WCS Game 3: Red Wings 4, Avalanche 3

Going into the all-important Game 3 last night, the Avs needed to get the offense going and take the play to Detroit. At least, that's what Avs fans thought. The coaching staff didn't figure that out 'till the second intermission. By then, Paul Stastny was out after an awkward leg-on-leg collision with Henrik Zetterberg, Peter Forsberg had already left once for some kind of ankle problem and then returned, and the refs had decided that they'd rather just get the series over with ASAP.
The game got started off on a fairly even pace and then Cody McLeod of all people scored with a tip-in of a T.J. Hensiiick shot after a nice feed from Tyler "Whipping Boy" Arnason. The jubilation in Le Can lasted for a couple of minutes until the Detroit puck-possession game got into full swing. Then the shelling of Jose Theodore commenced with full fury. He-who-wasn't-previously-named saw 19 shots in the 1st period. Two got past him: a PP goal from Pavel Datsyuk while Lappy was serving 2 minutes for roughing Lebda and 58 seconds later, Johan Franzen continued his Avalanche-killing by scoring on a nice back-door slam dunk after the Avs failed to cause Detroit to even contemplate not breaking into the offensive zone at full speed.
The second period saw more of the same lackluster defensive zone awareness, whether it was on the penalty kill or full strength. Lots of running around, lots of errant passes. The Colorado defensive scheme in the first two periods seemed to boil down to stick checks. If the Avs got the puck, great, they slowed down Detroit's entry into the zone and disrupted the passing lanes. If they didn't, it usually resulted in Theo sliding around like John Candy in the mud-wrestling scene from Stripes as the puck was cycled around the perimeter and the shooting angles changed by the millisecond. It also usually resulted in a goal. Datsyuk got one a little over 6 minutes in, and then after a 4-minute penalty to Forsberg for high-sticking Samuelsson, Zetterberg potted the eventual game-winner. In between those two Detroit goals, Andrew Brunette scored on the power play for the Avs after Darren McCarty got whistled for holding.

A quick note about the Forsberg penalty [clip now up on YouTube - Joe]. He got the stick up and he drew blood. Therefore, he gets four minutes. However, Samuelsson dropped to his knees, snapped his head back like Lee Harvey had just hit paydirt, and reached for his face immediately. It was a routine worthy of Forsberg's 'Floppa' nickname. Linkage to recap that includes discussion of the lost tooth. I recind the diving comment. It likely hurt like hell, and Samuelsson didn't embellish. It would have taken the Oscar for the night if Osgood didn't feel the need to Louganis after he got tapped in the pads. I could go on about the officiating, but just see the game thread for the horrendous trips and picks that weren't called.
Anyway, two Too Many Men penalties in the 3rd (both served by Darren Helm...WhoTF is Darren Helm? He sounds like a C-list pornstar with that name) by Detroit let the Avs play the tease with the hometown fans. Bruno scored his second PP goal of the night with a rebound after Joe "Horrible Leader" Sakic faked a Detroit defender to the ice at the point, walked around him (I think it was Draper), and put a shot/pass into Osgood's feet. Bruno banged home the rebound while Os-God was looking for the puck in his feet.
Alas, it was all for naught as the Avs failed to generate any sustained pressure, and while they kept Detroit off of the board in the 3rd, they couldn't completely shut down the puck-possession and consequently burned a ton of clock. Theo made a nice save on a breakaway in the waning moments as he was headed for the bench for the extra attacker, but other than that, he was average at best for the night. He made the routine saves, and didn't have any terrible goals (though I still think he was a little sloppy on the second one).
Scott Hannan seemed off of his game all night (or on it, if you consider horrible giveaways in his own end part of his "game"), he was tentative (at best) with his breakout passes, and then to top it all off, went awkwardly into the boards late in the 3rd. Afterward, he was laboring and didn't put any weight on one of his legs. So we may have a Cumiskey or Finger sighting for Game 4. Salei had a few mis-timed hits, Foote was out of position on the first goal, and while he didn't suck, Leopold didn't bring anything to the table either. Male-model Liles had a strong night, with effective breakouts, and he seemed to be the only blueliner for the Avs that didn't panic with Detroit's 2+ player forecheck.
Overall, the Avs failed to take the body on Detroit's forwards as they entered the zone until the 3rd period, which resulted in plenty of opportunities for a healthy Detroit team to take advantage of a depleted Avalanche squad. When they did try to get the physical play up, it usually resulted in borderline hits that weren't called (luckily) or power play opportunities for the Red Wings. Quenneville also seemed to have the caution flag out for long stretches of the 1st and 2nd periods as the Avs looked content not to lose badly at times rather than putting the Red Wings on their collective heals. Osgood had a pretty easy night, with the only real pressure coming in the 3rd, and even then he wasn't seeing sequences of shots, but one-offs, dump-ins, or bad angle shots.
The only bright spots to come out of this game were the aforementioned T.J. Hensiiick and Davey "No Locker Jokes Please" Jones. They were flying all over the ice, and were the only combo that was dangerous EVERY shift. Hensick proved his loyalty with the assist on the first goal. Jones had a golden opportunity in the 3rd, but was taken down by an uncalled trip, only to generate the same chance with his next possession, but this time Osgood was there, so still no dice. Another plus was Son of Stastny going 7-for-7 in the dot before his injury. Of course, that's offset by the soon-to-be-misdiagnosed injury, so I'll go kick a puppy cat now.
Stars of the Game:
- Pavel Datsyuk (2g, 1a)
- Andrew Brunette (2g, 0a)
- Henrik Zetterberg (1g, 1a)
Kittens Killed: 


0 recs |
72 comments
Comments
Forsberg
!
It's not like there was a good reason to miss that call. Penalty shot plz.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Apr 30, 2008 6:48 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Forsberg
Apparently tripping was legal in that game. Both teams got away with it.
I think the refs should probably find new employment next season.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 6:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The high stick
I have to say, Mike, that after watching the replay of the Forsberg high stick, I'm not so sure Samuelsson was faking or embellishing his reaction. The stick did hit him in the mouth pretty hard. I think the refs made the right call to give Forsberg four minutes, but that's one of the few calls they got right all night long.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 9:00 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: The high stick
But while we disagree, I won't threaten to hit you with a hockey stick, like some of our esteemed friends in the Red Wings camp would.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 9:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
twisting
yep, twist my words around and say I threatened him. nice job. I was making a point - getting teeth knocked out by a stick is going to hurt like hell, and your head is going to snap back. You're probably also going to end up on your hands and knees.
by PaulinMiamiBeach on Apr 30, 2008 10:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
High Stick
If the stick did knock out a tooth, then yeah, it probably wasn't an overreaction. That's the first I heard about a tooth. In my rage last night, I didn't catch any word about a tooth knocked out on the always reliable VS broadcast, so my bad. If someone can find something about that, I'll edit the post with a full retraction.
Like I said in the post, Forsberg DEFINATELY deserved the 4 minutes as it was a textbook high-stick + blood. I've never countered that. My beef was Samuelsson's reaction because all I read or hear from EVERY FUCKING WINGS FAN ON THE PLANET is how my favorite team is loaded with divers, but nothing short of Kryptonite or a surface-to-air missile will dislodge a Red Wings from his feet because they are all real men and whatnot. So when something like that happens, excuse me if I err on the side of believing that, like most of thier fans, they're full of shit.
As for PaulinMiamiBeach, apparently I missed any comments about me, my face, and a hockey stick. Sorry, it sounds like fun. Probably as much fun as the multiple pucks I get hit with 2-to-3 days a week on a purely voluntary basis.
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 30, 2008 7:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tooth Proof
"Forsberg was assessed a four-minute penalty for high-sticking Samuelsson, who lost a tooth, and Datsyuk assisted Henrik Zetterberg for the score on the power play to make it 4-2."
It's a little over halfway through the game recap here.
by ColBerdan on Apr 30, 2008 11:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
I've edited the post to reflect the info.
Thanks for the link.
by Mike @ MHH on May 1, 2008 6:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Thanks
Those bloggers just aren't accountable!
by Joe Dunman on May 1, 2008 7:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Foppa Penalty
A quick note about the Forsberg penalty. He got the stick up and he drew blood. Therefore, he gets four minutes. However, Samuelsson dropped to his knees, snapped his head back like Lee Harvey had just hit paydirt, and reached for his face immediately. It was a routine worthy of Forsberg's 'Floppa' nickname.
Ahhh, didn't Samuelsson lose a tooth? That would pretty much make anyone snap their head back and reach for their face. Am I hallucinating? I could have sworn I heard there was a tooth on the ice, etc.
by Rookie14 on Apr 30, 2008 9:29 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he did lose a tooth
Yes, Sammy did lose a tooth. I couldn't see it from where I was at the game but I did hear that from my friends watching on tv. The officiating in that game was ludicrous, lots of missed calls going both ways.
by hockeychic on Apr 30, 2008 9:33 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good for him!
Now all he has to do is gain 80lbs, buy a double-wide and complain about the economy and he'll be just like his team's fans.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
deleting comments
It seems some of my comments, and likely others, have been deleted from this blog post. Nice job, homers.
by PaulinMiamiBeach on Apr 30, 2008 10:40 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
wahhh
call me when your team actually experience some injuries.
by thedoctor on Apr 30, 2008 10:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
injuries
Maltby, Kopecky out. Holmstrom not 100%. Datsyuk not 100%. Zetterberg not 100%. Stuart just came back from a broken finger and wasn't 100%. etc etc etc
by PaulinMiamiBeach on Apr 30, 2008 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
come ON
That is absolutely nothing compared to what we're going through. We had NO Forsberg (top player) for the first two games. One of our top scorers, Svatos, is out for the year, Wolski is out for the series, Smyth has missed at least one game, Stastny is hurt, Hannan missed a game.... You can't seriously think that your "injures" (not 100%, boo hoo) are anything near as devestating as ours. If you do, you don't know hockey.
by Rather Dashing on Apr 30, 2008 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: come ON
Yeah, that Datsyuk, with his two goals and one assist, is clearly not 100%. If he was 100%, he would have scored five goals!
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
I can really tell datsyuk and zetterberg are hurt man! really inhibits them out there.
also, what a loss, maltby and kopecky. you guys must really miss the power of the ~5 goals and ~11 min of ice time they averaged this season as bottom 6 guys. rolls eyes
go home, troll.
by thedoctor on Apr 30, 2008 11:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weakest comeback ever
Seriously.
Not 100% but still contributing is not the same as what's happening with Smyth, Stastny, Wolski, Svatos, Hannan, and Theo (if you count the flu stuff).
I can't believe that you think those two lists are comparable. You're just feeding the preconception that all RW fans are irreconsilable, bandwagon-jumping homers with borderline hockey knowledge.
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 30, 2008 7:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: deleting comments
Dude, it's an Avalanche blog.
And what part of "I make the rules" don't you understand?
You're lucky you haven't been banned yet, since your entire purpose is just to harass and aggravate us.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, frankly
Based on his body of work, and some of the other clowns over at A2Y, I really don't think they are capable of doing much more than that. If anything, this series has not only rekindled my hatred for the winged wheel, but has also made me realize what an obnoxious, ill-informed, holier than thou attitude, fan base they have. F them. F them one and all.
Who knows how this series would have gone had the Avs been healthy? We never will. I can't say they would have won it. But I also can almost guarantee that it would have been more competitive.
by Bob in Boulder on Apr 30, 2008 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
so
banning fans of other teams is idiotic. I'm not here just trolling, I actually post thought out responses to others posts. I'm not just here spewing AVS SUCK BALLZ or whatever nonsense trolls spew.
by PaulinMiamiBeach on Apr 30, 2008 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
you've got the juvie forum over at A2Y for that. Someone over there keeps very cleverly calling me "Boob" and saying things about giving my mother sponge baths? Great forum. Great fans. No, really.
by Bob in Boulder on Apr 30, 2008 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: so
fans of other teams is idiotic
I agree with you on that one, but not your grammar. Hoo boy. Boosh!
But you're right. We're idiots.
Funny though, you still read every word we write, and dutifully visit each and every day. Thanks for the boost in traffic.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
my visits
will stop after Thursday night.
silly me for visiting an opposing team's fan's blog during a playoff series with that team. what was I thinking?
by PaulinMiamiBeach on Apr 30, 2008 12:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: my visits
It's not that you visit, because I encourage that. It's because you then whine and gripe about how it operates and the responses that you get. Don't act stupid.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 12:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell that...
Tell that to the leader of the "army" you belong to.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
detroit is better than this team
there, i said it. they're faster at every position top to bottom, better passers, better coached (just watch how they exit their own zone vs. how we do, it's shocking), and more talented offensively.
now, if this team was healthy, you could debate the talented part, and possibly the passing bit. But they'd still be way, way faster and way, way better coached.
the other thing that would be interesting to see is what the actual disparity between the defenses is. Sure, Detroit looks better on D, but they're facing almost no pressure and no talent.
at least I don't feel like we let one slip away, I guess. not much that could be done with all the injuries.
by thedoctor on Apr 30, 2008 10:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
also
and this shocks me, but joey has officially lost a step. or 10. he's been invisible most of the playoffs, not making any superstar plays. i wonder if he'll retire, and if he comes back, what figure he'll go for.
6.75 is massive overpayment at this point though.
by thedoctor on Apr 30, 2008 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: also
I would hope that he wouldn't leave the league with a sweep by the Red Wings as his last hurrah.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt he will either
but he better not demand 6 million again.
by thedoctor on Apr 30, 2008 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: i doubt he will
Considering he demanded 6.75 million after scoring 100 points last season, I have a feeling he won't do that again. He seems like a guy who has the best interests of the franchise in his heart, and he'd settle for less than 5 million. At least, I hope he will, if he plays next year.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lost a step?
I know he's lost a step, he's not as explosive and he's lost an edge defensively. But despite that he was one of the Avs best players in the playoffs so far this season. He was putting up point as well as anyone on the Avs roster with excellent plays.
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 11:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Lost a step?
I think, if anything, he'll demand less money because he missed so much time this season and because he's clearly not as fast and skilled as he was last season. I think 2006-07 was the final really stellar season in his career. Now, I also believe that he's got at least two more years left in him, and can still put up good numbers (60-70 points).
I think something in the neighborhood of $5 million would be adequate for a somewhat injury-prone hall of famer in the late stages of his career.
See also: Forsberg, Peter
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
See 1997
Joe had the best interests of the franchise in his heart when he signed that huge, front-loaded offer sheet from the Rangers. You know, the one that caused us to have to deal Mike Ricci?
Maybe that was a turning point though. Maybe Joe was testing the Avs' loyalty to him, and once they showed they were willing to start tearing apart the franchise to keep him there, he decided he would remain loyal to them from then on.
I certainly hope you're right. If he's going to return, I'd hope he'd take less than $5m. Preferably a LOT less than $5m.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: See 1997
Yeah, if by "tearing apart the franchise" you mean "building one of the most dominant teams in the history of the NHL."
That offer sheet was in 1997. The only thing that tore apart the franchise was the salary cap nearly 10 years later. In fact, that was back when Ascent (under COMSAT) still owned the Avs, so it's not even really the exact same franchise if you consider ownership to be the determining factor.
And the Avs lineup continued to improve from 1997 on, unless of course you really think losing Mike Ricci was a major detriment in the long run.
I'd hardly call the lineup that won the Cup in 2001 a sign that the franchise had been torn apart, or that the franchise was willing to suffer for just one player. They didn't have to tear anything apart because there was no limit to their salary budget.
Today, of course, it's a different story.
Of course, I don't know why I'm arguing with you, because I know who I'm arguing with.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 1:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You completely missed the point.
The Avs weren't able to keep their team intact, and they weren't able to improve their roster for a couple years because of Sakic's front-loaded deal. They lost Ricci, who was a key cog in their 1996 Cup because Sakic was more interested in the money than "the best interests of the team".
You mention 2001, and I thank you for that. Why were the Avs able to go after Blake and Bourque? Because Sakic's front-loaded deal left him with a relatively low salary in the latter years of the deal. Yes, you could say that it worked out in the end, but had he been a little more concerned with the interests of the team instead of his own pocketbook, the whole thing could have worked out in the beginning and middle as well as the end.
Sakic's front-loaded deal was bad in the short term (97-98), but worked out the next year. The Avs needed an infusion of talent, and because Sakic's deal forced them to gut the third line whose production had been so important in their 1996 Cup run, they gave shots to two rookies who otherwise wouldn't have gotten a shot. Hejduk and Drury.
That said, just because the Avs were able to adjust doesn't mean that Sakic didn't put the team in a rough spot.
In the end, if you're looking for evidence that Sakic has put the team first, you're not going to find any. I realize you're a big fan and thus have an idealized vision of him, but you're ignoring what he's actually done.
He was a great player. He's now a pretty good player. Not worth $6.75m. Not even worth $5m. I hope he has the class to retire instead of Yzermaning around for a few years, but that's beyond my control.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you bothering
to hide behind a new username?
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 30, 2008 7:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other one
Other one was nerfed. Duh.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 10:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Other one
You got "nerfed" the first time for a reason. A new username doesn't clean the slate. You've been a much more pleasant Thomas so far, but remember that I have no integrity and will merrily ban you again.
I never get tired of banning people.
by Joe Dunman on May 1, 2008 6:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nerfed
I agree with Joe. Did you believe that a new username was fooling anybody? If you're so casual about it now, why were you playing the "I don't know what you're talking about" card in earlier posts/comments?
by Mike @ MHH on May 1, 2008 6:49 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um
I wasn't "hiding" behind anything, and I don't know where that's coming from. Simmer down.
I said early on that I didn't know what that person was talking about because if I had said "YEAH M'ER F'ER, I'M THOMAS!! SUCK IT!!!" I would have been re-banned immediately. Joe saying that I have been a "more pleasant Thomas" is exactly why I said I didn't know what that person was talking about. It bought me enough time that Joe cut me a little slack.
I haven't hidden who I am. Everyone knows. It was obvious. Nobody's hiding. Relax.
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 2:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Um
Just be aware that the slack is quite precariously slacked, and can be un-slacked at any moment. Tread lightly, sir.
by Joe Dunman on May 1, 2008 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have been.
I have been. I have no intention of personally attacking anyone here. You made it clear last time that the rules are applied differently to me than anyone else. That's fine. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.
If I see an irrational or illogical argument, I'm probably going to point out the holes in the logic, but I'm not interested in attacking people (never was).
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 2:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I have been
You made it clear last time that the rules are applied differently to me than anyone else.
I know. Always playing the victim.
I should have banned you again the second I realized it was you posting under a different name (despite signing up with a different email and IP address), which took about two comments from you, but I didn't because you seemed to be playing it cool.
If a comment you post so much as makes my eye twitch, I'll ban you again. And I'll ban every single username you create from now on the second it's clear who you are. You can believe I unfairly apply rules all you want---but you don't have to read this blog, and nobody is making you participate.
by Joe Dunman on May 1, 2008 3:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You missed my point
I wasn't complaining, Joe. I was being honest. The rules apply differently to me than anyone else. I knew that coming in (the second time), and I have been acting in accordance.
You said it yourself just today, that you're cutting me very little slack, and I fully understand that. If someone else crosses a line, you'll warn them. If I cross one, you'll ban me. It's just as if I were a Wings troll. Post, that's fine. But if they cross a line, you're going to ban them.
I'm not criticizing you for anything. I'm a guest here. I'm not here to attack anyone. If I want to attack someone, I'll do it on my blog.
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 3:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
2nd question
why is that you only come around when the Avs are struggling? You got slapped on the wrist before because the Theo bandwagon hadn't gotten rolling yet, other than yourself in the driver's seat, and you took exception to that.
Now, after an exciting trade deadline day, good end to the regular season, and a stellar first round series where you didn't pop up AT ALL, you're back to wallow and blend feces while the Avs are in the midst of getting possibly swept by their most hated rival. Like 99.9% of the things you've done, I have a theory as to why, but I'd just like to hear your 'reasons' why.
by Mike @ MHH on May 1, 2008 6:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
You concocted a "theory" about me? While it's creepy that you would spend enough time concerned about me to concoct a theory, my narcissistic side is curious as to what that theory is.
Regardless, I was banned the day after the Forsberg signing, so it would have been hard to continue posting, you know? I was banned because while everyone else was dancing in the streets and shouting for joy, I was looking at it pragmatically and realized that it wasn't a good move. Why? Well, we're seeing it now. You can't count on him to be there when you need him, and in this case, it's really hurt the team.
Someone (can't remember who) decided to personally attack me for having the nerve to see the Forsberg move as a mistake and for whatever other reason it was that he had been insulting me for weeks (Joe probably remembers who it was - I can't recall, but I know he had his posts deleted numerous times for personal attacks). Anyway, he used some foul language and attacked me, and I told him that I had the right to express my opinion just like anyone else. A few minutes later, I got a terse e-mail saying I was banned.
It was an emotional time. I'm not stupid, I know that my words were seen as me trying to rain on everyone's parade. The simple fact is that I was just looking at it from an emotionless standpoint because I am a fan of the TEAM and not any particular player. I saw the Forsberg move as a bad one. I saw it as management trying to sell tickets and appease fans. I saw it as detrimental to the team in the long run, and we're seeing now that that was indeed the case.
Had I not been banned before the trade deadline, you would have seen me crapping my pants with joy that the Avs had acquired Ruslan Salei. While I never thought Skrastins was anywhere near as bad as the rest of you, to get Salei for nothing like that was a coup. I still don't think Avs fans appreciate what he can do. He's essentially a poor man's Rob Blake (in-his-prime Blake, not today's Blake). You would have seen me question the acquisition of Foote because his play had declined significantly since the lockout (and he answered my concerns by playing very very well down the stretch).
If I'm still here this summer, you're going to see better and more in-depth draft analysis than you're going to see anywhere else. Assuming FG continues what has been done since the lockout, the Avs are going to have another excellent draft, because they are the one team who really gets it when it comes to the nuances of the post-lockout CBA's effect on the draft.
I am curious as to what your theory is. I'm sure it's way off-base, and it's probably something I've already heard before.
I'm not a Wings fan, if that's what you're thinking. I am indifferent towards the team itself, but words cannot express how much I despise the fan base. Living in Detroit doesn't mean you're a Wings fan, it means you've gotta REALLY love the team to be an Avs fan here.
You want the answer you're apparently looking for? I live in Detroit as an Avs fan. I grew up with the same idiots you see at A2Y and the fools that troll this blog. I'm sorry, but if you live in Denver or wherever, you haven't had the experience of having everyone hate you for your choice in team's. Again, I'm sorry, but when you have people expressing their hatred for your point of view so vocally (and classlessly) for so long, your skin gets very thick and having people disagree with you is not only not a big deal, but rather expected.
I don't have much use for sentimantalism. I don't give two squats about anyone on the team. I'm a fan of the team, not the players. So if you see me get harsh with a player or coach, it's not because I'm not an Avs fan, it's because I am an Avs fan who doesn't like it when his team's players aren't doing everything in their power to achieve the team's goals.
There's your psychoanalysis. Now, can we stop talking about me and get back to the topic at hand?
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
See Roy, Patrick
He left the league after a Game 7 embarrassment at the hands of an expansion team. I honestly never believed that his retirement was for real until about ten games into the 05-06 season.
I don't see any reason why Sakic would wait to retire if he felt that he's done. If the most competitive player ever to hit the NHL would retire after choking away a series in Game 7 of the first round, freaking Joe Sakic would be fine with retiring after this shellacking.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Elephant in the room
Theo wasn't very good, again, last night. That's 3 games in a row. He "only" gave up one soft goal (the second one to Franzen) but when Filpula hit the posts he should have stopped that one before it happened. He got beat shortside on a bad angle shot and got lucky. He was also out of position once or twice.
I know he was sick in the first two games, but is it time to downgrade him to "Limp Cane"? At least for this series?
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 11:35 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Elephant in the room
Yeah, I don't want to delve to deeply into his sex life, but I think the Pimp Cane has officially gone soft. IfyouknowwhatImean.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Pimp Cane to Limp Cane
Ouch. What a fall from grace. I love Boods. I think he has the potential to be a good goaltender. But at this point, do you take a chance and let him play game 4 or do you let Theo "Limp Cane" take the rap for the entire series?
by texacogirl on Apr 30, 2008 12:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't start Budaj.
If you start Budaj in Game 4, you're basically admitting that the series is over. Starting Budaj would tell the team you have no confidence in them.
At this point though, it doesn't really make a difference. I wouldn't mind seeing how the team would react to that.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Unless Theo's still sick, you can't start Buds in game 4. It does no good. Unless you have absolutely no plans to bring Theo back next season.
I guess you could say that starting Budaj is just trying to give a spark to your team, but down 3-0 to a team as good as Detroit with no Stastny, Smytty, Wolski, possibly Hannan. It's just not going to happen.
If you were going to start Buds in a game it was game 3. Now making that move does look like giving up.
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 1:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
RMN - Stastny, Smyth out for Thursday
CENTENNIAL — The cast of injured Avalanche players were being "checked out" by doctors today, coach Joel Quenneville said after practice.
But it appears center Paul Stastny and forward Ryan Smyth will not play Thursday in Game 4 of the Avs' Western Conference semifinal series with the Detroit Red Wings. Colorado trails 3-0 in the best-of-seven series.
Stastny, who has an injured knee, "is unlikely to play tomorrow," said Quenneville, who listed Smith (foot) as being doubtful.
Quenneville simply said that forward Peter Forsberg, who missed the first two games because of a groin injury, will be checked out.
by texacogirl on Apr 30, 2008 1:19 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Let's see here. I'm trying to figure out the different health status levels of Avalanche players:
In
Likely
Probable
Possible
Unknown
Doubtful
Unlikely
Out
I think that covers it. Am I missing any?
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 1:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Questionable
Forsberg was questionable for the last couple games.
by texacogirl on Apr 30, 2008 1:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh right.
Duh.
So it's more like:
In
Likely
Probable
Possible
Unknown
Questionable
Doubtful
Unlikely
Out
That's quite a spectrum.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 1:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
until the lineup sheet comes out they all mean pretty much the same thing! I love playoff hockey.
I understand not wanting to disclose specifics about where the player is injured but my goodness, is a little honesty too much to ask for?
Do they really think the Wings will go "Oh, Stastny is doubtful, not probable. We better adjust our game boys."
by Shane on Apr 30, 2008 2:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Oh right
You seemed to have forgotten:
Just a Scratch
Flesh Wound
Arm Falling off
Maybe kind of sort of
In, but
Out, unless
Will be there in spirit
Mortal Wounding
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 2:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Oh right
And I think the motto of the Red Wings, who seem to think only their team members are actually ever hurt or unable to play, should be "I've had worse."
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 2:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot...
You forgot "Dressed, but not really doing anything"
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 2:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: You forgot...
For this team, in this series, that's "In."
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 3:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Hensick and Jones notwithstanding, of course.
Since Snasty is gone, how about a little Chris Stewart for Game 4? I mean, why not?
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 4:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Good point
I'm totally with you on that one. Run Stewart-Hensick-Jones as the second line and see what happens.
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 4:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Run them...
...on the first line. I mean, what difference does it make at this point?
They have the talent to do big things in the NHL. They have the energy and the desire. I'd rather have Jones-Hensick-Stewart giving 110% for a game than Forsberg-Sakic-Hejduk giving 60% like we've seen.
See, that's the thing this team needs. It's the thing this team has always needed. They need a coach who is willing to stomp egos when those players aren't putting in the necessary effort.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 5:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting.
In the second to last paragraph, the writer refers to "Smith" as being doubtful. Maybe Smyth is fine but Wyatt Smith is now injured?
Please?
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 2:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Canadiens Yank Price
Didn't Price have a couple of bad games like Theo? He has been yanked for game 4. I haven't been following the series closely or anything but does this mean the Habs have given up or they want a chance to win? It will be interesting to see how this game plays out.
by texacogirl on Apr 30, 2008 5:10 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
Honestly, I think it's more a matter of exhaustion than anything else. Price has looked worn out. Halak is fresh, and while you never hear much about him, he's very talented in his own right.
Different situations though. Montreal is the better team (both in talent and performance) in that series, and they are only down 2-1.
If the Avs had been down 2-1 and Theodore had been bad and not just sick, then we'd have been in a completely different situation. There might have been a more logically valid argument for starting Budaj.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 5:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The montreal situation
can only play out badly for the team, IMO.
If Halek wins, you've got a full-blown goalie controversy going into next season. Don't forget, the Habs hitched thier wagon to these TWO kids for the long term and now they are essentially pitting them against each other.
On the other hand, if Halek looses, you KNOW that the Montreal press will claim management was coddling Price and wouldn't let him take his lumps like a man.
FWIW, I agree. I think the wear and tear of his first NHL season finally caught up to Price. His glove positioning has been lazy and that has cost him goals. He has reverted to what a bunch of goalies who know much more than me call his "AHL" style. As in, you can get away with that stuff in the AHL, but he's gotten victimized in the show.
by Mike @ MHH on Apr 30, 2008 7:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



























