Kukla's Korner

Abel to Yzerman

Is 101 Too Many?

That’s the question Wing fans are asking themselves today.

Did the 101 games Ruslan Salei played in Denver taint him to the point that he’s a bad signing for Detroit?  I have no doubt Tick Tock is confident the back problems won’t be an issue.  Now he needs to reassure us all that three years in that steaming pile of a wannabe hockey city didn’t mar this once-talented redolent Russian beyond repair.

 

Aside from that disturbing consideration, there are a few other elements of interest here.

Salei (6-foot-1, 212) brings a rugged, physical element to the defense. He was suspended for 10 games in October 1999 for checking Mike Modano, then with Dallas, from behind into the boards face-first. Modano sustained a concussion, strained ligaments in his neck and a broken nose.

What?  He attacked a frigging model. What kind of pansy-ass motherfu…

Salei previously played for Red Wings coach Mike Babcock in Anaheim for two seasons, 2002-03, ‘03-04.

Ahhh. Got it.  I’m all in.  I’m trusting me some Tick Tock and I’m trusting me some Uncle Mike.

Is it June yet?

 

Filed in: | Abel to Yzerman | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous       ‹ First  < 7 8 9     

pjwalny's avatar

2005 2.09GAA/.925
2006 2.05GAA/.913
2007 2.14GAA/.902
seems pretty effective to me.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 08/14/10 at 08:53 PM ET

Yeah but…. He still did snow angels and lots of them!!

I think we overall got screwed by officiating in the Sharks series.

We really and truly did get f*cked in the Sharks series. One game in particular we had a considerably lengthy 5 on 3 penalty kill and both penalties called on us were utterly ludicrous (and I dont mean the rapper).
We also had a lengthy 4 on 3 penalty kill, which I consider to be much more difficult to kill than a 5 on 3 penalty kill.  4 on 3 penalty kills leave a lot of open ice and the other teams don’t over pass and are much more aggressive as opposed to a two man advantage. 
However, it was still up to us to overcome and/or answer. Some calls just have bigger impacts than others, it’s still the same philosophy in which teams need to overcome. 

(especially when it comes to missed dives, which I think the league should look at closely in the playoffs for the sake of suspension; the same way I think Fifa should give out post-game yellow cards to the egregious divers)
Posted by J.J. from Kansas


Dives are tricky because someone has to really do a bad job of faking it to get called out. Unless a player has a reputation and the refs are watching him. It’s generally pretty hard to decipher a dive and not.Unlike basketball, Hockey players are in constantly ambulatory and always have momentum. It’s easier to tell in basketball because often one player is still or flat footed.  If you recall Helm actually got called on a dive last postseason. FIFA is tremendously behind the times when is comes to rules and technology. There is a laundry list of changes FIFA needs to make including goal line calls.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 01:55 AM ET

stonehands-78's avatar

Posted by RWBill from Mike Modano’s dentist. on 08/14/10 at 10:56 PM ET

Amen.

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 08/15/10 at 02:20 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

RWBill, it worked.
I was “flummoxed”.

(Is it October yet?)

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 08/13/10 at 07:48 PM ET

Sorry I was being Red Olent.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 02:33 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

Bold prediction: the first fist fight of the year will be over Filppula. (and I don’t mean over who gets to comb his hair and read him bedtime stories about ponies)

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/13/10 at 07:14 PM ET

No Hissie Fits!  I’ve got dibs on Fil’s hair!

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 02:36 AM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

If you ever get a chance to watch Wings playoff games from 2006 - 2008 focus on Hasek.

I’ve watched them.  I’ve seen the Wings for a long time, and I know when a goalie is to blame for a series loss.  You can disagree if you want, but if you stick around here long enough, you’ll see what we mean about officiating.  It’s not just the penalties that go called or uncalled, it’s the waived-off goals, the refusal of the War Room to overturn the wrong decision by an official, the lack of a consistent disciplinary policy, etc.  There’s a perfect example earlier in this thread—an official watched Keith Yandle trip Zetterberg AFTER the play was over, and did nothing, despite the fact that it was right in front of his eyes.  The action happens fast.  Just because it’s ‘difficult’ to officiate does not mean that bad officiating by professional officials and a League management that does little to improve it, not to mention sometimes being downright detrimental to any sort of fair officiating, should be excused.  If an official can’t keep up with it adequately, he shouldn’t be out there.  Do the job right or don’t do it at all.

As for the Anaheim series in 2007, I could almost overlook the fact that the Schmucks got away with so much thuggish behavior because the referees were too lazy to call it if it hadn’t been for Game 5 and that idiotic interference penalty on Datsyuk just to make the game more ‘exciting.’  Watch that game again and tell me where exactly he’s guilty of interference.  And calling another phantom penalty on the Wings in OT.  This after we’d led and dominated the whole game, the only reason it wasn’t a blowout was because Giguere stood on his head.  And goaltending was our problem?  I don’t see how goaltending is a problem in a 2-1 game that’s over 70 minutes long.  But I know what I saw, and I saw terrible officiating.  And it hasn’t changed at all.

Concerning Osgood, If he comes back ready to play I really think he should get the start. Even if ozzy is at 75% I would take him over Howards 100%.

Frankly, I don’t know how you justify this aside from sentimentality.  You might want to look up a stat called ‘save percentage.’

Osgood will get his 400 wins with the Wings, but even if he manages to post better stats than last season, if Howard picks up where he left off, it’s a no-brainer that he should be the starter.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 06:03 AM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

However, it was still up to us to overcome and/or answer. Some calls just have bigger impacts than others, it’s still the same philosophy in which teams need to overcome.

In today’s NHL, with enforced parity, there are no teams that truly dominate all the rest to the extent that they can consistently overcome officiating that goes against them.  This isn’t the dead-puck era, and we don’t have the circumstances that allowed us to sign the kind of depth that is required to overcome bad officiating.  And nor should we.  Regardless of how a team lets bad calls affect them or not, there should be no excuses or allowances made for the officials failing to do their job adequately.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 06:29 AM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

If you ever get a chance to watch Wings playoff games from 2006 - 2008 focus on Hasek.

One last thing—kinda tough to watch Hasek in a Wings playoff game from 2006.  If you manage to find one in which he appeared, let me know.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 08:19 AM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

On that note, Paul…

2005 2.09GAA/.925

???

Seriously though, I see where you got the stats, and as good as those regular season stats for us were:

2001-02 .915 SV% 2.17 GAA
2003-04 .907 SV% 2.20 GAA
2006-07 .913 SV% 2.05 GAA
2007-08 .902 SV% 2.14 GAA

his playoff stats for us are even better:

2001-02 .920 SV% 1.86 GAA
2006-07 .923 SV% 1.79 GAA

Up until that last Cup when Ozzie rode to the rescue, of course…

2007-08 .888 SV% 2.91 GAA

But if you want to blame the goalie for us not winning the Cup in 2007, whatever.  All I know is that any goalie who can put up those kinds of stats in the playoffs can do as many snow angels as he frickin’ well wants and still be fine by me.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 08:31 AM ET

Osrt's avatar

What a special year his official rookie year turned out to be.

Posted by Sullyosis

Yes.

Just a quick word on officiating and the speed of the game. NHL referees are good skaters and can handle the fast pace of things happening around them. They are paid and trained to handle the pace. If you’ve played at a high level, in any sport, you know that things are quite clear out there (if you’re calm) no matter how hectic things look. Concentration slows things down. Think of a car accident and how vivid and slow things become.

Human error is a part of the game and I’m fine with that. But you have to call a mistake what it is.

Posted by Osrt on 08/15/10 at 09:00 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

I probably would have edited it down to where only 1/3 of the readers knew what I was trying to say.
Posted by HockeyTownTodd from A. K. A. NostraGrampus on 08/13/10 at 05:36 PM ET

Brevity is the essence of wit. 

Over two years my comments have sprouted from one-line, smart-ass remarks to five paragraphs that just get stupider and stupider.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 12:21 PM ET

RWBill's avatar

37 Wins, 2.26/.924, Endless moments of badassness, playing against a team that outshoots/outchances most nights
Posted by Sullyosis from A hateful lair in Post Apocalyptic US (or Arizona) on 08/14/10 at 09:24 AM ET

This was a key characteristic of last season that people may forget over time.  The Wings were frequently outchanced and outshot, a reversal of the last ten seasons, or most of the last twenty seasons, of 82 games each.

Jimmy was probably the steadiest of factors that kept us even with the Peloton of Suck for playoff competition until we got healthy after the Olympics.  The way Osgood was playing we may not have been close enough to overcome the gap he would have helped put us in.

However, Jimmy wasn’t as good in the playoffs and let in some goals that he shouldn’t have.

There was also Franzen selfishly throwing his face into the blades of other players putting us into repeated PKs.

Reffing and injuries.  We climbed out of the injury pit but couldn’t overcome the reffing.  Plus, face it, San Jose was a bit deeper, like 2 men deeper on those 5 x 3s.

(See? This should have been a one sentence response.  It kept babbling up to 5 paragraphs)

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 12:30 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by RWBill from Mike Modano’s dentist. on 08/15/10 at 10:30 AM ET

Don’t be so hard on yourself, Bill.  For number A, you’re right.  For letter 2, if you’re hard on yourself, what’s the leave for the rest of us?  Won’t somebody think of the children?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 12:38 PM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

Won’t somebody think of the children?

I guarantee you Bill does…

Seriously though Bill, don’t be so hard on yourself.  Not all of us can be koan-spouting Sun Tzus of the hockey world like Gramps, and I for one enjoy your commentary, whether it’s ten paragraphs or ten words long.

However, Jimmy wasn’t as good in the playoffs and let in some goals that he shouldn’t have.

Agreed, but it was good for him to experience what the NHL playoffs are all about, the different play, the elevated standards expected of everyone, the pressure-cooker atmosphere, and to experience both winning and losing in the playoffs.  I expect he’ll take those lessons and be better next playoffs.  You’ve got to learn how to lose before you learn how to win.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 01:17 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

Agreed, but it was good for him to experience what the NHL playoffs are all about, the different play, the elevated standards expected of everyone, the pressure-cooker atmosphere, and to experience both winning and losing in the playoffs.  I expect he’ll take those lessons and be better next playoffs.  You’ve got to learn how to lose before you learn how to win.

*Cough 1996 Chris Osgood *Cough

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 08/15/10 at 01:46 PM ET

RWBill's avatar

You’ve got to learn how to lose before you learn how to win.
*Cough 1996 Chris Osgood *Cough
Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 08/15/10 at 11:46 AM ET

That seems to be true in the NBA especially, or was when I watched it 2 decades ago.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 02:08 PM ET

RWBill's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 10:38 AM ET

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 11:17 AM ET

Truly, if we can’t come here and let it all out we probably have no place else.

All is forgiven b/c we’re all in it for #12.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 08/15/10 at 02:11 PM ET

stonehands-78's avatar

... Just because it’s ‘difficult’ to officiate does not mean that bad officiating by professional officials and a League management that does little to improve it, not to mention sometimes being downright detrimental to any sort of fair officiating, should be excused.  If an official can’t keep up with it adequately, he shouldn’t be out there.  Do the job right or don’t do it at all.
...

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 04:03 AM ET

Ah, and therein lies the problem, I fear. Most zebras seem to choose the latter.

Case in point?

(Is it October yet?)

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 08/15/10 at 02:38 PM ET

HockeyTownTodd's avatar

However, Jimmy wasn’t as good in the playoffs and let in some goals that he shouldn’t have.

That can be said about any goaltender in the playoffs every year, including the one that walks away with a ring.
Most 7 game series are lost by the offense that fails to come up with that one crucial goal.

and

Sorry fellas, poor officiating does not even out in the end and should not be excused.
Conspiracy theories are all about timing when it comes down to poor officiating.
The missed, phantom, or blatantly wrong calls in the last 5 minutes or in OT can be devastating, and what ‘goes around comes around’, never comes around to even those errors out.

I am still waiting for the ‘comes around’ from all those Pittsburgh OT PP’s in the playoffs that kept the Penguins in and carried them to the finals in ‘08, and ‘09.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd on 08/15/10 at 03:04 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

an official watched Keith Yandle trip Zetterberg AFTER the play was over, and did nothing, despite the fact that it was right in front of his eyes.

Yeah, I saw that. Your talking about game 7 of the phoenix series right? That was such a piece of shit move. Hank was skating by the net yandle completely and intentionally tripped him.

IT was clear as day too, its not that is was done accidentally.

You might want to look up a stat called ‘save percentage.’

Save percentages can sometimes be misleading. We after 2002 we never won the cup with Hasek. It wasnt untill ‘08 when osgood took over and we prospered. So maybe Hasek was good those few years with good stats but he didnt get the job done.

I know you can use stats for your side of the argument. Im going to use stanley cups to argue my side of the story. In all the years after 2002 we did not win a championship under Hasek. The one year Ozzy took over, well we won the cup. Hasek was good but not good enough.

The only way to find out if Hasek was holding the team back would be if we went back in time and played Hasek through the ‘08 playoffs. There got to be something said that the one year Ozzy is in net is the one year we won it all.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 03:27 PM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

In all the years after 2002 we did not win a championship under Hasek.

Jesus, you sound just like Beezer.  And if you’re measuring in Cups, how many has he got?

Must have been all the goalie’s fault then, right?  What I really take exception to is you laying the blame for the 2007 loss at Dom’s doorstep (2008 it’s pretty obvious that he was not at his best and would not have gotten the job done).  But in case you forget, in 2007 we had two of our top four defensemen out for the summer by the time the Anaheim series rolled around, a second-line center that thought backchecking was a tool of Satan, a top-six winger who pretty much disappeared in the playoffs, the guy on the opposite wing had a bad back, a top line that had yet to hit its prime, and a now-power forward who was tasked with making opposition offense disappear, hence lacking much of a scoring game.  And yet we almost made it but couldn’t overcome some VERY questionable reffing (another obstacle we had to fight through).  Hasek was not the weak link on that team, otherwise we wouldn’t have been so desperate to re-sign him over the summer in 2007 and acceded to Ritch Winter’s every demand (see Legace, Manny).

Or, to put it in Gramps-Speak:

“It’s a team game.”

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 03:55 PM ET

AndrewFromAnnArbor's avatar

Most zebras seem to choose the latter.

Really Stoney?  I woudln’t mind if most refs chose to not do the job at all.  Maybe we could then replace them with actual referees instead of blind monkeys on skates.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 03:58 PM ET

stonehands-78's avatar

... Maybe we could then replace them with actual referees instead of blind monkeys on skates.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from Fortress Europe on 08/15/10 at 01:58 PM ET

Future NHL zebra?

(Oh, where art thou October?)

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 08/15/10 at 04:48 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

Who is Beezer?

Okay, Im not laying all the blame on Hasek for either one of our playoff eliminations of the past decade. The Red Wings of the “new NHL” do not like spending big money on goalies. Obtaining an elite goalie like Miller or Luongo would mean we would have to give up one or two key players. That said, the wings really prosper when our goaltender is playing well.

Most likely you are correct in regards to Hasek doing a good job. We did have injuries in ‘07 and our stars were still climbing the latter. You have to admit that Hasek was on the tail end of his career 2006 leading up to 2008. Again some goal tending statistics can be misleading ( only to a certain extent). Please consider that maybe and just maybe Hasek was failing us on some level. I mean do you think we would have won the cup in ‘08 if we had stuck with Hasek? You have to admit that by the end of ‘08 he pretty much lost his luster. So if you can admit that he lost his luster at the end of ‘08, then you would also have to admit that he deteriorating in the two years prior.

If Ozzy played as good as he did throughout ‘08 playoffs leading up the final series of ‘09, we might have had another cup. He could have played better. And Hossa is just a *#$%@& moron. (but thats beside the point)

Again, you feel it is easy for me to lay the blame on goal tending as you lay the blame on officiating. Officiating has to be overcome.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 05:47 PM ET

Guilherme's avatar

So if you can admit that he lost his luster at the end of ‘08, then you would also have to admit that he deteriorating in the two years prior.

If that’s the truth about Hasek, then why are you advocating Osgood to be the starter if he’s comfortable? The guy played well in just 4 of the last 36 months, and those 4 happened to be in the playoffs.

I try to accept all arguments, but I want’em at least to be consistent.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 08/15/10 at 05:56 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

If there is a ref. in hockey and hes quick to pull the trigger on holding , hooking , interference etc.. as a player you just have to be careful. You have to adapt and play so there is nothing he could call you on.

Take Holmstrom for instance, you know that every ref in the league would be quick to blow the whistle when he is in his office right above the crease. Goalies and coaches are in the refs ear before the game telling them to watch him.

In order to adapt, Tomas has to continue doing his job but he has to play careful so that there is nothing a ref can call a penalty on or take back a goal.

Using officiating as an excuse is not unique to one person. Every team gets screwed over here and there all the time. Its part of the game. Some calls have bigger impacts than others. A penalty does not always lead to a point. Just because bad calls are made doesnt mean you still cant win the game. Poor officiating is universal.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 06:05 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Using officiating as an excuse is not unique to one person. Every team gets screwed over here and there all the time. Its part of the game. Some calls have bigger impacts than others. A penalty does not always lead to a point. Just because bad calls are made doesnt mean you still cant win the game. Poor officiating is universal.

Gramps points this out above, but it bears repeating.  Poor officiating may be universal, but it’s flawed thinking to believe that it’s universally equal.  I’d say we’re still owed quite a few calls in a playoff series against the Ducks.  So do I have to wait another ten years before we get those or is it somehow made more fair by us getting an advantage over the Blue Jackets in 2008?

There’s no evidence to support that bad calls even out for every team over time (especially considering “bad calls” is an insanely subjective area in the first place). 

Yes, a good team will overcome bad calls, but a good team will also keep another good team from being able to overcome those calls.  A bad call may not lead directly to a point, but hockey is one of the more momentum-based games on earth.  Bad calls change momentum, which can shift the balance by one or more points in a single game.  I will never have a problem complaining about a poorly officiated game as one of the contributing factors for a Red Wings loss.  I will also never have a problem calling out another fan who wants to blame officiating when it was clearly not a factor.  I just can’t support a blanket statement where one says that it all evens out in the end so I should accept it and look at other reasons for a loss.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 06:26 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

In order to adapt, Tomas has to continue doing his job but he has to play careful so that there is nothing a ref can call a penalty on or take back a goal.

you’re right that at the moment this is what players have to do.  but it is complete horseshit that they have to do it.  no player should have to adjust his game to account for piss poor inconsistent officiating.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 08/15/10 at 06:57 PM ET

Avatar

Again, you feel it is easy for me to lay the blame on goal tending as you lay the blame on officiating. Officiating has to be overcome.

I find it most interesting that you keep claiming that officiating must be overcome (something a team has no control over) as if goaltending cannot (something in their direct control). See “Stanley Cup Winning Goaltenders: Niemi, Antti or Fleury, Marc-Andre.”

As Gramps has said repeatedly, “it is a team game.” As such, there are always several factors that lead to a win or loss, especially in a seven game playoff series. It is no more the singular fault of officiating that cost us the ‘10 Sharks series than it was the singular fault of goaltending that we did not win a Cup between 2002 and 2008 (and especially not the singular fault of Hasek, the only goaltender you called out, as he was not our goaltender for that entire period). Andrew has said as much several times when disputing your claim of blaming the goalies, but you seem to only key in on his comments about the officiating (ONE of the factors cited).

Posted by Anne from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 07:10 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 04:26 PM ET
I expressed that incorrectly. I didn’t mean say that all bad calls even out. I phrased it wrong. Officiating never, ever is evened out.

  I just can’t support a blanket statement where one says that it all evens out in the end so I should accept it and look at other reasons for a loss.

I meant to say that in the end every team in the NHL gets screwed by bad officiating at some point in time. Not that it all evens out but rather, its something every player, coach and team has do deal with. That makes it part of the game. In the end all teams get shafted so its how they react and adapt that determines success and failure. Thats what makes it universal. Officiating is a naturally flawed practice.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 07:10 PM ET

shanetx's avatar

It’s not possible to provide a rational argument that NHL refs are basically fair and that calls even out if you’ve watched even one playoff game featuring Chris Pronger over the last decade.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 08/15/10 at 07:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

In the end all teams get shafted so its how they react and adapt that determines success and failure.

Ok, I understand that point of view. 

I think a big part of what leads to misunderstandings is trying to view it as a whole when discussing online anyway.  Stick around and you’ll see quite a few times where somebody complains about the reffing only to be rebuked as though it’s the only factor they thought was important. 

Just know that when somebody bitches about the reffing, just because they don’t always say “but the Wings needed to play better” doesn’t mean they don’t think that.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 07:17 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

IN regards to this Hasek discussion, in which everyone seems to completely disagree with me, I think I figured out how to explain this. Now please bare with me!!!

Pretend you are a general manager of a NHL team and you are scouting college teams in search for a goalie. Now lets say there is one or two goalies that have a good reputation but you have never seen them play. Even though you havent seen them play you have access to all their stats.

Would make your decision on what goalie to draft solely based on the stats presented to you without ever seeing them play???
No!, you would not!
Why?? Because stats does not show you their talent level or ability to perform. Stats could mislead you to think they are great when they are less than average. You want to judge a player off of how you see them compete.

Dominic Hasek had a very unorthodox style of play.That style made him great, he became the premier goalie in the league and claimed the Vezina trophy. Fundamentally, you would never teach that style of play to a young goalie. It was a risky style and frankly no one else had the talent to pull it off. He was able to succeed with that style because he was quick and he knew how to use it to his advantage. As the years pasted he lost some speed here and there along with some ability.

In Hasek’s last couple years of playing in the NHL he became a slower goalie with bad fundamentals. He had a quicker downfall than most other elite goalies. Once he lost his edge and quickness he was not able to pull off that risky style he was known for. All of a sudden other teams were able to expose his weaknesses. He was a slow goalie with horrible fundamentals. He needed that edge in order to successful. Other goalies steadily loose their luster but Hasek seemed to fall off a cliff.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 07:44 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

PJ, good to see you realize stats aren’t everything.

But why are you so adamant about changing people’s minds on Hasek, especially since he’s been retired for 2 seasons now? Babcock did what he did, and the Wings won the Cup in ‘08.

In ‘07, Hasek kept the Wings in the series against Anaheim. It doesn’t matter if your tender plays lights out and only allows one goal a game if the team can’t score worth crap.

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 08/15/10 at 08:07 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 08/15/10 at 06:07 PM ET

Well thanks. I dont know. When we were still under the Hasek era I simply felt that he was kinda on his way down. My group of friends and I always watched the games together. My friends and I came to the consensus that he could do much better. Im not saying he was the sole reason for our losses but we felt he was one of them.

When Babcock made the switch during that Nasville series I was ecstatic. I was a strong advocate of making a change. I knew that our team was good enough to win a cup if only we had someone to really step up and thrive between the pipes. Hasek did a good job but there was just something about him I didnt like. Thats why I dont really have an answer when people throw his good stats at me.

The fact that we won the cup when we made the switch assured my feelings that I was right to doubt Hasek. If he was that important to our team we would have gave Hasek the playing time he desired. Hasek retired but he would have continued if we gave him the job. Read the post I wrote about his style in the net. It was his bread and butter till it killed him!!!!

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/15/10 at 08:49 PM ET

Sullyosis's avatar

Reffing and injuries.  We climbed out of the injury pit but couldn’t overcome the reffing.  Plus, face it, San Jose was a bit deeper, like 2 men deeper on those 5 x 3s.

(See? This should have been a one sentence response.  It kept babbling up to 5 paragraphs)

Posted by RWBill from Mike Modano’s dentist. on 08/15/10 at 10:30 AM ET

Wonderful rant.  And I absolutely agree whole-heartedly…or is it hole-hard-edly?  I always get those two confused, I know one is for agreeing with people, formally, and the other is used in the bed but I can never remember which is which.

Posted by Sullyosis from A hateful lair in Post Apocalyptic US (or Arizona) on 08/15/10 at 10:06 PM ET

Avatar

PJ, I have to admit to still being confused. You talk about how Hasek was on his way down and that his unconventional goaltending style was his downfall when he became older and slower, and yet you advocated giving the starting job back to Ozzie this year. I am as appreciative as the next fan of the things that Ozzie has done for us, but he also is not the goaltender he once was. Although he is definitely a more fundamentally sound goaltender than Hasek was, Ozzie’s weakness has always been his size. Especially given the lack of confidence we saw in him last season that caused him to play deep in his net, thus making him even smaller in net.

Ozzie will be 38 this year and in the last year of his contract. I think it was pretty well understood between Ozzie and Kenny when that contract was signed that this year was going to be Jimmy’s year and Ozzie would serve the back-up/mentor role. Jimmy just had to seize that role a season early and he definitely did that! Jimmy has absolutely earned the starting role until he proves otherwise and as RWBill said, Ozzie will still have the opportunity to be a great asset to us and earn 400 in the back-up role making 20-25 starts this year.

Posted by Anne from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 10:08 PM ET

pjwalny's avatar

PJ, I have to admit to still being confused. You talk about how Hasek was on his way down and that his unconventional goaltending style was his downfall when he became older and slower, and yet you advocated giving the starting job back to Ozzie this year.
Posted by Anne from Kansas on 08/15/10 at 08:08 PM ET

Hasek was infact on his way down. Prior to the end of the ‘08 season he was slumping, at that point in time he was still a descent goalie. Now I know I already labeled him as a slumping goalie so Im walking a fine line here. 2007 and 2008 Hasek was alright in reference to other goalies in the league.

You ask me how I could be an advocate of Hasek then but now be an advocate of Ozzy. IN ‘08 we were replacing Hasek with a familiar veteran goalie. Now the choice is either Howard who is just entering his sophomore season or Ozzy who is pretty much finishing his career. I dont know man, Howard just has so much to learn still. He still has to figure out the little intricate details of playing in the league. He has to learn to make sure he is ready for a shot right out of a faceoff in his zone. (Fidler game 7 phoenix) He has to learn that he needs to put his back to the cross bar when a puck pops up so it doesnt come down hit his back and go in the net.(which happened last year)

He stills has sh*t to learn. Hell, maybe Ozzy has completely lost it himself and we have to go with Howard. Personally I am just pissed at Ozzy, he should have been out there playing last year when we were slumping. I mean what the hell even happened to him. He got sick with influenza and mentally never recovered. Can anyone explain what really happened to him???

(just watched game seven of phoenix series on NHL network-one of the best games ever!)

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/16/10 at 01:39 AM ET

pjwalny's avatar

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 08/14/10 at 07:40 AM ET

Hey Guilherme are you the same guy that FSN did a story on last regular season? If not sorry.

Posted by pjwalny from Not Detroit, evidently?? on 08/16/10 at 07:17 PM ET

« Previous       ‹ First  < 7 8 9     

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Abel to Yzerman

Welcome to Abel to Yzerman, a Red Wing blog since 1977.  No other site on the internet has better-researched, fact-laden and better prepared discussions than A2Y.  Re-phrase: we do little research, find facts and stats highly overrated and claim little to no preparation.  There are 19 readers of A2Y. No more, no less. All of them, except maybe one, are juvenile in nature.  Reminding them of that in the comment section will only encourage them to prove that. Your suggestions and critiques are welcome: wphoulihan@gmail.com