They Are Who We Thought They Are: Kings 5 - Red Wings 0
Talk about it being just one of those games. The Wings partied like it was the first round of the 2003 playoffs, but could not solve the riddle that was Jonathan Quick, losing to the Los Angeles Kings for the 2nd time in 2 weeks, this time by a score of 5-0. This really was one of those times where the score was not indicative of how close the game was, but the Wings were unable to figure out Quick, who was the first and second star of the game (not from a Wing perspective).
The Wings gave up a goal in each of the first two periods, but despite out-shooting the Kings 38-17, the Wings entered the third period down 2-0. Then the doors were blown off as the Kings potted three goals in the first 6 minutes of the third period, and the game was pretty much over at that point. To their credit, the Wings did not let up, and they made Quick really work for his shutout, the first of his career over the Wings. He made a lot of people out there in fantasy hockey-land very happy with a 51-save shutout, and the Kings got off to a great start on their five game road trip.
Join me after the jump where we'll examine why the Wings got kicked in the family jewels.
Unfortunately the Wings were unable to crown their ass.- We've all seen these games: the Wings are red-hot early, getting tons of shots, good scoring chances, and controlling play. They look like they're the better team, but the opposing goalie makes a few big saves early, and then there's a goal against the Wings. If you're like me, then your next thought is this: "uh-oh". That's exactly what we were all thinking, and after the second period ended, it sure seemed obvious that this was going to be one of those nights. It happens.
- Have the Wings won a game on Versus this year? It sure seems like these national games are what afternoon games were last year: their Achilles Heel. I sure hope that the Cursus of Versus ends soon, because we all know that the Wings are going to be on there during the first round of the playoffs (that's right, I said playoffs).
- It's really hard to get on anyone in a game where the Wings outshot the Kings 51-26, except the goalie. Once again, I'm not about to put this loss solely on Jimmy Howard, because he was outdueled by Jonathan Quick. However, he's got to come up with a big save in the first or second period to keep his team in it and give them a chance against a hot goalie. I can't help but think that if this were Chris Osgood, we'd be ripping him apart for the way he played tonight. I'm starting to become concerned that we might be seeing the beginnings of a slump for Tiberius, and it's time to give Osgood some more starts.
- I'd like to give a quick shoutout to Casey, who pointed out that the Wings had yet to give up a goal in the 12-14 minute block of any period so far this season, only to give up 2 tonight. Nothing like having some knowledge to go along with my anger at the Wings being scored on. Thanks, Casey.
- Despite the score, the second line of Filppula, Bertuzzi and Franzen was exceptional tonight, especially Bert. They had a ton of chances, and I really thought they were going to get one. It was just not meant to be.
- When the game ends up so lopsided, I tend to look for and listen to other things. I then write them down. I had 2 nuggets from tonight. The first was that Doc Emrick and Edzo calling a game remind me of the playoffs, and this gets me excited. The second was the fact that 14 of the 21 players in the Wings lineup tonight were drafted and developed by the Wings. The players included in that 14 were drafted as long ago as 1989 and as late as 2005. The Wings have won 4 Cups, been to 2 other Finals, and only missed the playoffs once since the 1989 draft. I guess it shows that you don't have to suck for years and build up high draft picks to be a successful franchise in the NHL. Food for thought.
I can't say I'm ultimately upset at this game. Unlike previous losses, this wasn't a case of the Wings looking disinterested and lacking effort throughout the game; they were simply bested by a great goalie who stood on his head early, and a poor 6 minutes in the third where the game got away from them. Take that game tape, study Quick to see how good he was, then throw it away. Next up is a game against the Blues, then a Friday tilt against the Blackhawks. It's a Central Division rivalry week, and I expect the Wings to show up with a good effort so they can put some real distance between them and the rest of the teams in the division.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is that a Dennis Green reference?
Related: PLAYOFFS?!
by Michael Petrella on Dec 13, 2010 10:58 PM CST reply actions
It was
If you want to crown their ass, then crown ’em!
by Amerinadian on Dec 13, 2010 11:03 PM CST up reply actions
missed the game
geez wtf happened…one of those nights eh
LETS GO RED WINGS!
2011 will be the year....better be....
Troy Tulowitzki: "When people think of the Rockies, I want them to think of a winning organization."
Absolutely
The Wings could have fired 100 shots at Quick tonight – they just weren’t going to score.
by Amerinadian on Dec 13, 2010 11:04 PM CST up reply actions
I blame Favre.
He must have sent Quick’s wife cell phone pictures of his junk.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 13, 2010 11:07 PM CST reply actions
CSSI preview
writing angry makes me stupid.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 13, 2010 11:09 PM CST reply actions
Anyone know if there's ever been a game like this?
5+ goals in a shutout where the team getting shutout has 50+ shots?
"I guess it shows that you don't have to suck for years and build up high draft picks to be a successful franchise in the NHL."
I grew up when the Red Wings were winning Stanley Cups, so someone who actually lived through it would be more qualified than I to speak about this. But as successful as the Red Wings have been the last how many years, I think that’s more of a testament to how franchise success can be maintained over a lengthy period of time without the need to rebuild. Otherwise, there is the issue of the “Dead Wings” era from which the team had to climb (presumably with a couple high draft picks).
In essence, I’m basically saying that the Red Wings have shown that success can be maintained for longer than a single transition: the 1980’s Oilers went from Gretzky to Messier post—Gretzky-trade (only to have parts of the team sent to the LA Kings and the New York Rangers) to . . .; the Penguins went from Lemieux, Jagr, Francis to . . .; the Avalanche went from Sakic and Forsberg to . . .; the Devils went from Brodeur, Niedermayer, and Stevens to. . . . whereas the Red Wings have seemlessly gone from Yzerman and Federov to Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk. The next test for the franchise will be how to maintain success post-Lidstrom.
I can see the point you’re trying to make; it’s just that, as an honest fan who wants to know more about the history of the team (parts for which I wasn’t alive yet), I think the statement of not needing to be bad for a few years to get high picks is disingenuous when you expand the time frame of Red Wings franchise history wider into its past.
So is your theory that the Red Wings had to be so bad for so long in order to be so good for so long? : )
by bleep bloop on Dec 14, 2010 12:09 AM CST up reply actions
I agree to a point
I probably should have clarified my point to mean “suck recently”, but I get where you’re coming from.
I guess if you look at the “high draft picks” the Wings had coming out of the Dead Wings era, the only really high one that had a major impact was Stevie, and he was a once-in-a-lifetime player. But the Wings still found gems later in drafts: Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Fedorov in the 4th round, and Konstantinov in the 12th round. I would also argue that despite Yzerman’s leadership and the contributions of Lidstrom, Shanahan and Fedorov over the years, the late round gems of Holmstrom, Franzen, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg show that drafting in the first or second round does not mean that you’re guaranteed to have superstars on the team. The only other team to enjoy close to the success the Wings have had over the last 20 years are the Devils, and look how bad they are this year.
I do agree that the post-Lidstrom era will be different, because you can’t replace one of the greatest players of all time. However, we were all nervous after Stevie retired, and the team has done just fine. The optimist in me says we’d be all right, but I would definitely be anxious for the first season after he retired.
Low draft pick
I think this is a real testament to the RW scouts. Being able to see a player that no one else sees. Everyone seems to see the Ovis and Crosby, but no one seemed to see the Magician, and then the organizations ability to develop them.
As for Lidstrom retiring… I can now say that I am not as concerned as I use to be… with E playing like he is and Kindl in the wings… Of course we will all miss Lidstrom like we missed Stevie!
Just one of those "nothing you can do" games
but for me, the takeaway is playing 3 games in 4 nights will probably result in at least one loss. Whatever, bring on the Blues and Hawks.
Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider! --George Carlin
Guys, I know what happened
Apparently a Wings fan went to a game thread for the Hawks vs. Avs game tonight and was rooting for the Avs.
I wasted how much of my time that I could have spent studying for the exam I’m going to fail?!
Oh well, as everyone has already said it’s just “one of those games”. I think after the first two periods the Wings were discouraged and the Kings were encouraged and the game just got out of hand from there.
Exactly
I stopped watching after the Kings’ 2nd goal. It was disgusting to see the Wings work so hard with no goals to show for it and see the Kings score so easily. I held my breath every time the Kings got the puck to the point and fired away. Quick was just too good that game.
Everybody loses for the prediction, PoG
Did anyone predict the Wings to lose? Even so, it’s hard to give out a “player of the game” on a night when the scoreboard reads 5-0. Hence, nobody wins. Epic fail, Detroit…epic fail.
some people for different reasons
have predicted the Red Wings to lose, but it’s usually never more than a 2-goal margin.
safe to say that no one predicted a 5-goal loss.
When the problems began
I could have been blind and known the Wings were going to lose by the mid point of the second. If you closed your eyes and listened you could hear the smack of every pass back and forth between the Wings. They were LOUD and abrupt. It was the sound of tightly gripped sticks and flusteredness (new word). I love the Wings and defend Babcock to the death (I would bar fight for his honor), but I think it was on him in that locker room to gather everyone around and force them to take a deep breath and relax the grip.
I still feel my jaw dropping when I think about some of the pucks that didn’t go in.
clarify
that first line was meant literally not using blind as a sub for idiot.
by Kazoowingsfan on Dec 14, 2010 5:17 PM CST up reply actions
We need to just play
Like this every game (obviously not allow 5 goals of course). 52 shots..can they not do that every friggin game. We are not going to see Quick every game…nor do I expect him to be this quick every game. If jimmy rebounds and if the defense gets tighter and we pile close to 40 every game..the odds are wings will be winning a lot more games…(granted we might have to encounter some Quick-like goalies along the way, but I guess we will be fine..)
I celebrate Festivus!!!
Versus Cursus
I warned my whole family about this before the game. Maybe it’s the mullet.
by InMDmissingtheD on Dec 14, 2010 8:38 PM CST reply actions

by 















