do with the fact that the causes for the suspension DID NOT APPLY to Malkin. Not at all. Campbell has explained it in bold print. It has shown with the way they have enforced the rule.

You seem to think it was this cool, calculated move -- in 90% of the cases it was not.

Once again, I never said that.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[Drake_Marcus 890]

I never said that. Not once.

You clearly implied it by saying Malkin wouldn't be on the ice to send a message-- who puts him on the ice in that statement? The Zamboni driver?

(and yeah, at this point I'm just being a piss-ant and taking potshots from the distance )

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Do you really want to get into a present flame war with a future mod?

I just laughed out loud for the first time today. Thanks.

[Yak19 303]

Had class so i missed this one, good to see the team turn it around after the May fight and 5on3 kill.

GO WINGS!

[egroen 384]

I never said that. Not once.

It just seems to me younger fans have bought a revisionist history of what caused the rule change back then -- like the Burtuzzi - Moore incident was common place back then. It wasn't, but skilled players like Zetterberg (typically the players from the other team having the most to do with the win) were being targeted by larger players, skilled or unskilled... that's it. Exactly like we saw at the end of that game.

You weren't watching hockey at that time, so it's simply why you will find yourself disagreeing with most older hockey fans on this issue (we know instigating when we see it)... just like an older fan might have a more accurate understanding of why the power play was ended after a goal (new rule in the 50s).

Edited October 9, 2009 by egroen

[Doc Holiday 0]

You clearly implied it by saying Malkin wouldn't be on the ice to send a message-- who puts him on the ice in that statement? The Zamboni driver?

(and yeah, at this point I'm just being a piss-ant and taking potshots from the distance )

I'll concede that, however he has still proven nothing that shows Malkin was trying to send a message. His own post agrees that Malkin was frustrated and angry. Plenty of people do stupid things when they are aggravated but that doesn't mean they would be sending a message. Not at all.

My point remains standing. Your move egroen. Please give me something that can show that Malkin was attempting to send a message on that play.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

My point remains standing. Your move egroen. Please give me something that can show that Malkin was attempting to send a message on that play.

Boom. Your move Doc.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Boom. Your move Doc.

You sicko! Malkin would never cheat on Staal:

[Doc Holiday 0]

It just seems to me younger fans have bought a revisionist history of what caused the rule change back then -- like the Burtuzzi - Moore incident was common place back then. It wasn't, but skilled players like Zetterberg were being targeted by larger players, skilled or unskilled... that's it. Exactly like we saw at the end of that game.

It was a skilled player going after a skilled player that took a shot to one of his own players. Size is irrelevant in this case because that wasn't why Malkin targeted him. He was the closest to Zetterberg, Talbot was being engaged by another Wing, so Malkin, enraged as you already conceded, went after him.

You weren't watching hockey at that time, so it's simply why you will find yourself disagreeing with most older hockey fans on this issue (we know instigating when we see it)... just like an older fan might have a more accurate understanding of why the power play was ended after a goal (new rule in the 50s).

And a lot of older fans would disagree that Malkin's instigator warranted a suspension.

Campbell has clearly pointed it out to young and old fans alike what the basis is for a suspension. You continue to ignore that. Was Campbell trying to keep a star player on the ice for the ratings? So Pittsburgh could have a chance to win?

Drake: You sure you don't have MPD?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Drake: You sure you don't have MPD?

Nah. I'm just too bizarre to nail down with a single personality. The voices in my head told me so.

[Snazzy 0]

Gr8t game tonight. Ozzy was on fire! Why was he not the first star?

Wings came out sloppy and just completely droggy in the 1st. I am surprised they weathered the storm. I hope they get their s*** together. There passes were off, the puck was rolling off their sticks (did someone put grease on the blade of all the sticks?)

They must have cleaned the grease off the blades of the stick for the 2nd period, cause they dominated the Hawks. The 3rd was brutal with them sitting back trying to hold the lead. Their confidence is down and the chemistry is off... hopefully they'll build on this win!

[Guest Shoreline]

I would assume that the panic-o-meter has gone down a bit around here?

Wait til next loss.

If there's one thing that's evident though is that this team is going to need to play better defensively this season since the offense doesn't look nearly as potent or dangerous.

Overall, I'm glad to see May debut well for the Wings where it counts, Ozzy played superb, the boys eventually get their legs going, and really hope the Wings can be on the up and up on their special teams.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Shoreline

[skyphoenix 153]

Penalty Kill improved a lot tonight. Lots of good things and things to work on. Overall, it was a good win.

[Guest gofish]

we gotta stop blocking shots with our ankles. i was worried there twice tonight.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Penalty Kill improved a lot tonight. Lots of good things and things to work on. Overall, it was a good win.

Agreed. The successful 5-on-3 kill really set the tone for the night. If that ended in a goal it's a completely different game.

[Finnish Wing 110]

I don't know if somebody already posted this. Regarding Brad May: "It just gives you a little bit more swagger and he can look after your guys and attack people," Babcock said. Now, I just love that "and attack people" part. Seems like Babs doesn't know much about enforcers. : D

[Dominator2005 558]

Osgood was GREAT tonight.

Stuart

May

[egroen 384]

It was a skilled player going after a skilled player that took a shot to one of his own players. Size is irrelevant in this case because that wasn't why Malkin targeted him. He was the closest to Zetterberg, Talbot was being engaged by another Wing, so Malkin, enraged as you already conceded, went after him.

And a lot of older fans would disagree that Malkin's instigator warranted a suspension.

Campbell has clearly pointed it out to young and old fans alike what the basis is for a suspension. You continue to ignore that. Was Campbell trying to keep a star player on the ice for the ratings? So Pittsburgh could have a chance to win?

Drake: You sure you don't have MPD?

Campbell flat-out insulted hockey fans with that.

Pretty much all "message sending" comes from angry, frustrated players on losing teams... or did you think it was something else?

Most of us know what sending a message looks like - and Malkin was sending a message to Zetterberg and his own teamates.

You obviously need to watch it again if you think Talbot needed protection.

Zetterberg gives one shove in response to an Osgood spear from Talbot (it was from the front, so we are not talking big, bad Zetterberg was putting Talbot in danger)- other than that, nothing - Malkin skates around the net and comes right for him, from behind and starts swinging right away.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=jp-m...o&type=lgns

This rule has been a joke since it first came out.

[dat's sick 1,002]

Wasn't able to watch the game, but it seems like the Wings showed exactly what I was hoping for. Hopefully those 2 performances against the Blues had more to do with nerves or being distracted by all the commotion of going to Sweden than actually being indicative of what the season will look like.

Now I just hope they can put together 60 solid minutes against the Caps too. The defense and goaltending will have to be at it's best to stop Ovie & Co.

Will be watching the game with a buddy of mine who is a die-hard Caps fan, so the stakes are high.

Oh, and what's up with Draper so far? Bounce back year? He looked good against the Blues and on that goal yesterday he looked like Ovechkin