The reason the Wings have had so many spectacular early playoff collapses is because they’ve been one of the best teams in the NHL since before the Ducks were just a twinkle in Gordon Bombay’s eye.

There’s no need to make excuses for first-round exits in ‘94, ‘01, or ‘06, because the Wings won a Cup (or two) shortly after each upset.

There’s no point in arguing over whether the Ducks or the Wings are a better team, because there’s nearly unanimous agreement that the Wings are better.  There’s no way of knowing what will happen in a seven game series, of course, but that’s not the same thing as being “better”.

People who wait until after their team has won don’t deserve to talk trash.  That’s worse than fans of a non-playoff team trash talking Sharks fans.  Put it on the line.  You gotta risk something, otherwise what you gain won’t be worth squat.

Wings in 6.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 04/28/09 at 08:54 PM ET

wings sure have alot of depth up front like the sharks. speaking of goaltending detroit still have???, yes osgood was good against inexperienced jackets but still.... defencive depth are pretty equal on both sides but detroit have the offensive edge against the ducks. cant wait for this series to begin. its really unlikely that ducks will pull off another upset but u never know. this series might go to game 7.

Posted by Oilers Rock from Edmonton on 04/28/09 at 09:26 PM ET

The reason the Wings have had so many spectacular early playoff collapses is because they’ve been one of the best teams in the NHL since before the Ducks were just a twinkle in Gordon Bombay’s eye.

There’s no need to make excuses for first-round exits in ‘94, ‘01, or ‘06, because the Wings won a Cup (or two) shortly after each upset.

Thank you.

The reason Detroit has had so many losses in the playoffs (and not always in the first round) is because they are in the playoffs every year, and thus have the opportunity to lose a playoff round.  When a team is in the playoffs for a decade, they aren’t going to win a Cup every single year; if a team makes the playoffs, say, twice in the same period, and only wins one Cup, they advance past the first round proportionately more often, but most years are not good enough to contend at all.

What is the mark of a better overall team - making the playoffs frequently, but not winning the Cup every appearance, or winning a fluke Cup because a team caught lightning in a bottle?  Maybe the naysayers would be happier if every year Detroit won the Cup, because some of them would keep pointing out two first round exits in ten years and label the team “chokers” even if all other eight seasons ended in a parade.

Please, that dead horse is already flogged to the bare bones - get another tune, people.

(And before some twerp starts complaining that I’m ripping on your team - this is all hypothetical, so just relax.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 04/28/09 at 09:44 PM ET

The Wings have been winning with an inconsistent Ozzie all year. Nabokov was much more steady in the regular season than those last 6 games. I think I’ll take Ozzie against Hiller over Nabby against Hiller any day.

Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 04/28/09 at 10:00 PM ET

Yeah I guess when you have a “meltdown” and lose to the Flames in 2004 and they lose in game #7 of the finals and then you have another “meltdown” in 2006 and lose to the Oilers who lose in game #7 of the finals , you really should be ashamed and expect your team to lose every year in the first round.

Hey Cali, why don’t you join those yahoos in Texas who want to succeed from the rest of the U.S

Can’t wait for the WWE tactics of Pronger and that dude with the porno mustache, to start biteing the ducks in the ass and the PPG start flowing like a river over hiller catching glove.

Posted by dbcooper from parts unknown on 04/28/09 at 10:42 PM ET

Aren’t we too Euro-soft, old and have a cardboard cutout for goaltending as well?

Can’t wait to see game 1 live. I Hate the Ducks with a passion, but that also means they genuinely scare me. Let’s see what happens.

Posted by Osrt on 04/28/09 at 11:03 PM ET

That makes the Red Wings the new unofficial No. 1 team. But come on Wing Nuts, while the Red Wings are one of the more successful teams in the NHL, they’ve also had their share of meltdowns when it’s been least expected.

As Ryan said, you have to be the favorite pretty much every year to have the chance at being massively upset. And unlike the Sharks, the Wings have gone ahead and balanced out those first-round upsets with four Cups in the same time period. Oh, and one more Cup finals appearance.

Yes, the Ducks have a history of beating the Red Wings in the playoffs.

Teams are 2-2 in playoff series. Granted, the Ducks have won the last two. A large part of that was the Ducks play, of course, but don’t forget the Wings were missing two of their top four defenseman the entire ‘07 series.

Yes, the Ducks needed just six games to knock off the No. 1 team, not only in the Western Conference but the entire NHL.

Did anyone really think the Sharks were the best team in the NHL? That is, besides Joe Thornton?

If you’re going to make an argument for your team, at least make it a sensible one.

I wholly agree, yet your article was filled with less than sensible arguments. Terrible writing. Cram it. Can’t believe someone pays this guy to write.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 04/29/09 at 08:53 AM ET