Comments on: Wings 4, Jackets 5 (SO)

By: links for 2006-11-05 at On the Wings

links for 2006-11-05 at On the Wings — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 05:47:14 +0000

[...] Wings 4, Jackets 5 SO at On the Wings (tags: detroit_red_wings game_reports 2005-2006 columbus_blue-jackets) [...]

By: GameDay: vs Columbus (4-6-1, 9 Pts) 7:00 ET at On the Wings

GameDay: vs Columbus (4-6-1, 9 Pts) 7:00 ET at On the Wings — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:16:05 +0000

[...] Tonight is the first eight games between these two Central Division teams this season. The Wings won the 2005-2006 series 7-1, with four wins coming in 2005: October 22nd (6-0), October 24th (6-2), December 20th (4-3 SO), and December 31st (5-2); and three wins coming in 2006: January 18th (4-0), April 7th (6-5), and April 8th (4-2). Their only loss to the Jackets came on March 25th, 2006 (5-4 SO), a result of a Wings meltdown in the third period. [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:05:00 +0000

While I agree with most points, I must disagree with the way you slander Leclaire. He is a good goalie and will only improve with time.

By: Matt Saler

Matt Saler — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:44:00 +0000

You’re right, Osgood wasn’t without blame. It certainly wasn’t his best game but I felt the people at the Joe were putting too much of the blame on him. It was a meltdown through and through, no one player was responsible. I’d say three of the four goals he allowed in regulation were results of defensive lapses, while the other is one he should have stopped. I don’t blame him for losing in a shootout either, since he only allowed one goal and our shooters couldn’t solve Leclaire, of all goalies.

The Wings are in an unfortunate position because winning the West is important enough but with just enough doubt that they’ll have to play hard to the finish. Hopefully they won’t get too banged up in the final stretch or they’d be just as screwed as if they had rested players who then lost their edge.

By: WI Wing Nut

WI Wing Nut — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:36:00 +0000

I don’t agree with giving up the number one seed just to rest players. Granted there are benefits, like ‘02 when the Wings won the cup, but at that time they had the trophy wrapped up. Even then, it took the Wings until game 3 of the first round to get their playoff legs. They were fortunate to pull out that series. Bowman took a gamble but in that case it played out in the Wing’s favor. Giving up the 1 seed to rest players is a different story, though. Yes, the 8 team is often on a high having fought to get into the playoffs, but there is also a chance they could be on a low (i.e. this year if Vancouver gets the 8 seed, I would have to think that would be somewhat dissapointing that they had to fight to just get in after being high in the hunt with Cup expectations). Plus, a team that has been fighting, scratchign and clawing for every point at the end might ride that high, but they could just as easily hit a wall, giving the team that coasted to the President’s trophy in the final days the advantage. Bottom line, you just never know, and that’s what makes the Stanley Cup Playoffs so great.

Quick note on Osgood, Matt, while I agree about the sarcastic cheers being innapropriate, I don’t think Ozzie was without blame. He was clearly fighting the puck in the third period, on edge, and playing not to lose rather than to win. But, that’s Osgood, spectacular at time and other times inconsistent. When he’s at his best he’s as good as Legace, maybe even better, but other times clearly inferior. The Wings knew what they were getting when they re-signed him. That said, I think your description of the Wings third period coverage was accurate. The word I would use is “abysmal”.

By: Matt Saler

Matt Saler — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:04:00 +0000

Too much rest could have the effect of taking the edge off the rested players. We’ve seen that often enough. I don’t want to go into a series with the victorious 8th seed with a bunch of players trying to get back into the groove. A bunch of worn out players won’t be helpful either…

As you say, it’s a tough call. It’s the first time Babcock’s had the luxury of resting players at the end of the season. Maybe he won’t simply because he hasn’t before. I don’t know.

By: Brian List

Brian List — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:59:00 +0000

It’s always dangerous to be competing for the President’s Trophy come the last few weeks before the playoffs. Wings fans have plenty experience with that. If Babcock sat Lidstrom, Chelios, Yzerman, Shanahan, and Zetterberg or Datsyuk alternating for the rest of the season I would be fine with that. Bowman did that and it seems like a good strategy, as long as we maintain a 3 seed or better.

It’s probably a better idea to give the team a rest than push for a 1 seed when we’d have to play the 8th seed-the hot team that just made the playoffs (in the style of a LA Kings of the past). Then again we’d lose home ice advantage, which would be beneficial against a West Coast opponent and in later rounds. It’s a tough call, but I certainly am not drooling over the prospects of another President’s Trophy. Wonder what Babcock is planning for the final weeks of the season…

By: Matt Saler

Matt Saler — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:35:00 +0000

Yeah, the Blues have to be pumped by watching the Wings lose like that. Should be an interesting game.

The good thing about all of this is that it should cause people to be a little more reasonable in their hopes for the post-season.

Anonymous, you are correct. Sorry. Dumb mistake.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:32:00 +0000

Just a little spelling note, I’m pretty sure it’s Leclaire, not Leclerc…

By: Brian List

Brian List — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:09:00 +0000

I was following the game over nhl.com during the Memphis/UCLA game, and couldn’t believe my eyes to see 4 goals in the 3rd period column for Columbus. At least Pavs sent it to OT to salvage a point..I can’t imagine the Wings losing in regulation like that! Still, not much better. Playing the Blues next will be dangerous, especially on the road.