I'm not sure what you were watching but the Wings lost in Overtime in game 7 on a shot that deflected off of Kronwall's skate. They lost game six on a horrible penalty shot call against them. They could easily have won either game and eliminated the hawks. Didn't have a chance? WTF?
When the Wings were up 3-1, I was as hopeful as anyone. I was thrilled with the Wings' performance, pleased that they made the playoffs a 22nd year straight and had already beaten the Ducks.
But when a team loses in seven games after being up 3-1, they deserved to lose and were beaten by the better team. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the Wings losing to St. Louis in 91 in 7 games. The young Wings were up 3-1 in that series as underdogs and eventually lost. Moreover, they had no business being up 3-1 in that series. St. Louis had 105 pts. that season, the Wings an under .500 76 pts.
Or consider the next season when the Wings came back against Minnesota after a 3-1 deficit. "Pretty much goal," Fedorov said about an overtime winner. The North Stars didn't deserve to win that series and they didn't. Minny's point total that year? 70 to Det's 98. Again, the better team won.
These examples of underdogs losing in 7 games can probably be attributed to good teams playing down to the level of their competition more than anything. Did the Wings give Chicago a good series this year? Absolutely. But when the Hawks finally got their collective heads out of their collective butts, they turned it on and won, no matter how close the final score was. Chicago beat Detroit when they had to, just like St. Louis did to the Wings in 91 and the Wings did to Minny in 92.
So while this year's playoff run was, I think most could agree, a fun and improbable ride, it ended when it should have, against the team that beat us every time in the regular season. The games were close but the outcome really wasn't.
So....just to recap... The Serratoni guy basically said criticizing the team is all part of being a fan.
Then, MidMichSteve posts a definition of fanatic that includes the phrase "uncritical enthusiasm."
THEN, Serratoni 'likes' MidMichSteve's definition post that seemed (to me) to contradict Serratoni's previous post.
..... am I misreading something? Did the guy change his mind on what a fan is, or....?
Guess I ASSumed MidMichSteve was supporting my post, but I see your point. If he wasn't agreeing with me, he's wrong.
Sheep don't criticize. Fans do, can, and have every right to do so.