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

#1021 gcom007

gcom007

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,177 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:34 AM

I agree. We've been down before, but this is the first time I really have no hope. I think it's because they look beaten in their demeanor. I've never seen the Wings look so defeated so early in a series. I thought the kids would be all determined and relentless with their never-say-die attitude. But they look completely opposite of the way they looked in the season. Also, I'm really tired of them shooting weakly from bad angles, or intentionally missing the net from the point. It doesn't work if no one is there to grab the bouncing puck. They're not just playing badly, they look like an entirely different team than the past month and that worries me. Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

Seriously. We are making Rask look far better than he is the way we're shooting and managing the puck in their zone.


-Elliot


#1022 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,609 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:34 PM

 

What makes you think the kids are "shook"?  Sure, they're not scoring...neither is anybody else.  Their strength all season was their chemistry.  None of Tatar, Jurco, or Sheahan played as well apart as they did together.  The same is true of Nyquist with Franzen and Legwand; he never produced as well away from those guys as he did with them. 

 

Babs has yet to use either of those lines in this series.  No wonder they're not producing.  These guys aren't a Zetterberg or Datsyuk who can produce no matter where you put them.  Doesn't mean they're "shook".  It means your coach needs to pull his head out of his ass.

 

They're shook.  If you can, rewatch their reaction shots during and after the game.  Tatar especially after his give away looked completely near tears.  They can't be feeling that emotional in a Game 3.  They will learn, no doubt, but for the here and now it's worrying.  Nyquist, too, is moving without much confidence out there.


Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#1023 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:46 PM

 

They're shook.  If you can, rewatch their reaction shots during and after the game.  Tatar especially after his give away looked completely near tears.  They can't be feeling that emotional in a Game 3.  They will learn, no doubt, but for the here and now it's worrying.  Nyquist, too, is moving without much confidence out there.

 

I mean I saw the 1,000 yard stare on their faces, but I thought everyone had that last night.  They were terrible, knew they were terrible, and on top of that they had been physically beaten up for 60 minutes.  Hardly a situation in which you'd expect a look of steely determination and not surprisingly nobody (including the veterans) had one. 


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."

 

 


#1024 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,916 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:22 PM

 

Seriously. We are making Rask look far better than he is the way we're shooting and managing the puck in their zone.

 

umm Rask has a career GAA of 2.11 and sv% of .928, and in the playoffs it's even better, 2.04GAA and .933 sv%. Rask IS that good



#1025 IndianaRedWing

IndianaRedWing

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:46 PM

 

umm Rask has a career GAA of 2.11 and sv% of .928, and in the playoffs it's even better, 2.04GAA and .933 sv%. Rask IS that good

 

I can see both sides. Yes, Rask is very, very good.

 

It's also true that he plays for a team that plays excellent defense in front of him.

 

If you put Howard in a Boston uniform, is he as good as Rask? I really doubt it. But I don't think there's much question that whatever flaws Rask has, they'd be more exposed playing for Detroit, and Boston would probably do a bit better at masking Howard's.



#1026 IndianaRedWing

IndianaRedWing

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:55 PM

How good is Boston at team defense? Just look at their goaltending stats this season.

 

Rask: 2.04GAA, .930SvPct, 36-15-6-7

 

Chad Johnson & Niklas Svedberg: 2.10GAA, .931 SvPct, 18-4-3-2

 

There's essentially zero dropoff from the possible Vezina winner to the no-name backups (who actually had a  better won-loss record). Granted, it's harder when you're the top guy and you have a heavier workload, but I think it shows that while Rask is excellent, the Bruins also put him in a position to excel.



#1027 GoWings1905

GoWings1905

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 5,504 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:29 PM

 
umm Rask has a career GAA of 2.11 and sv% of .928, and in the playoffs it's even better, 2.04GAA and .933 sv%. Rask IS that good


Agreed, Rask is that good. Plus the Red Wings have made it easy on him (especially in Game 3) which is a really poor combination.
 
 
"To whom much is given, much is expected."
 
 

 

 

 

 


#1028 MPT

MPT

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 15 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:33 AM

And if Howard doesn't give up 2 weak goals there's a good chance we're probably up 2-1 right now. 

 

That is just. not. true.  Period.  They've scored 1 fluke goal in the last two games combined.  I'm not sure where you see our wins coming from, because it's literally impossible to win when you don't score.  

 

I'd like to highlight last night's games as examples of your theory being completely baseless.  Lehtonen let in 1 goal that was easily as soft as Howard's first goal in Game 3.  The Stars went down 2-0 early and rallied later to win the game.  Bobrovsky let in 2 goals that were softer than Howard's.  The Jackets went down 3-0 VERY early and rallied later to win the game.  Crawford let in 2 goals that were softer than Howard's and put the Hawks in a hole.  His team then rallied and won the game in OT.

 

Three examples in ONE NIGHT of goalies having worse performances than Howard had in game 3, and three examples of their team winning regardless.  By the way, all three were home teams just like Detroit was.  The reason they won and we didn't is because of all the players in front of the goalie.  End of story.



#1029 gowings00

gowings00

    No Talent Goon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,890 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 08:19 PM

Garbage......just garbage

#1030 gowings00

gowings00

    No Talent Goon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,890 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 08:26 PM

Per usual....we give Boston way too much time and space. The great thing about the 1st period was Boston didn't have time and space.





Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users