Abel to Yzerman
by IwoCPO on 04/18/07 at 12:00 AM ET
Update 0044: If there’s anyone here who doubted Lang would lose that faceoff, please raise your hand so we can all point at you and laugh. Tough loss, but not a huge surprise. Split was the goal going in and it remains that now.
Update 0014 EST: I posted this earlier, but it definitely bears repeating. Battle of Alberta’s assessment of Mark Giordano.
Giordano can be a defensive liability, relatively speaking, but he can also launch a counterattack. And, he’s shown a decent knack for getting his point shot through to the net, which is clearly a skill the Flames could use right now. Calgary could quite conceivably win the next two games while still allowing 7 GA, but scoring only 2, they cannot and will not.
Update 0008 EST: If the Wings win this game, that play by Cleary will be looked back on for some time. Amazing.
I can’t handle that live blogging stuff during the game…it’s just not possible. But, I’ll open it up for you guys to comment here if you have the fortitude. First period: nervous, nervous. Agreed with Paul below (was it you Paul?) who said inserting Bertuzzi looks like a bad decision. He looks terrible and he’s a target. Each time he hits the ice, at least three times now, it’s an energy boost for the Flames. Lots of pressure from Calgary, little offense from Detroit.
In other words, pretty much what we expected in the Saddledome. Wings survived the first period unscathed, and that’s not a negative.
Be the first to comment.
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
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: email@example.com