• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The Enforcer

Wings need a goalie

Rate this topic

232 posts in this topic

My point is he had one soft goal in the first.

He made plenty of saves and the Wings did bring it back to a 1 goal game.

It's not like Detroit was down 6-0, here.

2 soft goals. The 2nd was just awful for him to be out that much and out of position. The 3rd was even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 soft goals. The 2nd was just awful for him to be out that much and out of position. The 3rd was even worse.

Yandle's shot was excellent. Not all head-on shots are stoppable. The likelihood of a puck going into that tiny space above Osgood's shoulder was low. Osgood was correctly playing the odds when he went down.

That said, I've always wondered why NHL teams don't simply hire sumo goaltenders who can literally cover the entire net without moving.

Edited by Crymson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandle's shot was excellent. Not all head-on shots are stoppable. The likelihood of a puck going into that tiny space above Osgood's shoulder was low. Osgood was correctly playing the odds when he went down.

I agree here, but I remember fighting people about the Selanne goal on Howard on how it was a good shot, but people don't give Howard the benefit on that one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandle's shot was excellent. Not all head-on shots are stoppable. The likelihood of a puck going into that tiny space above Osgood's shoulder was low. Osgood was correctly playing the odds when he went down.

That said, I've always wondered why NHL teams don't simply hire sumo goaltenders who can literally cover the entire net without moving.

lol I've always said that... maybe because the padding would be too big?

that'd be funny to see one of those 1000 pound fatasses just laying down in front of the net in a red wings jers... er, blanket on em lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just gave up another goal. No way the Wings will ever win the cup again with a goalie who ever gives up goals. Ozzie stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in constructive endeavors during commercial breaks.

I tend to agree.

Ozzie is looking better. He's more aggressive and seems to be a little more in control. His positioning still stinks but hopefully that'll come around too. I can still dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just gave up another goal. No way the Wings will ever win the cup again with a goalie who ever gives up goals. Ozzie stinks.

It's ok man, hopefully we don't have to play him more than 15 games this year. He's just awful, but the Wings should be good enough to make the playoffs and a real goalie like Howard can carry us the rest of the way to the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree here, but I remember fighting people about the Selanne goal on Howard on how it was a good shot, but people don't give Howard the benefit on that one...

Maybe if you listened to what I said on that goal you would understand the difference.

Howard didn't get into butterfly position to make the save. The shot wasn't incredibly hard and it was in a spot that if you go butterfly you will make the save.

The goals are not similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great game by Ozzie. Nice to see him get his 398th win. I'll never hate on Ozzie like others here like to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if you listened to what I said on that goal you would understand the difference.

Howard didn't get into butterfly position to make the save. The shot wasn't incredibly hard and it was in a spot that if you go butterfly you will make the save.

The goals are not similar.

So you are saying that Selanne doesn't have as good of a shot as Yandle?

That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that Selanne doesn't have as good of a shot as Yandle?

That makes sense.

So you are saying that Selanne's shots will always be better than Yandle's?

And you are saying that fivehole goals and short side corner goals are the same?

Apples and oranges. Continue not paying attention.

Edited by Doc Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that Selanne's shots will always be better than Yandle's?

And you are saying that fivehole goals and short side corner goals are the same?

Apples and oranges. Continue not paying attention.

Selanne picked a spot, just as Yandle did.

Continue to think a 600 goal scorer doesn't shoot the puck five hole when he did on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selanne picked a spot, just as Yandle did.

I'm glad you knew exactly what they were thinking on the play.

Continue to think a 600 goal scorer doesn't shoot the puck five hole when he did on purpose.

Continue to think that the amount of goals you scored in your career is the reason they shoot exactly where they shoot at all times and that they never just put it on net.

Lidstrom's shots always must go where he wants them to. He never has a weak shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the situation coming down the wing from your own zone?

I definitely believe that Selanne knew what he was going to do.

You don't score 600 goals because you just shot the puck whenever and wherever you want.

Weak shots exist, but that Selanne shot certainly wasn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the situation coming down the wing from your own zone?

What's your point? You are simply assuming things.

I definitely believe that Selanne knew what he was going to do.

Assumption.

You don't score 600 goals because you just shot the puck whenever and wherever you want.

That's great, but it doesn't mean they pick a corner all the time. There is a reason most players have a low shooting percentage.

Weak shots exist, but that Selanne shot certainly wasn't one.

Considering it went in because Howard didn't bother to go into butterfly, I would say it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point? You are simply assuming things.

Assumption.

That's great, but it doesn't mean they pick a corner all the time. There is a reason most players have a low shooting percentage.

Considering it went in because Howard didn't bother to go into butterfly, I would say it was.

And the Osgood goal went in because he went down 4 or 5 times before the shot went off. You can play the goaltending position without being in the butterfly 100% of the time, ask Tim Thomas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Osgood goal went in because he went down 4 or 5 times before the shot went off. You can play the goaltending position without being in the butterfly 100% of the time, ask Tim Thomas.

He was going to go butterfly regardless.

I'm curious why you think him being in butterfly (ZOMG HOW COULD HE) prevented him from getting that shot. If he went down, got deked, and then got scored on, you might be on to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Osgood goal went in because he went down 4 or 5 times before the shot went off. You can play the goaltending position without being in the butterfly 100% of the time, ask Tim Thomas.

Most people don't take something into consideration on that 2nd goal against Pheonix (NOT a weak goal at all!)...You take an NHL calibur shooter, Yandle has an excellent shot, give him time to pick his spot, it's going in. I don't care who's in net, the god that is Jimmy Howard would have let that in.

Go watch the play again. Why was Ozzie going up and down from butterfly to standing up before the shot? Yandle had like 5 seconds to pick his shot before he shot. And even then, there STILL wasn't anybody to challenge him after he shot. When the puck went in, he was still alone in the circle...no red wing there whatsoever.

So your a goalie faced with an excellent shot giving him an 5ish seconds to shoot(more than enough for NHL players), you challenge, Ozzie did just that...the friggin puck went through a small, a very small hole he left top corner.

You would think people who watch hockey would understand that situation and say "good shot, good goal"...instead the people here cry "weak goal". /shrug

EDIT: Congo rats on 398. Only 6 to go to take over 9th of all time.

Edited by Dynheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0