More
Contact
Submit
Premium
I don't dislike Pat Caputo. I follow him on Twitter, he follows me back (like he does with most of his followers). I sent him a direct message when he called Brad Penny "Grant Penny" in his blog, as to not embarrass him publicly.
I've never really been a big reader of his columns, however, probably because I've never lived anywhere near the paper's circulation. The headline on his latest one, however, forced me to click, and my goodness, it didn't disappoint.
CAPUTO: Howard can't surrender any more 'iffy' goals to Sharks
See? Don't you want to click on that? I thought I was going to get Rick Roll'd. Unfortunately, I did not.
There were many times Friday and Sunday when Red Wings’ goalie Jimmy Howard was great.
He made save after save, many of them spectacular, in Game 1 and Game 2 of Detroit’s Western Conference semifinal playoff series against the San Jose Sharks.
Yes, correct. "He was the only reason the Wings only lost by one" would also be a sufficient way of describing Howard's play. I suspect that will be the next sentence.
But it was the one save Howard didn’t make Sunday that was the difference in a 2-1 loss.
This, technically, is a factual statement. Niclas Wallin's goal early in the third period wound up being the game-winning goal in the game and the definition of "game-winning goal" is the goal that provided the difference in the final score. But if that's what our friend here was getting at, he would have just said, "Jimmy Howard allowed the game-winning goal." This difference is different. And awful.
With the Red Wings already trailing 1-0, Niclas Wallin of the Sharks took what appeared to be an innocent-looking shot that hit off Howard’s shoulder, his helmet and dropped behind the thin, red goal line.
Why add the "thin, red goal line" part? And is the red line in the goal really thin? It seems pretty proportional to me.
Here’s the bottom line about Howard. Doesn’t matter if Red Wings’ defenseman Niklas Kronwall’s stick was, “in the road,” so to speak, making it a more difficult save. Doesn’t matter if the puck was deflected. It still caught most of Howard. He should have made that save. It should have been a 1-0 deficit for the Red Wings down the stretch. Instead, it was 2-0 and essentially, the game was out of reach.
No, actually those things do matter. Deflected pucks beat goalies because the NHL is a really fucking fast game. Howard closed out the angle of Wallin, got in position, and the puck came up on his ear, which is an incredibly awkward place to have something come at you. That's why the goal was so awkward looking. It wasn't an impossible save to make by any means, but it would have been a good save had it been made. You don't need to dive across the crease to make a spectacular save.
When the stakes are this high, and if the Red Wings are going to win the Stanley Cup title, their goalie has to make that save 99.9999999 percent of the time.
Again, this is based off the opinion that the save would have been an easy one, which I'm not so sure it would have been. Regardless, Howard pretty much has made those saves 99.9999999 percent of the time in this series. Again: He's the single, solitary reason these were both one-goal games.
Is it fair in the sense Howard often made brilliant stops merely to keep the Red Wings in the game? Or that he kept the Red Wings in Friday’s game with many splendid stops, despite Detroit being badly outplayed? Or that Howard was essentially expected to win these games on his own — given the Red Wings have scored only two goals in two games?
No.
Correct. So don't write a fucking column about it.
The Red Wings played poorly by their high standards on Friday, and were at least matched by the Sharks in terms of puck possession and scoring chances Sunday.
The Red Wings have played poorly by a lot of standards in Games 1 and 2, and in what world does the Sharks puck possession and scoring chances in Game 2 "at least match" that of the Red Wings? How about "were dominated by the Sharks in terms of puck possession and scoring chances Sunday"? Did Caputo only watch the third period of this game? I'm asking a serious question.
Yet, there is no margin for error at this stage. The Sharks are motivated. They are very talented. The Sharks have a goalie who has proven he can win the Stanley Cup in Antti Niemi, who didn’t flinch. Howard did — and that ultimately became the primary issue of this particular hockey game.
Niemi's played well in this series, but Howard has been asked to do much, much more. Sure, Niemi had to make some saves, but the Red Wings haven't had much sustained pressure in this series. The Sharks, meanwhile, have looked like they've been on the power play for most of it.
It’s just a fact of a goalie’s life come playoff time. He can be great, yet at the same time not be good enough. Just takes one mistake. A lone shot that got away. Such moments are so difficult to get back. Difficult, true, but not impossible.
The Stanley Cup playoffs often develop wild momentum shifts. The Red Wings can get it back on their side Wednesday night by winning Game 3 at Joe Louis Arena.
Not going to argue with this point. My wife could have made it, but I'm not going to argue with it.
They did play much better Sunday, which was widely anticipated. The Sharks, however, matched the Red Wings in that regard.
Again with this "matched" bullshit. The Sharks didn't "match" anything the Wings did. They dominated them, overpowered them. It was sad to watch. At one point, I tweeted that this must be what it was like to be a Coyotes fan. I also received the following texts during the game: "wings struggln" "Todd mcclellan owns mike babcock, knows everything he is going to do" "We r getting dominated" "We r getting owned..."
The only thing that matched in this game were Joe Pavelski's beard and his pubes.
It’s odd, but penalties are an issue for the normally disciplined Red Wings. Justin Abdelkader, a good young player, has to stop with the high-sticking penalties. It was an unnecessary penalty that led to San Jose’s first goal on a power play.
Wait, wasn't the big concern coming into this series (and in last year's series against the Sharks), the Wings inability to stay out of the penalty box? Didn't Phoenix claw back into games in Round 1 because the Wings took undisciplined and stupid penalties?
The Red Wings also must do a better job of really testing Niemi. While they did get their share of shots on goal Sunday, they didn’t create enough traffic in front of San Jose’s goal.
You don’t often see pretty goals this time of the year. It’s about attacking the net and making it rough in front of the opposing goaltender.
San Jose did a much job in that regard in Game 1 and Game 2. Howard, the questionable goal allowed aside, has handled that aspect well.
The Red Wings haven’t put Niemi through nearly the same type of ordeal, though.
There aren’t a lot of secrets here.
OK, hold on. *scrolls up* Yep, we did compare Niemi and Howard earlier in this column, and now we're admitting they're basically playing with two different decks of cards. These are the arguments you're supposed to have with yourself before you write the column.
The Red Wings did a better job of carrying the play to the Sharks Sunday, but still weren’t threatening enough. They took an unnecessary penalty, and were burned by it. Their goalie allowed an “iffy” goal.
Seriously, he only watched the third period, didn't he? The Wings didn't carry shit to the Sharks on Sunday, just like they didn't carry shit to them on Friday. That's why even though the Wings have really only lost two games on the road by a combined two goals, it still feels like they're down more than 2-0 in this series.
So they lost a one-goal decision to the Sharks in the Western Conference semifinals for the sixth time in two seasons. There’s a pattern here.
The Red Wings have to win Wednesday.
Whatever wiggle room they had has disappeared.
Such a dramatic end to a steaming pile of shit.
But Caputo is right, there is a pattern here, at least when it comes to this year's series. The pattern is that Jimmy Howard plays his ass off, gives his team a chance to win games they have no business winning, and they're unable to do much more than chase the Sharks around their zone.
If you were to list the reasons the Red Wings lost Game 2, "Jimmy Howard" would have been pretty far down that list, somewhere between "Ruslan Salei's inability to skate" and "Todd Bertuzzi's beard feeling the residual effects of Osama bin Laden's death."
