Could Datsyuk's Game-Winner on Saturday Spark Red Wings Run?
On Friday, NHL.com columnist John Kreisler noted how getting a two-goal lead meant so much in the postseason. He reported that in the first 47 playoff games this spring, teams taking a lead of two goals or more were 34-0.
According to Kreisler, there were 126 regular-season games -- better than one in every 10 played -- in which teams trailed by two or more goals and won. On two dates (March 1 and April 7), it happened five times apiece. But those kinds of comebacks are rare this time of year.
The Detroit Red Wings ended that perfect postseason mark over the weekend, overcoming a 2-0 first-period deficit to defeat the San Jose Sharks 3-2 on Saturday afternoon.
A comeback didn’t seem likely the way the Red Wings started the game. San Jose’s Jonathan Cheechoo converted one of two Detroit giveaways in the opening seconds to give the Sharks the lead just 36 seconds into the game. Joe Thornton scored a short time later, giving San Jose a two-goal bulge before the game was five minutes old. The Red Wings didn’t have a shot on goal at that point. In fact, they went nearly 13 minutes before San Jose goaltender Evgeni Nabokov had to turn away a shot.
The Red Wings got on the board in the final minutes of the first period, but trailed until Daniel Cleary knotted the game with a shorthanded goal at 1:23 of the final period. The Sharks stumbled badly through two mid-period power plays before Pavel Datsyuk buried a rebound for the victory with 1:24 remaining.
After pondering whether the Red Wings could make it out of the first round, we are reminded why this club is a team to fear in the postseason. They might have been traveling to San Jose after losing two games at home. Instead, Detroit goes on the road with that come-from-behind win as inspiration to take over the series. If the Red Wings go on to claim their first Stanley Cup championship since 2002, Datsyuk’s game-winner late in Saturday’s Game 2 might be the goal that put Detroit on course for the title.
Comments
very interesting, but I don't agree with you
Idetrorce
Posted by: Idetrorce | December 15, 2007 3:12 PM