Jump to content


Nightfall's Photo

Nightfall

Member Since 10 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Jul 28 2014 07:17 PM
**---

#2518613 Wings will buy out Tootoo, not Franzen.

Posted by Nightfall on 01 May 2014 - 07:29 AM

 

I see absolutely no problem with the bolded part, maybe he needs/wants a change of scenery and the Wings could use the money to bring in defensive and offensive stogap help. Win-win for both

 

I am still trying to figure out who we could get for Franzen's cap number that would be just as good if not better.  You know when Vanek signs with a team he is going to ask for $6 million a season at least.

 

If we are going to buy out Franzen, and put plugs into our team, I am sure that wouldn't go over well with the fanbase.




#2518261 Ken Holland Quotes (Apr 29th

Posted by Nightfall on 29 April 2014 - 07:45 PM

Actually, he costs 1.9 million, couldn't crack the lineup when absolutely everyone was out of the lineup, he cleared waivers 3 times and absolutely no one was interested in taking him for free.  

 

He wouldn't be free.  Someone would have had to pickup his contract.  Yea, I get what you are saying though.




#2517951 Was Legwand worth it?

Posted by Nightfall on 28 April 2014 - 10:34 AM

 

If you'd told me a year ago that we'd basically be flipping Jarnkrok for nothing, I would've laughed. If you'd told me Holland would cite a logjam at center as a major motivating factor, I would've laughed even harder, knowing full well that even with a thin group of centermen, Babcock probably would've put him on the wing anyway.

 

Like I said, if it had been, say, Dave Nonis trading Jarnkrok for Legwand, we would've had a field day with it.

 

Right now, Jarnkrok is just a prospect and he did look good in 12 games with Nashville.  To call this trade a success or failure will be judged in a few years.  Either you have faith that he will be a guaranteed stud, or you think he will be somewhere in the middle, or you don't believe he will be good at all.  Right now, I believe that some Wings fans are going over the top by saying he is a future star in the league.  I don't know what his future is going to be so I won't speculate.

 

I will agree with you on this point.  If they don't retain Legwand, then it really was flipping him for nothing in which case I will be disappointed.  If Legwand signs, then it was a worthwhile trade.

 

BTW, who listens to what Pierre Mcguire has to say anyway?  When Mcguire gushes about anyone, it usually gets a lot of scorn from Wings fans.  ;)




#2517556 Grand Rapids Griffins - defend the cup

Posted by Nightfall on 27 April 2014 - 09:16 AM

Griffins are getting back Sheahan, Jurco, and Oulette for their playoff run.  I thought Glendenning was also a possibility, but oh well.

 

Go Griffins!




#2517555 Was Legwand worth it?

Posted by Nightfall on 27 April 2014 - 09:14 AM

Legwand will not be back... and we gave them Zetterberg 2.0 for a rental...

Kenny is saying one thing and doing opposite...

 

I am still trying to figure out why some people here think that he was Zetterberg 2.0 with just 12 games of NHL experience under his belt.  Are people that dilluted to think that he is an elite NHL player at this stage in his career?  There are many players who started off great in the first 20 games and then turned out to be average NHL players or not around the league after that.




#2513641 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by Nightfall on 22 April 2014 - 07:31 PM

True but those goals are deflating to our young guys, it should not be, but it is.

 

I will agree with you on deflating goals.  As a goalie, I know that is a factor.

 

If we are going to expect Howard to play every game and get lucky like game 1, its unrealistic.




#2512451 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by Nightfall on 20 April 2014 - 03:51 PM

 

Remember a poster called Crymson?

 

Hell, 1/2 this forum is filled with fairweather fans.  Crymson is a realist.




#2512410 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by Nightfall on 20 April 2014 - 03:45 PM

Awesome goal!  All aboard!

 

Bandwagon.jpg




#2511138 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by Nightfall on 18 April 2014 - 08:52 PM

Is Datsyuk wearing Harry Potter's invisibility cloak?  

 

Abracadabra!




#2511093 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by Nightfall on 18 April 2014 - 08:41 PM

Refs are doing a great job so far as well.  The players are going to decide the game.  Can't ask for anything better come playoff time.




#2511083 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by Nightfall on 18 April 2014 - 08:37 PM

This really is classic playoff hockey.  Big stops at both ends.  Fast and physical game.  I love it.




#2501584 Net off the moorings question

Posted by Nightfall on 26 March 2014 - 08:14 AM

The rule states smith has to push it off deliberately or accidentally, smith did not do that. It says nothing about pushing a player into the net. This is where the NHL leaves the rule open for interpretation. Make it black or white. By that rule smith did nothing wrong.

 

The rule does state that.

 

"the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player or goalkeeper"

 

Was the goal posts displaced?  Yes

Was it due to the actions of Smith?  Yes.  That player that had an easy tap in wasn't going to knock the net off himself just standing there.


Watch the replay again. The net comes up off the mooring before he starts the shot. He has the stick back for the puck when it first comes off but it hasn't started moving forward yet. No goal.

 

After Smith pushes him into the net.  Smith doesn't do that, its an easy tap in goal.  The goal as imminent, and Smith's actions caused the net to go off its moorings.  Once again, good goal.




#2501581 3/25 GDT - Red Wings 2 at Blue Jackets 4

Posted by Nightfall on 26 March 2014 - 07:52 AM

 

For real? In a league where poor officiating is the standard, tonight somehow topped that. They called everything for 10 minutes, nothing the rest of the way except for that "slash" (which wasn't) on Legwand. The refs were a disaster. 

 

I won't get into a debate on what the refs called.  That never ends well, and as a referee myself, I am a bit more understanding than the common Wings fan.  Lets put it this way.....

 

The refs were not the reason why the Wings lost that game.  I don't necessarily agree with all the calls in the course of the game.  What I do believe is that good teams find a way to get the job done.  The Wings were not the better team tonight and I feel they made more mistakes than Columbus did.




#2501578 Net off the moorings question

Posted by Nightfall on 26 March 2014 - 07:38 AM

I thought it was a good call.  The rule 63.6 states....

 

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26355

 

In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.

 

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

 

 

IMHO, a goal was imminent.  The player had position, and he was going to have an easy tap in goal.  Smith pushed him into the net and therefore caused the net to be dislodged.  It really is a no brainer call in my opinion.




#2500990 3/25 GDT - Red Wings 2 at Blue Jackets 4

Posted by Nightfall on 25 March 2014 - 07:19 PM

Columbus scores 2 and I swear half the forum members were on their way out.

 

Detroit scores to bring it within 1 and everyone comes back.

 

Less drama ladies!