Two really shitty game 7s.
NHL '15/'16 Thread
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
- Status
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Depends on your viewpoint. If you were watching as a casual fan with no rooting interest or, if you were a Preds or Stars fan, I would agree with you. As a Blues fan, I rather enjoyed not having to suffer through 3 hours of panic for a change. I'm pretty sure that Sharks fans felt the same way. You're right though....two very non-competitive games.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Wow. Just shocked that the Bolts can lose their Vezina-Trophy candidate goaltender and still end up beating the Pens on the road in a game #1 that I fully expected Pittsburgh to win. Game #2 is critical at home now for the Penguins. Weird game. Huzzah for the Bolts!
I'd like to see the icing rule tweaked: if an icing is ruled against a team with their goalie pulled for an extra skater, the goalie shouldn't be able to come back on for one of the skaters before the face-off.
All due respect, but that's a ridiculous idea. First of all, how often does that even happen? So it's not like it's a recurring problem. Second of all, they would already have to take a faceoff in the defensive end when they're (presumably) behind in the score (not to mention that they would have to return the goaltender to the net, thereby relinquishing their man-advantage and invariably have to take time off the clock before being able to pull him again and regain the extra attacker), which seems like penalty enough. Leaving the net empty is just gifting the other team an empty-netter if they win the faceoff; that would take away from the excitement of the end of the game. A rule change to reduce excitement in the game... hmm, sounds like the type of idea that Gary Bettman would come up with... after all, this is the guy who decided that it was a good idea to review offsides on any goal scored, which slows down the game and ultimately results in fewer goals scored, precisely the opposite of what fans want, not to mention that it's always on some stupid technicality on some skater who raised his skate off the ice a millisecond before the puck entered the zone. In the case of your silly idea to force the goaltender to remain on the bench, yes, it would actually lead to more goals, but empty-net goals, which are not exciting and are oftentimes the cue for fans in the stadium to get up out of their seats and go home and fans at home to change the channel. Such a bad idea...
Hope the Sharks or the Blues pull it out for a change. Either. Preferably the Blues though, in my heart. Missouri is a great state (gorgeous women down there too).
Well, it happened twice at the end of Tampa-Pittsburgh game, that's why I brought it up. And I'm thinking if Tampa was the better team for 58 minutes, why should Pittsburgh get a break now and maybe pull off some crazy comeback because of that break? Yes, the rule adjustment would make the face-off win even more important than usual but even if the offensive team gains possession it's not an automatic goal, as I'm sure you know by now. Sometimes players miss the empty net or turn the puck over, shots get blocked, passes go out of the zone, sticks break... And that's if they win the face-off, which only happens about 50% of the time. But like you said, that situation doesn't even occur often so I don't think there would be a significant increase in the number of EN goals and, consequently, disappointed fans who had to leave/switch the channel 30 seconds before they wanted to. And if you really wanna make sure that it doesn't happen maybe play better next time so you won't be down a goal or more in the final minutes of the game.
It happened twice in the most recent game you watched... Oh boy, it's time to revamp the game *rolls eyes*
How can you describe that as a "break"? The team has to take a faceoff in the defensive end when they need to score and they have to relinquish the extra attacker that they need on the ice. Yeah, you really don't get it.
The idea remains ridiculous... utter nonsense... no informed hockey fan would react any other way to your asinine idea. I've grown up in THE hockey country in one of the most intense hockey cities in the world and if I suggested this idea to any of the plethora of diehard hockey fans here in Edmonton they'd react the same way I have. Guaranteed.
Overly dramatic much? I said a tweak, as in minor adjustment. And it wasn't only the most recent game I watched, it was the most recent game anybody watched.
This way they wouldn't "have to relinquish the extra attacker that they need on the ice" because he would have to stay in anyway.
And don't fucking patronize me. On internet boards like this one we're all a bunch of nobodies and your opinion is as worthless as mine regardless of where you're from, Canada or Australia, even if that hurts your gentle sensibilities Mr. "Informed Hockey Fan."
It's not a "minor adjustment" when it ruins the excitement at the end of a one-/two-goal game... Such a dumb idea, what am I supposed to do but patronize you.
What I was saying (obviously) is that when they ice the puck in that situation they are forced to relinquish the extra attacker in order to prevent the empty-net goal in the event of the opposing team winning the faceoff, which is part of how the current (and completely sensible) rule already penalizes the icing (along with the fact that they're forced to take a faceoff in their defensive end).
I can't agree that my opinion is as worthless as yours in this case when yours is objectively moronic.
You clearly don't understand hockey. I do.
Mike Johnson (being an idiot as usual) is saying that that failed covering of the puck by Elliott just now would've been a goal had the referee not prematurely blown the whistle, but he's dead wrong because you can see on the replay that Joel Ward actually pushes Elliott's leg into the puck and that's how the puck went in, so that wouldn't have counted anyway and the Sharks have nothing to complain about.
Your opinion on the value of your opinion is also worthless here, that's precisely what I was saying, but attention apparently isn't one of your better qualities.
Oh, shit. Well, my dad is better then your dad. Bye Felicia!
Look who's talking, LOL... I opined on the value of your opinion. You could've just admitted that you didn't think through your idea the first time and that it's actually clearly stupid, but I'm stubborn too... not dumb, but stubborn...
Yeah, well I'm smart and you're dumb... And I'm rubber and your glue, so your words bounce off me and stick to you.
P.S.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I don't know but she certainly was sitting in the correct seat for optimal viewing by the casual (or not-so-casual) fan. Maybe she was a plant by Hitch to keep the Sharks a bit distracted? Home ice advantage, amigo! :dunno:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I feel compelled to comment that, while showing the deepest respect for the late, great Dan Kelly, Doc Emrick is without a doubt the best P-B-P man in hockey history! "....remains of the broken stick helicoptering across the ice....". :surprise: :bowdown: He's the master of his craft....the Vin Scully of hockey.
Interesting that this game (and perhaps series) is going to come down to two totally green 21-year-old rookie goaltenders against some of the greatest offensive talents there are between the Bolts and Pens. This series is totally up for grabs at present. Fascinating.
Interesting that this game (and perhaps series) is going to come down to two totally green 21-year-old rookie goaltenders against some of the greatest offensive talents there are between the Bolts and Pens. This series is totally up for grabs at present. Fascinating.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
You're in for a treat....she'll be back again tonight! A Taylor Stevens wannabe?
"Rally Boobs"! I love it!
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/n...vs---rally-boobs--in-st--louis-212343192.html
- Status
