Post-Game Talk: Habs outshoot Wings 2:1

[14ari13]

To be honest A team playing tied, or playing 1 goal down is a big difference. We get called no goal there, the STYLE of play would need to be changed by MTL. They have to play more aggressive and risky than they can 1-1. Being a super-defensive team. Being ahead on them , is likely the only way to win the game.

Green played great all game. He got +3 from me.
He made 1 MAJOR mistake in the 3rd. I gave him 2 minuses for basically giving their team goal #3.

1 mistake only, but everyone will remember it. That is kind of how being a defender works.

shots on goal is a result of all the powerplays. We stay out of the box, and they wont get 15+ PP shots on net

The mistake Greene made as when the game was more or less over.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Hmm 3 wins 2 losses without our best player and second best defenseman. Just lost against the current hottest team in the league with arguably the best goalie in the league. One of the wins was against Tampa.

...yup, I can see why everyone suddenly hates our team.

Clearly we don't have enough shots, and as we all know, the Stanley Cup generally goes to the team that shoots the most at the beginning of the regular season.

 

[TheOtherOne]

If so I'd like to know, was Blashill not allowed to use his challenge or did he just mess up by not doing it?

If I'm Blashill, and assuming the ref didn't fully explain the situation at the time to me, I'm thinking there's no point in challenging when they just looked over replays for 5 min. How is he supposed to know that "reviewing the play" meant "reviewing only one specific part of the play while ignoring the part that is obviously contentious."

Seeing this shit should be the refs' job so I wouldn't put any blame on Blash.

 

[Henkka]

Looks like the sky is falling.

 

[Eastopia]

If I'm Blashill, and assuming the ref didn't fully explain the situation at the time to me, I'm thinking there's no point in challenging when they just looked over replays for 5 min. How is he supposed to know that "reviewing the play" meant "reviewing only one specific part of the play while ignoring the part that is obviously contentious."

Seeing this shit should be the refs' job so I wouldn't put any blame on Blash.

Well, apparently the rules stipulate that Toronto can't review GI unless it's a coach's challenge and Blashill should know the rules. Yes, the refs should have explained the situation to him, but Blash should know this anyway.

This whole thing seems strange to me. I mean, I know GI was never reviewable before but if it's now reviewable in a CC then it should be reviewable when doing a normal review too. Otherwise we see what happened in this game - or we see two reviews in a row. Both cases suck. What makes things worse is that, since it went to review in the first place, it seems like the reason the on-ice refs called the goal off was not because of goaltender interference and that would be the great crime to me. That's just inexcusable.

 

[gretskidoo]

The weirdest thing, for me anyway, is that the ref clearly said the reasoning behind it being a good goal was that the puck crossed the line before contact was made(again, it didn't, but whatever).

How is that even remotely relevant if they're not looking at goalie interference?

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Looks like the sky is falling.

There is an insane amount of overreaction around here these days.

 

[TheOtherOne]

If it's true that Toronto CAN'T review goalie interference then I don't even. ..

Who does it benefit to say that officials are literally not allowed to make a correct ruling? The coach's challenge should be a just-in-case BACKUP. Not a substitute for doing the officials' job.

What a joke this whole thing is.

 

[Eastopia]

The weirdest thing, for me anyway, is that the ref clearly said the reasoning behind it being a good goal was that the puck crossed the line before contact was made(again, it didn't, but whatever).

How is that even remotely relevant if they're not looking at goalie interference?

He said that? Wow, I must've missed it and that just makes me even more confused. How the hell was this a goal?!

 

[gretskidoo]

He said that? Wow, I must've missed it and that just makes me even more confused. How the hell was this a goal?!

I just checked.

"After video review, the puck entered the net in a legal fashion before contact.." Can't hear the last 2 seconds over the crowd. "the goal is good" or something.

 

[Actual Thought*]

If I'm Blashill, and assuming the ref didn't fully explain the situation at the time to me, I'm thinking there's no point in challenging when they just looked over replays for 5 min. How is he supposed to know that "reviewing the play" meant "reviewing only one specific part of the play while ignoring the part that is obviously contentious."

Seeing this shit should be the refs' job so I wouldn't put any blame on Blash.

It is a very, very basic requirement of a major league coach that he knows the rules of the game and the league in which he is coaching. That should be a bare minimum expectation.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Looks like the sky is falling.

Agreed 5 games is a small sample size. If we continue to look this bad after say 20 games then I might be concerned.

 

[TheOtherOne]

It is a very, very basic requirement of a major league coach that he knows the rules of the game and the league in which he is coaching. That should be a bare minimum expectation.

It's also a very, very basic requirement of a referee that he knows the rules of the game but look how that worked out.

 

[14ari13]

The story of the season so far, 5 games is

We won 3 games due to great goaltending.
Then we lost one game due to so-so goaltending. Lost 5-3.
And then we were about to win another game due to great goaltending, but lost cause they ran our goalie.
That goal is more or less the story of this young season. The Habs realised the kid would outplay their star goalie, so they went and ran our goalie.

Now there is more to it, we have been outshot badly in every game. We can't rely on the goalies to win us games.

We got DeKeyser back and that should be big for our team.
If we can get Datsyuk back while the team is healthy, we will be rolling.
Franzen and Helm will be in and out all season long.

 

[TheMule93]

If our system relies on having g a healthy Datsyuk, a player who will be gone after next season, we are f***ed

 

[iDangleDangle]

If our system relies on having g a healthy Datsyuk, a player who will be gone after next season, we are f***ed

Well to be honest, Datsyuk is one of those players that are damn near impossible to replace. When Dats eventually leaves, it will be a huge blow to the team.

But for some reason I'm fairly confident that Dats will resign with the Wings atleast one more time. Or atleast I hope so - there will never be another like him.

 

[14ari13]

If our system relies on having g a healthy Datsyuk, a player who will be gone after next season, we are f***ed

Do you know that our record last season with Datsyuk was great, probably the 1st place in have conference.
The next genaration is not ready to take over yet. They Are either not good enough or too young.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Do you know that our record last season with Datsyuk was great, probably the 1st place in have conference.
The next genaration is not ready to take over yet. They Are either not good enough or too young.

The problem is the last time Datsyuk played 80 games was 7 years ago. That was also the last time he hit 70+ points. He'll probably get in somewhere around 50-60 games this year based on his last few seasons. He's 37 and the mileage is only adding up and causing additional wear and tear. We will benefit from no Olympic games this year so there's that. Overall I'm circumspect about the prospects of #13 being the panacea that magically turns the season around and allows the Wings to stop being grossly outshot by such large margins.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The problem is the last time Datsyuk played 80 games was 7 years ago. That was also the last time he hit 70+ points. He'll probably get in somewhere around 50-60 games this year based on his last few seasons. He's 37 and the mileage is only adding up and causing additional wear and tear. We will benefit from no Olympic games this year so there's that. Overall I'm circumspect about the prospects of #13 being the panacea that magically turns the season around and allows the Wings to stop being grossly outshot by such large margins.

Although I'm also concerned about how we have played, let's wait and see if we need Datsyuk to be a saviour or not. We're not exactly doomed. Hopefully the last 2 games was a wake-up call for Blashill and the team and they're hard at work right now making sure they're better in the next game.

 

[Konnan511]

I'm not worried. LGW!

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Do you know that our record last season with Datsyuk was great, probably the 1st place in have conference.
The next genaration is not ready to take over yet. They Are either not good enough or too young.

False.

With Datsyuk, 34-19-10, a 101.5 pace, far from good enough for 3rd in the Conference.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Can we take a second and imagine how absurd it would have been if Blashill HAD used a coach's challenge?

"After reviewing the video for 5 minutes from every available angle we've finally determined that the goal was legal."

"Well sure, it was legal one way, but was it legal all the ways? I'd like you to go back to the video again but this time take into account all the rules, not just a specific one."

"Okay, here we go spending another five minutes looking at the same thing again. Turns out you're right! It was an illegal goal. Which we saw in the first place, but weren't allowed to comment on. But since you asked nicely, we're now allowed to call it correctly."

 

[Hendricks433]

Can we take a second and imagine how absurd it would have been if Blashill HAD used a coach's challenge?

"After reviewing the video for 5 minutes from every available angle we've finally determined that the goal was legal."

"Well sure, it was legal one way, but was it legal all the ways? I'd like you to go back to the video again but this time take into account all the rules, not just a specific one."

"Okay, here we go spending another five minutes looking at the same thing again. Turns out you're right! It was an illegal goal. Which we saw in the first place, but weren't allowed to comment on. But since you asked nicely, we're now allowed to call it correctly."

Yep, its absurd. The wording from the ref was "The puck entered the net in a legal manner before contact" Or something close to that. Making it sound like they checked for interference or that there was no interference.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Yep, its absurd. The wording from the ref was "The puck entered the net in a legal manner before contact" Or something close to that. Making it sound like they checked for interference or that there was no interference.

Which would have made it even more hilarious.

"After video review we decided there was no goalie interference."

"Nice try guys but I know you didn't check for goalie interference. Could you check for real please?"

"After second video review we actually did find goalie interference so disregard the previous video review."

 

[HIFE]

There is an insane amount of overreaction around here these days.

These days? I'd say "always and forever" is more like it. That's what makes HF great!

Post Game Quotes at Montreal

I've never seen an article like this with nothing but reaction from the players/coach.
Mrazek is such a humble yet confident, classy player. DD's comments were generic but also honest. He admitted his passes weren't as crisp as usual. Summed the game up by noting the poor compete level, too many penalties hurting the Wing's flow, and most condemning the lack of 2nd chances. So true. Blashill mentioned good energy twice in his statements, interesting that's not your usual hockey catch phrase. Hank called out Gallagher, what! He and the others main criticism is of Detroit's current special teams output. The PP has been off that must improve this week.