kipwinger 8,524 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 So much denial here. Howard didn't kill the Wings' chance to win tonight. From the opening faceoff, the Wings never gave themselves a chance. When you score 2 goals in 3 games and you *aren't* facing elimination in game 4, there's a good chance that your goalie is your series MVP. Not because he's necessarily been lights out, but because everyone has been worse. And even then, it's not enough. Apparently, there's widespread belief that Howard has to keep track of when his teammates are having, ahh, that time of month. He has to wear the pants on the team. Okie dokie. It's unbelievable that people think the team that's showed up for the first 3 games could legitimately compete for the cup, but for Howard. Whatever makes the loss easier to take, I guess. It's probably better than booze. Kudos. Tampa Bay scored ten goals in four games and they're on a long, lonely, quiet flight out of Montreal right about now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barabbas16 499 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Big difference between expecting a shut out and expecting to not give up incredibly soft/stupid goals and subsequently leads early on in two playoff games in a row. Huge, huge, huge difference in fact. Those kind of goals set the tone and both days, Boston comes back and scores another within just a few minutes. Again, he's hardly the only problem, but when your goalie is giving up leads to a team like Boston early two games in a row in the playoffs, it's a very serious problem whether he plays better the rest of the game or not. He obviously wasn't exactly lights out the rest of game two either. Jimmy Howard did not give the Red Wings a chance to get things started against Boston, but he absolutely straight-up handed Boston that chance, two playoff games in a row. That's the bottom line and that's why it's a serious problem no matter his play the remainder of the game. Please. The bottom line? The bottom line is that you're not always going to score the first goal and professional hockey players should probably still be able to do their jobs when playing down a goal or even (oh my goodness) two goals. The guy guarding your own net is not the reason why you can't score. A crapload more games have been won by teams whose goaltender let in two goals than have been won by teams who were able to score zero goals. Letting in two goals or less is pretty much the definition of giving your team a chance to win, If your team can't score more than two goals a game (let alone less than one), you're not going to win much of anything no matter who is in your net. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ash11 78 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Rask i quote " i felt like this was the easiest game of my career" CONFIDENCE BOOST! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Kudos. Tampa Bay scored ten goals in four games and they're on a long, lonely, quiet flight out of Montreal right about now. With their back up goalie in net. 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Greek 323 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 When you have a talented veteran team, that is easily doable. When you have a weak defense and a lot of kids on offense, it's easier said than done. The only place that should be solidified is goaltending. They have a veteran goalie who is in his prime and is healthy. You're going to give up goals, but they shouldn't be soft goals. If a player gives up when down by 1 or 2 goals in the first period, he should not be in the NHL. This series, Howard has six goals against, the team has scored two, one of which was a flukey bounce. Goaltending is the only area that has been half-way decent. There's no denying that Howard was pretty awful throughout the season. However, he's been much more consistent since the Olympic break. Without him, we're down 3-0. Arguably, he's plaid well enough for us to be up 2-1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 23, 2014 If a player gives up when down by 1 or 2 goals in the first period, he should not be in the NHL. This series, Howard has six goals against, the team has scored two, one of which was a flukey bounce. Goaltending is the only area that has been half-way decent. There's no denying that Howard was pretty awful throughout the season. However, he's been much more consistent since the Olympic break. Without him, we're down 3-0. Arguably, he's plaid well enough for us to be up 2-1. Who said they gave up? But anyone who has played any sport at any time knows a thing about momentum. The easy game 2 and 3 goals not only gives Boston confidence, but it gives them the ability to play their game and forces the Wings to change theirs. 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MabusIncarnate 5,344 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 He is taking the most heat because two games in a row he gave up easy goals to give Boston early leads. Again, Jimmy Howard did not give the Red Wings a chance to get things started against Boston, but he absolutely straight-up handed Boston that chance, two playoff games in a row. That's the bottom line and that's why it's a serious problem no matter his play the remainder of the game. I absolutely think we have other problems aside from Howard, but I also think we might see the team look a bit different if they weren't having to play from behind early on. We haven't really had a chance to get anything going two games in a row because early leads were given up to a team that is just too good to be giving early leads to. Like it or not, those early leads were started by bad plays by Howard. The situation was exacerbated by the rest of the team quickly in both games, and Howard obviously doesn't shoulder as much blame for those goals, but the wheels started coming off due to bad goals given up by Howard. Howard needs to give the team a better chance to get going than he's done these last two games. I didn't make a stink about it after the last game because it was one game and s*** happens. Most goalies give up one bad goal now and again. I've never held it against goalies when it occasionally happened. After all, I was an Osgood fan, and obviously he had his seriously atrocious goals against. But Osgood had a tendency of following up games in which he gave up lousy goals with outstanding, lights out games. Howard came back and gave up another easy goal and lead again tonight, in the playoffs. No one should be debating whether or not he played well the rest of the game because he did, but there should also be no debate that these early goals he's giving up are unacceptable and deflating, and again, that's a serious problem. If this team is falling apart after one goal being allowed then they have no business even playing in the playoffs to begin with. If they go into the game with the logic that they must score the first goal or they are going to just not play anymore and lose the game then there is no hope for any kind of advancement this season. Regardless, he doesn't let that one in, we still lose 1-0. There was no energy out of the Wings prior to that first goal anyway, they came out lazy like they didn't care. It's not like they came out flying, were putting up scoring chances, and suddenly a weak goal was let in and it changed the entire pace of the game. They were bad from the puck drop until late in the 2nd period. It was a matter of when Boston was going to score, not if, and that is the fault of the skaters and defense. I still don't declare the first goal as weak as everyone is saying it is, in my book, weak means no excuse why it wasn't stopped. The red line slapper against Osgood, the wrap around against Fleury in last year's playoffs. Soderberg ripped it over Howard's glove, he was given plenty of room to do so and he tucked it in right under the crossbar. It could have been stopped, but it wasn't a bad, weak shot that some kind of half assed effort caused to go in, Howard just didn't react in time to stop the shot that picked the corner. It was stoppable, but not weak. What Howard did in Game 2 was a mistake and weak. I won't deny that. They are two very different situations. 1 puckloo39 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MPT 18 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 I'm speaking of that one particular goal. Howard should have had it. End of story. It wasn't an impossible stop to make and it was an untimely goal to give up and deflating for a team that had cut the lead in half and were putting the pressure on. Oh, well as long as it wasn't impossible, I guess you're right. Let's not put any of the blame on the defense for allowing the Bruins to make that play. Let's not put any of the blame on the offense for only being able to score one fluke goal. If Howard doesn't make every save that isn't literally impossible, it's his fault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IndianaRedWing 15 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) If a player gives up when down by 1 or 2 goals in the first period, he should not be in the NHL. And they have absolutely no business staining the Stanley Cup with their name. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, simply repeating something like a mantra doesn't make it true. I would believe that the Wings were too mentally weak to compete if they had actually played with some level of fire or desire at the start of the game and then they quit after Boston scored. What happened was the exact opposite. They only started to compete at something resembling a playoff level midway through the second period. Edited April 23, 2014 by IndianaRedWing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShanahanMan 473 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 I'm still trying to figure out why Tootoo signed here. Basically ended his own career. Same reason we signed Commodore. Holland's false promises. Commodore talks about this in detail. Holland calls guys, guys like Tootoo, Eaves, Commodore and promises loads of ice time and when they arrive, they don't get it and are basically lied to. Both Eaves and Commordore's agents had to call Holland and demand a trade cause of this. Holland is a schmuck basically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,524 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 With their back up goalie in net. My point is that if we score at the pace of either of the teams in that series we're probably up 2-1 right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) I can agree with that logic, although Osgood after a cup under his belt continued to receive the same blame and grief for the rest of his career regardless of what he was doing. I'm just calling it as I see it, I can live with allowing 2 goals a game as long as we can match or put up more. Averaging less than a goal scored per game will doom us even if howard allows one goal per game in the next three games, chances are they will still win a game or two 1-0 and take the series. Must find a way to score goals. Wings won the Cup in spite of Osgood in 1998, not because of him. Watch the recaps of those entire 1998 playoffs, and you'll see him give up so many mindblowingly bad goals. Quick was the exact opposite in 2012 (of course the goalie position changed since 1998). Eventually, Ozzie was moved after some subpar performances against Colorado in the playoffs, and that 2001 disaster against LA. If Quick sucks several seasons in a row in the postseason, he may get the same treatment. Edited April 23, 2014 by GMRwings1983 2 Hockeymom1960 and Manny>Ozzie(by a long shot) reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Greek 323 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Who said they gave up? But anyone who has played any sport at any time knows a thing about momentum. The easy game 2 and 3 goals not only gives Boston confidence, but it gives them the ability to play their game and forces the Wings to change theirs. We must be watching different games. I saw the same lack of urgency after that goal as I did before, Literally nothing changed except the score. Hell, if we changed our game, I would have been ecstatic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Seems like a disproportionate amount of focus on Howard considering the Wings haven't scored a goal in a game and a half. They managed it in game one but this team wasn't exactly winning games 1-0 during the regular season. 2 FireCaptain and Lazerbeam reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wings87 1,290 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 No one player cost us the game, it was a total team effort; including the coaching staff(Babcock isn't helping with his ridiculous line choices.). The urgency just isn't there, for whatever reason. The Wings have played scared for 2 straight games, and not scared of the "big bad bruins", but of losing. Hopefully this third period is carried over to game 4 and we tie it up at 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MPT 18 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Who said they gave up? But anyone who has played any sport at any time knows a thing about momentum. The easy game 2 and 3 goals not only gives Boston confidence, but it gives them the ability to play their game and forces the Wings to change theirs. good players don't just give up when something doesn't go their way. They fight the whole way. This team doesn't. And that's not Howard's fault. He made one bad play in a game we lost because the only goal we could score came off a lucky bounce. So by my count, that's Howard: 1, rest-of-team: infinite. Edited April 23, 2014 by haroldsnepsts getting personal 1 greenrebellion reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcom007 1,465 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) While I think most people missed the point of the thread I made about the way we develop players and how they play with and without stars in the lineup, I think it's interesting that Nyquist is continuing to struggle getting on the scoresheet. Obviously there are a lot more factors involved given that it's the playoffs and no one on this team has looked too hot against a very good Boston team, but Nyquist now has 2 assists for 2 points in the 9 games since Datsyuk returned. Yes, players get hot and players cool off, but Nyquist was a dominating force to be reckoned with for some time until Datsyuk came back in the lineup. It really makes me wonder all the more if it wouldn't be better to get these guys into the Wings lineup earlier on in their careers so they get used to playing with the full team. If you want to know more about why I think that, you can read my original thread at http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/76264-nyquist-since-datsyuks-return-unnatural-nhl-development/ , but try to focus on the latter half of the original post as opposed to getting too hung up on Nyquist. I don't think this is a Nyquist-specific phenomenon if it's a "phenomenon" at all. I just think our young kids might be better served getting an earlier and more traditional start in the NHL as opposed to one where they're coming up and playing because guys are out and starting their career riding off that kind of adrenaline. Then when the big guys come back and things are shaken up, perhaps they struggle with trying to figure out where they fit in, while also shaking up the way they were playing that lead to their success. Again, more in the original thread, but I'm still not convinced that we wouldn't be better off getting the younger talent into the NHL sooner. Edited April 23, 2014 by gcom007 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonSin 192 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Man, people blaming Howard is unbelievable. It makes me wonder if you guys are real hockey fans. When you score ZERO goals do you expect to win? So Howard is supposed to make EVERY stop until the Red Wings score? LoL. I thought Howard finished strong. Wings didn't have ANY puck luck today and NOTHING went their way. The post by Helm was huge, if that goes in, it's a different game. Wings looked like s*** yes, but it's still only 2-1. Do I think the Wings will win? No, but it's far from over. They have to find a way to score. 1 Nightfall reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Man, people blaming Howard is unbelievable. It makes me wonder if you guys are real hockey fans. When you score ZERO goals do you expect to win? So Howard is supposed to make EVERY stop until the Red Wings score? LoL. I thought Howard finished strong. Wings didn't have ANY puck luck today and NOTHING went their way. The post by Helm was huge, if that goes in, it's a different game. Wings looked like s*** yes, but it's still only 2-1. Do I think the Wings will win? No, but it's far from over. They have to find a way to score. The people blaming Howard are also blaming everyone else. If you go back through this thread (I don't recommend it) you'll see that. Edited April 23, 2014 by GMRwings1983 2 Hockeymom1960 and roboturner reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Oh, well as long as it wasn't impossible, I guess you're right. Let's not put any of the blame on the defense for allowing the Bruins to make that play. Let's not put any of the blame on the offense for only being able to score one fluke goal. If Howard doesn't make every save that isn't literally impossible, it's his fault. Oh, right, nothing is Howard's fault. It's all everyone else's fault. He can't be blamed for anything. Let's blame the rookie defensemen or Babcock, because he can't win anything. Talk about delusional. There's no way of knowing how these games would have turned out differently had Howard not given up 2 bad goals. In fact, in Game 1 we did see what could happen. 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MPT 18 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Man, people blaming Howard is unbelievable. It makes me wonder if you guys are real hockey fans. When you score ZERO goals do you expect to win? So Howard is supposed to make EVERY stop until the Red Wings score? It's easiest for someone who doesn't know hockey to blame the goalie. The puck went in the net-- it must be the goalie's fault. Nevermind the fact that he's facing myriad odd-man rushes and his team doesn't know how to defend for him or score any goals. Edited April 23, 2014 by haroldsnepsts getting personal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MabusIncarnate 5,344 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 Wings won the Cup in spite of Osgood in 1998, not because of him. Watch the recaps of those entire 1998 playoffs, and you'll see him give up so many mindblowingly bad goals. Quick was the exact opposite in 2012 (of course the goalie position changed since 1998). Eventually, Ozzie was moved after some subpar performances against Colorado in the playoffs, and that 2001 disaster against LA. If Quick sucks several seasons in a row in the postseason, he may get the same treatment. Oh I remember it all vividly, I wasn't much of an Ozzie supporter and i'm not now, but he does have a few championships under his belt regardless. I can see Howard having a similar career with the same kind of reactions going forward regardless of success or failure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 23, 2014 And they have absolutely no business staining the Stanley Cup with their name. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, simply repeating something like a mantra doesn't make it true. I would believe that the Wings were too mentally weak to compete if they had actually played with some level of fire or desire at the start of the game and then they quit after Boston scored. What happened was the exact opposite. They only started to compete at something resembling a playoff level midway through the second period. So when they went down 0-2 to Vancouver in absolutely pathetic fashion and were down in game 3 until a flukey goal turned it around, were they too mentally weak to win then too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonSin 192 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 The people blaming Howard are also blaming everyone else. If you go back through this thread (I don't recommend it) you'll see that. I get it I guess. When your team loses you have to pick someone to blame and it's easy to pick the goalie because he's the one that lets in the goals. When you're a team that's worthy of winning the cup you can overcome an EARLY two goal deficit in a playoff game. It was an early lead for Boston and the Wings could have came back. It wasn't like the game was super tight and Boston scored two late goals. Usually early leads end up coming back to bite you but in this case it didn't for Boston. We just don't have it and these last two games showed that. But like I said, I'm not surprised one bit. Injuries or not, there's a reason we just squeaked in the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MPT 18 Report post Posted April 23, 2014 There's no way of knowing how these games would have turned out differently had Howard not given up 2 bad goals. In fact, in Game 1 we did see what could happen. Neither of the goals he gave up tonight were "bad goals." And he pitched a shutout in Game 1. He can't be expected to do that every single game. Giving up 2 goals a game is a good performance in the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites