Sometimes I am really amazed at how different people’s view on certain situations can be.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 05/10/08 at 10:38 PM ET

Stars Could Have Easily Won

That’s like saying the sun could easily come up in the west this morning.

But I guess if you consider winning 29% of the draws and being outshot 34-18 a near victory, more power to you...or, more specifically, more power to the drugs you’re taking.

It’s one thing to be a “homer”. It’s something completely different to be an idiot.

I do have to laugh at one of the blog poster’s comments, though…

Listening to the post game press conference makes me sick. Can the Detroit press ask a question instead of stroking Babcock. (No pun intended...)

Ah, the answer to that would be NO!

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 05/10/08 at 11:08 PM ET

There’s a difference in writing “the Stars could have easily won” and “they very easily could have won.” It’s a bit of a misleading headline by you, Paul, and I must comment that I am a bit surprised.

Posted by Chad on 05/10/08 at 11:10 PM ET

Apologists in full force again.

A team is outshot and outchance. They’re destroyed in the faceoff circle by more than a 70/30 margin. Their goaltender is again distracted by the quality net-front play of the opposition. They’re out-hit by a wide margin by the (begin sarcasm) “softest” team in the playoffs (end sarcasm).

And yet, somehow, Dallas gave the game away, rather than the Wings choked it out of them.

Posted by Nathan on 05/10/08 at 11:11 PM ET

Who said Dallas gave the game away, Nathan?  You guys are making this blog unbearable while the Wings are still playing.

Posted by Chad on 05/10/08 at 11:14 PM ET

You guys are making this blog unbearable while the Wings are still playing.

Why not just hang out over at the Stars blogs, Chad? They aren’t troubled by the facts the way you seem to be.

Damn. Even the Stars fans have turned into whiners.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 05/10/08 at 11:21 PM ET

Chad: I interpreted Paul’s headline the same way I interpreted the line in the blog.

This game was similar to some of the ones against Nashville.  Dallas’ best players weren’t effective, they were badly outshot, and yet really were just one bounce (or one non-missed shot) away from a tie game and overtime.  So yeah, they could have won, but they didn’t deserve it.

Posted by Ryan on 05/10/08 at 11:23 PM ET

Chad, we’re here all year, and I don’t recall you being around. So out with the “while the Wings are still playing” filth. I don’t mean to be rude. My point is simply that we’re around just as much as you are, so let’s just coexist. At least you’re not a Dive fan.

It’s incorrect for Noxon to say that the Stars could have easily won the game… that’s true if you consider making up for being out-shot, out-chanced, out-possessed, out-hit, and out-scored and “easy” task.

They were again controlled by Detroit.

Ryan puts it the way Noxon should have—the Stars could have won, being that the game was kept to a one-goal gap despite the disparity in the majority of all other aspects of the game, but the end result certainly echoed who the better team was on the night.

Posted by Nathan on 05/10/08 at 11:33 PM ET

Oh, this is a Red Wings only blog, OTC?  I hadn’t realized that you had such reigns on this site.  I realize Paul is a Wings fan; it became rather obvious from the first time I came here over two years ago.  But thank you for trying to send traffic away from Paul.  My comment stands, but I should have clarified it.  Your comments are making this blog unbearable.  The media used the 4 OT game as an excuse, not the Stars players.

The facts that you mentioned are not debatable, nor did I try to do so.  What I did write was that the meaning of Noxon’s post was misinterpreted by Kukla and, by extension, you.

Ryan, I couldn’t agree more, and that’s what Noxon meant when he wrote that.  That’s the difference in writing the “Stars could have easily won” versus “they very easily could have won.” That was my point.

Posted by Chad on 05/10/08 at 11:33 PM ET

“Chad, we’re here all year, and I don’t recall you being around.” - Nathan

So one must leave a comment every week or so to make a comment at any time?  And once again, Noxon did not write “Stars could have easily won.” There is a difference.  Note it.

Posted by Chad on 05/10/08 at 11:35 PM ET

You rag on us for (in your opinion) misunderstanding a quip from Noxon, and yet you ignore the rest of my paragraph.

My point wasn’t that you must leave a comment every week. I was simply leaving a comment as asinine as yours to make a point. We’re not here only when the Wings are playing, just like you’re not only here when you’re commenting. So let’s just let that one go.

I understand what you’re saying about the difference between “the Stars could have easily won” and “they very easily could have won”—but the difference between those two statements isn’t distinct, and is simply based on an interpretation. If Noxon meant to say that the Stars, no matter how the game went, were still a lucky bounce away from tying that game, he should’ve said so. If the guy’s a pro, he should write like it.

And feel free to ask how we feel about our sports writers in Detroit if you think this is me just ragging on a Dallas writer simply because he’s based out of Dallas…

Posted by Nathan on 05/10/08 at 11:45 PM ET

Cool Chad: stay, comment, argue, it’s quite fun. If you really want to get angry, come over to A2Y.

The simple rebuttal to any Stars argument is, “check the scoreboard.” But there is a more detailed answer as well.

Part of the “they could/should have (very easily) won” argument rests on the premise that the Stars played the type of game they wanted to. What makes you think this isn’t the type of games the Wings want to play? Aren’t built to play? Love to play?!

I know our high flyers razzle and dazzle, but they’re also dual Selke nominees backed by one of the greatest d-men of all time. And that’s just the start. The Wings don’t mind close, tight checking, physical games; this is Babcock’s stamp on the Wings.

Posted by Osrt on 05/10/08 at 11:54 PM ET

Nathan, I sternly disagree that it’s an interpretive issue.  I am a writer by trade, and there is a distinct difference between the two. 

I did not ignore the rest of your comment, rather there was nothing more to comment upon.  In no way did I feel anyone was ragging on Noxon, rather that the headline Kukla wrote was a misinterpretation of what Noxon wrote.  That’s a point I’ve made four times now, and if you disagree with it, that’s fine.

I also disagree that there are any ‘apologists’ for Dallas.  Who?  Who wrote the Stars gave the game away?  You didn’t answer that question I posed earlier, so should I conclude you just ignored parts of my comments that you don’t wish to respond to?  I didn’t, and I agree that we should all co-exist on here.  I thought we were doing so, no?

Posted by Chad on 05/11/08 at 12:01 AM ET

Osrt, I’m not angry.  This isn’t something to get angry over. 

“Part of the ‘they could/should have (very easily) won’ argument rests on the premise that the Stars played the type of game they wanted to. What makes you think this isn’t the type of games the Wings want to play? Aren’t built to play? Love to play?!”

Who wrote the Stars “should” have won the game?  When did I write anything that would suggest the Red Wings aren’t suited for this type of a game?

Posted by Chad on 05/11/08 at 12:05 AM ET

The Stars played a solid road game, however for the most part even strength, the game wasn’t really close. The Stars power play is lethal, and IMO generates much more of their offense than their even strength lines do. The Wings have also benefited from PP goals this series, so the point is probably moot.

Dallas had their chances and one went in. They probably should have scored more, but that’s the nature of the beast. However, in watching the game I was surprised at how non-urgent the Stars were in the 3rd period. The Wings played great shut down D, but I was expecting more of a push from Dallas. That’s where I think the Stars failed to grasp the game.

So, the Stars played their game and still lost. Besides missing some chances to score, they didn’t really impress me at all. If I were a Stars fan, I’d be concerned about the lack of offense being generated from Modano and Robiero. A similar thing happened to Sakic and Hejduk last round, and it seems to be repeating all over again. Coincidence?

Anyways, in terms of Noxon’s blog, I’d buy into his hype if the tale of the tape supported it, but it didn’t. It’s asinine to think that you could have won a game being outshot 34-18 and being destroyed in the faceoff circle. The Wings controlled most of the flow of the game despite a few hiccups in the 1st, which is what they’ve done all year. Now, if the Stars outplay the Wings in Game 3 and lose, then I’d buy into his argument.

Posted by Jeremy on 05/11/08 at 01:04 AM ET

I’ve never seen such an extensive argument on the meaning of word order outside of a legal thriller.  Somehow it isn’t as exciting when it’s about hockey blogs.

I was also surprised by Dallas.  For long stretches they didn’t seem to really be pushing, but I guess that is in good part because their faceoff winning percentage was atrocious.  It has to be discouraging when you lose so often.  In most games at least someone for each team is winning faceoffs, even if everyone else is horrible.

Outside of his end-of-game brain fart I’m not sure I hear Ribiero’s name much at all, and outside of Modano’s good chance on Osgood he didn’t do much at all. Dallas needs more from their top offensive players to get back in the series, but that might be easier in Dallas where the home team can control the matchups.

Game three should be a good one.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/11/08 at 06:09 AM ET

Chad, Sorry, but I went to bed early or would have responded to you sooner.

You can read into the headline anyway you wish and you did by expressing your views.

Yes I am a Wings fan but that does not have anything to do with it.  I don’t try to influence anything on here and leave it up to the KK readers to chime in, as you did.

To the others, Chad has been a regular visitor to KK and you must remember that there are different section of KK so you just may not have seen him at A2Y, but he has been around.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 05/11/08 at 06:12 AM ET

“not like he swung the stick”?  WTF that was a 2-handed chop if there has ever been one.  And for the record and those apparently new to hockey, after the game is over you cannot penalize a player for diving.

Posted by RWBill from jabbing a six inch sewing needle into my eye. on 05/11/08 at 09:19 AM ET

My mistake, he did state that if the game was still going.

Posted by RWBill from jabbing a six inch sewing needle into my eye. on 05/11/08 at 09:20 AM ET

Yeah, Noxon’s showing his deep affinity for crack rocks with that whole “it’s not like he really even swung his stick” comment (and sorry, Chad, if I misplaced the em-pha-sis on the syllable there)…

That’s like saying, “I barely nudged my Grandma’s feet out from under her.” I mean, she just fell, man.  The video’s lying.

And, for the record, Ozzie didn’t come close to “butt-ending” “Ribs” “in the eye.” He got him the gut/lower chest, and not with the butt end, directly, but with the shaft near the butt end (god I had to really try not to laugh typing that sentence).

Ribeiro got his faced messed by Draper after his cheap shot on Ozzie.  That’s nothing, though, compared to what he’s got coming tomorrow night in Dallas, unless Collie Campbell takes pity on his poor young mojo and suspends his ass (as he should). 

I always had more respect for the Stars than for hacks like Bubba and the Bluesers (I won’t even mention the team from Divetown).  That shit at the end of Game 2 has pretty much destroyed any respect I used to have for these chokers.  Brendan Morrow, whining at the refs in the box with 15 seconds left?  Nice Captain they got down there in Dallas.  A Real Leader.

Posted by mudshark from Divetown, Colorado on 05/11/08 at 09:48 AM ET

Modano still has my respect; he even had a few really smart faceoff wins, where he just shot the puck right out of the defensive zone as soon as the puck was dropped. Veteran move.

Chad: I wasn’t arguing that *you* said the stars “should” have won. Rather, I was arguing against Noxon’s statement ("could have won"), which is a generally shared view; the Wings are not comfortable in close checking, physical matchups (see all MSM articles on “Soft Euro team"). I disagree and stated why.

On Dallas’ offensive lack: This is only partly attributable to the Stars’ play. I think the Wings’ defensive system is proving to be playoff worthy, and has done so for the past 8 games. Three teams have not been able to generate solid, sustained offensive against us.

If you’re a forward on the attack there is a Wing forward angling you to the perimeter and into one of the D men who will hit you. The Wing forward then goes behind the D and picks up the puck and usually rings it around to the other D.

The attacking forward is left with three low percentage options. 1) Generate enough speed to step around the D, even at the perimeter. 2) Try a drop pass. Unless you have already penetrated the zone a good ten feet, this will not work; the Wings forward will stop and pick it up. 3) Try to get a pass toward the center of the ice to get the puck away from the perimeter. Considering you have to lay a pass through both the defensive forward’s and defenseman’s stick, this is also very difficult. A small chip and chase is only effective if you have another forward with a lot of speed close to you. Even then, it’s hard to keep the puck in a cycle game while 5-5.

Anyway, that’s what I see.

Posted by Osrt on 05/11/08 at 11:52 AM ET

Yeah, Osgood could easily have been penalized for giving Ribeiro that butt end, or for his brilliant imitation of Peter Forsberg-had there been any time left on the clock. Maybe his love tap will prompt a closer look at both goalies-Turco’s behavior in the other crease wasn’t exactly angelic.
On the other hand, swinging a stick like a baseball bat at another player, whatever the provocation and whether or not the other player is padded like Osgood was, deserves at least a one game suspension (more if the other player is injured).

Posted by BobS. on 05/11/08 at 12:45 PM ET

Oh, this is a Red Wings only blog, OTC?  I hadn’t realized that you had such reigns on this site.

Hey, Chad, sorry to leave you hanging (sorry, couldn’t resist), but I too went to bed early last night. So, let me spell this out as clearly as I can for you.

I didn’t say anything that would indicate you can’t hang out here. I simply asked: “Why not just hang out over at the Stars blogs, Chad?” The point being that if dealing with the folks here makes things “unbearable” for you, why not go somewhere else? (Ahem. Again, notice that that’s a question.)

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 05/11/08 at 02:42 PM ET