Funny how one person can watch that game and say the Wings were dominant and 3-1 isn’t indicative of how well they played…

and another person (obviously from the NY media) can watch the same game and say the Wings were dominated and looked bad.

I think the middle is true. Iwo put it best yesterday in one of his posts at A2Y—the Wings can play a good game (like last night) and the Preds can play their best game (like last night) and they will still win the series.

The Wings will make subtle improvements in their breakouts and clearing their own zone, and Nashville will work on finishing opportunities. It should make for a better series as it goes on, but either way, I think the gulf in talent is pretty obvious and Iwo’s statements remain true no matter what.

Posted by Nathan on 04/11/08 at 08:35 AM ET

It is fascinating reading all of the “spin” on last nights game.  Depending on who you read, the Wings were either “lucky” or “good”.  Personally, I thought the Wings controlled most of the play last night; shameless plug, chech out the Forum for last nights boxscore; and you will notice the Wings gave up 3 shots on goal in the Third.  Three!! in a 1 - 1 game.  Wings only gave up 9 shots in the last 40 mins.  Pretty darn impressive if you ask me.  And I am not alone. 

Ryan Kennedy at The Hockey News posted his thoughts on last nights tilt:

The fact the Preds went down had nothing to do with goaltending, but rather the fact Detroit played one of the most fundamentally sound and positionally perfect games you’ll ever see. The Preds rarely got a sniff at Dominik Hasek and Detroit’s pedigree may just be too much in this series.

There was no more perfect an example of this than in the second period when Nashville’s Brandon Bochenski made a go of a loose puck squirting into Detroit territory. Bochenski was greeted first by Chris Chelios, then Nicklas Lidstrom en route to Hasek, who never had to even consider the possibility the attacker would get anywhere near him with the puck.

If you’re counting, that’s three future Hall of Famers between a Predator and a scoring chance. And that’s a pretty good microcosm of the game right there.

Wings Lucky—no.  Wings played spectacular.  The fact that the score was close had nothing to do with how well they played.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 04/11/08 at 08:58 AM ET

Funny indeed. I thought Rafalski could have played better and I’m sure he will. On the other hand, what game was that moron watching? The Wings looked fine to me. They limited the Preds to 20 shots, and had 40 shots of their own. I don’t know how in the world anyone could say the Preds were dominating. They did bring their “A” game but they were totally outclassed and they knew it. Ellis is the only reason it wasn’t a blow-out but that will be corrected sooner than later. As far as Dom goes, good to be lucky and lucky to be good. As far as Lady Luck goes, she is more than welcome to help Dom. I like having Lady Luck on the Wings side for a change. Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 04/11/08 at 09:04 AM ET

Raffy had a bumpy game, but he steadied himself in the third…And the domination part?

If the Wings hadn’t hit the glass or shoveled the puck into Ellis’s belly and then skated away from the net so damn often, there would have been much less controversy.  It was a typical playoff starter—ups, downs, and a solid defensive effort by the boys.  Those in attendance certainly didn’t think that the Predators dominated.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/11/08 at 09:22 AM ET

The Wings dominated.  Even when Nashville controlled the boards in the Wings zone, they rarely were able to penetrate to the scoring areas.  But at least Nashville was a lot betterment than Calgary in game one last year.

Interesting about Rafalski—they were talking about Brian Campbell’s shaky first playoff game in San Jose on HNIC.  They said you try too hard to impress the home crowd and do too much.  Campbell had a very good game two.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 04/11/08 at 09:41 AM ET

Interesting about Rafalski—they were talking about Brian Campbell’s shaky first playoff game in San Jose on HNIC.  They said you try too hard to impress the home crowd and do too much.  Campbell had a very good game two.

That’s funny that it would happen with Rafalski.  Campbell had just recently been acquired and with an eye specifically toward the playoffs, so him I can understand, but Rafalski has been with Detroit the entire year.

Interesting that even a seasoned veteran can get the playoff jitters from time to time.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 04/11/08 at 10:09 AM ET

I can’t imagine being a hometown boy who’s playing your first playoff game at the Joe…I can’t blame him for attempting to “put on a show” at times.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/11/08 at 10:26 AM ET

The Wings were not dominant. They certainly were the better team, but not by a ton.

I think there were two things they need to improve on.

First, they need some subtle improvement in their breakouts. The forecheck from Nashville wasn’t as effective as some in the media made it out to be, but it did cause trouble for the Wings a healthy amount. The D-to-D passing wasn’t as quick and sharp as it usually is, as was especially evidenced in two extremely long possessions by the Preds in the first period.

Secondly, while I thought the PP moved the puck and crashed the net as well as it has in a while, the finishing touch was certainly missing. That might be more of a mental thing, and now that the team is settled into the playoffs, they might not grip the sticks too tight. But Franzen probably should’ve had a brace, if not a hat trick, and Hudler missed some bang-ins from the bottom of the circles in.

Posted by Nathan on 04/11/08 at 10:59 AM ET

The Wings’ gap control was bad.  The Predators didn’t generate much offence off the cycle, but what they did do was allow their forwards to spread out to the side boards, deciding instead to cycle the puck between their defenders and the half wall, or make passes back to their defence (something the Wings usually do) to break the Wings’ backcheckers’ “tracking” system by making them commit to blocking point shots while the forwards lurked just off the boards, working diagonal passes toward a forward in the slot, basically generating a mini 3-on-2 from 40 feet in front of the net.  Babs is going to have to tell his forwards to give up the point shot on occasion so that they can stick with their assigned forward and make sure that the defence has at least one player helping them out down low.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 04/11/08 at 11:10 AM ET