Round One: Columbus @ Detroit

Detroit in 6. As Caissie said, experience wins out. The regular season series was a lot closer than I thought, but we're not in the Regular Season anymore.

Still, every generation a rookie goalie wins the Cup, so you never know.

this will be the upset of the year. Wings will choke I think.

504Heater wrote:I think Mason gets his feet wet and steals the BJs a game, but overall, I just can't see Detroit losing this series. Osgood isn't playing that well right now, but the depth and the prowess of the RW's lineup is really amazing.

Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Holmstrom, Franzen, Hossa, Cleary, Samuelsson, Draper, Maltby, possibly Helm and Leino, Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Eriksson, Stuart.

You simply cannot match that depth, unless you're the Sharks.

I say Detroit in 5.

Here's what Ken Hitchc0ck says about the Red Wings, from the Columbus Post Dispatch:

“There’s not one person with any degree of sanity who is going to pick us to win the series."

“They’re the only team in the league with a knowledge of what it takes to win the Stanley Cup. Everybody else can only talk about it, but they’ve got 95 percent of last season’s club back, the guys that got it done.”

“Detroit is the top five-man faceoff team in the league. By that, I mean, all five guys on the ice work hard to retrieve the puck, not just the center. They’ve been the best in the league for a few years now.”

“Body contact is not going to bother Detroit. They’ve been through this before. It’s not going to wear them out like everybody thinks. None of that is relevant.”

Now, I picked up these quotes from a column by one of the most diehard Red Wings bloggers out there 'Abel To Yzerman'.

This blogger says it's Hitch's way of motivating his players and sandbagging the Wings. Because, as A2Y says, the Jackets know they can beat the Wings. And the Wings know it too.

Columbus has already beaten Detroit this year. Decisively. So they know what to do.

All the Jackets have to do is WANT it more.

And they have shown signs that they do.

Hitch knows that talent doesn't win Cups.

So does Mike Babc0ck. Which is why, if you watch the Wings games, he has looked so worried...all year long.

Both teams buy into The System. Both teams execute.

The Wings have some of the best players in the league. But they don't have a Steve Mason. And they don't have a Rick Nash. Players who can, and do, win games all by themselves.

Underdogs have a way of overcoming the myth--and reality--of The Big Red Machine.

After all, the Wings don't win it all every year. So somebody's been beating them.

And repeating as Stanley Cup winner has to be the hardest feat in professional team sports championships.

Great series coming up. 7 games looks about right. Edge Jackets.
:D:

this is going to be a regular c0ck fight

davetherave wrote:The Wings have some of the best players in the league. But they don't have a Steve Mason. And they don't have a Rick Nash. Players who can, and do, win games all by themselves.

Underdogs have a way of overcoming the myth--and reality--of The Big Red Machine.

After all, the Wings don't win it all every year. So somebody's been beating them.

And repeating as Stanley Cup winner has to be the hardest feat in professional team sports championships.

Yes, they don't have Steve Mason. But again, recent history has shown that young star goalies may struggle in their first go-round in the playoffs (see Price last year). In addition, so have young inexperienced teams.

I don't get the Rick Nash comment, to be honest. Do the Jackets have a Pavel Datsyuk, arguably the best player in the league? A Conn-Smythe winning second line centre like Henrik Zetterberg? A Hossa, Franzen etc.? The Wings have beaten better players than Nash, and they've won without a Nash.

Not to mention, Mr. 61 will be up against arguably one of the top-5 defencemen in the history of the game.

As for having difficulty repeating, this is a serious issue. But the Wings were so close to beating the Ducks in '06-'07 and obviously haven't suffered in terms of their regular season this year, what with finishing 2nd.

This is the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey.

Hitch gives the Jackets the edge in this one, plus if Mason plays lights out, CBJ has the better goalie, plus am rooting for Vermie and Nash on this one. Jackets in 6

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Wings have some of the best players in the league. But they don't have a Steve Mason. And they don't have a Rick Nash. Players who can, and do, win games all by themselves.

Underdogs have a way of overcoming the myth--and reality--of The Big Red Machine.

After all, the Wings don't win it all every year. So somebody's been beating them.

And repeating as Stanley Cup winner has to be the hardest feat in professional team sports championships.

Yes, they don't have Steve Mason. But again, recent history has shown that young star goalies may struggle in their first go-round in the playoffs (see Price last year). In addition, so have young inexperienced teams.

I don't get the Rick Nash comment, to be honest. Do the Jackets have a Pavel Datsyuk, arguably the best player in the league? A Conn-Smythe winning second line centre like Henrik Zetterberg? A Hossa, Franzen etc.? The Wings have beaten better players than Nash, and they've won without a Nash.

Not to mention, Mr. 61 will be up against arguably one of the top-5 defencemen in the history of the game.

As for having difficulty repeating, this is a serious issue. But the Wings were so close to beating the Ducks in '06-'07 and obviously haven't suffered in terms of their regular season this year, what with finishing 2nd.

This is the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey.

See my earlier post where I reference Ken Hitchc0ck's comments and those of Red Wings diehards...

Rick Nash is a very large combination of Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen and Marian Hossa.

Regarding your Steve Mason quip, I will remind you of the rookie Cup winners Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy.

And "the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey"? Heck, they didn't even win the President's Trophy this year. Your Wings bias is really showing... cool)

Again, if the Wings were as good as you say they are, they'd win every year. But they don't.

SensFan71 wrote:Hitch gives the Jackets the edge in this one, plus if Mason plays lights out, CBJ has the better goalie, plus am rooting for Vermie and Nash on this one. Jackets in 6

Over Bac0ck?

asq2 wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:Hitch gives the Jackets the edge in this one, plus if Mason plays lights out, CBJ has the better goalie, plus am rooting for Vermie and Nash on this one. Jackets in 6

Over Bac0ck?

no discredit to Wang, but Hitch is quite the bench boss and is a real credit to how his team is playing. the big ? in goal gives CBJ a slight edge in this one.

davetherave wrote:Rick Nash is a very large combination of Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen and Marian Hossa.

I am biased towards the Wings, as I've stated. But that Nash comment is certainly evidence of bias towards the Blue-Jackets.

Datsyuk had more hits than Nash, out-scored him by 97 points to 79, is the reigning Selke Winner, was over a PPG in the play-offs last season and has 2 Cups to his name. To say Nash is even on the same level as Datsyuk is a stretch. Then to add in Hossa, Zetterberg and Franzen?

Regardless, the Wings beat better players in Crosby and Malkin quite easily last year.

davetherave wrote:Regarding your Steve Mason quip, I will remind you of the rookie Cup winners Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy.

Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy are both Hall of Famers and Roy is considered by many to be the greatest goaltender of all-time.

davetherave wrote:And "the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey"? Heck, they didn't even win the President's Trophy this year. Your Wings bias is really showing... cool)

Again, if the Wings were as good as you say they are, they'd win every year. But they don't.

By winningest, I meant that they know how to win better than anyone else IMO. And I'm pretty sure if you compared their regular season numbers to any other team's in the last few years, they'd emerge victorious.

The regular season, of course, isn't the only determinant of success, but the Wings are one of the most successful teams in the modern post-season as well. As I've said before, they suffered no ill effects from a long playoff run in 2006-2007, and they're not floundering from their run in 2007-2008 either.

People can criticize Osgoode, but many of them are the same people who criticized Tokarski going into the Sweden - Canada final at the WJHC. Tokarski may not be the calibre of a Jakub Markstrom, just as Osgoode has not shown himself this seaso to be anywhere near Mason, but he knows how to win, and ultimately that is the most important attribute a goalie, or indeed any player, can have. And the Wings have shown they know how to win.

Your conclusion is a stretch. I've simply stated that I believe they are #1 in terms of these attributes. Which do you disagree with? They've got tonnes of experience, and had tonnes of success. Certainly, too, it is not a stretch to say they are the savviest. The entire organization can be looked upon as a gold standard for others.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:The Wings have some of the best players in the league. But they don't have a Steve Mason. And they don't have a Rick Nash. Players who can, and do, win games all by themselves.

Underdogs have a way of overcoming the myth--and reality--of The Big Red Machine.

After all, the Wings don't win it all every year. So somebody's been beating them.

And repeating as Stanley Cup winner has to be the hardest feat in professional team sports championships.

Yes, they don't have Steve Mason. But again, recent history has shown that young star goalies may struggle in their first go-round in the playoffs (see Price last year). In addition, so have young inexperienced teams.

I don't get the Rick Nash comment, to be honest. Do the Jackets have a Pavel Datsyuk, arguably the best player in the league? A Conn-Smythe winning second line centre like Henrik Zetterberg? A Hossa, Franzen etc.? The Wings have beaten better players than Nash, and they've won without a Nash.

Not to mention, Mr. 61 will be up against arguably one of the top-5 defencemen in the history of the game.

As for having difficulty repeating, this is a serious issue. But the Wings were so close to beating the Ducks in '06-'07 and obviously haven't suffered in terms of their regular season this year, what with finishing 2nd.

This is the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey.

See my earlier post where I reference Ken Hitchc0ck's comments and those of Red Wings diehards...

Rick Nash is a very large combination of Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen and Marian Hossa.

Regarding your Steve Mason quip, I will remind you of the rookie Cup winners Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy.

And "the most experienced, savviest, deepest, winningest team in hockey"? Heck, they didn't even win the President's Trophy this year. Your Wings bias is really showing... cool)

Again, if the Wings were as good as you say they are, they'd win every year. But they don't.

DTR, you're right, Rick Nash has elements of all 4 Wings players. But all 4 of those players are on the Wings, spread out over different lines. Nash can't play 60 minutes, and behind his line, things drop off quite a bit. That's why this one appears so lopsided. Crimminy, Zetterberg plays on the 2nd line, for Pete's sake!

Anyway, I'm not saying that the Wings are going to just walk away with this, all I'm trying to do is point out that the Wings are no slouch.

I think people can get caught up in the excitement of a young playoff under-dog. Everyone was picking the Pens to beat the Sens in '06-'07.

Just don't forget who the BJs are playing.

ASQ...glad to see I have your attention ...

To address your points:

I didn't say Nash is on 'the same level' as Datsyuk--who, as you know, IMHO is the best two way player in the NHL--in terms of his accomplishments or awards.

The comparison of Nash to the Wings' stars is meant to underline his importance to the Blue Jackets. He does everything those players do, for his team.

There is no evidence of anti-Wing or pro-Jacket bias in my comments. I am challenging your anointing of this year's Detroit team as 'the winningest'. They are not.

That distinction belongs to the San Jose Sharks.

The Red Wings finished their season 3-6-1. Not auspicious.

Nor do the Wings lead the league in an extremely critical area...team defense. Out of the 15 teams in the West, they were only 10th.

Neither Ken Dryden nor Patrick Roy were HOF goalies when they won the Cup as rookies, so your comment does not apply.

I have nothing but respect for Chris Osgoode BTW. This year, however, he has not been on his game with the consistency Mike Babc0ck would like to see. There is no 'magic switch' for the playoffs.

The Blue Jackets have proved to themselves, on March 7th, that they can beat the Wings decisively--8-2--and in the Wings' building.

Therefore, the possibility of a Jackets upset is a real one.

the good teams, the veteran teams can shut the door on the reg season. They could have had their collective arses wiped during the reg season, and now..it doesn't matter.

Playoffs come down to
1. Will the offensive stars star
2. Will the defence shut the door
3. Will the goalie win a game, all on his own and general frustrate the other's forwards.

Calgary IMO will do all three

davetherave wrote:ASQ...glad to see I have your attention ...

To address your points:

I didn't say Nash is on 'the same level' as Datsyuk--who, as you know, IMHO is the best two way player in the NHL--in terms of his accomplishments or awards.

The comparison of Nash to the Wings' stars is meant to underline his importance to the Blue Jackets. He does everything those players do, for his team.

There is no evidence of anti-Wing or pro-Jacket bias in my comments. I am challenging your anointing of this year's Detroit team as 'the winningest'. They are not.

That distinction belongs to the San Jose Sharks.

The Red Wings finished their season 3-6-1. Not auspicious.

Nor do the Wings lead the league in an extremely critical area...team defense. Out of the 15 teams in the West, they were only 10th.

Neither Ken Dryden nor Patrick Roy were HOF goalies when they won the Cup as rookies, so your comment does not apply.

I have nothing but respect for Chris Osgoode BTW. This year, however, he has not been on his game with the consistency Mike Babc0ck would like to see. There is no 'magic switch' for the playoffs.

The Blue Jackets have proved to themselves, on March 7th, that they can beat the Wings decisively--8-2--and in the Wings' building.

Therefore, the possibility of a Jackets upset is a real one.

I am not saying there is no possibility of the Jackets winning the series. I haven't even said that the Wings will necessarily win the series.

Nash may have extreme importance to the Jackets, but it is simply impossible for anyone player to do what Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa and Franzen ALL do. It is a bit like comparing Alfredsson to Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, McDonald, and Kunitz. He couldn't do it all himself. And Alfredsson had better supporting players offensively than Nash does, IMO.

Again, I meant to clarify my comment about the winningest. They are the most winning-savvy - they know how to win better than any other team. The Sharks have the regular season success, but the Wings have regular season success AND post-season success to their credit. Therefore, I put the Wings above the Sharks.

They have struggled recently, sure.

Osgoode has not had consistency. Neither, to continue my comparison, did Tokarski at the WJHCs. But when it came down to the important games, he found a way to win. Osgoode has done the same in the past.

I can see your point that Roy and Dryden were not Hall of Famers at that point. But I still think it applies, looking back. Seeing how rare they were, how great goalies they were, did they really set a precedent that all goalies could follow. I think that's debatable. Gretzky was not a Hall of Famer either when he was playing either, but does that matter?

ASQ...all excellent points.

IMHO you are spot on about Nash...he is SO important to CLB. If the Wings can counter him...not easy, but not impossible...the Blue Jackets will have little chance of prevailing.

Let the games begin!

:D:
:%%:

davetherave wrote:ASQ...all excellent points.

IMHO you are spot on about Nash...he is SO important to CLB. If the Wings can counter him...not easy, but not impossible...the Blue Jackets will have little chance of prevailing.

Let the games begin!

:D:
:%%:

the games will come, I am waiting on the draft lottery tomorrow night, what time does it come on? I might miss it actually, dang it lol.

davetherave wrote:ASQ...all excellent points.

IMHO you are spot on about Nash...he is SO important to CLB. If the Wings can counter him...not easy, but not impossible...the Blue Jackets will have little chance of prevailing.

Let the games begin!

:D:
:%%:

No kidding.

As a Sens fan, I can say that all analysis and stats and past games go out the window once the post-season begins.

When we were the favourites, we'd lose, when we were the underdogs, we'd win.

All will be settled on the ice.