Wings 3, Flyers 2

Update (9:55 AM): I should add that Chris Osgood looked solid once again. The two Flyers goals were simply great shots, and while it would have been nice to see a save on the Hartnell goal, he made up for it at other points in the game when Philadelphia was pressing hard. He’s getting to where he needs to be. - Matt

… Overall, I thought the Wings played this one pretty well, even before the comeback. The game was exciting and had a lot of action throughout, and showcased two good teams going at in their different ways. Obviously the Wings could have played better, or they wouldn’t have been down 2 goals, but I don’t want to take away from the Flyers, who proved to be surprisingly good.

… Broad Street hockey is definitely still alive and well in Philly, however, and that’s not a positive thing. It’s reached its purest form in the person of Scott Hartnell, a player I consider more dangerous than a Jordin Tootoo because he’s no loose cannon. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and does it in sneaky ways that are more dangerous than Tootoo’s mindless bodychecks. His tripping penalty on Kronwall last night was intent to injure, but he gets off with just a minor apparently because he has long hair? I dunno.

… How much did it suck to have Hartnell of all people score 1-on-1 with Hossa like that? Ugh.

… Moving on. If there were negative aspects in the Wings’ play last night, one stood out for me in particular: their over-eagerness to start the rush. In the first two periods especially, they had a tendency to immediately take off as soon as it looked like the puck was going to be in their possession. This led to at least one 2-on-0 as well as a few scrambling situations where someone like Marian Hossa had to cover a free Flyer. There was not enough patience with the puck, at least not until Datsyuk scored and they seemed to settle down.

… The Flyers’ second goal was a nice example of what I’ve been getting at with the forward/defense integration. The way the play developed, a forward or two should have been back to support Stuart, but he ended up having to play a 2-on-1 while Kronwall dashed back hard with the forwards apparently watching from afar. Stuart played it well, I thought, but a laser shot beat Osgood nonetheless. The forward corps has been better in recent games, but they still need to make a point of remembering their defensive responsibilities.

… Another negative in the Wings’ game last night was the power play. They had times where they had real heavy pressure, but couldn’t score, and times where they could barely get the puck in the zone. Not exactly a banner night.

… This negative stuff isn’t meant to paint a picture of the Wings’ game as a whole. These things were spotty and just examples of areas they still need to work on. They put on a good effort overall, and are definitely still on the right road.

… This was Pavel Datsyuk’s night. The guy had a heck of a game with a goal and an assist, and the best on-ice presence of anyone in red.

… I thought Marian Hossa put on a good effort, but sometimes he tried too hard and it led to penalties. His first period holding the stick penalty was an example of a “veteran play” going too far. He was counting on the official somehow missing a stick hold that would have been obvious to someone with 10% eyesight.

Later, though, his hard work resulted in a nicely drawn penalty on a scoring chance that came out of nowhere in the third.

… The Flyers were great at a couple things last night and it was driving me crazy: taking away the middle, and blocking shots. The Wings could get one player or the puck  to the front of the net, but rarely both at the same time. And the Flyers seemed to block every other shot. They even blocked a Hossa shot on the empty net in the final minutes of the game. Ridiculous.

… I somehow managed to guess the line combos on a hunch. Kopecky really did play on the top line with Datsyuk and Franzen, at least until Babcock started mixing things up in the second. Brett Lebda did not play center, and Derek Meech and Kirk Maltby rotated in some shifts and had a center rotated in others.

… As a history buff, I can appreciate the decision to show the final minutes as well as the aftermath of Martin Brodeur’s rec0rd-breaking game. It worked out nicely in happening during intermission. But did they have to linger on him taking forever to cut the net off? Did they really have to show us Bettman’s impersonl formal statement? Versus had an obligation to show the Wings/Flyers game and they cost us three and a half minutes of the third period.

Showing Brodeur break the wins record is good marketing for the League because breaking records is something all sports fans understand and find interesting. So I get the reason behind the “live look-in,” but it could have been handled better. After all, the Wings are one of the League’s most important brands, and one that doesn’t get on Versus all that often.

… This was the kind of game that would have been a letdown had the Wings not made a comeback, but it would have been a loss I could have lived with. The difference between last night’s Wings when behind and the two recent Saturday’s Wings when behind was stark. I don’t expect a win every night, though I certainly hope for one. I expect a strong effort. And they gave it last night. It turned out to be enough for a win, but if it hadn’t, I’d still feel like they were making progress.

Filed under: 2008-2009, Game Reports

Tags:

Comments

  1. Ryan says:

    I gotta disagree with you.  The Wings dominated that game in every meaningful way and in a fair world, would have won it 5-0 or so.

     

    And is there any doubt left that Pavel Datsyuk is one of the best players in the world and the best player on this team right now?  He's been absolutely unbelievable almost every night for three or four months now.  In my mythical "fair world", he wins the Hart trophy.  Here's hoping every game left is a three point game.  Maybe then journalists outside Detroit will notice him.

  2. Okay Ryan, let's come back down to earth, shall we? Yes, Datsyuk is amazing and definitely one of the best in the league. He has not been unbelievable for the last three months straight. He's been better than the rest of the team (with the possible exception of Lidstrom), but he has struggled as well. He's gone streaks of games where you don't even notice when he's on the ice. I'm not trying to take away from his greatness at all, but let's be reasonable.

  3. J.J. says:

    Agree about Hartnell.  Before he successfully took Kronwall's legs out from under him, he had tried a slew-foot on Rafalski earlier when chasing the puck in deep.  Rafalski zigged instead of zagged and nothing came of it.  I'm bringing along a new Red Wings fan who was confused when I started yelling at Hartnell about being a cheap bastard and had to rewind the feed to show him what I was talking about.  When his dirty play actually did take out Kronner, my buddy understood exactly why I was so mad the first time.  That's the danger of his play; he's always out there trying to do those subtle, dirty things that lead to injuries.

  4. John W. says:

    I would agree the Wings main weakness was being a little too aggressive on the rush, as it lead to both goals. However, I would much rather see them being too aggressive than whatever it was they were trying to do last week in the 3rd against Calgary. Another pretty solid outing by Ozzie. If those are the only kind of goals he's going to give up in the playoffs, I like their chances.

  5. Matt Saler says:

    Ryan,

    I don't disagree that the Wings played a good game. I just happen to think the Flyers did too. I think a fair-world score of 5-0 overstates the Wings' side of things in this one. 

    As for Datsyuk, I agree that he's one of the best, but as Megan pointed out, he's not been immune to the Wings' bouts with lethargy and apathy. Still, he would be my choice for Hart. No way he wins over more fashionable choices like Malkin or Ovechkin, though. 

    JJ, 

    It'd be nice if other observers would come to the same conclusion about Hartnell, but it's like we Wings fans are the only ones who see him for what he is. 

    After he tripped Kronwall, I would not have been surprised if Nik had turned up hurt on the play. It seems like Hartnell's hurt more Wings over the years than anyone else. Except maybe Krysztof Oliwa, who ravaged the Wings a few times in the late 90s. 

    John W.,

    I'd like the Wings to be more aggressive than they were against Calgary, but there is a limit to that. They haven't become the best team of the era by being recklessly aggressive, but by being smartly so. This is just one game, so it's not a major concern, but I'd rather they take a more cautiously aggressive approach, even if it sounds like an oxymoron. 

  6. John W. says:

    Oh I certainly agree. The problem last night was when either 4 or all 5 skaters were being aggressive at the same time. Like you said, when Kronwall took the puck behind the net on the play that lead to goal number 2, one of the forwards HAS to drop back to take his spot on D, and that didn't happen. If they had, that play probably goes no where. My point was just that if I had to pick between trying to create extra offense and getting caught once in a while and being trapped in your own zone for half a period or more, I'd take the former. At least the Wings can get goals back that way. Obviously the Wings are at their best when they find that balance, like in Saturday's 4-0 win at Columbus.

  7. Matt Saler says:

    <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12px; color: #444444; line-height: 21px;">if I had to pick between trying to create extra offense and getting caught once in a while and being trapped in your own zone for half a period or more, I’d take the former. At least the Wings can get goals back that way.</span>

    <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12px; color: #444444; line-height: 21px;">Oh, definitely. I'll take even an overly-aggressive Red Wings team over their shell version any day. Last night it paid off in the end, so my criticism is definitely a bit empty. </span>

  8. Ian says:

    Matt, the Red Wings have been/will be on Versus seven times this season. I would say they are pushed on the network as much as any other NHL team. I checked three other teams off the top of my head: the Islanders have four spots this year, the Lightning four, and the Hurricanes one.

  9. Matt Saler says:

    Ian,

    Washington, Pittsburgh, New York (Rangers), and Boston all get 8 games. Certainly that's not much of a difference, and certainly seven is a lot better than say Anaheim's one. Still, my point is that the League doesn't do a good enough job of marketing one of its most valuble brands. 7 games out of 82 isn't exactly a high percentage.

    There are probably all kinds of things taken into consideration in determining that number (such as fairness to other teams who are similarly important), so the Versus example isn't the best way to illustrate that point. But I still feel the point itself is valid.

  10. John W. says:

    On the Pav for Hart topic, Pav is by far my favorite player in the NHL, but I don't think he can quite compete for the Hart this year. If it was for best all round player, then he gets it hand down, but he doesn't have enough goals and he doesn't play in the Eastern Conference. I think for him to get it, he'd have to have a pretty big lead in points to overcome the goal and conference differential, as I don't think he'll ever score as many goals as an Ovechkin type player. Now if they gave out MVP's for each conference, it's Pav in a land slide in the West as he leads in points, +/-, assists, and takeaways. Marleau would probably be the only one with a shot with his 36 goals and 10 game winners. All that said, I still can't think of any player in either conference I would rather have than #13.

  11. Ian says:

    I agree that Detroit is a valuable brand, but can you really say it's more valuable than Washington, Pittsburgh, New York, or Boston? These are all young playoff teams in bigger markets (save pittsburgh), and you've got Ovechkin, Crosby, Drury, Avery, etc., all more recognizable names than anyone we've got… plus Detroit doesn't fight or hit as much as these other teams (NOT trying to turn into Don Cherry, but the league probably considers that). I think Detroit is the most exciting team to watch (Biased-ly), but Pittsburgh, Washington, and Boston (haven't seen much NYR) are all very exciting to watch as well… Considering the OVER-marketing of Crosby, I think we're lucky to have seven to his eight… Detroit also has five appearances on NBC to Pittsburgh's most at six, including the high-pub winter classic.

  12. Matt Saler says:

    John,

    Yeah, Datsyuk's pretty much out of serious Hart contention for the reasons you list. Maybe eventually he'll be able to post the numbers necessary to cut through the media glow around the Darlings of the Eastern Conference.

    Ian,

    It's that overmarketing that makes the Washingtons, Pittsburghs, New Yorks, and Bostons so big.

    Sure, the Rangers are in a huge physical market, but they've been a failed hope for publicity for over a decade. Until they're regularly winning, it won't matter how much the NHL shoves them down peoples' throats.

    Washington and Pittsburgh are the proud owners of some of the League's favorite marketing pawns (who are, admittedly, some of the best in hockey). That's why their players are so well-known. Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg are no less capable, but the League has chosen not to market them as aggressively.

    Generally speaking, the Wings as a whole are one of the biggest draws to arenas around the League, whether it be because of fans or people who love to hate them.

    The geographical Detroit market may not match the Rangers' (though Metro Detroit is a big and densely populated area of 12-13 million), but I don't think it would be much of an exagerration to say they have the largest fanbase of any American NHL team. Most of it is in diaspora.

    They don't get marketed as heavily as some of the others not because they don't match the others in attributes, but because the League chooses not to. What marketing they do offer is done because, whatever the folks running the League are, they aren't stupid, and they know the Wings are a big draw and that a lot of people care about them.

    Still, they'd much rather see interest in the other teams outstrip that in Detroit.  At risk of sounding like a conspiratorialist, the track record on this is pretty clear given that the owners threw away a season in order to gain not only cost certainty but parity.

  13. John W. says:

    It's like Matt hinted at (I don't care if I sound like a conspiratorialist!), the NHL doesn't really like the Wings all that much. They win too much (hence the parity angle) and as Don Cherry likes to point out, they have too many Europeans. If the whole octopus fiasco last Spring didn't make it clear nothing will…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>