The Chris Osgood discussion thread

[Vladifan 680]

Because Osgood is not doing what he needs to do to get in games, and Jimmy is.

"Needs to do"....?! What the hell is Ozzie supposed to do if he's not out there? Kiss Babcock's butt?

I THINK NOT.

[Vladifan 680]

Babcock's thoughts on starting Jimmy again:

I find it a little hard to believe he thinks Jimmy played well against the Ducks. Either that shows just how deep in the doghouse Ozzy is with Babcock, or he doesn't want to come out criticizing his rookie goaltender.

Either way, let's hope the Wings get out to a better start and Howard controls his rebounds better. Even the Ducks announcers were pointing out how he needs to get his stick on some of those low shots so the rebound goes airborne and doesn't just bounce off his pads flat along the ice.

EDIT: Linky

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20...n_cleary_t.html

This is indeed worth pondering because as good as Howard's been playing, he did not play all that well against the supposed bottom-feeding Ducks. And when Babcock talks about "all the staff" thinking the same way he does about Ozzie, I find that hard to believe. And I think he feels a wee bit on the defensive right now. And I hope he does.

[Outsider 42]

I'm not attempting to assume anything, that's why I'm saying Osgood is not doing what it takes to start, because he isn't starting. I'm thinking it has something to do with his attitude

Nope. Apparently not. From Babs himself From MLive :

"Ozzie’s a good pro and a good teammate,'' coach Mike Babcock said. "Part of his job, just like (Kris) Draper and (Kirk) Maltby, is to help these kids get better. He’s done a real good job, he’s always supportive.

Or this according to The Freep:

You've got to give Jimmy Bedard a ton of credit, and Chris Osgood, because they're doing a really good job in helping him and supporting him," coach Mike Babcock said of the goalie coach and the other goalie after practice Monday at Jobing.com Arena.

So no. It's apparently not "attitude".

practice

Nor apparently is it about how he's practicing. At least, not according to Babcock from MLive today:

"Ozzie's practiced real well the last little while," Babcock said.

What else ya got?

[Opie 308]

Nope. Apparently not. From Babs himself From MLive :

Or this according to The Freep:

So no. It's apparently not "attitude".

Nor apparently is it about how he's practicing. At least, not according to Babcock from MLive today:

What else ya got?

Bab's thinks Howie is better!

/thread

[Carman 387]

"Needs to do"....?! What the hell is Ozzie supposed to do if he's not out there? Kiss Babcock's butt?

I THINK NOT.

Keep practicing well I suppose. I refuse to believe that the coach is harboring illogical hate verse a goalie, I believe there has to be a reason why he is going with Howard.

[Outsider 42]

Bab's thinks Howie is better!

/thread

Just as he thought Legace was "better". Just as he thought Conklin was "better." You've got to be kidding me.

This is not about the hot hand. This is about Babcock exerting his authority, just as he did in 2005-2006, despite warnings from many that it was the WRONG decision. If you'll remember, Babcock had quite an attitutde about that decision, and the controversy it caused, too. The more people questioned that decision, the harder he came out IN FAVOR of Legace as the Starter.

He went against all conventional wisdom for no other reason than to prove to everyone who the Boss was. He did it in 2005-2006 to prove that this was his Team, it was his decision, and it was not open for debate, no matter how logical that debate might be. He paid for it.

Let's hope he doesn't repeat the same mistake. Again.

[Outsider 42]

Keep practicing well I suppose. I refuse to believe that the coach is harboring illogical hate verse a goalie, I believe there has to be a reason why he is going with Howard.

Babcock doesn't like Ozzie's relaxed attitude. Never has. Babs is an ultra-high intensity individual, and wants his players to be the same: Go! Go! GO!, 24/7. It bothers the Hell out of him that Ozzie is so relaxed and calm.

But ask Ken Holland about the matter. He is at least Babcock's equal, as far as hockey knowledge goes. At least. And he has stated for YEARS that those very traits that Bacock find so repugnant in Osgood, namely his calmness and his relaxed attitude, are what have made Osgood so successful over a 16 year, Top 10, NHL Career. Holland would know. He scouted Ozzie. He drafted him. He's known him for his entire adult life, and has had a close, personal relationship with him since he was a kid.

What Babcock is asking is that, after a 16 year, monumentally successful career as Chris Osgood, that Ozzie suddenly turn into Ed Belfour.

And for no other reason than to conform with Babcock's idea of what the "proper attitude" is for an NHL Starting Goaltender.

That's almost as ridiculous as it is egocentric.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Outsider

[Guest lilja4mvp]

you know, i hope osgood gets a few starts here and there...just to spare us from the onslaught of long-winded posts from Outsider.

[Carman 387]

Holland is the same person that waived Osgood, and the same one that sent him down last year...

Osgood is great, he's a very good goalie, and one of the best playoff goalies and I'm glad he's been a Wing. But the past two years he has not been a very good regular season goaltender consistently, for whatever the reason. Osgood has played decently so far, but I suppose Babcock wants him to play great(refering to his last "good" game) like he has in the playoffs in order to take over for Howard.

I just don't believe Babcock is going to hold back playing what he thinks is the better goalie if that causes him to lose, his job is to win games not start fights with players. Right now he feels that Osgood is not at Jimmy Howards level of play and to be honest not a lot of goalies in the NHL are. Even after Howard's "bad" game, he only let in 3 goals I'm not saying it's a great performance, but I wouldn't say he s*** the bed either.

Osgood's career has been full of obstacles, would he really be the same goaltender if everything was just given to him? Life's not fair, he has a right to be frustrated, but that doesn't mean that Babcock's decision right now isn't better for the team. If Osgood posts a shut-out his next start and doesn't get the start after, or Jimmy Howard let's in 5 goals in 15 shots and gets the next start then I'll agree there may be something serious between Osgood and Babcock, but until I see the evidence I need to see I'm going to believe it's just a tactic by a coach to get a player back on track, that's it.

[Outsider 42]

you know, i hope osgood gets a few starts here and there...just to spare us from the onslaught of long-winded posts from Outsider.

Well, you could always go back to reading the funny papers, lils....

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Ozzie should pull an "Allen Iverson" about this whole practice thing.

I wonder how Babcock would respond to such a press conference.

[Carman 387]

Ozzie should pull an "Allen Iverson" about this whole practice thing.

I wonder how Babcock would respond to such a press conference.

And then someone asks Babcock about the playoff goaltender.

:Jim Mora impersonation:

[Echolalia 2,961]

This is a quote by Babs in the news today:

"Ozzie's practiced real well over the last little while here, but I just think Howie's playing well," Babcock said. "Bottom line, you say to yourself, 'We need to win a game (against the Kings) and what gives you the best opportunity to win?' That doesn't mean I'm right, but that's what we perceive as a coaching staff.

"Yeah, Ozzie needs to play some games, but that individual part comes after the team part."

[Guest zackmorris]

Wow. Just.....wow.

Firstly, those who are referring to "luck" being against us, rather than spotty goaltending, were referring to Dom's performance in 2007, against the Ducks - NOT in 2008, against the Preds when "we won the Cup so no one thinks of it."

Everyone except for you, that is.

lmao for you to get this upset over a simple mistake....I must've reeeaally struck a nerve somewhere huh?

I made an error. Oh no! Dom was fine in 07. He's not responsible for the bulls*** Anaheim pulled that f***ed up our season. Dom was fine.

And if you think that Dom was simply on the "unfortunate end of some of the worst luck", OR that "no goalie would've made the save on the goals he let in", then you're not only ten times more blind than you accuse me of being, you're also certifiably insane.

Yeah...insane...blind....yawn. Whatever dude. When you say that every 5 minutes it loses all meaning.

The first two goals against in Game 3 you could argue, although the first was "iffy". The second was a 2-on-1, so I'll agree that was a goal you don't automatically expect your goaltender to make.

I'd point your attention to Suter's goal to tie it up at 3-3, with less than 5:00 to go in regulation was an epic fail. Arnott's goal about TEN SECONDS LATER? Even more epic. I remember looking at Babcock's face on the bench when they showed him after that goal. He was looking down the ice directly at Dom as though he wanted to kill him.

Thank you for telling me about the goals. Dominik Hasek didn't forget how to play goalie in 2 days-it's luck. It happens. It looked worse than it was.

Stop getting so worked up every time you see a chance to argue. Dom hit some bad luck and some pucks had eyes, some snuck through holes that 9/10 he saves.

I didn't expect you to blow a gasket over a sentence about Dom. You really hold alot of grudges don't or something don't you?

[Guest zackmorris]

And to whoever said Howard is no longer hot, he didn't have a horrible game against Anaheim. He let in 3 but it's possible to let in 3 and still play well.

And as for the playoffs, who knows how either guy will play. Not one single soul here does, whatsoever. If you're implying we need to get Ozzie in a playoff groove, well, we're only halfway through. There's plenty of time for that later, why are people acting like there's a ticking clock? We're hitting the panic button and we're (lmmfao) only at game what? 42? Relaaaaaax.

Most people aren't looking at this with the proper perspective (not surprising). It's not about "how often Osgood is benched". That's a dead giveaway of who the Ozzie fanboys are. It's a selfish line of thinking that shows your affinities and mindset. It's about winning, and Howard did nothing but play better. So we put in the guy who was playing well, consistently.

It doesn't get more simple than that. That's it. That should realistically be the end of the debate. But some people feel the need to drag this out with conspiracy theories, vendetta excuses and a ton of other bulls***.

Mike Babcock....the man who pulled Dominik Hasek to put in Ozzie...the man who has rewarded numerous young kids with extra minutes when they play well....he suddenly has a grudge? Or is he doing what's required to win, in a spot we've never been in before? C'mon. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Edited January 7, 2010 by zackmorris

[Outsider 42]

Holland is the same person that waived Osgood, and the same one that sent him down last year...

*Edited for very bad form*

Edited January 7, 2010 by Outsider

[Carman 387]

Just be sure to wear your tin foil hat next time you are at a Red Wing's game with a "Fire Babcock" sign.

[Guest zackmorris]

There's no talking to Outsider. Seriously. He's not realistic about it. He pulls things out of context, purposely ignores things that don't support his argument, twists peoples words, etc. He's fanatical. And fanaticism never ends well.

He's not going to back down any time soon in spite of the generous amount of logic laid out by countless board members here. So the hell with it.

[Outsider 42]

Just be sure to wear your tin foil hat next time you are at a Red Wing's game with a "Fire Babcock" sign.

Again, as per usual, you attack the poster rather than address the content of the post.

You need to learn to recognize "patterns" when they're blatantly displayed in front of your eyes.

Going with a career back-up, (Legace), over an established, Cup Winning Starter, based on a "hot" October? And refusing to deviate from that "plan", even when it proves to be flawed?

Going with a career back-up, (Conklin), over the guy who just Won you the Cup the year prior, based on HALF a Season with the Team, and the Starter's struggles? And abandoning that "plan" only when the GM steps in and overrules your decision?

Going with a green rookie, (Howard), over a seasoned Cup Winner who led you to the SCF's on the strength of a Smythe worthy performance, based on some mediocre, some good, and some poor, play with a struggling Team in front of your Starter, coupled with some good play in the first 30'ish games from the rookie?

Who's wearing the tinfoil hat, here?

[ilmickeyli 40]

Is outsider's person "in the know" his alter-ego?

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

And to whoever said Howard is no longer hot, he didn't have a horrible game against Anaheim. He let in 3 but it's possible to let in 3 and still play well.

Sure as hell wasn't good or hot. There were two bad goals (Osgood had two bad bad goals against Chicago but his play in the third is overlooked simply because of the fact he let in two soft goals).

And as for the playoffs, who knows how either guy will play. Not one single soul here does, whatsoever. If you're implying we need to get Ozzie in a playoff groove, well, we're only halfway through. There's plenty of time for that later, why are people acting like there's a ticking clock? We're hitting the panic button and we're (lmmfao) only at game what? 42? Relaaaaaax.

Same panic that entices people to think that Howard deserves 7 starts in a row over Osgood simply because they think that Howard may play better. He is getting overworked, and it showed last game.

Most people aren't looking at this with the proper perspective (not surprising). It's not about "how often Osgood is benched". That's a dead giveaway of who the Ozzie fanboys are. It's a selfish line of thinking that shows your affinities and mindset. It's about winning, and Howard did nothing but play better. So we put in the guy who was playing well, consistently.

And switch it up when the hot hand cools off. That was the Anaheim game in a nutshell.

It doesn't get more simple than that. That's it. That should realistically be the end of the debate. But some people feel the need to drag this out with conspiracy theories, vendetta excuses and a ton of other bulls***.

Well when a goalie who lets in two softies gets the next start, after the other goaltender did the same thing but hasn't played since, it isn't simply about how well you do in the games anymore. And based on Bab's comments it isn't about how well you do in practice either. So what is it?

Mike Babcock....the man who pulled Dominik Hasek to put in Ozzie...the man who has rewarded numerous young kids with extra minutes when they play well....he suddenly has a grudge? Or is he doing what's required to win, in a spot we've never been in before? C'mon. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Well the simplist answer isn't always the correct one, and since Howard did not have a good game against Anaheim it would seem like Babcock would want to start Osgood. This isn't about performance if you saw the Anaheim game.

Of course you can shrug it off and call me an Osgood fanboy. I personally hope I'm wrong and Howard leads Detroit to a win tonight. However I believe that Howard is getting worn out when it isn't necessary to.

And once again if you are going to discuss things logically with a poster, bring some of your own. You haven't been too hot with the logic yourself, and have chosen to ignore some of my posts as well. Should I call you a homer and fanatical? Or is it just for those who don't justify every one of Babcock's decisions.

[Outsider 42]

Is outsider's person "in the know" his alter-ego?

Ask around for yourself. It's not exactly a secret, if you know how to ask, and who to ask.

Hockey "people" aren't like folks in the other pro Sports. They're less insular. More "everyday" types of folks. They don't live in ivory towers, and keep themselves separate from the "little people". They hang out in bars, and drink, and socialize, and chat with "regular guys".

And Osgood is very, very well liked - by his teammates. By people in the community. By people in the industry. By everyday Joe's who work at JLA, doing blue collar type of work. He's been treated rather shabbily at times since his return to the Wings.

There are plenty of folks, not necessarily "important" types, but those who are "around", those who are in "the right place at the right time", who see......and hear......and recognize shabby treatment when they see it.

And they don't like it. Not one bit.

[Statts 4]

Secondly, you're right...It WAS Holland who sent Oz on that "vacation". But you need to be a little more circumspect in who you include in that "we", when you claim that "we" don't know what the real situation is. I assure you, there ARE those who "know what the real situation is."

And "those" people "know" that it was Babcock's intention to pull a "Legace" last year with Conklin, and that it WAS Holland who stepped in and flat out TOLD him....."You're starting a career back-up over a Cup Winner, again, in the Post Season over MY DEAD BODY!" When Babs argued that he didn't have any choice, "Look how he's playing!", it was then that Holland stepped in and TOOK OVER, because HE knows how to handle Ozzie, and Babcock was pushing the WRONG buttons. Holland called Oz in, ripped him a new ass, and then told him to take some time off and RELAX, rather than thinking too much and stressing about how POORLY he was playing. Get back to that calm, relaxed, confident state of mind which had made him so successful over his entire career. HOLLAND pushed all the right buttons. It worked. Ozzie came back fantastic.

You are going to provide a link or cite who "those" people are if you are going to put such strong words in both Holland's and Babcock's mouth.

[Carman 387]

Again, as per usual, you attack the poster rather than address the content of the post.

You need to learn to recognize "patterns" when they're blatantly displayed in front of your eyes.

Going with a career back-up, (Legace), over an established, Cup Winning Starter, based on a "hot" October? And refusing to deviate from that "plan", even when it proves to be flawed?

Going with a career back-up, (Conklin), over the guy who just Won you the Cup the year prior, based on HALF a Season with the Team, and the Starter's struggles? And abandoning that "plan" only when the GM steps in and overrules your decision?

Going with a green rookie, (Howard), over a seasoned Cup Winner who led you to the SCF's on the strength of a Smythe worthy performance, based on some mediocre, some good, and some poor, play with a struggling Team in front of your Starter, coupled with some good play in the first 30'ish games from the rookie?

Who's wearing the tinfoil hat, here?

The only pattern I see is how Osgood has been very inconsistent the last two regular seasons. Who is to say Conklin wouldn't have came in and played well like Osgood?

As for the tin foil hat, I'm not the one that thinks an NHL head coach is holding a personal vendetta against a player that very well might cost him to lose games and impact Babcock's future job security. Right now Babcock needs to win games, he knows it and he is doing what he thinks is the best thing to do it. He has much bigger issues(Injuries, scoring, PP, line combos, who to send down, who to keep up etc.) than worrying about Osgood's ego.

[Guest zackmorris]

Sure as hell wasn't good or hot. There were two bad goals (Osgood had two bad bad goals against Chicago but his play in the third is overlooked simply because of the fact he let in two soft goals).

Sure as hell wasn't good? It wasn't bad, so I'd say it was good. If it wasn't for him we would've lost 6-0 or God forbid, worse.

Same panic that entices people to think that Howard deserves 7 starts in a row over Osgood simply because they think that Howard may play better. He is getting overworked, and it showed last game.

Rotflmmfao

Overworked? After 26 games? C'mon you've gotta have a better excuse than that. He's a 25 year old professional athlete, I'm pretty sure he can handle a few starts in a row.

Well when a goalie who lets in two softies gets the next start, after the other goaltender did the same thing but hasn't played since, it isn't simply about how well you do in the games anymore. And based on Bab's comments it isn't about how well you do in practice either. So what is it?

It's not just a two-goals thing. You're not seeing the forest for the trees-it's that Ozzie consistently did that sort of s***, and Howard consistently doesn't.

Well the simplist answer isn't always the correct one, and since Howard did not have a good game against Anaheim it would seem like Babcock would want to start Osgood. This isn't about performance if you saw the Anaheim game.

Oh quit this, it's bulls*** and we both know it. Grow a pair and admit he wasn't that bad in the Ducks game.

You haven't been too hot with the logic yourself, and have chosen to ignore some of my posts as well. Should I call you a homer and fanatical? Or is it just for those who don't justify every one of Babcock's decisions.

I counter everything said to me, it's not my problem if you don't like it. God the stupid attitude on some people around here...amazing. I guess when you stay confined to one forum you fall prey to the parent effect a little too easily.