Jimmy Howard watch thread

[Echolalia 2,961]

Looked a bit off tonight, although I suppose the same could be said for the entire team. Anyway, I suspect Osgood will be getting the nod in the next one.

[gcom007 1,465]

Sixth straight game? Rookie? Is anyone surprised? You shouldn't be.

And it isn't his fault, he's not the coach...

[Paolino99 5]

Howard's game vs Anaheim was a SHAME!!! Please replace him!

OZZIE RULES

[Pucks 66]

Howard didn't have his best game tonight. That was one of the worst 1st periods I can remember this year. We simply had no compete level. Everyone was drained from laying around at the beach or something. I think he faced like 3 or 4 breakaways in the first alone. I think sometimes Rafalski forgets what color his jersey is.

[Guest zackmorris]

It was bound to happen, he's been amazing over the past 15 starts or so.

[Rivalred 630]

I am still waiting for samples of this "Jimmy Howard Watch" collectors item

[Zetts 236]

I didn't think he was particularly bad last night. Still, I'd be shocked if Osgood wasn't in next game.

I am still waiting for samples of this "Jimmy Howard Watch" collectors item

[gcom007 1,465]

I didn't think he was particularly bad last night. Still, I'd be shocked if Osgood wasn't in next game.

I mean, I think he was pretty weak and he got his ass saved by his team three other times in the first that kept it from being 5-0 due to his lousy puck control, but I'm really glad Babcock left him in and I thought he rebounded real well and did what he could with a s*** circumstance. He looked a little rattled at times in the face but hopefully getting through the game and seeing that it's not the end of the world will make him stronger for the next time.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I am still waiting for samples of this "Jimmy Howard Watch" collectors item

Theres a wonderful photoshop opportunity here and I hope someone takes advantage of it

[kook_10 1,705]

Only $19.99 + shipping and handling - limited edition of 50,000 get em while ya can

Edited January 6, 2010 by kook_10

[The Mule 0]

Ozzie will undoubtedly get the nod in Los Angeles, but despite the loss, Jimmy wasn't all that bad last night. The team obviously competed at a level too far below par, and Anaheim took advantage of just that. That said, Jimmy still posted a .900+ SV%.

[Pucks 66]

Ozzie will undoubtedly get the nod in Los Angeles, but despite the loss, Jimmy wasn't all that bad last night. The team obviously competed at a level too far below par, and Anaheim took advantage of just that. That said, Jimmy still posted a .900+ SV%.

No way! Jimmy will get the start again for sure.

[skyphoenix 153]

Babcock named Howard the starter against LA

Edited January 6, 2010 by skyphoenix

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Ozzie will undoubtedly get the nod in Los Angeles, but despite the loss, Jimmy wasn't all that bad last night. The team obviously competed at a level too far below par, and Anaheim took advantage of just that. That said, Jimmy still posted a .900+ SV%.

Howard's getting the nod. Expect the "Ozzie sounding unOzzie like" thread to explode soon

[Theophany 110]

Howard's game vs Anaheim was a SHAME!!! Please replace him!

OZZIE RULES

If you're blaming a goalie for losing a game where his team played like s***, were you blaming Ozzie when he was standing on his head and still losing games to Anaheim and Pittsburgh last year?

I bet you were.

Howard didn't have his best game tonight. That was one of the worst 1st periods I can remember this year. We simply had no compete level. Everyone was drained from laying around at the beach or something. I think he faced like 3 or 4 breakaways in the first alone. I think sometimes Rafalski forgets what color his jersey is.

It's tough to have a good game when the team in front of you is playing like garbage.

[Outsider 42]

It's tough to have a good game when the team in front of you is playing like garbage.

It's even tougher to play better when you're not playing. At all.

[Guest Four]

Howard surpassed my expectations, that's for sure. Great job Howie!

[Pucks 66]

It's even tougher to play better when you're not playing. At all.

With good reason. Thankfully the hair has some common sense.

[Outsider 42]

With good reason. Thankfully the hair has some common sense.

There is absolutely NO "good reason" to have benched Osgood more than just about any straight BACK UP in the League over the past two months.

None. Absolutely NONE.

Alex Auld played more Games than Osgood last month. Martin Biron and Vesa Toskala played more Games in December than Osgood played. Manny freakin' Legace played more Games in December than Osgood played.

This stopped being about "riding the hot goalie" a long time ago. LONG before Osgood's comments in the Detroit News on December 31st.

This is a "lesson". This is Babcock exerting his authority over the situation, much like he did with LEGACE in 2005. "I don't care what conventional wisdom, or history proves. I'm gonna do it MY way, come Hell or high water, and there's nothing you can do about it."

It's a mind-game, pure and simple. And it's BS.

[Zetts 236]

There is absolutely NO "good reason" to have benched Osgood more than just about any straight BACK UP in the League over the past two months.

None. Absolutely NONE.

Alex Auld played more Games than Osgood last month. Martin Biron and Vesa Toskala played more Games in December than Osgood played. Manny freakin' Legace played more Games in December than Osgood played.

This stopped being about "riding the hot goalie" a long time ago. LONG before Osgood's comments in the Detroit News on December 31st.

This is a "lesson". This is Babcock exerting his authority over the situation, much like he did with LEGACE in 2005. "I don't care what conventional wisdom, or history proves. I'm gonna do it MY way, come Hell or high water, and there's nothing you can do about it."

It's a mind-game, pure and simple. And it's BS.

Considering he's one of the most successful coaches in the league, I'll stick with his (unbiased) opinion over a blind Osgood homer.

Babcock's goal is always the same: to win. And he does it.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Considering he's one of the most successful coaches in the league, I'll stick with his (unbiased) opinion over a blind Osgood homer.

Babcock's goal is always the same: to win. And he does it.

So does Osgood.

And to call Outsider blind just because he has an Osgood bias is a cop-out from actually attempting to discuss the issue.

[Zetts 236]

So does Osgood.

And to call Outsider blind just because he has an Osgood bias is a cop-out from actually attempting to discuss the issue.

Actually, Osgood doesn't win during the regular season anymore, thus the issue. And when he does it's becoming increasingly rare that he's the reason the team won.

And no, calling him blind is not my attempt to avoid anything. It's an accurate observation. There's no arguing with the guy, as the, what, 20 pages is it now, of the Osgood thread would suggest.

[kook_10 1,705]

anyway...

under normal circumstances I would think that there would be no reason for not playing Ozzie, but these aren't normal circumstances. My uneducated theory is that the Babcock's choice of goalie has as much to do with the confidence of the team as a whole as it does the performance of the goalies themselves. Because the team is so green and rife with AHLers they need every ounce of confidence they can get. Howie's been giving them that confidence lately, as I think the Colorado and Phoenix games have shown. The lazy performance in Anaheim was a bit of a setback, but its clear that the boys have been a little more strong on their skates and comfortable in the Wings system. That said, I can see Babs leaving Howie in until he sees how Z is skating because this season he, as much as anybody, has been the stabilizer for the team. Once the boys out front show they can win games on their own, we'll see more Ozzie.

[Outsider 42]

Considering he's one of the most successful coaches in the league, I'll stick with his (unbiased) opinion over a blind Osgood homer.

Babcock's goal is always the same: to win. And he does it.

And this differs from Osgood's goal, AND the results he puts up, in precisely what way?

Chris Osgood is the 10th most successful goaltender in NHL History, Zetts. He was being fitted for his second Stanley Cup Ring while Babcock was toiling away with the Spokane Chiefs of the WHL, a good five years before Mike ever even made it to the Show. Babcock is so busy worrying about the METHOD Osgood employs to get from Point A to Point B, that he's lost sight of the fact that Osgood puts up results whether he does it in Babcock's demanding manner or not. And that's a fact. He should be less concerned with demanding that Ozzie toe the line, "Do it my way, do it MY WAY!", and more concerned that Osgood continue to do it WHATEVER WAY he sees fit.

'Cause, you see.....

Ozzie's way has earned him nearly 400 Career Victories, and a couple of those shiny diamond encrusted thingamajig's on his fingers. It's worked for him for SIXTEEN YEARS.

And if you listen to Ken Holland.....the man who is the most successful GM of the modern era, AND the man who knows Osgood better than anyone else in Hockey....

He'll flat out TELL you that the reason that Osgood has been so successful is BECAUSE of his laid-back, relaxed attitude. He's stated it countless times before.

Babcock is foolish to try to change a SUCCESSFUL formula, just because it's not exactly "how" he wants it done. He gets what he wants.

And at the end of the day, in Pro Sports, it IS whether you Win or Lose, NOT how you Play the Game.

And Babcock should know that.

[Outsider 42]

Actually, Osgood doesn't win during the regular season anymore, thus the issue. And when he does it's becoming increasingly rare that he's the reason the team won.

Well....let's take a look at that, shall we? Since Osgood re-signed with the Wings:

2005-2006 - 20-6-5

2006-2007 - 11-3-6

2007-2008 - 27-9-4

2008-2009 - 26-9-8

TERRIBLE numbers. Obviously. And, I daresay, had he more playing time this Season, he'd be posting much better numbers.

HISTORY has proven that. Over. And over. And over again.

And no, calling him blind is not my attempt to avoid anything. It's an accurate observation. There's no arguing with the guy, as the, what, 20 pages is it now, of the Osgood thread would suggest.

Firstly: It's not an accurate observation. It's an opinion. You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

Secondly: Don't confuse your inability to frame a cogent, logical, fact based argument with "There's no arguing with the guy". You keep attacking my viewpoint, but have yet to refute anything I've posted with any form of acumen.

That's not my shortcoming. It's yours. And it's due to the fact that you're arguing from a flawed standpoint.