Ongoing NHL Thread

[KennyBanyeah]

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

/Actually, there's nothing ironic about that.

Yeah Dash...it's not like raaiii-aaiin on your wedding day.

Wait, that's not ironic either. Alanis lied to me!!

 

[dash]

The Walrus is not happy:

CCtsn: Paul MacLean "Our competition level was zero tonight. We're not going to blame that on the referees." #Senators

 

[jstewismybastardson]

ottawa game case in point, whats the deal with how the refs are calling that slashing the stick penalty ... its all over the place right now ... Shorty and Garrett were saying if the player has 1 hand on the stick its no longer getting called

 

[BOSSMANPC]

It would be in my age range, but I didnt start following the sport until 97. You know, the glory years of the Habs.

Well no one can accuse you of jumping on the band wagon. I feel your pain I've lived through 44 years of wait till next year. I did like those Habs teams in the 70's though. Some great players on those teams and I've said it a million times but still feel the 76-77 Canadiens IMO were the most dominate team in any sport for that season. Incredible numbers, That team was a fucking machine and so much fun to watch no BS, no goon shit just a very talented group of players. I'd like to Google that team and see how many are in the HOF.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

ottawa game case in point, whats the deal with how the refs are calling that slashing the stick penalty ... its all over the place right now ... Shorty and Garrett were saying if the player has 1 hand on the stick its no longer getting called

Not just saying this because it benefited the Devils in this case, I don't think it should be a penalty. Slashing a body part 100% a penalty, slashing the stick? No. If one guy has more durable equipment than the other it's the difference between the exact same action being a penalty or not being a penalty? It's illogical. Same with drawing blood on a high stick. So if 1 guy already has an open wound and it gets opened up but another guy doesn't and there is no blood the penalty changes?

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Not just saying this because it benefited the Devils in this case, I don't think it should be a penalty. Slashing a body part 100% a penalty, slashing the stick? No. If one guy has more durable equipment than the other it's the difference between the exact same action being a penalty or not being a penalty? It's illogical. Same with drawing blood on a high stick. So if 1 guy already has an open wound and it gets opened up but another guy doesn't and there is no blood the penalty changes?

i dont really want to get into whether it should or shouldnt be a penalty .. fact is ... its in the rulebook right now so it is what it is

my issue is how can they change the interpretation of the penalty seemingly on the fly during the season ????

i know why actually

its the NHL

 

[dash]

I still find it illogical that shootouts play a big role in determining which teams end up making the playoffs and then cease to exist once the playoffs start.

/By no means do I ever want to see shootouts in the playoffs.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

i dont really want to get into whether it should or shouldnt be a penalty .. fact is ... its in the rulebook right now so it is what it is

my issue is how can they change the interpretation of the penalty seemingly on the fly during the season ????

i know why actually

its the NHL

Oh so that's how they got the name for the show "NHL on the fly" Thanks jstew that makes sense now.

You're right about changing as they go along, remember after the lockout in 05 when they were calling 3 or 4 obstruction penalties? That slowly went away and you never hear it called anymore but it may be a matter of verbiage and they call it interference now? Who knows with this league.

 

[Comeds]

I still find it illogical that shootouts play a big role in determining which teams end up making the playoffs and then cease to exist once the playoffs start.

/By no means do I ever want to see shootouts in the playoffs.

I dont like the way they bring out the zamboni for the shoot out but are OK with playing OT, you know the actual sport (kinda), on the choppy ice. Whats more important?

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

I still find it illogical that shootouts play a big role in determining which teams end up making the playoffs and then cease to exist once the playoffs start.

/By no means do I ever want to see shootouts in the playoffs.

They need to do away with the shootouts, especially since it doesn't help you get in the playoffs, but it does hurt you from getting in.

Go 5 minutes 4 on 4, no goal, go 3 on 3 for 3 minutes. Somebody is bound to score.

 

[Cobiemonster]

They need to do away with the shootouts, especially since it doesn't help you get in the playoffs, but it does hurt you from getting in.

Go 5 minutes 4 on 4, no goal, go 3 on 3 for 3 minutes. Somebody is bound to score.

That being said, if you go to shootouts, and you can't make the playoffs, you don't deserve to be a playoff team - win your games in regulation and OT and you won't have to worry about shootouts

The teams who do enough to make the playoffs do so and those who don't, don't make the playoffs

The shootout is fine, people just want change all the time, if they want to do 3 on 3, do it for five minutes in OT and if nobody scores, go to the shootout - there will still be some shootouts but not as much

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

That being said, if you go to shootouts, and you can't make the playoffs, you don't deserve to be a playoff team - win your games in regulation and OT and you won't have to worry about shootouts

The teams who do enough to make the playoffs do so and those who don't, don't make the playoffs

The shootout is fine, people just want change all the time, if they want to do 3 on 3, do it for five minutes in OT and if nobody scores, go to the shootout - there will still be some shootouts but not as much

That is logic that I can't side with. You mean to tell me that the Capitals don't deserve to make the playoffs because they have played 11 shootouts so far? Compared to the Rangers who just played their 2nd last night? Idk if I can get behind that, and you know damn well when the Flyers make their cup run that year because of beating us in the shootout on the last day of the season, you didn't hate it then lol

 

[Cobiemonster]

That is logic that I can't side with. You mean to tell me that the Capitals don't deserve to make the playoffs because they have played 11 shootouts so far? Compared to the Rangers who just played their 2nd last night? Idk if I can get behind that, and you know damn well when the Flyers make their cup run that year because of beating us in the shootout on the last day of the season, you didn't hate it then lol

Capitals are a better team than the Rangers even without the shootouts - Rangers haven't been good enough to get into enough overtimes/shootouts in order to get more points because they've lost a lot in regulation

Teams who can find a way to get to OT/SO are better than teams who lose more in regulation

And what makes you think I've hated it at any point lately? I didn't hate it then, I don't hate it now - you have to do whatever it takes to get points in order to get into the playoffs

And I know people say the Panthers weren't a good team two years ago when they made the playoffs and lost a lot of shootout games, but remember, they were one goal away from being in the second round of the playoffs

Also, the Kings have been in seven shootouts and 12 total overtime games this season - does that make them a not so good team? No, they're still a great team

You have to realize that today in the NHL, the parity is huge, that's why a lot of games go to OT and shootout - the teams that can get to OT/SO more and find ways to win are better than teams that lose half their games in regulation, like the Rangers have this season - the teams that usually have more OT/SO games are teams that are better because even when they're going up against great teams, they'll find ways to get at least a point or so in those games

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Capitals are a better team than the Rangers even without the shootouts - Rangers haven't been good enough to get into enough overtimes/shootouts in order to get more points because they've lost a lot in regulation

Teams who can find a way to get to OT/SO are better than teams who lose more in regulation

And what makes you think I've hated it at any point lately? I didn't hate it then, I don't hate it now - you have to do whatever it takes to get points in order to get into the playoffs

And I know people say the Panthers weren't a good team two years ago when they made the playoffs and lost a lot of shootout games, but remember, they were one goal away from being in the second round of the playoffs

Also, the Kings have been in seven shootouts and 12 total overtime games this season - does that make them a not so good team? No, they're still a great team

You have to realize that today in the NHL, the parity is huge, that's why a lot of games go to OT and shootout - the teams that can get to OT/SO more and find ways to win are better than teams that lose half their games in regulation, like the Rangers have this season - the teams that usually have more OT/SO games are teams that are better because even when they're going up against great teams, they'll find ways to get at least a point or so in those games

But Marcus, what you said was ''if you need to get to a shootout to win, then you don't deserve to make the playoffs'' So by that logic, they don't deserve to make it. Only reason I used my Rangers as an example is because we've only played 2 and they've come in our last 2 games.

I'm not saying we're good enough to make the playoffs, because right now, we're not. Can that change? Yes it can, you're talking about a team who has missed the playoffs just once since the 05 lockout, so I always believe we will make it, whether it's the 1 seed or as the 8 seed.

What i'm saying is you shouldn't judge a team based on how many or how little shootouts they play.

 

[Cobiemonster]

But Marcus, what you said was ''if you need to get to a shootout to win, then you don't deserve to make the playoffs'' So by that logic, they don't deserve to make it. Only reason I used my Rangers as an example is because we've only played 2 and they've come in our last 2 games.

I'm not saying we're good enough to make the playoffs, because right now, we're not. Can that change? Yes it can, you're talking about a team who has missed the playoffs just once since the 05 lockout, so I always believe we will make it, whether it's the 1 seed or as the 8 seed.

What i'm saying is you shouldn't judge a team based on how many or how little shootouts they play.

I probably should have clarified that if you need to win a shootout in game 82 to get into the playoffs, you probably didn't do enough throughout the season to deserve to get in - that's what it really comes down to - teams who pile up points in OT/SO throughout the season are good enough to the point where it won't come down to game 82 for them - that's where some of their skilled players have come into play throughout the season

As for the Rangers and your belief that they can make it, sure I understand that, but teams and seasons change, I don't think the Rangers have a good enough team like they did in previous years to make it, and even if they do, I think it will be a low seed and a one and done, because they don't any finishers and they don't scare anybody(no forechecking), so it's not going to be easy for them to get into a lot of OT/SO games to pile up points because so far, they haven't been good enough to at least break even in these games and get one point out of it

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Joe Haggerty ‏@HackswithHaggs 6s Peter Chiarelli to B's media in Buffalo: ""Let me be clear on Marchy...I'm not trading Marchy, he's a good player, I like the way he plays"

 

[forty_three]

Oh so that's how they got the name for the show "NHL on the fly" Thanks jstew that makes sense now.

You're right about changing as they go along, remember after the lockout in 05 when they were calling 3 or 4 obstruction penalties? That slowly went away and you never hear it called anymore but it may be a matter of verbiage and they call it interference now? Who knows with this league.

I imagine that there is a team of data analysts watching Twitter and every newspaper and sports network. And they plot the number of mentions the NHL gets following any event. And that's how the league decides what they enforce and what they don't.

I probably should have clarified that if you need to win a shootout in game 82 to get into the playoffs, you probably didn't do enough throughout the season to deserve to get in - that's what it really comes down to - teams who pile up points in OT/SO throughout the season are good enough to the point where it won't come down to game 82 for them - that's where some of their skilled players have come into play throughout the season

As for the Rangers and your belief that they can make it, sure I understand that, but teams and seasons change, I don't think the Rangers have a good enough team like they did in previous years to make it, and even if they do, I think it will be a low seed and a one and done, because they don't any finishers and they don't scare anybody(no forechecking), so it's not going to be easy for them to get into a lot of OT/SO games to pile up points because so far, they haven't been good enough to at least break even in these games and get one point out of it

I would argue that teams don't fight to win in OT because there is no reward for it. They skate around for five minutes trying to hold on so they can take their chances in the coin flip.

The answer is - No loser points. You play til someone wins. No gimmicks, no change in manpower. Play the game until it's over. The only difference is OT is sudden death. And get refs to call things in OT too.

Maybe make regulation wins 2 points and OT wins 1. Force teams to fight to end it on time.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I would argue that teams don't fight to win in OT because there is no reward for it. They skate around for five minutes trying to hold on so they can take their chances in the coin flip.

The answer is - No loser points. You play til someone wins. No gimmicks, no change in manpower. Play the game until it's over. The only difference is OT is sudden death. And get refs to call things in OT too.

Maybe make regulation wins 2 points and OT wins 1. Force teams to fight to end it on time.

But what I'm saying is, the first 60 minutes of the game, you have to play well enough in the first 60 to have a chance in OT - the teams who play well enough in the first 60 minutes of the game are able to get the points

I don't necessarily argue with you on that point about teams not fighting to win while in OT - but you have to play well enough in regulation to have that chance - that's why I've said a team like the Rangers isn't playing well enough this season because they haven't broke even with teams enough to at least get one more point in a few more games

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

I probably should have clarified that if you need to win a shootout in game 82 to get into the playoffs, you probably didn't do enough throughout the season to deserve to get in - that's what it really comes down to - teams who pile up points in OT/SO throughout the season are good enough to the point where it won't come down to game 82 for them - that's where some of their skilled players have come into play throughout the season

As for the Rangers and your belief that they can make it, sure I understand that, but teams and seasons change, I don't think the Rangers have a good enough team like they did in previous years to make it, and even if they do, I think it will be a low seed and a one and done, because they don't any finishers and they don't scare anybody(no forechecking), so it's not going to be easy for them to get into a lot of OT/SO games to pile up points because so far, they haven't been good enough to at least break even in these games and get one point out of it

Eeverybody said that last year, especially when we went down 2-0 to the Caps and came back to knock them out in 7. My team goes to another level when it's playoff time, we just ran into a more physicalBruins team who dominated us. Sather wont keep this roster long, AV is frustrated with it and changes will come, trust me.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Eeverybody said that last year, especially when we went down 2-0 to the Caps and came back to knock them out in 7. My team goes to another level when it's playoff time, we just ran into a more physicalBruins team who dominated us. Sather wont keep this roster long, AV is frustrated with it and changes will come, trust me.

Rangers were a better team last year though imo - they had more of a forecheck, they were more physical - they don't have any of it this season

Just because he won't keep the roster this long doesn't mean the changes that could/would be made will make this team better - and if AV is really that frustrated, he should have been lobbying for changes in the offseason so that they weren't put in this tough position right now - it's going to be difficult for this team to get much better - and I don't think one or two players is going to make this team that much better