Detroit wasn’t good enough to win tonight as they fell to the Wild by a score of 4-2. The shrt version of this recap is that the Wild scored when they had chances and the Wings did not when they had theirs.
More after the jump:
Backstrom was better than Howard tonight. A lot better. Howard needs to stop the third goal, but I don’t fault him for the other three against him. Still, letting in four on less than 20 shots isn’t good enough. Backstrom made several key saves on the Wings, though and that was the difference.
The Wild defense was better than the Wings’ defense. Guys not tying up sticks, not clearing pucks and not covering open players cost the Wings dearly.
Pavel played well, but Mule is in one of his moods where he just doesn’t care and Abby still sucks at hockey, so that line isn’t going to produce a ton. Brunner isn’t exactly snake bit because he’s not getting good chances. He’s just not playing well right now.
The no-goal was annoying. I can see why Jackson thought it was a high stick, but not being allowed to review it is insane. Some wonder if that changed the game. Whatever. They lost by two. Do you want a coach’s challenge brought into the game? And if so, how would you work it? And if not, is it because you’re like Mike Milbury and think that refs getting calls wrong is good for the game?
The Kronwall hit: I’m biased, but it looked ok to me. Last year he drilled Voracek with a clear shoulder to face, but since Voracek had his head down, it was legal. His shoulder did graze Coyle’s face, but if his head had been up would it have been touched at all? Also, the penalty called was 4 minutes for high-sticking, not a head shot. On the replay I didn’t see the stick hit Coyle’s face, but he was bleeding somehow, so I just don’t know. Kronwall had better not be suspended though.
Great goal by Nyquist. He had the 4th lowest ice time. Tootoo basically had two points tonight. He had the least ice time. Jack Adams.
38 shots to 18 at home and you lose bad? It happens. That’s hockey. Next game is Friday in Anaheim.
I definitely think a challenge system will come to the NHL, but it will only be used on goal/potential-goal plays where the play stopped immediately around the thing in question AND I think it will only be initiated by an off-ice official in a booth above. Probably would be best that way too to protect the flow of the game of hockey.Did anyone else noticed Charlie Coyle (their young prospect) playing with Koivu and Parise while ours (Nyquist, like Tatar before him) rots in the bottom lines with at least one useless linemate (Cleary) and minimal ice time. I'm guessing Nyquist noticed this at some point while casually chatting on the bench with Miller or Tootoo.
I am for the coaches challenge. I say give a team one or two of them that can be used, but add the kicker of a delay of game penalty if nothing is changed. Similar to the bench challenging illegal equipment and I have a feeling it would only be used in situations like tonight's where the refs get it very wrong. The hard part to me is deciding what situations it can be used in. I would like it to be used in the puck over the glass, hand pass, illegal hand covering the puck and such, but how much farther do you take it. Do you make it where Kronwall's hit is reviewable to show that there was no high stick? Could the bench use it to show an obvious penalty that went missed such as a boarding or charging call? Sadly I think it will be a long time till we see a coach's challenge because of those reasons, and once there is a coaching challenge we will hear the same uproar that we do for the trapezoid and puck over the glass penalties.