10/12 GDT: Avalanche 5 at Red Wings 4 (SO)

[Nightfall 871]

Lol @ the bickering in this thread. It's one game (3rd in the season) and a SO loss. Who cares....

Furthermore, Avs are a good young hockey club that showed tons a resilience and wanted the win more.

100% correct.

A vast majority of Wings fans in here are very fickle. If the team wins, all is good with most people here. If the team loses, the refs, Bettman, Howard, Ozzie, Bert, 3rd liners, and everyone else under the sun is singled out. Its just tiring to hear over and over again. I swear that I get more intelligent hockey posts from the Wings fans on the HFBoards following a loss.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

It's okay because Brad May won't be playing.

No more #1 fights for you.

Actuall, we're averaging a fight per game this season.

When Ericsson and Abby come back, we'll hopefully have a few more. Janik will do the fighting now, even though he's not great at it.

BTW, me and Mindfly want to welcome you to the club. You'll be a valuable addition to our group with your argumentative skills and relentless energy.

Edited October 13, 2010 by GMRwings1983

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

"They competed for the whole 65 minutes. I was impressed with their group, I was less impressed with ours. We had tons of opportunity in overtime, but anytime you get outworked in your own building, that's unacceptable."

—Red Wings coach Mike Babcock.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Actuall, we're averaging a fight per game this season.

When Ericsson and Abby come back, we'll hopefully have a few more. Janik will do the fighting now, even though he's not great at it.

BTW, me and Mindfly want to welcome you to the club. You'll be a valuable addition to our group with your argumentative skills and relentless energy.

Psh. You wish.

[Guest mindfly]

This quote by babcock sums up Howard's performance:

"Asked about Howard's performance, Babcock said, "I thought Jimmy had a good shootout.''

[GoWings1905 2,694]

This quote by babcock sums up Howard's performance:

"Asked about Howard's performance, Babcock said, "I thought Jimmy had a good shootout.''

Ouch. You know it was a rough night when even Babs talks bad about his favorite goalie ever.

And those people would be wrong for blaming Ozzie. I don't understand why it is difficult for people to understand that the second goal was deflected off of Salei's stick and that Howard was screened by the pylon known as Janik on the fourth.

The only bad goal was the third one. No one was between Jimmy and the shooter and Jimmy got a piece of it but not enough. You cannot get beat short side under those circumstances especially in a game where your defense has shown that they are taking the night off.

The tying goal to Jones was awful. It went between Howard's legs - Janik being in front of him doesn't excuse a goal like that. I'm sure Jimmy himself would admit he has to stop that puck.

Edited October 13, 2010 by GoWings1905

[Guest Heaten]

Ouch. You know it was a bad night when even Babs talks bad about his favorite goalie ever.

Huh? I don't read "Babs talking bad" about Howard in that statement. What I am reading is he's trying to point out the positive and avoiding the negatives. You can't pin the loss on one single player.

Jesus H. Christ people, Wings have 5 points of a possible 6. Why is this GDT 43 pages?

[Guest best poster in LGW history]

Huh? I don't read "Babs talking bad" about Howard in that statement. What I am reading is he's trying to point out the positive and avoiding the negatives. You can't pin the loss on one single player.

that is babcocks way of saying he was bad in the game.

babcock didn't work in sports psychology for nothing.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Huh? I don't read "Babs talking bad" about Howard in that statement. What I am reading is he's trying to point out the positive and avoiding the negatives. You can't pin the loss on one single player.

Jesus H. Christ people, Wings have 5 points of a possible 6. Why is this GDT 43 pages?

If the positive was those six shooters then I think it's fair to assume the 65 previous minutes weren't so strong. I never blamed the entire loss on Jimmy - a few posts earlier I stated the entire team played like garbage. My point was Jimmy played a role with a couple of soft goals and obviously Babcock felt the same way although he said it more in an indirect manner. I'm sure Jimmy will be fine, but last night definitely wasn't a solid peformance in net.

[pucktividi 472]

At least Jimmy admits he has to be better

http://video.redwings.nhl.com/videocenter/console

[GoWings1905 2,694]

that is babcocks way of saying he was bad in the game.

babcock didn't work in sports psychology for nothing.

Exactly. Babcock was clearly implying he didn't think too highly of Jimmy's performance before the shootout.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Ouch. You know it was a rough night when even Babs talks bad about his favorite goalie ever.

The tying goal to Jones was awful. It went between Howard's legs - Janik being in front of him doesn't excuse a goal like that. I'm sure Jimmy himself would admit he has to stop that puck.

It excuses him when he can't see the puck to make the save. It only looks bad because it beat him five hole.

[skyphoenix 153]

Janik's fight came at probably the worst possible time. I don't know what he was thinking when he decided to go at it. We were up a goal and in their zone.

[Guest Heaten]

that is babcocks way of saying he was bad in the game.

babcock didn't work in sports psychology for nothing.

Cool story bro. What is Babcock's way of saying he's constipated? His death stare?

[Broken 16 381]

It excuses him when he can't see the puck to make the save. It only looks bad because it beat him five hole.

Wrong. It WAS bad. Janik screwed up and Jimmy was lazy in keeping his 5-hole covered. Just because Janik screwed up doesn't mean that Howard is exonerated. His form was bad, that's why the goal went in. It's fairly common to have a goal against be the result of more than one bad play.

He had a bad game... get over it already.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Broken 16

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Wrong. It WAS bad. Janik screwed up and Jimmy was lazy in keeping his 5-hole covered. Just because Janik screwed up doesn't mean that Howard is exonerated. His form was bad, that's why the goal went in. It's fairly common to have a goal against be the result of more than one bad play.

He had a bad game... get over it already.

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

[GSBrooks13 204]

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

Are you saying that their can be more than one point of view!? That certainly wont fly in these forums.

[Broken 16 381]

Whether it was bad or was not bad is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. You can think that it was a bad goal, that's fine, but don't sit here like a jackass and pretend that there is only one point of view. Just like there is more than one point of view on whether Howard had a bad game or not. Get over yourself.

Do you always resort to name calling? How old are you?

Fact of the matter is, that goal was bad. Was it the worst? Nope. We can sit here all day and bicker over the many shades of grey when it comes to bad goals. I'm not interested. I think it was bad, you think it wasn't quite so bad... but still kinda bad. Whatever.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Do you always resort to name calling? How old are you?

Fact of the matter is, that goal was bad. Was it the worst? Nope. We can sit here all day and bicker over the many shades of grey when it comes to bad goals. I'm not interested. I think it was bad, you think it wasn't quite so bad... but still kinda bad. Whatever.

How can you say it is a fact that the goal was bad and then go on to say how it is debatable? When someone's opinion is dismissed so easily over something that is debatable, no where near close to factual, then I am going to call it out. It's not like I said Datsyuk shoots right handed. If I said that and tried to defend it then I would be wrong because it is a fact that he shoots left handed. Saying the goal wasn't bad is a matter of opinion and is an acceptable answer because the answer is debatable, not factual. Yeah, you're right, whatever.

[Guest best poster in LGW history]

Cool story bro. What is Babcock's way of saying he's constipated? His death stare?

it's alright man...you got owned. happens to the best of 'em.

don't let it get you down.

[SpIkE 17]

Actuall, we're averaging a fight per game this season.

When Ericsson and Abby come back, we'll hopefully have a few more. Janik will do the fighting now, even though he's not great at it.

Saying not great is being a little lenient after last night's performance.

Edited October 13, 2010 by SpIkE

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Can you honestly consider it a screen when the only thing that could be blocking Jimmy's view of the puck is Janik's legs?

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Can you honestly consider it a screen when the only thing that could be blocking Jimmy's view of the puck is Janik's legs?

Really? This is highly scientific. The camera angle distorts the actual view Howard had of the puck. This is just sad. Last Word Doc everybody.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Howard He Do It?!

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Really? This is highly scientific. The camera angle distorts the actual view Howard had of the puck. This is just sad.

Yeah, we could always just make statements without ANYTHING to back them up.

That sounds better.

Do you honestly think the view distorts that actual sight line so much that it raises up an entire foot?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Yeah, we could always just make statements without ANYTHING to back them up.

That sounds better.

At least I'm not lying by providing some screen shot from a camera angle that proves nothing. The red line doesn't make you right either.

This is a matter of opinion but seeing as I don't share your opinion I must be wrong.