31 replies to this topic

[mwagner468]

Ok, In 1994 the Devils lose a tough 7 game series to the Rags and the next year they crush us in the finals. I get that, natural progression. Same thing happens with Detroit in 1997 after losing a tough 6 game series in 96 with the av's. My point is if you at the eventual champion a lot of times you can make sense of it. Usually a team does not come out of nowhere to win the cup.

This year we lose to the Sharks, who in turn lose pretty handily to Vancouver. Then, (I know it was a 7 game series)Vancouver gets crushed by Boston in the finals.

Ok, Detroit pounds Boston and Tampa bay in the regular season. Now I know that the regular season has shown to not mean everything, but damn seriously? Detroit didn't just win a couple of lucky games against Boston and Tampa. We dominated them in every facet of the game. It makes no sense. Boston was really better than the team that beat the team that beat Detroit? I for one am not buying it. So what does that leave us with?

I just wanted to hear other people's opinion on this.

[Crashnburnluder]

One name.... Tim Thomas... Easily the Conn Smythe winner even if they lose game 7....

SJ was a great offensive team and so was Vancouver... But Boston was a great two way team with a Great goaltender who beat out a great goaltender who crumbled under the pressure...

[number9]

i think grit and toughness plays a small role. in the playoffs players go hard. lately i think teams that like to bang have been doing better in the playoffs than softer, often more skilled, teams. there are some exceptions but physicallity to wear down other teams and not get worn down urself has always played a role in playoff hockey.

[13dangledangle]

I hear you for sure, but it doenst make much sense to think about. It's like the butterfly affect, imagine you take the Sedin twins out and put in our Euro twins (D&Z) in they totally change the "facet" of the game, let alone changing the whole team. Besides I thought we went over this, San Jose we pushed to game 7 this year, next year we knock em out. We sweep Vancouver-if they make it-and bingo f*** you Boston!

[Nhurdi]

Rock beats Scissors
Scissors beats Paper
Paper beats Rock

That simple.

[InKennyWeTrust]

It just depends on who shows up to play. Anyone can get a lucky bounce here or there and it's not impossible for them to get lucky several times in a row.

[RusDRW]

It was also interesting that both Boston and Vancouver were one goal away from elimination in the first round.

Talking about SJS it still looks like their main goal is to eliminate us from the play-offs, not the Stanley Cup Their current roster may never overcome such mentality. Reminds me a bit of our confrontation with Avs in late 90s. The difference is that we didn't take SJS serious past two years. Next year, things will be different.

[Heroes of Hockeytown]

Variance, chance, luck. Whatever you wanna call it, you have it when you win, you don't when you lose.

[Rick D]

I think the wings showed up 3 games late in the SJ series. We played Van pretty close in the regular season, I was looking forward to a series against them.

[SouthernWingsFan]

Ok, In 1994 the Devils lose a tough 7 game series to the Rags and the next year they crush us in the finals. I get that, natural progression. Same thing happens with Detroit in 1997 after losing a tough 6 game series in 96 with the av's. My point is if you at the eventual champion a lot of times you can make sense of it. Usually a team does not come out of nowhere to win the cup.

This year we lose to the Sharks, who in turn lose pretty handily to Vancouver. Then, (I know it was a 7 game series)Vancouver gets crushed by Boston in the finals.

Ok, Detroit pounds Boston and Tampa bay in the regular season. Now I know that the regular season has shown to not mean everything, but damn seriously? Detroit didn't just win a couple of lucky games against Boston and Tampa. We dominated them in every facet of the game. It makes no sense. Boston was really better than the team that beat the team that beat Detroit? I for one am not buying it. So what does that leave us with?

I just wanted to hear other people's opinion on this.

Nothing really to deduct or figure out in regards to this. Like others have said, it's some combination of talent, work ethic and some luck here/there. Sometimes the breaks just don't go your way.

To compare to a championship event recently, if you watched the World Cup that ended just recently, this country is one of the best soccer nations year in and year out, if not the best, at least on the women's side. They've already won 2 World Cups since the women's side started playing them in the early 90s every 4 years. They got all the way to the final game and were playing Japan. Historically USA never lost to Japan in about 25 matches. And that game they probably played their best game of the whole World Cup Tournament that final game, the effort was definitely there but they just couldn't quite score enough. Part of it was not finishing, part of it was hitting posts on shots twice.

Japan stuck with it, did just enough to hang with the U.S., forced overtime/extra time, and won in penalty kicks. And while we outplayed them just about the entire match, they deserve full credit for hanging in and finishing the job. Sometimes you just can't finish and breaks can't go your way sometimes.

Also happened plenty to the Red Wings in recent memory unfortuantely (i.e. 2003 playoff series vs. Anaheim and 2006 playoff series vs. Edmonton where Giguere and Roloson were almost 1-man wrecking crews in upsetting the Wings early).

Edited by SouthernWingsFan, 22 July 2011 - 08:43 AM.

[bogeygolfer]

I think that for the wings to win another stanley cup its going to be able staying healthy. When all our core players stay healthy we are usually the favourite

[rrasco]

Nothing really to deduct or figure out in regards to this. Like others have said, it's some combination of talent, work ethic and some luck here/there. Sometimes the breaks just don't go your way.

To compare to a championship event recently, if you watched the World Cup that ended just recently, this country is one of the best soccer nations year in and year out, if not the best, at least on the women's side. They've already won 2 World Cups since the women's side started playing them in the early 90s every 4 years. They got all the way to the final game and were playing Japan. Historically USA never lost to Japan in about 25 matches. And that game they probably played their best game of the whole World Cup Tournament that final game, the effort was definitely there but they just couldn't quite score enough. Part of it was not finishing, part of it was hitting posts on shots twice.

Japan stuck with it, did just enough to hang with the U.S., forced overtime/extra time, and won in penalty kicks. And while we outplayed them just about the entire match, they deserve full credit for hanging in and finishing the job. Sometimes you just can't finish and breaks can't go your way sometimes.

Also happened plenty to the Red Wings in recent memory unfortuantely (i.e. 2003 playoff series vs. Anaheim and 2006 playoff series vs. Edmonton where Giguere and Roloson were almost 1-man wrecking crews in upsetting the Wings early).

I distinctly remember Zetterberg hitting a cross bar with a few minutes to go in Game 7 of 2009.

My opinion, in addition to everything stated already, I think it's a matter of match up. Some teams match up to others better than others. While we could have taken it to TB, Boston, Vancouver...SJ has proven to be a tough match up for us the last two years. Now, without Setoguchi, the Sharks don't have a few of their goals....a powerplay setup with a man sitting alone to the left wing waiting for a one-time rings a bell. Something that could swing the match up in our favor IMO.

[Barrie]

If Rome didn't hit Horton, Vancouver would have won the Cup in 5. Vancouver was getting away with to much in the first two games, and the hit on Horton crossed the line, giving Boston enough motivation to win.

[mjtm77]

I distinctly remember Zetterberg hitting a cross bar with a few minutes to go in Game 7 of 2009.

My opinion, in addition to everything stated already, I think it's a matter of match up. Some teams match up to others better than others. While we could have taken it to TB, Boston, Vancouver...SJ has proven to be a tough match up for us the last two years. Now, without Setoguchi, the Sharks don't have a few of their goals....a powerplay setup with a man sitting alone to the left wing waiting for a one-time rings a bell. Something that could swing the match up in our favor IMO.

but they have burns...

[Reds4Life]

Sharks were lucky to beat the Wings. The first two games Sharks won were decided by fluke goals.

Canucks are mentally soft team. Injury plagued Chicago almost took them out. Sharks were out of juice after the Wings series.

Boston was not even that good in the finals. A weak champion this year.

And the East is a joke. Tampa - Boston finals. LOL

[chrisdetroit]

There is a great deal of luck involved in winning the Cup. Consider these scenarios:

1. Z does not get injured the last week of the season and is ready to go against Phoenix and at full stride against San Jose. This could easily have made the difference in a series in which we lost 4 1 goal games, 2 in OT.

2. Mule doesn't get injured and is able to play at full strength against the Sharks.

3. Hudler and Cleary don't run into each other in game 7.

4. Vancouver loses the game 7 OT against Chicago. This means we play Nashville in round 2 and not San Jose and don't see San Jose until round 3 when Z is back to full strength.


I'm not making excuses but luck is definitely part of it. We lost this year because we had several "weak links". Hudler basically let San Jose score the tying goal in game 3, Ralfi was playing hurt, Franzen was hurt, Z wasn't up to speed until the middle of round 2...

I think the wings showed up 3 games late in the SJ series. We played Van pretty close in the regular season, I was looking forward to a series against them.

Huh? The Wings absolutely dominated in game 2. Niemi stole the game.

Edited by chrisdetroit, 23 July 2011 - 07:45 AM.

[number9]

Sharks were lucky to beat the Wings. The first two games Sharks won were decided by fluke goals.

Canucks are mentally soft team. Injury plagued Chicago almost took them out. Sharks were out of juice after the Wings series.

Boston was not even that good in the finals. A weak champion this year.

And the East is a joke. Tampa - Boston finals. LOL

Boston does not at all look like a championship team. they got LUCKEEEEEEEE. they basically finished the job chicago started on VAN. VAN prolly shoulda won the cup, they looked like the team to beat all season...even thou there in the NW division. the sedins and loungo just couldnt handle it. very mentally weak team. but look who stood out on VAN, bieksa and kesler. the two roughest players on that team. the playoffs are all about playin the body.

take away the first 2 games of the sharks series and we coulda seen the wings win a cup this year.

[Majsheppard]

Rock beats Scissors
Scissors beats Paper
Paper beats Rock

That simple.

Nothing beats dynamite.

[Hatethedrake!]

Things lined up very well for Boston. Even still they needed to win 3 Game 7's. The Wings basically had no chance as soon as Franzen was injured. Datsyuk was not healthy and neither was Hank. The Wings have not had the health to win a Cup the past 3 years. It is an excuse but it is a fact as well. I know the Wings have had to overcome injuries during past Cup wins as well. But this team is not as good as those other Wings teams were. We're not as deep. Plus the league is better. There is more balance. Not much separates a 1 seed from an 8. If the Wings had beat the Sharks in Game 7, they would have likely been steamrolled by the Canucks. The Wings were running on fumes and had a thin line-up after Cleary and Bertuzzi became injured. I know we beat Boston twice but that really means nothing. Once the playoffs start, you can throw the regular season out the window.

[Lifelong Wings Fan]

It's called the salary cap people. There is so much parity in the league now a days that there is never a clear-cut Champion, until the Stanley Cup is handed out.

Both Vancouver and Boston won game 7 of the first round in OT. They were both 1 goal away from being eliminated in the first round.

It has little to do with grit, two-way play, natural progression, luck, etc. and a lot do with who's play well at the right time, and who you match up against. Every team that makes the playoffs (and some that don't) is capable of winning the Stanley Cup. It's absolutely great for hockey fans, and not so great for fans of one specific team.