stormboy

i'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with loudness of cheering, but my opinion is that generally wings fans are too spoiled. we aren't really that excited by success: we take it as a given. thus, anything short of success is only seen as failure, whereas success itself is merely acceptable, because it is so expected. if the wings score a late goal to send it into overtime and then end up winning it, wings fans, in general, i think, are now only "satisfied," and not really excited at their team's success. that's my two cents, anyway.

look at the date of your quoted post.

i saw this thread today and was all "WTF" but then i was all, "this was started in november LOL" cuz really as much as he's ugly and i don't really like him he's been SOOO one of our best players recently. i mean, like, duh.

so, unlike drake, i'm not in the mood to do a statistical analysis, though i'm sure glad he did and see the value in it. i also see the point of the poster who said "look at the video each of dat's points versus filppula's points." but i'm just going to say something, and it will probably be a minor blip in this thread that no one will even quote. but here it is. * i'm sick of people bitching about how secondary assists don't count. yes, sometimes you were the guy who touched the puck before some other guy made a good play before some OTHER guy scored a goal, and you somehow got a point. but look. sometimes the guy who scores the goal had it go in off his skate or shoulder or something; sometimes he is given a GIFT of a rebound or a perfect pass or something else and shoots into an open net. so how much credit should he get for burying an open net shot? sometimes the the guy who gets the primary assist just tapped the puck to another guy who made a great move on the goalie and scored; sometimes the guy who gets the primary assist shot it wide unintentionally and and another guy picked up the loose puck, took it to the net and scored. does he really deserve the primary assist when someone else did all the work? or how about this: what if some guy wins a vicious battle in the corner and makes a brilliant outlet pass to a guy who just taps the puck to another guy who scores an easy goal? the guy who got the secondary assist did the hardest work in that play, and yet "only" gets a secondary assist! now, i'm not trying to claim that all flip's points come from the latter situation. but dats is playing with the best players on the team. so, to me, if flip is at least keeping up in points, with marginally less players and a few less minutes, it's really hard to dog on him, because over the long term, you're not going to be the guy who just "happened" to touch the puck before two other players made AMAZING ******* PLAYS, as a lot of people seem to suggest with flip. how many times have we seen cleary make an AMAZING ******* PLAY where flip just happened to get a point because the puck skipped of his skate and then cleary took it coast to coast this season? never. it's not as if he's on the ice just to tap the puck to gretsky and then watch him school all five opponent players and score. sure, everyone's going to scrape a point here and there from just touching the puck while their teammates actually make the play, but you make your own luck over the long term, and if flip is keeping up in points -- yeah, with not WAY worse linemates and not WAY less minutes, but with linemates who actually aren't as good as Z and with actually fewer minutes, though not way less -- you have to give him credit, because it's not going to just happen by chance this far into the season. okay, let's everyone ignore this post on the count of three...

i realize everyone's pissed, but can you not see the hilarity in the above posts? thank you, finnish wing, for bringing some levity into this discussion, even if no one else is paying attention.

ah, mindfly. dude got tapped with a stick on the mouth, and you assume worst case scenario.

no, i mean, i agree. they should get the call right in any case. i'm just saying that practically, as far as wins and losses go, as far as points and standings go, it didn't have a measurable impact. but you're absolutely right, and what if the next botched call decides whether a team gets into the playoffs or not or is in OT of game seven of some series. be faithful in the small things...

that cracked me up. but i feel like it's mindfly's attitude to see everything that the opposition does as some evil genius plan and everything that we do as bumbling tomfoolery. i do think that last stat is interesting. and i think there's another layer to that, too. not only would jimmy have to have been perfect or better than perfect to win all but one of those games, i think it says something about how the team was playing in general. sure, you can have a really tight defensive game and just be snakebitten in the offensive zone...but most of the losses i've watched this year, bad offense and bad defense have gone hand in hand. just thinking about the islanders game...sure, you could argue that we would have to have scored 7 goals to win that game the way our goalies were playing, but, especially jimmy's goals, i felt were more the result of s***ty team play or bad plays by individuals on the team. our passing was awful that night. we could generate no rushes, could not win battles, and could not contain the puck. the islanders were having their way with us all the way around. so the fact that we scored zero goals is also a big part of the reason why we has six scored against: s***ty team play. if you look at the san jose game, it was a good effort by the goalie, but the wings also played great as a team for the last two periods (and not all that bad even in the 0-1 first period). the fact that we scored four goals is a big part of the reason why we only had one against: good team play. it's silly to hang it all on the goalie, and while you can tell when a goalie is giving up bad goals, everyone knows that GAA is much more of a team stat than a goalie stat, and it's not like jimmy's losing 5-4 romps where the team is playing well but he keeps on giving up bad goals. when he loses, it is usually because the team is playing like s*** from front to back.

there were probably more angles that were edited out of that second clip (since it was just a highlights package) but from there, you clearly see the ref behind the goal emphatically say "no goal" and there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever of the puck crossing the line. there's another angle (i think in the first clip) that's shot from near center ice...you can't see the other ref the whole time, but you see him skate in from about the red line and never see him make anything that looks close to a "goal" gesture (i'm not saying it never happened, i've just seen nothing like it yet) and in any case, if he called "goal" and the other ref called "no goal," it's absurd to me that the ref at center ice would somehow trump the ref who was sitting on the net for that to be considered the "call on the ice" that has to have "conclusive evidence" to be overturned. plus, i'm pretty sure he says that the replay showed the puck over the line. maybe. but again, i've seen nothing to suggest that and i find it hard (though not impossible) to believe that such an angle exists. but, either way, it was the fourth goal in a 4-0 win for the kings. probably not much would have been different either way. *shrug*

yeah, they're starting to irritate me. oh, great. a powerplay. guess i'll go take a s***.

ugggghhhh..... *pukes*

don't feel great about ozzie coming in right now...although this came can't be going much worse, so, whatev.

giveaways, giveaways...this game sucks.

still losing all the battles...doesn't look good so far.

wings can't keep the puck on their sticks or their skates on the ice. wtf is going on?

and just a little more food for thought regarding the shootout. if the NHL went to a 2-1 split for SOs only, with reg and OT games being 3-0 pts-wise, do you think that would make the SO any less exciting from a fan perspective? sure, we might ***** on LGW about CHI stealing a point from us simply because they got to the shootout last night, but when cleary scores the winning goal or when ozzie makes the game-winning save, we're going to be cheering and jumping up and down. yeah, we might know intellectually that we could have gotten two more points in the standings if we'd won it in OT, but when i hear ken daniels yell "SAVE OSGOOD! RED WINGS WIN!" and know that we still moved up in the standings over our opponent, that's still great for me as a fan. and i might even admit that CHI deserved 1/3 of the points for having matched us evenly all the way.

i actually pretty ******* agree with this post. if the NHL has 1-1 ties and 2-0 W/L regardless of OT or regulation, once you get to OT, why would a defenseman pinch up? would he risk a breakaway that could result in zero points for a team that has gone stroke-for-stroke with the other team through 63 minutes of play? not likely. better play it safe and get the one point for the tie rather than risk getting nothing. and this exciting "play-to-win" hockey everyone seems to want actually goes out the window. tane makes a good point here: DET and CHI get to OT; both have a point, but both want that one extra for getting the win. when it's 4-on-4, of course both teams are going to go "balls to the walls" go grab that point. unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that your team has a major edge in shootouts, you HAVE to try to get that point in OT. i think that makes for better OTs, like tane said, than when you have everything to lose in OT. and tane, i see your point all the way up to the shootout, which is where, for me, all of this breaks down. the SO isn't going to go away because of the business of the NHL. and while i like the 2/0 W/L idea, it seems absurd to me that if two teams are completely even through 65 minutes of hockey, that it's going to go all-or-nothing in something as flukey and individual as the shootout. that's my only problem. if DET has played a totally even game with CHI for 65 minutes and then for CHI to get 2 points simply because kane's move happened to fool ozzie on a free, undeserved breakaway this one time, without the rest of the hockey team even on the ice, and for DET to get zero points, as if they'd lost in regulation from real goals, just seems like total bulls*** to me. i don't think you can have an all-or-nothing swing based on the shootout, which is why the NHL has the extra point system right now. that's why i like the 3-0 W-L / 2-1 OTW-OTL or SOW-SOL system. win in regulation = all the points. you gotta limp for a win, you deserve less, but still more than the team to limped their way into a longer loss. i'd even go, like i said before, 3-0 pts for an OTW/OTL and save the 2-1 split for SOW-SOL. that way, legit hockey win = all the points & flukey-but-very-entertaining SOW-SOL = 2-1 pts.

this. i feel basically the same way, with a little difference: i don't really like the idea of a tie, but it is preferable to endless OT. so, given three choices (1. endless OT = lots of hurt players; 2. shootout = flukey way to decide a game; 3. tie) i think that in the pure sense of the game a tie is the best option. but the NHL has s***ty TV ratings, and like it or not, it's a business just like everything else, and they need to make money. s***, i want them to make money (despite the obligatory bellyaching about how "everything is about money nowadays" or what have you) so i can keep watching my beloved game. and the fact of the matter is that everyone is on their feet for the shootout. and you are GOING to lose bubble fans if you take away the SO and go back to ties. you and i may not like it, but it's just the truth. that being said, if you have to keep the shootout, which you do, go to a three point system. those, like you, that have said that the era-versus-era point comparison is f***ed already are absolutely right, so i don't see how that should even enter in to the conversation (if you really want to compare eras, you can do a little bit of work and figure out regulation and OT wins and count SO wins as ties...so, there, you've got a legit -- albeit more difficult -- comparison, and we don't have a problem). i don't have a strong opinion on whether OT should be 2(OTW) - 1 (OTL) or 3(OTW) - 0(OTL). so long as SOW is 2 points and SOL is 1 point i think it works. i also like the idea of extending 4-on-4 OT or even adding a five minute 3-on-3 OT after the current 4-on-4. the games only go a bit longer, and because less players are on the ice, each player's TOI doesn't go up by a whole hell of a lot, but you're a lot more likely to get a legit winner. as a final note, while i dislike the current 2- and 3-point game system, it can hardly be said that it is "unfair." you can argue theoretically that some team who has maybe two really good shootout specialists but an otherwise mediocre team might play for the shootout and pile up points from SOWs. but every team knows the deal and can put as much or as little effort into the SO as they choose, whether it be in practice time or what players they chose to sign (e.g., does a hudler-type player's value go up because he adds a shootout threat? maybe, but if that's part of the game everyone can chose to sign or not sign a player with that in mind). secondly, people always talk about "playing for overtime" or "playing for the shootout," and while i think there might be some validity to that, if any and every team was capable of pressing the "play-boring-hockey-in-which-no-one-is-guaranteed-to-score-ever," then every game would end 1-0. sure, you can play the trap and not really try to score in the waning minutes of a tie game, but there's nothing to say that that's going to work. and unless you're playing an out-of-conference team that you don't care about, every team has something to lose by letting the other team get to OT except in the most extreme or late-season situations in which a bottom-feeding getting an extra point makes no difference. if a team is playing a division rival in a close points race (see: our division) NO coach is going to be like, "aw, yeah, just give 'em the extra point, so long as we get one." if we're playing chicago, the LAST thing babs wants is them getting ANY points. so, yeah, it's a bummer when two division rivals generate three points in a single game when the wings only have an opportunity to get two points for themselves. but the same thing happens FOR us that happens against us. this season, while we're scraping for playoff position, i find myself being really thankful when we make it into overtime: each one of those points is big. so, yeah, i think it should be changed, but i don't think that it can really be said to be "unfair" to any team over any other.

they had waved off icing several seconds before the hit took place, and both players heard the linesmen yelling it. no-touch icing would not have applied even if it were the rule. and kopitar and phanuef were not racing for the puck to negate or cause icing because there was going to be no icing in any case. thus, i don't think any calls for rule changes or bellyaching about the current rule apply here whatsoever. that said, i think the call was appropriate and even perhaps a little harsh. i do not think there should be a suspension. the main thing here obviously is that kopitar never touched the puck. it seems to me that as the players were coming together kopitar lost his balance and was thus in a much more vulnerable position when he hit the boards. if he stays on his skates, it's a hard hit and certainly an interference call but no more. i'm no fan of phanuef but this seems like a situation is, as someone else commented, worse in result than it was in intent. personally, i think that's an important distinction to make. a player shouldn't be suspended if a shot he takes breaks a defenseman's nose. that's an extreme example, but if that same hit happens 10 times maybe eight of them kopitar keeps his balance and walks away totally fine. situations like this one, when both players are moving with a full head of steam, or going to create dangerous situations. but it's a full-contact game. i don't see any reason why this play in particular should suggest a rule change because of the fact that it wasn't even a touch-up situation, and i don't think phanuef should get suspended because kopitar lost his balance. major penalty? yes. game misconduct? i understand because kopitar got hurt. but no more.

LGW.

i think video review could be expanded, but like others have said, it gets pretty tricky. for example, let's say datsyuk is driving towards the net, and seconds before he scores, zetterberg gets called for interference or something. maybe datsyuk scores, but even if you go back and determine that the penalty should not have been called, you can't count the goal because if the ref blows his whistle then the goalie quits playing and anything that happens afterwards can't be considered part of the play. same goes for the puck-out-of-sight thing. if the ref blows the whistle, then everyone quits playing and whatever happens after that is moot. two possible example do come to mind, though they probably only come to mind because of the way they've affected the wings. first would be goalie interference goal call-offs. if the ref determines that it's a penalty, i don't think you could review it for the reasons mentioned above. but if it's a non-penalty call-off, you should be able to go back and determine whether or not the player actually impeded the movement of the goalie. in this scenario, the goalie has no reason to quit playing because there was no whistle, so despite the ref's decision after the play, you could easily change the call. the other would be the "intent to blow" rule that f***ed us over against the ducks. the whistle didn't go off until after the puck was in the net, so you can't argue that the goalie quit playing because the ref was planning on blowing the whistle. in this instance, the rule isn't really changing the scope of video review (it's still determining if it's a legit goal based on whether or not the goalie had control) but just changes the "intent to blow" rule...i get why the rule is that way, but i think that it would be better to change it. but, yeah, it gets sticky based on what you can review. for example, that play against SJS where the puck went off the netting and came back into play and they scored. if the puck goes in within five seconds, then can you go back and rule that the play should have been called dead, reset the clock, and get a faceoff? what if they pass it around for a while and then score? what if the puck comes back into play and WE skate down and score? what if it exceeds the five-second rule but still directly affects the play? then you'd have to write something in where the refs would have to determine if the missed call "directly affected" the play or if it didn't, in which case the play would stand. (like, if the puck goes out of play, but then there is three more minutes of continuous play, then someone scores, obviously the missed call didn't directly affect the scoring play.) at that point, you're just introducing a whole new gray area for the refs to use their discression, giving fans even MORE room to argue that the refs f***ed their team over (e.g., "the refs said that directly affected the play and overturned datsyuk's goal, when it wasn't a penalty in the first place and even if it was clearly didn't directly affect the outcome of the play") and i think that's something we'd all like to avoid as much as possible.

then what happened?

LAZYNSUCKS - 20 LOGOHUNTER - 37 it could be the throwback collection. SNOWANGEL - 39 personally i'm partial to HE HATE Z. clever.

Dear you, I think that all posts directly quoting another post should follow this format from now on. Sincerely, Me

*comic trombone*