Reasons why Wings are down 0-2

[jerm8352 3]

I don't care how many days off anyone had. Show up and play. We didn't, they did and they won.

It is 100% Detroit's fault. Whose else could it be?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

[Broken 16 381]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

The only one I see pushing this notion hard is a Sharks fan.

[sleepwalker 512]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

I don't see it as complaining, as much as pointing out the obvious. Did the Wings need the time off to get healthy? Yes. Were they going to be slightly rusty as a result of such a long time off? Inevitably, any team would be. Was the "rust" the reason they lost game one? No. They lost game one because the Sharks are divers and the refs are idiots who fall for that s*** time and time again.

[Grypho 195]

Don't be so melodramatic. It's not like the Sharks dominated the entire game.

....

It was a very close game that could have easily gone either way. A little more luck and the Wings would have won, and there'd probably be a thread here on how much good the layoff did us.

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

[SpIkE 17]

Lol did you try using "playoff intensity" into a noun?

For real though, if you think the Wings lost their "playoff intensity" over a 9 day break and are now going to sit back and take it from the sharks, well you are sadly mistaken sir. Remember, you are playing a team that has been in the postseason 20 consecutive times, I think they know how to manage their time off right.

Edited May 1, 2011 by SpIkE

[Buppy 1,720]

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

By melodrama I was referring more to the quoted text as a whole; with all the emphasis, defining of terms, and implications that the Wings committed some unforgivalbe, unimaginable sin by deliberately not playing their best.

You're a hockey fan, I'm sure you're well aware of what I meant. I'm sure you've seen it from the Sharks, the Wings, and every other team. I'm sure you know I meant nothing even similar to way you chose to couch it in your reply.

And you can say you're not referring to the result or score, but when you're saying things like "NOT the Wings' fault" and talking about "what happened in the game" then I think what actually happened in the game is pretty relevent.

[Grypho 195]

By melodrama I was referring more to the quoted text as a whole; with all the emphasis, defining of terms, and implications that the Wings committed some unforgivalbe, unimaginable sin by deliberately not playing their best.

Go back and read what I wrote, as I expressly argued the opposite. It was a Wings fan that implied that this was a case of being "passive" (mental, therefore under your control, or deliberate), as opposed to lethargic (physical, as in a limitation completely apart from anything mental). It was a Wings fan who implied that lethargy was really 'passiveness', as if there was a lack of decision or commitment on the Wings' parts (overall) to play their best. I don't ever, EVER assume such a thing, and I would never even imply it, let alone say such a thing outright.

By "what happened" (in the Game) I am referring only to physical performance levels (speed, stamina, aggression, sustaining capacity, etc.,) relative to the opponent, and also relative to the Wings themselves, as compared to the Wings we saw in the series against Phoenix. Forget what you think I implied, because I am clarifying that now, for the record. Again. In other words, I am talking only about what everyone else saw, and described in different ways, regardless of their conclusions about why it "happened".

There were fans in the GDT who talked about the insult of the Wings pouring it on only at the end, for the last 5 mins. of the game. That somehow showed them that the Wings really did "have it in them" the whole time, but didn't "decide" to bring it on until the end. I absolutely disagree. I saw it as a nothing more than fast, 120% energy sprint at the end of a marathon, where you literally pour EVERY LAST THING you have left into the final stretch. What fans don't see, because the game is over, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT after you do that! IF the Wings had done that, say, in the second period, or any time prior to the last five minutes, they would have had nothing leftover, and as a result of that hypothetical stupidity, they would have opened up a shooting gallery for the Sharks - for which they would have had nothing left to defend with.

[Broken 16 381]

Wtf are you talking about?

Holy self indulgence... Please stop.

[Grypho 195]

Holy self indulgence... Please stop.

I can't. It's like eating chocolate, which I am doing right now. No will power, I can't help but shovel it by the bar into my mouth.

[MDCard 48]

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

Grypho, my answer would be that i think having 9 days off should be an advantage in my opinion for the Wings...a team that has older veterans who may need that rest. As well as to have a couple of our best players recover from injury. It's not like they took the whole summer off or something. It's 9 days after an 82 game season and 4 playoff games. Babs should have had them ready and "de-rusted" for game 1. Maybe other teams would see a 9 day layoff as a disadvantage...but given the Wings situation, it should have been an advantage. I think it really is dependent on the team, injury situation, average age of players on the team etc. as to whether a 9 day lay off is an advantage or disadvantage.

Now, the Wings have lost two games. Close games. I think we were a bit better in game two, but we will need to turn it up a notch to make this a series. I expect that we will do better in game 3. If we lose, then it is looking a bit like last year. Sharks looked pretty good today cycling the puck in our zone. We made it a game at the end, but too little too late. Wings need to play with a bit more urgency for 60 mins in my opinion.

[Klunzo 36]

The days off should have helped this team...which it probably did with injury/illness, etc. On the other hand...the Detroit that we have learned to love has suddenly resurfaced to play 5-10 minutes of dominant hockey a game.

Whether or not the days off had anything to do with it or not, I'm not entirely sold.

[Buppy 1,720]

Go back and read what I wrote, as I expressly argued the opposite. It was a Wings fan that implied that this was a case of being "passive" (mental, therefore under your control, or deliberate), as opposed to lethargic (physical, as in a limitation completely apart from anything mental). It was a Wings fan who implied that lethargy was really 'passiveness', as if there was a lack of decision or commitment on the Wings' parts (overall) to play their best. I don't ever, EVER assume such a thing, and I would never even imply it, let alone say such a thing outright.

By "what happened" (in the Game) I am referring only to physical performance levels (speed, stamina, aggression, sustaining capacity, etc.,) relative to the opponent, and also relative to the Wings themselves, as compared to the Wings we saw in the series against Phoenix. Forget what you think I implied, because I am clarifying that now, for the record. Again. In other words, I am talking only about what everyone else saw, and described in different ways, regardless of their conclusions about why it "happened".

There were fans in the GDT who talked about the insult of the Wings pouring it on only at the end, for the last 5 mins. of the game. That somehow showed them that the Wings really did "have it in them" the whole time, but didn't "decide" to bring it on until the end. I absolutely disagree. I saw it as a nothing more than fast, 120% energy sprint at the end of a marathon, where you literally pour EVERY LAST THING you have left into the final stretch. What fans don't see, because the game is over, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT after you do that! IF the Wings had done that, say, in the second period, or any time prior to the last five minutes, they would have had nothing leftover, and as a result of that hypothetical stupidity, they would have opened up a shooting gallery for the Sharks - for which they would have had nothing left to defend with.

Wow. Ok, let me rephrase that. You implied (and still are) that being passive is some deliberate, conscious act. I know you weren't suggesting the Wings were passive, because I was the one that originally called them that. You misinterpreted that and tried to make it look as if I intended your meaning, and you're still doing it even after I tried to clarify.

I'll try again. Passive = Not aggressive. The Wings were not aggressive. Not because they chose not to be. Not because it was their strategy. Not because they lack heart or determination.

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years. Long layoffs can be harmful. Just try not to be so impressed with yourself that you overlook all the other factors as well.

[Grypho 195]

Wow. Ok, let me rephrase that. You implied (and still are) that being passive is some deliberate, conscious act. I know you weren't suggesting the Wings were passive, because I was the one that originally called them that. You misinterpreted that and tried to make it look as if I intended your meaning, and you're still doing it even after I tried to clarify.

I'll try again. Passive = Not aggressive. The Wings were not aggressive. Not because they chose not to be. Not because it was their strategy. Not because they lack heart or determination.

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years. Long layoffs can be harmful. Just try not to be so impressed with yourself that you overlook all the other factors as well.

I did misunderstand you, apologies, and I stand corrected. Where we disagree now:

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

To clarify further, scratch "incapable of playing with the Sharks" entirely, and put instead (despite other factors, and having NOTHING to do with the Sharks):

It is my opinion that after nine days of time off between playoff games, the Wings were absolutely physically incapable of performing at nearly the same level they were at (relative only to themselves) just three days after they finished their sweep of the Coyotes.

Furthermore, IF the series had started three or even four days after your Game 4 against Phoenix, I would not be at all surprised if the Wings played much faster, and had far more stamina and aggression than the Sharks, regardless of the rest had by the Sharks - even to the point of being able to sweep them.

Either there is something to it or there is not. I know that you see the "rust factor" as real, and that everyone is aware of it, and that, in your mind, it "probably played a role". I am suggesting that it plays a substantial role. Not "all". Substantial. I don't think their subpar play (relative to themselves) was a result of the Sharks coming on strong. I think that if they could have matched that intensity, they more than would have.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years.

Thank you, and full attribution would obviously be appreciated when citing my breakthrough discovery in your papers.

[RedWingsRox 614]

Would have been nice to get a split but we'll just have to channel the Boston Bruins from round 1. They were down 2 in their own building!

[Grypho 195]

The Wings are ramping back up, and FAR, FAR from out of it. Anyone who counts them out at this point is a fool.

[stuck in socal 56]

Why is a shark fan trying to reassure Red Wing fans. Go enjoy your victory man.

[Grypho 195]

Because I am also a Wings fan. I was a Wings fan even before San Jose had a team.

My ultimate hockey dream is for the Wings to be in the Eastern Conference, so that a Stanley Cup Final between the two teams becomes a possibility. I HATE that two teams of this caliber have to meet in the stinking quarter and semi-finals.

I rooted HARD for Chicago to eliminate Vancouver, for no other reason than a WCF Wings/Sharks showdown as a possibility.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Grypho

[Guest Grayne Wetzky]

I was at the game today, and the Wings looked like SH!T. Plain and simple. A lot of that has to do with the Sharks being a good team. I thought the Wings got screwed in the first game by the refs, but today's game was just a loss. And it should have been a shut-out if the ref wouldn't have called a cheap penalty on the Sharks at the end of the game. The Red Wings need to stop playing like they're Mario Lemieux and start playing like Darren Helm. He looks like the only one trying out there. Ericsson and Rafalski have looked espeically poor the first 2 games. The Sharks are spending a lot of time in the Wings zone when those 2 are on the ice. Coach might want to shake it up a bit and remove one or both of them from the line-up for the rest of this series. Neither of them are making a positive impact.

[matt198913 932]

That Howard guy that LGW loves to ***** about looked pretty good too

[RusDRW 155]

I was at the game today, and the Wings looked like SH!T. Plain and simple. A lot of that has to do with the Sharks being a good team. I thought the Wings got screwed in the first game by the refs, but today's game was just a loss. And it should have been a shut-out if the ref wouldn't have called a cheap penalty on the Sharks at the end of the game. The Red Wings need to stop playing like they're Mario Lemieux and start playing like Darren Helm. He looks like the only one trying out there. Ericsson and Rafalski have looked espeically poor the first 2 games. The Sharks are spending a lot of time in the Wings zone when those 2 are on the ice. Coach might want to shake it up a bit and remove one or both of them from the line-up for the rest of this series. Neither of them are making a positive impact.

so we got screwed in fist game, and then got outplayed in the second right? The series is 2-0, not 1-1.

And why do you call it a "cheap penalty"? I think that the main reason we are loosing is that refs allows a lot of interference from both teams instead of more clean hockey like we have in, for example, Was-Tampa series or had in Pho-Det one. This type of game is better suited for bigger teams and Sharks definitely are the bigger one. Sad that we have completely different hockey in 4 series going. More or less clean in Was-Tampa, Phi-Bos and clutch and grad stuff in Nash-Van and Det Sjs.

[Nev 1,085]

Datsyuk was amazing yesterday - he was pretty much the only reason we were able to gain the SJ zone, by dangling through 3 Sharks. But even his line spent entire shifts in our zone unable to clear the puck.

But you are correct, SJ were just flat out better than us, they always seemed to have 2 men on the forecheck, then 4 men stood up at the blueline when we got the puck into the neutral zone.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Nev

[DRW Dominance 255]

This game wasn't actually lost in the first period but pretty close to it. I realize we were only down 1 but we could have been up 2 or 3 with those pp's. That was a big difference in the game.

[stevkrause 1,247]

The reason the Sharks are winning these games (aside from the fact they've outskated us 5 of the 7 periods we've played) is they're willing to just throw the puck at the net and crash... we did that against Phoenix, so I don't understand the regression... all I know is that if this doesn't drastically change for game 3, they'llbe golfing very soon...

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Recent history shows that this has been: