Ok. Scott Macfarlane, come on down.
The post. Now in linked form!
A lot of people are comparing the Detroit Red Wings/San Jose Sharks second-round series to the Vancouver Canucks/Chicago Blackhawks set from the first round.
You know, because a series between a two and a three seed and a series between a one and an eight seed are so comparable. It's just absolutely bat shit insane that Detroit would be able to come back on the Sharks. Afterall, they were separated by the huge chasm of one point during the regular season (Sharks 105, Wings 104).
The difference is simple — the Detroit Red Wings will actually complete the comeback.
Oh shit. Detroit WILL win the series. That's a pretty definite opinion. It's probably based on some number crunching analysis, right? You wouldn't just base that claim gut instinct, right? Especially if in two paragraphs you were about to tell people to bet the house on Detroit, right?
While it was great to see the Blackhawks take the Canucks to Game 7 in the opening round after the defending Stanley Cup champions fell behind three games to none and looked doomed, they couldn’t quite pull off the epic finish when they fell to the Canucks in overtime on Alex Burrows’ slapper.
Oh, so THAT'S what happened in that series!
Bettors might want to hop on the Red Wings to do what the Hawks could not. They face a Sharks team that looks ready to add to its impressive playoff-chokers legacy with the biggest display of self-destruction to date.
Ok then. Bet the house that the Wings will win this series because...the 2009, 2008, 2007 version of the San Jose Sharks didn't manage to win the Stanley Cup. Gotcha.
Thursday’s Game 7 showdown comes on home ice for the Sharks, but they coughed up their last opportunity to clinch at the Shark Tank, giving up four straight goals to the visiting Wings in a 4-3 loss in Game 5.
Oh, so THAT'S what happened in that game!
If they were fragile then, they’re made of Hollywood glass now. As for the Red Wings, it’s down to a one-game, winner-take-all scenario, and they couldn’t be any more confident after storming back in the series.
Did you guys know Joe Thornton is actually physically afraid of Pavel Datsyuk and his hurt wrist? Did you guys know that the Sharks are such pussies that when they see the Winged Wheel they immediately begin to urinate into their jock straps?
Or maybe Babcock did the job he is paid to do, and made some adjustments that McLellan has yet to respond too.
No, Scott is right. Marleau is gutless (Just ask Corey Sarich and the Flames playoff exit). Sharks have no chance.
Blood is in the water, but it’s not the Sharks going for the kill anymore. Although just three NHL teams in the history of seven-game series have completed the comeback and won the deciding contest, this is the third time in two playoff seasons teams have erased 3-0 deficits just to force a single-game showdown.
Allow us to rewrite this paragraph: 'Just three NHL teams in the history of seven-game series have completed the comeback and won the deciding contest'.
Scott is paid by the word? Oh, nevermind.
And the Red Wings are set to beat the odds. They’ve got a veteran-laden roster filled with guys who have plenty of experience in Game 7 situations and in big playoff games.
Veterans on the Sharks: Clowe, Heatley, Marleau, Mayers, Nichol, Thornton, Wellwood.
Who would you rather have in the crunch? Wings Pavel Datsyuk, Nicklas Lidstrom, Brian Rafalski, Tomas Holmstrom and Henrik Zetterberg supported by veterans Kris Draper and Mike Modano. Or Sharks Dany Heatley, Patrick Marleau, Joe Thornton, Dan Boyle and Ian White?
Average age of those Wings players: 36.7. Average age of those aforementioned Shark players: 30.4.
Only two players that Scott mentions for the Red Wings are under 35 (!), Datsyuk and Zetterberg, while every player that Scott mentions for the Sharks is.
Are legs important in hockey? No? Ok then, nevermind.
Give me the team with the most proven winners on it every time. In this case, it’s the Wings, hands down.
Scott took the Lakers over the Mavs because Dirk is a loser.
This is the worst analysis around: Winners win and losers lose. It makes sense up until the point where the 'Winners' lose, and 'Winners' invariably lose to 'Losers'. In other words, winners win until they lose, and losers lose until they win.
Some actual analysis on the two teams would have been nice. Of course, that column would have taken more than an hour to write, and Scott is a busy guy.
Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.