Comments on: Game 2: Wings 3, Sharks 2 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/ by true Citizens of Hockeytown Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:51:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Niklas http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17354 Niklas Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:50:53 +0000 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17354 You mentioned Nabokov's habit of giving up rebounds. In my opinion it is absolutely vital for the Red Wings to get Holmström back for Game 4. He is by far the best infront-of-the-net-guy in the NHL. They aren't scoring in PP without him, and no team is going all the way without converting on their PP. You mentioned Nabokov’s habit of giving up rebounds. In my opinion it is absolutely vital for the Red Wings to get Holmström back for Game 4. He is by far the best infront-of-the-net-guy in the NHL. They aren’t scoring in PP without him, and no team is going all the way without converting on their PP.

]]> By: Megan Hirdes http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17349 Megan Hirdes Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:39:59 +0000 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17349 Justin, I believe that Sarah said she did not really see the first goal. You can't blame a goalie for a deflection, unless the deflection is minimal. You can blame a goaltender for being completely out of position and letting a goal in from a harmless, outside, bad-angle shot. So yes, the Nabokov softy was worse than Hasek's. Both turnovers occurred in the tenish minutes that Detroit just looked terrible all around. That is not a good representation of the game as a whole. It's true, neither team had a lot of sustained pressure. But maybe that's because both teams were playing well, not because Detroit was playing badly. These are both puck-possession, skill-driven teams. If they both play well, they are not going to give up a lot of shots or chances because both have really good defense from the whole team. This also means that the offense isn't going to get sustained pressure for very long. Yes, Detroit has the ability to beat San Jose. But San Jose also has the ability to beat Detroit. There's a reason they were saying this is the most evenly matched series. And there's also a reason they were saying it would be a series to remember. So when the Wings lose, it won't necessarily be because they were playing badly. And when they win, it won't necessarily be because they outplayed San Jose. It's about who can take advantage of the few chances they're going to get. Justin, I believe that Sarah said she did not really see the first goal. You can’t blame a goalie for a deflection, unless the deflection is minimal. You can blame a goaltender for being completely out of position and letting a goal in from a harmless, outside, bad-angle shot. So yes, the Nabokov softy was worse than Hasek’s. Both turnovers occurred in the tenish minutes that Detroit just looked terrible all around. That is not a good representation of the game as a whole. It’s true, neither team had a lot of sustained pressure. But maybe that’s because both teams were playing well, not because Detroit was playing badly. These are both puck-possession, skill-driven teams. If they both play well, they are not going to give up a lot of shots or chances because both have really good defense from the whole team. This also means that the offense isn’t going to get sustained pressure for very long. Yes, Detroit has the ability to beat San Jose. But San Jose also has the ability to beat Detroit. There’s a reason they were saying this is the most evenly matched series. And there’s also a reason they were saying it would be a series to remember. So when the Wings lose, it won’t necessarily be because they were playing badly. And when they win, it won’t necessarily be because they outplayed San Jose. It’s about who can take advantage of the few chances they’re going to get.

]]> By: Justin http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17324 Justin Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:50:51 +0000 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17324 How can you possibly defend Hasek for letting in a slow Kyle MacLaren wrist shot from the blueline tipped by Cheechoo, and then rip Nabokov for letting in a Zetterberg shot deflected by MacLaren? Both goals were weak. Cheechoo's tip was minimal and Hasek still should've been able to stop it, and Nabokov should've been in a better position to stop Zetterberg's shot - deflected by MacLaren or not. Please don't let your bias cloud your judgment. Overall, it was a very weak game offensively by both teams. The Wings merely outshot the Sharks 22-19, which is not their M.O. Detroit's unspectacular offense was masked by the 3-goal comeback, but the Wings did not sustain any offensive pressure during the whole game. Fortunately for us, San Jose was just as unspectacular. Both their goals were directly set up by stupid Detroit turnovers by Maltby and Hasek, not brilliant play or any offensive pressure. (To be fair we got a lucky goal of our own. But our other two were due to great play.) Penalty killing was excellent though, and I think it will restore some confidence in the Wings' ability to kill San Jose powerplays. I agree with you on your last line; I also think the Wings have the ability and talent to win this series. But I think most important of all will be confidence. Remember the Sharks beat the Wings in the season series 3-1, including a humiliating 9-4 loss. The Wings need to forget about all of that. And I think Game 2 was big in restoring the Wings' confidence and maybe hurting the Sharks' a bit. Don't forget that last year, the Sharks were up 2-0 against Edmonton only to lose 4 straight and the series. If we can get them down mentally, it'll be much easier to win. How can you possibly defend Hasek for letting in a slow Kyle MacLaren wrist shot from the blueline tipped by Cheechoo, and then rip Nabokov for letting in a Zetterberg shot deflected by MacLaren? Both goals were weak. Cheechoo’s tip was minimal and Hasek still should’ve been able to stop it, and Nabokov should’ve been in a better position to stop Zetterberg’s shot - deflected by MacLaren or not. Please don’t let your bias cloud your judgment.

Overall, it was a very weak game offensively by both teams. The Wings merely outshot the Sharks 22-19, which is not their M.O. Detroit’s unspectacular offense was masked by the 3-goal comeback, but the Wings did not sustain any offensive pressure during the whole game. Fortunately for us, San Jose was just as unspectacular. Both their goals were directly set up by stupid Detroit turnovers by Maltby and Hasek, not brilliant play or any offensive pressure. (To be fair we got a lucky goal of our own. But our other two were due to great play.) Penalty killing was excellent though, and I think it will restore some confidence in the Wings’ ability to kill San Jose powerplays.

I agree with you on your last line; I also think the Wings have the ability and talent to win this series. But I think most important of all will be confidence. Remember the Sharks beat the Wings in the season series 3-1, including a humiliating 9-4 loss. The Wings need to forget about all of that. And I think Game 2 was big in restoring the Wings’ confidence and maybe hurting the Sharks’ a bit. Don’t forget that last year, the Sharks were up 2-0 against Edmonton only to lose 4 straight and the series. If we can get them down mentally, it’ll be much easier to win.

]]> By: Sarah Baker http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17290 Sarah Baker Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:00:04 +0000 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17290 I do remember a lot of Wings misplays (we do have a tendency to have a troubling amount of giveaways) - especially in the first half of the first period. However, I only noticed one major giveaway by Chelios. I may have missed something, but he looked pretty good to me. The worst culprit I noticed was Andreas Lilja. I saw him misplay the puck on at least three separate occasions. Now, I was used to him making turnovers all the time before, but he was so good last series, I thought maybe he was done with all that. Unfortunately it looks like we've got the old Lilja back... I do remember a lot of Wings misplays (we do have a tendency to have a troubling amount of giveaways) - especially in the first half of the first period. However, I only noticed one major giveaway by Chelios. I may have missed something, but he looked pretty good to me. The worst culprit I noticed was Andreas Lilja. I saw him misplay the puck on at least three separate occasions. Now, I was used to him making turnovers all the time before, but he was so good last series, I thought maybe he was done with all that. Unfortunately it looks like we’ve got the old Lilja back…

]]> By: Ian http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17288 Ian Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:06:18 +0000 http://onthewingsblog.com/2007/04/29/game-2-wings-3-sharks-2/#comment-17288 One thing I noticed in game 2 was Chelios' complete misplays of stickhandling over and over. I saw at least four separate occasions where Chelios bobbling the puck resulted in a chance for San Jose, or the loss of one for Detroit. Not to knock on Chelios, but did anyone else notice these things? One thing I noticed in game 2 was Chelios’ complete misplays of stickhandling over and over. I saw at least four separate occasions where Chelios bobbling the puck resulted in a chance for San Jose, or the loss of one for Detroit. Not to knock on Chelios, but did anyone else notice these things?

]]>