GDT: Game 8 | Detroit Red Wings vs. Columbus Blue Jackets | 7:00 PM EST | FS-D (HD) ‎

[CloneHakanPlease*]

I know what you mean you would think we were columbus the way people talk about the roster. Remeber when chelious was the whipping boy?

Nobody is saying we are a bottom feeder. I'm just worried we're going to be stuck somewhere worse: the Calgary Flames zone

 

[Run the Jewels]

Damn this GDT has taken awesome turn

Yep, people hitting the sauce with gusto and we still have 90 mins til game time.

 

[last_sd]

We have to come out with fire and score couple of goals early. We will get tired by late 2nd~ 3rd period

 

[JmanWingsFan]

And how many teams on that list were as old as we were, almost completely reliant on two players, and treading downward? I see a total of zero.

The upsetters are comprised of teams that were incredibly shallow and the bulk of the work was done by their few best player(s) (See: Anaheim '09, Edmonton '06, Carolina '09, Montreal '10 among the best examples), Tampa Bay's best two playoff performers were ages 30 and 35. Anaheim was old. The '07 Rangers were old. The Kings are downsliding and are currently behaving like a fluke. The Caps are clearly downsliding. The only team that doesn't fall into your categories are the Flyers... In '10 their top Dman pairing was Chris Pronger and Kimmo Timonen. Their best playoff performer was Danny Briere (over age 30). The '08 Flyers are the only young, non downsliding team to commit an upset of a top seed.

 

[Flowah]

These are all hardly outliers. They are common occurrences in the playoffs since the last year-round lockout. If you want to say playoff success is a measure of "contender-ness" then there are a couple of darn good teams you have to put on your "non-contender" list.

This doesn't matter. Like at all.

Results are all that matter. Right now, the team is not that different from last year, and last year's team got trounced in the first round. We haven't been playoff dangerous since 2009.

And our team's composition, playstyle, coaching, have all remained relatively the same. The only trend is DOWNGRADES. Our D went from having Lidstrom, Rafalski, and Stuart to not. We replaced them with, oh holy Jesus, Quincey, Kindl, White. Not even close to getting replaced. We kept Franzen instead of Hossa, that's a move I wish we could take back for sure.

Results are all that matter, and we haven't gotten results since 2009. And our team's style has been the same since then.

 

[Lugaid]

This is perhaps a little bit offtopic, but I saw it in last nights game, and it's something I've been wondering for quite a while, maybe some frequent Joe-goers can enlighten me;

The official number for last night's crowd was a sellout game, yet there were lots of empty seats in the lower bowl, my theory is that the seats are technically bought (and therefore counts as sold seats), but that they might belong to companies and such, that don't always send people to the games. Is this what it is, or am I way off?

 

[icKx]

Strawman argument. I did not bring up the Kings cup win. I brought up the fact they upset a team people people thought were contenders (The Canucks), and thus the Canucks could not be considered contenders because of that. That is what "We" are arguing. It is completely different from what "You" are trying to hijack the argument into.

I clarified what my 'outlier' comment was referring to.

That is not a strawman argument. Not even close.

 

[last_sd]

This is perhaps a little bit offtopic, but I saw it in last nights game, and it's something I've been wondering for quite a while, maybe some frequent Joe-goers can enlighten me;

The official number for last night's crowd was a sellout game, yet there were lots of empty seats in the lower bowl, my theory is that the seats are technically bought (and therefore counts as sold seats), but that they might belong to companies and such, that don't always send people to the games. Is this what it is, or am I way off?

I think this is the case for most teams.

Leafs always sell out but I always see many lower bowl/expansive spots empty (well not as much as Red Wings)

Season ticket holder for those seats are usually cooperation

 

[FlashyG]

You must have skipped the chapter about Calgary from 2006-2012

Tell you what. PM me your paypal information and if the Wings make it past the 2nd round this year barring a major trade or situation (i.e. we get Chicago and Kane/Toews gets in a fatal car accident) I'll send you a 100 bucks and will never post here again. You won't have to give me anything when I'm right. I am being 100% serious.

I'll take that bet...No risk bets are the best kind

 

[JmanWingsFan]

This doesn't matter. Like at all.

Yes it does.

Results are all that matter. Right now, the team is not that different from last year, and last year's team got trounced in the first round. We haven't been playoff dangerous since 2009.

And this is my argument: If you want to apply these ridiculous arbitrary standards of what a contender is in the NHL, or any pro sport, then you have to apply them to ALL teams. Based upon this logic, many of the teams that a lot of people here consider contenders, I'd wager, are not even contenders since they didn't have results. It's called Reductio ad absurdim.

And our team's composition, playstyle, coaching, have all remained relatively the same. The only trend is DOWNGRADES. Our D went from having Lidstrom, Rafalski, and Stuart to not. We replaced them with, oh holy Jesus, Quincey, Kindl, White. Not even close to getting replaced. We kept Franzen instead of Hossa, that's a move I wish we could take back for sure.

I don't deny the slow downgrade. That does not mean we aren't contenders.

I clarified what my 'outlier' comment was referring to.

That is not a strawman argument. Not even close.

A strawman argument is arguing against a point that appears to be your opponent's but turns out not to be your opponent's point. Clarifying your point does not exempt your point from being a logical fallacy. I argued against EZBAKE that there are many "contenders" that are upset, thus reducing his definition of "contender" to absurdity. You presented my point in the manner as if I was arguing that an 8th seed could win the cup (Kings). That was not my point. Presenting my argument that way is intellectually dishonest.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

I'll take that bet...No risk bets are the best kind

Count me in. It's a win-win for me.

 

[Flowah]

And this is my argument: If you want to apply these ridiculous arbitrary standards of what a contender is in the NHL, or any pro sport, then you have to apply them to ALL teams. Based upon this logic, many of the teams that a lot of people here consider contenders, I'd wager, are not even contenders since they didn't have results. It's called Reductio ad absurdim.

Arbitrary? Results are not arbitrary. They speak for themselves. When the goal is the Stanley Cup every year, and to get there you have to go through 4 7 game series in the playoffs, that is a completely legitimate, objective way of measuring success.

I apply it to all teams. Teams that go further than we do have more success, are built better. There is some luck involved. Relative health of players, matchups. But over a 7 game series things generally come down to the better team. Wings have not been that team.

That does not mean we aren't contenders.

It absolutely does. If our previous teams were only good enough to get bounced in the second round and then last year in the first round, and we've only been getting worse, then we are not contenders. The past three years have not been a case of "Awww, bad break, we almost had that." We got beat in 5. To Nashville. Our play was terrible. We got beat hard. We got worse and now you want to say we're contenders?

Not a chance. We need major changes to be legit. I want those changes because I want our team to win. I think you like mediocrity and barely making the playoffs every year and getting knocked out early. That's really the only explanation for your refusal to admit that the Wings are not as good as other teams. You can look at any metric, standing, goals for/against, PP/PK, playoff success, and the team is barely middle of the pack. That's not a contender.

 

[ricky0034]

Arbitrary? Results are not arbitrary. They speak for themselves. When the goal is the Stanley Cup every year, and to get there you have to go through 4 7 game series in the playoffs, that is a completely legitimate, objective way of measuring success.

I apply it to all teams. Teams that go further than we do have more success, are built better. There is some luck involved. Relative health of players, matchups. But over a 7 game series things generally come down to the better team. Wings have not been that team.

i'll remember this the next time I see you call Vancouver or Pittsburgh or Boston or San Jose or Chicago contenders

ALL of those teams lost in the first round last year

 

[Vladdy84]

4-2 Wings.

 

[Bench]

You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.

 

[Mickey Redmond*]

This is perhaps a little bit offtopic, but I saw it in last nights game, and it's something I've been wondering for quite a while, maybe some frequent Joe-goers can enlighten me;

The official number for last night's crowd was a sellout game, yet there were lots of empty seats in the lower bowl, my theory is that the seats are technically bought (and therefore counts as sold seats), but that they might belong to companies and such, that don't always send people to the games. Is this what it is, or am I way off?

The roads were terrible last night, a number of people likely didn't bother to show.

 

[theYman]

Bold prediction: Bottom 6 scores a goal

Well we got our first 1st period goal last night. So ya never know. I hope it's Tootoo.

 

[Winger98]

Another nice looking GDT. I'll probably miss the first half of the game. Hope we come out early, get a lead, and can then just play rope a dope.

 

[Stuck in Socal]

This is most likely a game that we should win but we will lose.

3-2 Columbus.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Arbitrary? Results are not arbitrary. They speak for themselves. When the goal is the Stanley Cup every year, and to get there you have to go through 4 7 game series in the playoffs, that is a completely legitimate, objective way of measuring success.

I apply it to all teams. Teams that go further than we do have more success, are built better. There is some luck involved. Relative health of players, matchups. But over a 7 game series things generally come down to the better team. Wings have not been that team.

So in other words, you hold a ridiculously arbitrary and unfair standard of how to define a contender: the team that wins the Stanley Cup. That means you can't call call the Canucks, Blackhawks, Bruins, Penguins, Flyers, Rangers, Sharks, Capitals, Blues, ect... contenders. This is absurd.

It absolutely does. If our previous teams were only good enough to get bounced in the second round and then last year in the first round, and we've only been getting worse, then we are not contenders. The past three years have not been a case of "Awww, bad break, we almost had that." We got beat in 5. To Nashville. Our play was terrible. We got beat hard. We got worse and now you want to say we're contenders?

The Bruins in 2012 were better than the Bruins in 2011. So by your logic, the 2012 Bruins should have won the Stanley Cup again. The Sharks are arguably the same as they were last year with the exception of Brad Stuart and were only good enough last year for a seventh seed and first round ouster. Same with the Blackhawks. The Rangers are arguably on paper better than last year and were good enough for a ECF berth. So... Why aren't they playing well?

Not a chance. We need major changes to be legit. I want those changes because I want our team to win. I think you like mediocrity and barely making the playoffs every year and getting knocked out early. That's really the only explanation for your refusal to admit that the Wings are not as good as other teams.

This is the team Holland built. The season is young. The best way to make fixes is in the offseason. There's no reason for drastic and significant changes early on in the season. I have never said anything about accepting mediocrity. I refuse to cast my judgement until I can legitimately judge. Right now, it is premature.

You can look at any metric, standing, goals for/against, PP/PK, playoff success, and the team is barely middle of the pack. That's not a contender.

Right now, the Wings are 8th at 1.38 PPG in ES Point differential. That is one of the key metrics that correlates with Stanley Cup contention. That is not middle of the pack, that is top 10 in the league.

 

[theYman]

Babs has our bottom 6 all ****ed up. I think Cleary and Abby should be with Tootoo and Miller and Emmerton should be with Eaves. Maybe just bench Cleary all together and put a cone out there. And get him off the PP!!!

 

[GoAwayDanCleary]

Take it to a different thread nobody cares. Let's just enjoy the game, eh?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

I'm done arguing tonight. I'm going to watch the game tonight.

 

[SoupGuru]

Yeah, it's about time for Toots to get on the scoresheet, isn't it?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Oh crap... VanMassenhoven is reffing tonight...