Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

gdt

  • Please log in to reply
1029 replies to this topic

#921 gcom007

gcom007

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,172 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:56 PM

I didn't post that with the intention of arguing that Howard is better than Quick, because I won't. It is more a point that yes, a goaltender can be responsible for losing games in the playoffs. Quick has solely been responsible for them being down 2-0 and having the series in a losing position right now. There is no denying that, he has been terrible.

 

Howard has been responsible for dropping one game. Holding him responsible for this game is illogical. His numbers have been excellent, he stole us a game, yet he's still getting the most heat. That's my point. Even the most elite can be awful at times and cause you to lose games. Howard has been solid, not stellar, but not bad either. 

 

The blame needs to be pointed at the offense and lack of effort and energy in the first half of tonight's game. 

 

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.


Edited by gcom007, 22 April 2014 - 09:58 PM.

-Elliot


#922 IndianaRedWing

IndianaRedWing

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:57 PM

He didn't have to shut them out in Game 2.  The Wings made it a 2-1 game and Howard lets in a somewhat soft goal late in the second period to totally deflate the team.  How different would that game have looked only down 1 goal and the team skating well.  That is what I meant  by the timing of the goals.

 

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.



#923 MabusIncarnate

MabusIncarnate

    The Truth Is Out There

  • Silver Booster Mod
  • 2,243 posts
  • Location:Monteagle, Tennessee

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:58 PM

 

Fans are less likely to blame a goalie who's a few seasons removed from taking the franchise where it's never been before.

 

Howard is playing in Hockeytown and can't get past the 2nd round.  Of course our fans are going to react more harshly than LA fans towards Quick.  A player has to prove himself before he can get some kind of immunity from a fanbase.  

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.


13585921555_24551f5658.jpg


#924 cnot19

cnot19

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:58 PM

 
I'm still trying to figure out why Tootoo signed here. Basically ended his own career.


Me too really unfortunate he's cleary an nhl caliber winger better than what we've iced alot of the time
Get me a real fourth line Kenny!

#925 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:59 PM

 

If that were true, goalies should have about a .990 save percentage.  That's an asinine assessment to make.

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.



#926 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,297 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:02 PM

 

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. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#927 barabbas16

barabbas16

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Parkersburg, WV

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:02 PM

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.



#928 ash11

ash11

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:03 PM

Rask i quote " i felt like this was the easiest game of my career" CONFIDENCE BOOST!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#929 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:03 PM

 

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.  



#930 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:04 PM

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.



#931 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:09 PM

 

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.



#932 MabusIncarnate

MabusIncarnate

    The Truth Is Out There

  • Silver Booster Mod
  • 2,243 posts
  • Location:Monteagle, Tennessee

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:09 PM

 

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.


13585921555_24551f5658.jpg


#933 MPT

MPT

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:09 PM

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.  



#934 IndianaRedWing

IndianaRedWing

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:11 PM

 

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 by IndianaRedWing, 22 April 2014 - 10:13 PM.


#935 ShanahanMan

ShanahanMan

    DUUUUUUUUH

  • Silver Booster
  • 5,751 posts
  • Location:Michigan, then Los Angeles, now Tokyo, Japan

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:11 PM

 

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.  




I HATE JASON WILLIAMS

#936 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,297 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:11 PM

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. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#937 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,954 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:12 PM

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 by GMRwings1983, 22 April 2014 - 10:12 PM.

According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#938 The Greek

The Greek

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Location:L-Town

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:12 PM

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. 



#939 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,140 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:13 PM

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. 



#940 wings87

wings87

    Wake Up!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,014 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:13 PM

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.  


"He usually shows up when the game is over and tries to be the hero. Puts his cape on and goes and flies out there." ~ Franzen 






Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users