Chris Osgood proves Jimmy Howard should be in goal for Red Wings

[interminded 1]

Yes, I admit I was wrong last year, but I don't think I am this year. Even last year, you have to admit it was a huge gamble starting him in the post season given his regular season record.

Granted, in the end it's pretty easy to say it was a gamble that paid out, which it was.

But true, it was somewhat of a gamble. Osgood wasn't coming of a good regular season, although had pciked up his significantly.

[Guest zackmorris]

We agree that Osgood played badly in recent games, but you ignore the rest of the season and the team on the ice when you suggest Osgood is done. Osgood proved Howard was the starter already, but when did it become cause to say "Osgood is s***" instead of praising Howard? Is that what you meant to do when you started posting in this thread? It wasn't your intention to go on about why Osgood should never play another game for the Wings after only two starts in thirty days?

It became cause to say he's playing like s*** because he is. Sugar coating things just isn't how I operate. I don't think he should play anymore games if he's going to continue to play like garbage. I don't buy the rust thing, to me it's just a convenient excuse. I've seen goalies go through worse and perform better.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

It became cause to say he's playing like s*** because he is. Sugar coating things just isn't how I operate. I don't think he should play anymore games if he's going to continue to play like garbage. I don't buy the rust thing, to me it's just a convenient excuse. I've seen goalies go through worse and perform better.

Such as?

[Guest zackmorris]

Look at most backups for star goalies throughout the years. They step in after a 20 game absence and look good. Look at Clemmensen when he had to step in for Brodeur and looked great pretty much immediately. And he had it alot worse than Ozzie. Curtis Sanford sat a month before he got playing time and he walked in and dominated. Legace once played 6 games in 3 months with Dom around and he looked great. He even went a month without a start and looked fine. It happens in the NHL all the time and I'm sure I'm forgetting even more examples than I'm naming.

Look at goalies after an offseason, which is undoubtedly worse than some 20 game break. They're not doing much that Ozzie can't do in practices. Or look at goalies who come back from injuries and play adequately enough.

I haven't heard much about Ozzie ramping up his practice habits. Granted there's no guarantee I would but I think if he was I would've heard at least a little something about it by now. He knew what was happening, he knew he was playing like crap and Howard was deserving of all his games, so he should've worked harder to keep himself in game shape. Practice harder, it's not like it's illegal. Hasek was borderline insane when it came to practicing and I think that was a big part of why he never looked off his game. Roy as well, although not nearly as intense as Hasek, was a serious practice type of guy and it showed.

And at the end of the day, this isn't a pity party. Find a way to stay in game shape and produce, or it's your job. We're going to sympathize all the way to the golf course at this rate.

Edited February 4, 2010 by zackmorris

[Broken 16 381]

It's just nice to have a goalie that doesn't make me cringe on every shot. I might cringe on a rebound or five, but at least I'm not cringing on the initial shot... which is a step in the right direction.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Yup, I did. And I contend that he was good - not great - and played way beyond expectations. However I think that was an aberation. At some point you have to go by the evidence in front of your face and not on ancient history or wishful thinking. I think that time is now w/ regards to Osgood.

Wow, those are some tough standards you have there.

I guess being the Red Wings MVP of the playoffs didn't do justice for you.

[Guest zackmorris]

^I don't get this and I see so many coherent, presumably sober posters bringing it up with a straight face.

How is last season relevant to now? I understand it's natural human reaction to stick to comfortable patterns and precedent, and 2 years seems like a long time but look at the big picture-if you take his whole career into account, 2 years isn't much and realistically, he's 37 years old and won't be able to flick the switch on a dime every year. In fact, within proper perspective, we should count ourselves lucky we got the two great years out of him we did and quit while we're ahead.

Because last year has no relevancy when discussing this year. It doesn't make a difference. Logically, his play last year won't magically make him climb out of a funk this year. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever. But then again that's the average sports fan for you, clinging to past performances, assuming a good postseason in '09 will somehow magically make him physically perform better in '10. Hell, we should use tihs season as an example of why last year has no bearing on this season-look at some of the performances of our usually consistent players. Just because it happened before doesn't automatically mean it'll happen again. I can understand why people would assume something like this to be true, but really, it's not logical at all.

Edited February 4, 2010 by zackmorris

[interminded 1]

^I don't get this and I see so many coherent, presumably sober posters bringing it up with a straight face.

How is last season relevant to now? I understand it's natural human reaction to stick to comfortable patterns and precedent, and 2 years seems like a long time but look at the big picture-if you take his whole career into account, 2 years isn't much and realistically, he's 37 years old and won't be able to flick the switch on a dime every year. In fact, within proper perspective, we should count ourselves lucky we got the two great years out of him we did and quit while we're ahead.

Because last year has no relevancy when discussing this year. It doesn't make a difference. Logically, his play last year won't magically make him climb out of a funk this year. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever. But then again that's the average sports fan for you, clinging to past performances, assuming a good postseason in '09 will somehow magically make him physically perform better in '10. Hell, we should use tihs season as an example of why last year has no bearing on this season-look at some of the performances of our usually consistent players. Just because it happened before doesn't automatically mean it'll happen again. I can understand why people would assume something like this to be true, but really, it's not logical at all.

There is no logic in sports.

Especially in goaltending.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

^I don't get this and I see so many coherent, presumably sober posters bringing it up with a straight face.

How is last season relevant to now? I understand it's natural human reaction to stick to comfortable patterns and precedent, and 2 years seems like a long time but look at the big picture-if you take his whole career into account, 2 years isn't much and realistically, he's 37 years old and won't be able to flick the switch on a dime every year. In fact, within proper perspective, we should count ourselves lucky we got the two great years out of him we did and quit while we're ahead.

Because last year has no relevancy when discussing this year. It doesn't make a difference. Logically, his play last year won't magically make him climb out of a funk this year. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever. But then again that's the average sports fan for you, clinging to past performances, assuming a good postseason in '09 will somehow magically make him physically perform better in '10. Hell, we should use tihs season as an example of why last year has no bearing on this season-look at some of the performances of our usually consistent players. Just because it happened before doesn't automatically mean it'll happen again. I can understand why people would assume something like this to be true, but really, it's not logical at all.

Which means Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, etc. are washed up and we should all hope they retire.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

^I don't get this and I see so many coherent, presumably sober posters bringing it up with a straight face.

How is last season relevant to now? I understand it's natural human reaction to stick to comfortable patterns and precedent, and 2 years seems like a long time but look at the big picture-if you take his whole career into account, 2 years isn't much and realistically, he's 37 years old and won't be able to flick the switch on a dime every year. In fact, within proper perspective, we should count ourselves lucky we got the two great years out of him we did and quit while we're ahead.

Because last year has no relevancy when discussing this year. It doesn't make a difference. Logically, his play last year won't magically make him climb out of a funk this year. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever. But then again that's the average sports fan for you, clinging to past performances, assuming a good postseason in '09 will somehow magically make him physically perform better in '10. Hell, we should use tihs season as an example of why last year has no bearing on this season-look at some of the performances of our usually consistent players. Just because it happened before doesn't automatically mean it'll happen again. I can understand why people would assume something like this to be true, but really, it's not logical at all.

Look at the context to which I responded to a previous post and you'll find your answer.

[Guest zackmorris]

Which means Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, etc. are washed up and we should all hope they retire.

Yeah, you could think that.

.......Or....you could judge each player individually. I've already said I'm not using Osgood's numbers as a basis for my reasoning that I think he has lost his game.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Yeah, you could think that.

.......Or....you could judge each player individually. I've already said I'm not using Osgood's numbers as a basis for my reasoning that I think he has lost his game.

You are using your super skills as a goaltending professional?

And I'm just a silly layman who (according to Pucks) has never played the sport of hockey?

If you THINK that Osgood has lost his game then fine, go ahead and say so. But don't act like you and the people who agree with you are the only logical ones in this thread. It is not the case because your opinion is as good as mine on the matter.

[Broken 16 381]

Which means Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, etc. are washed up and we should all hope they retire.

This response makes no sense...

[Guest zackmorris]

You are using your super skills as a goaltending professional?

And I'm just a silly layman who (according to Pucks) has never played the sport of hockey?

If you THINK that Osgood has lost his game then fine, go ahead and say so. But don't act like you and the people who agree with you are the only logical ones in this thread. It is not the case because your opinion is as good as mine on the matter.

Nice question. No matter what response you get it's not like you'll ever back down and admit you're being stubborn.

And the thing is, we have been saying we think he's lost his game. Don't tell us to go ahead and say so, we've been saying so for umpteen dozen f***in pages now and you just won't accept it because you're the most argumentative person I've ever seen here. We think he's done because he's played like s***. You don't because of what he did at some other point in time and that he's apparently rusty. We're not fighting a losing battle because we have a bias towards a certain player, you are. We're logical and most everything supports us, and all you can do is make excuses and blindly pin the same bias you have, onto us so as to bring us down with you. Btw you didn't say much when I countered the concept of rust so until you do, kindly piss off, you're not even making sense anymore.

Edited February 5, 2010 by zackmorris

[Broken 16 381]

Nice question. No matter what response you get it's not like you'll ever back down and admit you're being stubborn.

And the thing is, we have been saying we think he's lost his game. Don't tell us to go ahead and say so, we've been saying so for umpteen dozen f***in pages now and you just won't accept it because you're the most argumentative person I've ever seen here. We think he's done because he's played like s***. You don't because of what he did at some other point in time and that he's apparently rusty. Btw you didn't say much when I shot that s*** down so until you do, kindly piss off, you're not even making sense anymore.

That's the fun thing about Doc Holliday... if you argue with him long enough, he eventually starts arguing with himself and starts making points for you. It's silly goodness.

[Guest zackmorris]

I remember being on the Denver Broncos forum a few years ago. If anyone remembers Ian Gold, he for some reason had a rabidly loyal fanbase there. This reminds me of that scenario so much.

No matter how often the guy missed 5-10 critical tackles a game, people defended him. No matter how often he blatantly missed his assignments, people made excuses. They lost games purely because of him and they used his 9 tackles per game stat as a reason why he was awesome and any negatives were just pure nonsense to them. We just "hated him", that was all. He was at one point a very good, underrated player. He'd just lost it.

Low and behold, once his contract was up, he was shipped out of town and everyone shut up. No one defends him anymore, and those who did sort of came back to their senses. It's not an identical situation but it's the same concept and I think of it everytime I see someone bring up something laughably illogical in here.

Edited February 5, 2010 by zackmorris

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

This response makes no sense...

Sure it does.

Osgood is not playing that great this season and people have been hoping they have retired and are saying they are washed up.

Zetterberg and Datsyuk are not playing up to par AT ALL, so you can assume that the same would apply to them.

You could always act civil instead of being a self rightous ******-bag. Or is that too much to ask from you?

Zack: Once again, all you are doing is voicing an opinion. You are saying Osgood is done on this one season. I am saying that he has had some good games, which you seem to ignore and assert that they weren't so great. Others agree with me as well, but you just wave it off as them being illogical. I mean since Osgood was done last year he shouldn't have played like he did in the playoffs, right?

Also I didn't see anything discussed about the rust when I made that point. I'll take a look at it later but when you need a goaltender who is in their upper 30s to get on their game it is going to affect their play. Same with players who are out for an extended period of time.

Also your personal attacks are cute considering the great number of members on this forum I have had civil conversations with and have mutual respect with. I can even have a civil discussion with Micah and ESAD despite my drastic disagreements without acting like a total ass.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Alright.

Look at most backups for star goalies throughout the years. They step in after a 20 game absence and look good. Look at Clemmensen when he had to step in for Brodeur and looked great pretty much immediately. And he had it alot worse than Ozzie. Curtis Sanford sat a month before he got playing time and he walked in and dominated. Legace once played 6 games in 3 months with Dom around and he looked great. He even went a month without a start and looked fine. It happens in the NHL all the time and I'm sure I'm forgetting even more examples than I'm naming.

Understandable, and I'll retract that. But for a struggling goaltender trying to keep his game up after having a sub-par couple of games doesn't help. Also doesn't help for a rookie to play as many games as he has for his first full year as a goaltender. That has been my biggest gripe.

Look at goalies after an offseason, which is undoubtedly worse than some 20 game break. They're not doing much that Ozzie can't do in practices. Or look at goalies who come back from injuries and play adequately enough.

I haven't heard much about Ozzie ramping up his practice habits. Granted there's no guarantee I would but I think if he was I would've heard at least a little something about it by now. He knew what was happening, he knew he was playing like crap and Howard was deserving of all his games, so he should've worked harder to keep himself in game shape. Practice harder, it's not like it's illegal. Hasek was borderline insane when it came to practicing and I think that was a big part of why he never looked off his game. Roy as well, although not nearly as intense as Hasek, was a serious practice type of guy and it showed.

And at the end of the day, this isn't a pity party. Find a way to stay in game shape and produce, or it's your job. We're going to sympathize all the way to the golf course at this rate.

What do you think he should do to ramp up his practices? Babs has said he is trying in practice and Osgood is being a good mentor. I mean do you think Osgood just gives him tips then sits around the goal not trying?

[Broken 16 381]

Sure it does.

Osgood is not playing that great this season and people have been hoping they have retired and are saying they are washed up.

Zetterberg and Datsyuk are not playing up to par AT ALL, so you can assume that the same would apply to them.

You could always act civil instead of being a self rightous ******-bag. Or is that too much to ask from you?

Goalies are a completely different breed of athlete. Pardon me if I don't indulge in comparing apples to oranges.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Goalies are a completely different breed of athlete. Pardon me if I don't indulge in comparing apples to oranges.

Good point.

Because we all know that when a goaltender plays bad (despite playing better than the previous year) he must be done. Players can get right up and do well the next season, but not goaltenders.

My entire premise is that just because someone isn't haven't a great year doesn't mean they are done. The same was said about last year and lo and behold Chris Osgood had a Conn Smythe run in the playoffs.

I am looking forward to next year when Osgood starts as a backup to Howard and threads are started because he isn't backing up properly.

[Broken 16 381]

Good point.

Because we all know that when a goaltender plays bad (despite playing better than the previous year) he must be done. Players can get right up and do well the next season, but not goaltenders.

My entire premise is that just because someone isn't haven't a great year doesn't mean they are done. The same was said about last year and lo and behold Chris Osgood had a Conn Smythe run in the playoffs.

I am looking forward to next year when Osgood starts as a backup to Howard and threads are started because he isn't backing up properly.

Osgood is old Doc. It's not unrealistic to be convinced that he's done. I'd be right on board with you if Osgood was in his prime. Not only has he not shown any sign of world class caliber goaltending this season, he's shown bitterness and/or frustration when addressing the media. You can't expect everyone to just blindly have faith in him.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Broken 16

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Osgood is old Doc. It's not unrealistic to be convinced that he's done. I'd be right on board with you if Osgood was in his prime. Not only has he not shown any sign of world class caliber goaltending this season, he's shown bitterness and/or frustration when addressing the media. You can't expect everyone to just blindly have faith in him.

I'm not asking for blind faith with Osgood. I don't expect to play more games than Howard for the remainder of the season (or even split) but you can't just write off a player based on the performance of his rookie counterpart. He will likely play next season as a backup and it is possible he will do fine in the backup role. Maybe not, but that remains to be seen.

And his bitterness has been toward how Babcock has handled both Howard and Osgood. First Howard didn't play in a month, now Osgood. Osgood shouldn't have said it but he wasn't crying for equal starts or for him to stop giving his golden boy Howard (I don't mean that as if it is a fact). And the whole context of what was asked is in question, but like I said, Osgood shouldn't have said it.

[Guest zackmorris]

Alright.

Understandable, and I'll retract that. But for a struggling goaltender trying to keep his game up after having a sub-par couple of games doesn't help. Also doesn't help for a rookie to play as many games as he has for his first full year as a goaltender. That has been my biggest gripe.

He's not your typical rookie though. He's looked fine. We don't know how long he can go before the tank runs out.

Some goalies have looked greatp laying 70 games in a season and some don't. Howard's looked fine.

What do you think he should do to ramp up his practices? Babs has said he is trying in practice and Osgood is being a good mentor. I mean do you think Osgood just gives him tips then sits around the goal not trying?

Just saying when someone like Roy or Hasek went bonkers in practice and treated it like a game, we heard about it.

Because we all know that when a goaltender plays bad (despite playing better than the previous year) he must be done. Players can get right up and do well the next season, but not goaltenders.

Like I've said a million times I'm basing it on individual play. I think there are specific reasons unique to each player for their play this season and in Ozzie's case I think he's just lost his quickness and ability to react to a shot.