Well, since Matt is sicker than a dog, I’ll go ahead and throw out my own reaction to last night’s game. At least then I can pretend watching it wasn’t a complete waste of my time.
I just have to start by saying that this was one of the most painful games (well, regular season at least…) I’ve seen in the past few years. Of course a 9-4 loss is gonna sting, no matter what,especially when it’s a west coast game and every minute spent watching is a minute of sacrificed sleep. What made it even worse was that it started with such promise. The Sharks came out strong for the first few minutes, but the Wings weathered the storm and seemed to be in control. They continued to build the illusion by scoring three goals in under ten minutes and chasing Evgeni Nabokov from the net. The game seemed to be going perfectly, the Wings were full of confidence. The Sharks’ lone goal at 14:24 in the first seemed like little cause for concern at the time.
The second period, however, revealed that concern would have been much too mild an emotion for what was to come - we should have been panicking. The team just completely fell apart, giving up 4 goals before the period mercifully ended. At this point, I would have thought it was obvious that we needed a change - I’m not saying Dom was playing bad (though he obviously wasn’t stellar) - but sometimes it gives the team a spark. I mean, look at San Jose, they pulled Nabokov and it settled them right down. Maybe that wasn’t the only reason they turned their game around, but I bet it played a part. Babcock, for whatever reason, chose to leave Dom in net. Still, I wasn’t too worried because dismal as it seemed, the game was bearing a striking resemblance to a recent win over Columbus. Okay, I thought, we’ll just come back out and score 4 more in the third, no problem…
So apparently there was one slight problem - the Wings could not stay out of the penalty box for the life of them. The unanswered goals began to pile up, burying the Wings in a towering mountain of shame. I began to wonder, how many goals does Hasek have to give up before Babs will put in Osgood? 6…not yet? 7…is Babs watching the game? 8…finally! Now that we’ve pretty much lost all opportunity to win the game… Well, at least we got the last laugh. That’s right, Brett Lebda finally scored a goal for us in the closing minutes of the third. There’s your answer San Jose! You score 9 and we’ll shoot one right back at ya! Take that! Okay, well they weren’t exactly shaking in their boots, but at least it made the scoring gap seem ever-so-slightly smaller…
The only consolation I can take from this game is that maybe it served as a learning experience, a wake-up call, a warning that no lead is safe - that we could turn into the Detroit Lions at any second… Really it’s a bright neon flashing sign explaining to the team what we’ve been concerned about all along - they have to play for 60 minutes! A whole hockey game! I know it sounds crazy, but winning one period does not win us the game. Hopefully the Wings have seen the light and they’ll find the answers to the predicament that has plagued them all season.
Then again, we might just blame this game on another case of west coast syndrome - it’s just another case of jet lag. I will admit that this has given me the last push I needed to hop into the “move Detroit to the eastern conference” boat. I’m all for it. I hate west coast games, and the fewer the better. Have you noticed that all our first round ousters are at the hands of west coast teams? Edmonton, Anaheim, LA. You’ll notice we made it to the second round when we played Nashville in the first…only to be knocked out by Calgary, another team far outside our time zone.
Although I didn’t see the game last night, it looked as if San Jose took a HUGE advantage of the powerplays. Were did Detriot’s defense go shorthanded? Or was Hasek just playing that bad?
Anyway, my big concern right now is a rumor I heard at work. I was told that the Wings were thinking about trading Pavel Datsyuk for Scott Gomez. Although this was only a rumor, I was wondering if any of you heard the same thing.
Thursday’s game was I think one of the most exciting games of Hockey I have seen in a long time. The anouncers before the game were all talking about how it would be a low scoring game due to the GAA of both starting goalies. That seemed to go out the window after the first 3 min.
THe sharks came back though, which is all that matters. Perhaps the NHL will begin to give the sharks the respect they deserve. I just wonder how many other great teams the sharks will have to lay-out before people begin to recognize
the redwings really dont match up well with the sharks.especially when the sharks stand them up at the blue line.forcing the wings to play a dump and chase game, is a bit much against the sharks superior size and strength along the boards.after the wings took advantage of the sharks early by skating in and seting up with little resistance.the sharks adjusted and began to play alot smarter by eliminating the red wings rush and transition attack.after throttling the wings attack the game began to turn and the sharks were able to force turnovers on both ends of the ice.this enabled the sharks to dictate play.which detoit really has no answer for.all the sharks goals came as the result of them controlling the wings defensivly allowing the sharks to spend the majority of the last 45 minutes creating offensivly.drawing alot of penelties and scoring more then should be leagally allowed under the law.
Is it just me, or do the Wings tend to blow 3-goal leads? It just seems like whenever we jump out to a 3-goal lead, we blow it. Maybe that’s just because we’ve done it twice in the last week. We won the first time, but we were playing Columbus. This time, we lost bitterly. And it seems like it’s not just any lead we tend to blow. It’s the 3-goal lead. Is there something scary about that number? If so, why can’t we just always score a fourth goal? Or, if that seems like it’s too much to ask, I’d be perfectly happy with a 2-goal lead, because we have a better chance of protecting that lead than if we scored another goal.
Ok, I’ll move on now. Generally, I think Babcock is a great coach. I respect his ability to change lines on the fly and use his instincts in that way. And it usually works. But on games like this, I start to wonder. I don’t blame him for the defensive issues, don’t get me wrong. He’s not the one out there giving up the goals. But after your team has given up five unanswered goals, you pull your goalie. It doesn’t matter if the goals were not the goaltender’s fault. It does something to the team. And it’s not like we have a backup who can’t handle the job. We have two-time Stanley Cup winner Chris Osgood as our backup. Babcock is willing to bench players that aren’t playing well, and he’s more than willing to fiddle with the lines until something works. There’s just one player he won’t move–the goaltender. That is, until there is no longer any hope whatsoever of winning a game. What was the point of putting Ozzie in with eight minutes left when we were already five goals down? At that point, the game is lost. Put him in when we still have a chance - like when it’s 5-3 (with 5 straight unanswered goals from the opposition) and a whole period left to play. Or if not then, at least when it’s 6-3, still with plenty of time.
firebird - I don’t think even the defense knows where they were on those goals. Hopefully they figure out what the heck their problem was before LA. And Hasek, well he doesn’t deserve the blame, but he obviously wasn’t having a real good night. I don’t understand why Babcock didn’t pull him while we still had a chance to win. It worked for San Jose, why not at least try a goalie switch?
I think I heard that Gomez rumor earlier in December. I’m pretty sure it was more a case of something someone thought ought to happen as opposed to something that had actually been discussed or even thought about by either team. I wouldn’t worry too much about it, especially since Dats seemed to be heating up of late (at least before he got injured…). It would be one thing if he continued to not produce, but I think as long as he’s putting points up, the Wings will probably stick with him, despite the looming threat of a troublesome contract negotiation. Besides, apparently he’s like Hank’s magic slump cure (and vice versa), so the Wings can’t really afford to part with him… Can’t very well have one Euro twin, can you?
Megan - I tried to look up the stats for Wins after having a three-goal-lead, but alas, I’m not Ken Daniels and I don’t have a bottomless source of random stats. However, I do think I used to have a bit of a superstition about three goal leads before. Perhaps they are a problem for us. Maybe we just get too comfortable at that point.
I too am completely baffled by Babcock’s handling of last night’s goaltending situation. I thought we wanted to rest Dom, not tire him out - why the heck would he leave him out during a blowout? Why not try a switch to give the team a spark? Surely he’s not that afraid to put Ozzie in the net? I just don’t get it at all.
In the pre-lockout NHL, a two-goal lead was supposed to be the hardest to keep. Since the lockout, the rule seems to be a three goal lead is the hardest. If that’s true league-wide, the Wings seem to be extra susceptible to it.
What I find interesting is how quickly Ron Wilson pulled Nabokov - he’d allowed just three goals and got yanked. Talk about a difference in philosophy between him and Babcock.
The Wings are lucky Hasek isn’t anything like Patrick Roy, who demanded a trade after his coach in Montreal kept him in for nine goals in 1995.