makes you wonder why they let Quincey go instead of him back in September.

Wouldn’t have mattered, when they had a few forward injuries and had to bring Leino up mid-season, they’d have been stuck and would’ve had to waive Quincey then. Only way they could’ve held onto him was to keep him on the roster but not playing, like Meech, and go with a bare minimum of 12 forwards, and cross their fingers a forward never gets injured.

if you change it back to historic names for the Conferences and Divisions, it’ll be perfection.

I too prefer the historic names instead of the geographical names, but used geographic names in my post because the focus of the divisional alignment was that no one division would have teams that span more than a single time zone apart.

How about some credit to the Ducks, eh?

Plenty of credit to them. They’ve done their job. All we are saying, and I don’t think it’s unfair or sour grapes, is that with the depth of talent Detroit has, if they matched the Ducks’ effort, the win this series, no question about it. But, as we all know, it’s not just about talent, it’s about actually bringing the passion to win out on the ice, and so far, the Ducks are leaving it all out there, Detroit is not, and the 2-1 series lead for the Ducks is, despite the horrible call, probably accurate and deserved.

The reason I didn’t want the Canucks matching up with the Ducks in round 1 is because I knew this Anaheim team was much better than their regular season record indicated.

Holy shit! Nobody else thought of that one. Nice job, sprout! Here’s a shiny nickel and some pop rocks for your efforts.

As for whining about scheduling: boo fricking hoo. The Canucks have always had the worst travel sked of any NHL team (with actual #s to back it up), but you don’t see their fans constantly bringing it up. Just deal with it.

Wrong. I would think someone from B.C. would hear all the same stories—and more—that I hear every offseason. The Canucks, and rightfully so, bring up their travel concerns every season.

But, the Canucks have the advantage of traveling “forward in time,” which, in my opinion, is significantly easier on the body than traveling backwards. If you’re in EST, when you go back three hours, your body clock feels like it’s 10:30pm for a 7:30pm PST start. If you’re in PST, when you go forward three hours, your body clock feels like it’s a 4:30pm PST start. Hell of a lot easier to treat your 7:30pm EST games like late afternoon games than to deal with playing a game when your body is used to the game being at its end already.

Not saying Detroit has it harder than the Canucks. I think the Canucks, Wings, and Blue Jackets probably have about equal difficulty due to time zone changes and traveling over the course of a season.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/07/09 at 12:14 PM ET

Ozzie has been stellar for 7 straight playoff games,
and due for a bad game…

Ouch! Gramps…that hurt!  It;s true but….Ouch!

Let’s Go Red Wings !!!!!

Posted by Rumbear from Top O da Hasek, when in doubt, pinky out on 05/07/09 at 12:17 PM ET

Ahh, so your one of those bandwagon Wings fans that I see around here. Lovely. I bet you also cheer for the Patriots and Red Sox. 

I was born in Detroit and no.

Thanks for asking though.

The Canucks have always had the worst travel sked of any NHL team (with actual #s to back it up), but you don’t see their fans constantly bringing it up

Fans: Fans complain about many things. Canucks fans are notoriously polar.

So they do complain about travel or they don’t?  Which one is it because your original post seemed to be based on Canuck fans not complaining about travel.

The GM’s job is to make things easier for his team, and Gillis has a legit beef re: travel and schedule. Why is it a bad thing that he’s trying to do good for his team? At least Gillis is backing up his claims with some research, and is trying more useful than “waah, we travel too much”.

The Red Wings are in the Eastern Time Zone and play in the Western Conference.  Where’s our lack of “legit beef?”  What more research do I need?

And you call this “research?”:

“we don’t have a team within a couple or three hours of us.” -Mike Gillis

I’m pretty sure both Edmonton and Calgary are an hour flight.  I’m pretty sure Coloardo is less than 3 hours away.  In fact, I’m pretty sure that teams in California are within 3 hours. 

Great research.  I sure wish our GM did such fine work.

Ultimately, I guess you’re right.  What do we have to complain about?  We’ve won more cups than the Canucks have of rounds over the past 11 years.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/07/09 at 12:19 PM ET

Funny how two people look at the same games and see two different things. I see the same thing Babcock sees, Todd. I don’t see what you see. He’s not being outcoached (unless you consider lobbying the league via the media to be coaching).

There is nothing in particular about the scheme or style of play the Wings are intending to play in this series that’s causing trouble. Bottom line is that they are losing races to loose pucks, and the Ducks are harder on the puck in the corners and on the wall. Just the general stuff that shows one team is outworking another. When the Wings have revved up their work ethic, they’ve played well, as we’ve seen in essentially every game this series. Slow starts have doomed them. In game one they pulled it out, in game two and three they didn’t. Tonight they have to “start on time” and give full effort for the full game.

The Wings could dump and chase more, they could dump and chase less, they could use 2-3 or 3-2 forecheck, or shift the 1-2-2 up higher, and it wouldn’t make a difference if they don’t start winning the “battle of will.” Most 50-50 pucks end up on a Duck stick or end up on the Wings side of center, and that has everything to do with the Ducks outworking the Wings heavily.

To me, the only tactical adjustment I’d make is to tell the players to start shooting pucks low. Hiller gives up way more rebounds of his legs than Mason, yet they are shooting on Hiller like they did on Mason, trying to go up between his catching arm and body.

And frankly that’s on the players to actually do it, not Babcock.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/07/09 at 12:21 PM ET

Ozzie has been stellar for 7 straight playoff games,
and due for a bad game…

In my own mind I’m counting the clincher against Columbus as a “bad game,” purely for record-keeping purposes. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/07/09 at 12:39 PM ET

Enjoyed your thoughts Nathan, but,you may be overcomplicating a simple game.

Anaheim is a much bigger team than the Wings, we knew that going in, and
anyone not expecting them to win a lot of board battles hasn’t watched enough hockey.
But
Columbus is an even bigger team.  We handled them because they didn’t forecheck much.

Giving Anaheim all the time in the world to set up is suicide.

Shots from the point against a team that collapses in the slot is quite risky…
That Salami guy sort of made that obvious…and it wasn’t the first time.
But the Wings continue to waste a lot of time setting those up.
And how many SOG from the initial rush are avoided while our forwards
head to the outside and corners to set up puck control?  They don’t even
head to the net, preferring the perimeter and corners for cycling.  They are
passing up shot opportunities while the D is still scrambling for the sake of
setting up their cycling.
That is Coaching.
Forgive me for repeating myself here,
The players do what they are told, or they sit.
The players are professional, and this is the playoffs…
There is no lack of effort on their part, only wasted motion (and exhaustion),
and Babcock is a big fan of wasted motion.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 05/07/09 at 12:50 PM ET

And frankly that’s on the players to actually do it, not Babcock.

What is on Babcock is to try something different. Reunite the Circus, put Hossa on a line with Taz and Cleary, formulate an answer to the breakout pass problem, etc. These are things that are on Babcock.

CarLie-yle was not afraid to make roster and line changes after game 1. Now he has to make changes because Wisniewski is out.

If it is on the players to do evreything, then why do we need a coach? Why didn’t this team perform under Dave Lewis.

Coaching matters. And right now, our dearly beloved Uncle Mike is getting out coached.

Posted by CaptainDennisPolonich from Warm and sunny SoCal on 05/07/09 at 12:50 PM ET

This thread has me stressing again.

Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…Ohm…Barbeque…Ohm…Beer…

Much better. HTT, will you pass the sauce, please?

Posted by CaptainDennisPolonich from Warm and sunny SoCal on 05/07/09 at 12:54 PM ET

In my own mind I’m counting the clincher against Columbus as a “bad game,” purely for record-keeping purposes.

My record keeping has it as a complete defensive breakdown, it looked like oxygen starved brain cells.  For 11 periods the Wings avoided cross ice breakout passes in their own end, 2 forecheckers and a D chasing the same puck carrier, breakout passes to the center of our blueline and then all of a sudden…...they all magically reappeared.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 05/07/09 at 12:58 PM ET

Dynasty? Stop th whole Dynasty Talk. The Red Wings are NOT a dynasty. There are only 3 dynasties in the 4 major N.American Sport Leagues. They are the Yankees , Canadiens and Celtics (maybe the Lakers). All the others are just a “Team of the Decade’ ie: Oilers in the 80’s.The Red Wings can’ t even be consindered that in the 90’s because in the 90’s the Devils won more championships and SWEPT the Red Wings in one of those finals. Now Maybe if they win another championship or two this decade they can be considered team of this decade .That is if nobody, like say the DUCKS end up winning more championships than the Red Wings this decade.They are one of the best franchises in all of sports. But Dynasty?  I think Not.

Posted by Lindas1st on 05/07/09 at 01:06 PM ET

the 90’s the Devils won more championships

No they didn’t.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/07/09 at 01:12 PM ET

No they didn’t.

I did not check, but you may be confusing Championships with the Stanley.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 05/07/09 at 01:19 PM ET

And quite fine beer it is too, Cap’n, though Chimay Rouge is all well & good, it can’t hold a candle to Chimay Grande Reserve, 2000 Vintage—my personal stash brought back from my first trip to Belgium.  Comes out on special occasions, and if I make it over to SoCal for the First Annual A2Y Barbecue, I’ll bring a bottle.

Sorry.  Just wanted to Beer Brag.  Barbecue looks damn good.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 05/07/09 at 01:23 PM ET

2 for the Devils and 2 for the Wings you’re right. But like I said they did sweep them in the ‘95 finals. So they’re still not a dynasty.

Posted by Lindas1st on 05/07/09 at 01:29 PM ET

And quite fine beer it is too, Cap’n, though Chimay Rouge is all well & good, it can’t hold a candle to Chimay Grande Reserve, 2000 Vintage—my personal stash brought back from my first trip to Belgium.  Comes out on special occasions, and if I make it over to SoCal for the First Annual A2Y Barbecue, I’ll bring a bottle.
Sorry.  Just wanted to Beer Brag.  Barbecue looks damn good.

Thanks, Andrew. I prefer the Bleu label reserve as well. I did not realize one could keep beer for that long of a period without it going bad. That or beer just never lasted that long around here.

Have you ever made it to the St. Sixtus monastery for their Westvleteren 12? I’m dying to know if it is a good as the hype, or just hyped because it is rare and difficult to get.

Posted by CaptainDennisPolonich from Warm and sunny SoCal on 05/07/09 at 01:35 PM ET

Uncle Mike’s unwillingness to activate the Wondertwins gives me consternation.  Break up Hoss and Pav and if they get going again, THEN put them back together.  Right now, they are in a proverbial hockey shame spiral.  Put Pav with Hank and Clears and Hoss with Mule and Fil.  Then let Carlyle scratch his pointy head all night trying to figure out which poison to pick to play the Getzlaf line against - the best duo in hockey or two of the premier power forwards in the game.  Also, sit Chelios and dress ANYONE ELSE.  Meech, Kindl, Conklin; I’d pick them all to play better defense over Cheli.  I hate to say it, but Babs has been completely out-coached in this series.

Posted by wingsfan31 from Toledo, OH on 05/07/09 at 01:37 PM ET

2 for the Devils and 2 for the Wings you’re right. But like I said they did sweep them in the ‘95 finals. So they’re still not a dynasty.
Posted by Lindas1st on 05/07/09 at 02:29 PM ET

Technically the Wings won 2 in the 90s while the Devils only won one (their 2nd championship was in 2000).

What’s it with these people coming in today making claims without validating it with actual facts?

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 05/07/09 at 01:59 PM ET

Hey Cap’n, yeah, you can lay down the Chimay Blue (when it’s in the 75cl bottle with the drawn cork, it’s called Grande Reserve) indefinitely just like fine wine, as long as it’s corked—the capped stuff will go off and turn skunky.  The cane sugar priming in the bottle slowly ferments, and you get port-like flavors about about five years.  But it just gets better and better—I had another one of my 2000 Vintage bottles last year, and it was marvelously fruity and complex, and surprisingly dry.  Fairly heavy still, so you can’t drink much of it—one bottle is best shared with good friends.

I’ve never been to any of the Trappist monasteries except Chimay (does St. Sixtus even do tours?) but I HAVE had all the Trappist beers, including Westvleteren 12 degree (aka Tripel)—they’re widely available in good bottle shops in the Low Countries (Benelux—Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg).  It’s good, but I wasn’t aware that it was particularly sought-after or that highly regarded.  Though now that I think about it…it isn’t all that easy to find.  I think I ran across it once in Liege, and that’s it.  But if I had to name a favorite, truth be told, it’d be Orval—they only make one unpretentous brew with a lovely color, a great aroma and smooth, easy-drinking character with real distinct earthy and peppery flavors.  I love it.

Next time you’re over, we’ll road-trip to all of the Trappist breweries—Westmalle, Rochefort, Chimay, Westvleteren, Orval, and Aachel.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 05/07/09 at 02:00 PM ET

HTT, I think you’re giving Babcock too much credit here, he’s not the puppet master you’re making him out to be. 

This is a veteran team, everyone knows it.  The players know what needs to be done, they don’t need to be told not to shoot from the perimeter, they just need to not do it.  Remember last playoffs or earlier in the season when the Wings would sit back in the 3rd and some fans would wonder why Babcock would employ a 1-4 at the end of the game?  Then Babcock would say he didn’t know why the players were employing a 1-4 instead of attacking and the players would say they sat back?  Believe it or not but the players do make adjustments on their own and with Babcock’s coaching he allows the players to make their own adjustments a lot of the time. 

Of course next you’d ask then what is Babcock’s job?  Well it is to make some other adjustments but I think it’s silly to blame it all on the coaching staff or all on the players at the same time. 

Babcock has said time and again that during penalty kills Zetterberg usually leads the way and all of the talking.  Babcock is a good coach because he allows his players to do that.

I agree that lineup adjustments should be made throughout the game to give the Ducks a different look but saying that Babcock is telling them to shoot from the perimeter is silly talk.  You think that if Datsyuk went to the net that would be against what Babcock is saying and Babcock would sit him?  C’mon dude, I know this is tense time in the train of pain but this isn’t a young team looking up at Uncle Mike for what to do next. 

There is a lack of effort when defensive assignments are missed and had been missed all season.  Rafalski, Lidstrom, Stuart, Kronwall and Lilja don’t need to be told where they screwed up and how to fix it, they know and they know how to fix it. 

Reading through this post you could label me as a Babcock apologist and I probably am but the bottom line is even if Babcock makes all the right line changes and adjustments it’s on the players to preform.

Posted by Heaton on 05/07/09 at 02:30 PM ET

the season started in ‘99 .if you you have to use technicalities like that then you only prove my one point. That the Red Wings are NOT a dynasty. That all I’m sayin’.

Posted by Lindas1st on 05/07/09 at 04:33 PM ET

the season started in ‘99 .if you you have to use technicalities like that then you only prove my one point. That the Red Wings are NOT a dynasty. That all I’m sayin’.

Posted by Lindas1st on 05/07/09 at 05:33 PM ET

That depends on how “dynasty” is defined.

Is a team that is a realistic contender for a Cup every year for better than a decade, winning several in the process, under different economic conditions and rules enforcement regimes, a dynasty?

Or do the titles have to be in a row, so that a team that wins three in a row but the four years before the run and four years after stinks to high heaven is a dynasty, because they won several titles in a row?

A period of sustained excellence is as close as you can get in the present.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/07/09 at 04:57 PM ET