GDT: Game 22 |Chicago Blackhawks @ Detroit Red Wings | 12:30 PM EST | NBC

[obey86]

With all the line shuffling that has happened this year, I don't get how Miller never gets a chance to play more often. He's obviously no offensive dynamo but he always seems to be aggressive out there and make good scoring chances and other things happen.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Funny thing is, we don't have to wait for guys to return to the lineup to make Datsyuk's line more dangerous... basically playing any 2 other wingers on the roster besides Abby and Cleary and Pavel's line has a better chance of generating chances and sustaining pressure in the offensive zone. Move Tatar up to play with Datsyuk, makes the 2nd line much stronger which is more important than keeping the 3rd line producing at its current level given how much more IT Pavel's line gets.

Our current 2nd line gets routinely outplayed by other teams' 2nd lines, which really speaks to the levels that 11 and 8 drag down one of the games true elite playmakers and talents. Having Pavel's line being productive and dangerous is far more important than keeping the 3rd line going for the scant 8-10 mins it gets.

If you ask me---
Say, Miller-Datsyuk-Tatar would improve line 2 significantly
And the bottom lines wouldn't be hurt too bad.

 

[Edge of Sanity*]

I'm happy with the point today. Wings were the better team, Crawford just played out of his mind. Once this team gets healthy they're going to be very good.

Filppula-Datsyuk-Bertuzzi
Franzen-Zetterberg-Brunner
Tatar-Helm-Samuelsson
Miller-Emmerton-Tootoo
(Cleary, Andersson, Eaves, Abdelkader)

Realistically I'd love to see Nyquist somehow included in the lineup but we all know that won't happen so I'm not even going to hope for it. I know everyone loves to hate Bertuzzi and Samuelsson but the fact is, they're each good for 15 goals/40 points a year and that's a hell of an upgrade over some of the crap that's currently in the lineup. I know Abdelkader and Cleary won't be scratched either as much as I'd like them to, but oh well.

Kronwall-Ericsson
Smith-Quincey
Kindl-Lashoff

The D has been incredible lately. It might not look great on paper, but they're working extremely well as a unit (Smith and Kindl have been so good lately), Ericsson is playing like a stud now (ridiculous penalty aside...) and I'm happy with it overall. Trading for someone like Bouwmeester or Yandle to replace Lashoff at the deadline would make it even better.

Howard
Gustavsson

No problem with these two guys; good tandem.

So yeah, if we can just get healthy in time, this should be a very good team. It'd be even better if Babcock would grow some nuts and scratch the correct forwards in place of the guys that have actually earned time, but what can you do?

 

[BinCookin]

Sounds alot like no one here is admitting we were outplayed today.

Because we were... pretty badly.

Our team defense did well. So did Howard. We may have caught up in shots later but this game had no business being 0-0 when Tatar scored.

 

[mindfly]

Sounds alot like no one here is admitting we were outplayed today.

Because we were... pretty badly.

Our team defense did well. So did Howard. We may have caught up in shots later but this game had no business being 0-0 when Tatar scored.

And(!)... they had a 1-0 lead with 2mins left and still found a way to lose.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Sounds alot like no one here is admitting we were outplayed today.

Because we were... pretty badly.

Our team defense did well. So did Howard. We may have caught up in shots later but this game had no business being 0-0 when Tatar scored.

We were outplayed for 2 periods. How many times have we outplayed teams for 2 periods and still lost? It happens. All the time, all around the league. We deserved to be in the game because we played hard as hell on defense. The Hawks a lot of 'almost' chances, where we managed to just get in a stick-check or poke the puck away or block the shot or so on. It was one hell of an effort on defense. That's part of hockey too.

In the 3rd we started generating offense and could have been up by 2 or 3-0 when we got the penalty that made it 1-1 instead.
I'd argue Crawford was forced to make bigger saves than Howard, and he was also helped by the posts once or twice.

 

[Edge of Sanity*]

The Wings were not outplayed. They dominated starting 10 mins through the second period all the way until the shootout, and have 10x the scoring chances Chicago did. They were the better team, despite Datsyuk being useless because he has no one to help him.

 

[SoupGuru]

Completely incorrect analogy, unsurprising based on your logical thinking skills.

The Ask Yahoo guy does not casually practice medicine and has not been observing doctors for 20+ years.

A lot of the fans here, myself included, have been playing hockey at various levels and watching it at various levels for decades. We're not just some random guy off the street who has no idea what he's watching. We're watching every game. We're tracking prospects. We know how hockey is played. We can tell when someone is playing well and when someone isn't.

Want a better analogy? Try someone who's been a paralegal for 25 years and see if you trust his legal opinion even though he's never passed the bar or gone to law school. That guy is going to know a hell of a lot, in some cases, more than most new lawyers. He's us. He's the guy who doesn't have the degree or pedigree, but has been involved with the subject for a long time and has been using it practically for just as long. He's not just some clueless idiot. His opinion isn't baseless.

Maybe you should grab a clue.

Thank you for posting your credentials. I'm on board. You know more about what the Red Wings need than Babcock. I'll bet he hardly even watches games or has even played.

 

[Flowah]

Thank you for posting your credentials. I'm on board. You know more about what the Red Wings need than Babcock. I'll bet he hardly even watches games or has even played.

Do you even know how to argue? Or follow an argument? Or read? Or logic?

I never claimed to know more than Babcock, or even that I was better than Babcock. I attacked your claim that we fans are as clueless about hockey as a random "Ask Yahoo" guy is about medicine. We are absolutely NOT.

You really need to go like, I dunno, do some math problems or something. Your complete inability to do if>then statements, or follow simple counterarguments is really pathetic.

I hope you never cry about referees again. Who cares if you're watching the games too. They're the pros, you've never reffed a game in your life. You should obviously never criticize them again until you can show me your credentials.

 

[SoupGuru]

Do you even know how to argue? Or follow an argument? Or read? Or logic?

I never claimed to know more than Babcock, or even that I was better than Babcock. I attacked your claim that we fans are as clueless about hockey as a random "Ask Yahoo" guy is about medicine. We are absolutely NOT.

You really need to go like, I dunno, do some math problems or something. Your complete inability to do if>then statements, or follow simple counterarguments is really pathetic.

I hope you never cry about referees again. Who cares if you're watching the games too. They're the pros, you've never reffed a game in your life. You should obviously never criticize them again until you can show me your credentials.

Yes, you attacked my Ask Yahoo (or is it Yahoo Answers? either way, hilariously bad advice there) analogy. But I'm pretty sure the context was that you are not comfortable with Tatar on the 3rd line and would rather see him up with Datsyuk. There are some pros and cons with this but you can see nothing but the pros. I'm suggesting Babcock may have a reason for doing this and I'm willing to trust him on that. For some reason, you seem to take offense that I'm not giving your suggestions equal weight. I attempted to point out why I trust Babcock over some random whacko on the internet and if my analogy was confusing or wrong, I apologize.