Jump to content


gcom007's Photo

gcom007

Member Since 18 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:39 PM
**---

#2515484 ECQF - Game 4 - Bruins 3 at Red Wings 2 (F/OT)

Posted by gcom007 on 24 April 2014 - 10:05 PM

Feels like we're just waiting for Boston to score. Horrible feeling. We need to up the intensity and/or get lucky fast or we're going to lose this game.


#2515216 ECQF - Game 4 - Bruins 3 at Red Wings 2 (F/OT)

Posted by gcom007 on 24 April 2014 - 08:30 PM

Cue the Chara dive...


#2515111 ECQF - Game 4 - Bruins 3 at Red Wings 2 (F/OT)

Posted by gcom007 on 24 April 2014 - 08:10 PM

The Monster is doing exactly what you want a backup goalie to do in a situation like this and more. Huge save on his end and we turn it around and out in another goal. Outstanding boys, outstanding.


#2515076 ECQF - Game 4 - Bruins 3 at Red Wings 2 (F/OT)

Posted by gcom007 on 24 April 2014 - 07:50 PM

And does anyone still think it's not important to get the jump on Boston as opposed to giving away the momentum easy? I don't care who's in net or who's taking penalty, bottom line is you've got to get the jump against a team like Boston. You can't give anything away early.


#2514197 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by gcom007 on 22 April 2014 - 10:49 PM

What I see going on here is that fans are confusing themselves with players. 

 

When a goalie gives up an early goal, it's absolutely deflating to a fan, and I suppose it's not unreasonable for fans to assume the same thing happens to players. 

 

But I've been watching hockey a long time, and I honestly don't believe that it works that way.

 

Have I seen a goal deflate a team? Yes. But when it happens, it almost always follows a certain script:

 

1. Underdog team works its arse off to build a lead against a favored opponent.

2. Underdog carries a lead into the third period, maybe even well into the third period.

3. Favored team starts acting frustrated, taking themselves out of the game

4. Underdog team's goalie gives up a bad goal (or two)

5a. Rest of underdog team collectively goes "Oh, FFS, we killed ourselves for 50 minutes only for THAT to happen?!?"

5b. Goal(s) lights a fire under favored team, which starts playing with focus

6. Favored team carries momentum over final 5-10 minutes, building pressure to the point that they finally score the game-winner to complete the comeback.

 

That's why I (and others) are heaping so much scorn on the "deflating goal" theory tonight. The Wings never inflated in the first place. They never accomplished anything that they could be frustrated at losing. And, yes, if you pack it in after a goal with 50 minutes left on the clock, by definition you are not Stanley Cup material.

 

Mickey Redmond was a player and seemed to believe that giving up those early goals/leads was deflating. Does his opinion not count?

 

I don't generally disagree with much of what you said. As I said, if this was one game, I'd let it slide. I raised no stink about Howard's gaff after the last game, and he played a worse game two overall than game three. Hell, I think I might've even defended him! It's one bad goal, it happens, you don't let in another easy one. No big deal. Again, s*** happens.

 

But this is the second game in a row where at the very least what most would consider a weak goal was given up to give them an early lead. There's some debate about how easy of a goal it was to give up, but I don't think anyone can say that it wasn't a goal that he probably could've and should've stopped. If he hadn't had the game two early goal issue, I wouldn't be upset at all about this game. But two playoff games in a row with two lackluster goals against to surrender the lead to a team like Boston is a serious problem.




#2514152 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by gcom007 on 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.




#2514133 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by gcom007 on 22 April 2014 - 09:43 PM

 

So, the stupid and completely unavoidable penalty and the awful line change did not contribute at all?  Or, they were Howard's fault?  Garbage.  I refuse to even consider the rest of your post at all because it includes that B.S.

 

You have to put a lot of words in my mouth to feel the way you do. I'd prefer it if you didn't do that.

 

Sure, that first goal came on a Bruins power play, but it wasn't a play that developed due to a unique power play situation. I don't think anyone sans the few going above and beyond to defend Howard are suggesting that it was anything but a weak, soft, absolutely unnecessary goal. Even Mickey Redmond who has a tendency of defending Howard couldn't defend him on that one, and the power play never came up in the conversation about the goal because it wasn't really a factor. As Mickey actually just said in the post-game, the Wings gave up two goals early on a platter, and that's the truth. I said earlier in the thread that the first goal was clearly on Howard and the second goal was clearly on the team performing a terrible line change. I didn't blame it on Howard and I did nothing to suggest that in my later thread.

 

Babcock post-game: "We gave them two goals."




#2514110 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by gcom007 on 22 April 2014 - 09:28 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.

 




#2514078 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by gcom007 on 22 April 2014 - 09:12 PM

Howard has been excellent since the first goal, he's given us a chance to get back in this. Doesn't matter if it's 1-0 or 10-0, it's still a loss if we can't score a goal.

 

I've been fairly supportive of Howard relative to his struggles this year, but two games in a row he singlehandedly gave Boston early leads. It's clear that the goals aren't coming easy for us, so to give up such awful goals early on is just completely unacceptable. He's well into his career now and is getting paid top-10 goalie money; he can't do what he's done in these last two games. It doesn't matter how well he plays the rest of the game. When you're stuck playing from behind against a team like Boston with such a young team at that, you're asking for trouble.

 

Now I'm not saying he singlehandedly lost the games for us. Obviously you need to score goals too. But again, Howard is singlehandedly the reason why we gave up two early leads, and that's just no way to start games against a team like Boston. Given his status, his contract, and the build and make of this particular team, he needs to be leading and steadying the ship early, not forcing a team full of rookies to play from behind.

 

I want to like Howard and I have for some time, and I can agree that he played well today after giving up the two first period goals, but it's really, really hard to overlook the way he's started these last couple games given that it's the playoffs. I think it's safe to say that he's worn out his "grace" goals for this series. He needs to be competing all the way through and not be giving Boston any more easy goals, especially early on.




#2512870 Howard = Average

Posted by gcom007 on 21 April 2014 - 11:38 AM

So it's too late to treat an old dog new tricks? There is no way Howard could actually try to improve his puck handling skills? After all he is a highly skilled athlete. Or are you saying his genetic makeup makes it impossible to learn how to handle the puck well enough to make a bantam league moronic mistake in a major NHL playoff game? Obviously I am being sarcastic. In 2001 Datsyuk was easy to push around and made too many moves. Were those his weaknesses he had to accept for the rest of his career? Every single year he has modified and improved his training and skills. He is constantly evolving. Howard isn't close to the level of Datsyuk, but he can take a cue and do real work to improve his weaknesses.


I never said that I don't think he should improve that area of his game. I said it shouldn't be surprising because thus far, he's not been a good puck handler. A bonehead play like this was just waiting to happen given his ability or lack thereof. Frankly, it's why his little Mrazak comment from game 1 was a little alarming to me, because the playoffs is not the time to shake things up, especially in a part of your game that has been notoriously weak.

But I'd love it if Howard worked as hard in he the summer on his weaknesses like Dats and the other greats do. That's why they get paid. Jimmy gets paid like them to. I was saying he should do this years ago if you were to go back and look at some old posts. He's got a solid skill set but he has clear areas that need improvement, and improving in those areas could really help him reach those highs more consistently and authoritatively.


#2512806 Howard = Average

Posted by gcom007 on 21 April 2014 - 12:36 AM

I've liked Howard...in the past...before today's game...where he assisted on Boston's goal. What a dumbass move that was! It's like he went into complete panic mode. He could have pushed that puck up centre ice, slightly to his left, and he would have been fine. Time to retire, Jimmy.

 

Howard's never been very good at handling the puck, so a play like this shouldn't be entirely too surprising, like the guy or not. It's a weakness of his game, and all goalies have weaknesses. It was a terrible play and utterly atrocious timing for such a play, but if you liked the guy before and this is the only reason you're bent out of shape now, you either haven't been paying too close of attention or you'll get over it. I suspect the latter.

 

As said, he's never been known to be too hot at handling the puck, but he does many other things well a lot of the time. He's not perfect as we've seen through this regular season, but he was great in game 1, had some great moments in this game, and in the end, we absolutely didn't lose this game because of that play. I wouldn't even call it momentum turning. What was momentum turning, if you can even call it that this early, is when we kept taking stupid penalties and getting rattled by Boston's physical game. That is what lost this game for us.

 

If we can stay composed and stay out of the box and use our speed against Boston to draw penalties, we can beat them. If we lose our cool and give Boston too many power play opportunities, we're toast, and bad or great, Howard's play won't end up being the factor that changes the outcome of the series. Don't get me wrong, he needs to be on his A-Game no doubt to keep us in it, but it won't be enough to overcome Boston if the rest of the guys lose their cool and play into Boston's game.




#2512259 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by gcom007 on 20 April 2014 - 03:15 PM

How about we forget about Chara and everyone else and target thef****** net??? There's an idea! How many shots did we have in that period? How about on the power play?!?

 

Goals win the game. Let them goon it up. We don't have the team that can win that kind of war. We can win on the scoresheet though and we need to focus on that game.




#2512243 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by gcom007 on 20 April 2014 - 03:11 PM

Seriously, little Tatar can 'haul down' that giant ******* of a hockey player? Bulls***. I really wish Smith had fought Chara, seemed like he was willing but that tree wouldn't even put his stick down.

 

Chara grabbed his stick, pulled it tight and went down.




#2512218 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by gcom007 on 20 April 2014 - 03:05 PM

The Wings need to regroup big time. They're playing into the Bruins all over the ice and Chara laughing at Smith was symbolic of the team laughing at the Wings after that period. They need to get it together and punish them by putting thef****** puck in the net. 




#2511220 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by gcom007 on 18 April 2014 - 09:03 PM

I'm still shaking. Holy s***, what a game. Pavel Datsyuk doing what the greats do and rising up with a spectacular play to win it. Brilliant. Outstanding. Marvelous. Phenomenally great. Superlatives run amuck to describe my love, appreciation and respect for Pavel Datsyuk.