GMRwings1983

I guess the question the NHL needed to ask was, "does a 3 on 3 victory become any more legitimate than winning a shootout?" I answer that question in the negative. The NHL apparently doesn't think so.

Yes, there were many enforcers back then, but I don't think their lack of talent is why the top players scored so many goals. They weren't matched up against them. The goaltending, on the other hand has improved immensely. The speed of the game and lack of clutching and grabbing has not resulted in more goals, which should also point to the improvement of the goaltending. So if you like skilled goalies with big pads, then yes, today's NHL should be more enjoyable than the 90's.

Oh yeah. Didn't think about that potential conflict. Then again, Montreal has retired multiple numbers before.

Would be funny if they goon it up.

I'm gonna start a thread about the greatest hypothetical 3 on 3 line ever. Gretzky, Messier, Coffey? How about Beliveau, Richard, Harvey? Hey, this could be fun.

Yeah, but where does this compare to ratings on espn when they still hosted hockey? The ratings from NBCN are compared to prior years with the same network. I guess they have grown since the OLN days, but I'm not sure the TV ratings are better than they heyday of hockey in the 90's on ESPN. And I'm guessing NBA ratings are much higher for TV viewership. I'd love to see this list and compare it to the one above. And I don't remember guys like Lemieux, Bure or Yzerman being constantly matched up against players solely out there to fight and hit. You make it sound like matching lines and coaching was non-existent in those days. No coach would be stupid enough to have Jagr or Lemieux constantly matched up against his goon line.

You must be talking about SCF ratings, because I was under the impression the league's TV ratings for regular season games are pitiful. That's true. I guess I prefer generational talent on the top lines and goons on the lower lines. Today's game has more balanced scoring on all four lines, but that has come at the expense of the talent I highlighted above and at the expense of Probert, Grimson, Twist, Kocur, etc. Also, imo the uniforms were better in the 90's. The Reebok stripe garbage is not as pleasing to look at and very few teams are currently wearing the best ever version of their jerseys. Even the technology has devolved, as in the 90's we had the Fox Track Puck and exploding robots.

Apparently, too many shootouts. Which begs the question. If shootouts are considered a problem, why not remove them altogether? The league just seems undecided right now on what to do. It seems like they're hoping this system leads to less shootouts, even though after the lockout, the shootout was supposed to be the new big thing.

The game may be fast because of less clutching and grabbing, but the lack of comparable star power and the robotic consistency of today's goaltenders has made it less exciting for me. The top players don't put up big numbers anymore as there's more balanced lines and goalies are too good. And yes, the lack of fighting and big hitters hasn't helped it any in my mind. My guess is the NHL is not as popular for the everyday American sports fan Joe as it was in the 90's. Don't have any stats on that, but that's the way it seems. It's hard to promote a more exciting product but not have the big name power to go with that. Kind of like TNA wrestling.

Have you been watching hockey for 5 minutes? Gretzky, Lemieux, Hasek, Roy, Jagr, Sakic, Bourque, Yzerman, Lindros, Chelios, Bure, Forsberg, Fedorov, Brodeur, Belfour, Messier, Hull, LaFontaine, Selanne, Francis, MacInnis, Mogilny, Gilmour, Leetch, Oates, Neely, Shanahan, Roenick, etc. Name me today's best players and we'll have a nice laugh as to which generation is better. The generational talent was way better in the 90's, because the great players of the 80's were still strong, and the 90's were loaded with great young players from Europe. In fact, I don't think there's ever been as much talent in the NHL as there were in the 90's. Read post above. The hitting and fighting isn't the only reason the game was better. There were more great players in the game back then than there's ever been. You can't come up with a comparative list of talent in today's generation. The pool isn't that deep.

How about having the two teams' best fighters square off at center ice? This would bring the "untalented goon who can't skate" back in the game and sell tickets. LOL. That shows you how stupid and childish this whole thing is. It's basically a manufactured gimmick to give someone a point they don't deserve. Two forwards and one defenseman on the ice is something you'd never see in a real game scenario. Yep. "Gimmick" is the best way to describe this. I'm all for this. I like the system before the late 90's, where you play an OT, and if no one scores, no one gets an undeserved extra point. If neither team deserves to win, neither should get an extra point. Would be nice if the team made similar strides, instead of doing the same old s***.

Chelios should be on the bench. Then we'd have more recognizable people on our bench. And sirdrake might come back.

Thank you!

Bollig had 5 points in 62 games, and they decided to keep him over McGrattan, who put up better numbers the season before.

Well, it's because we're sex starved for a fighter on the Wings, or at least someone who can stand up for themselves and actually put up a decent show (not Abby or Smith). I didn't know we're supposed to have standards. Do I wish Holland would sign a player like Prust? Sure I do, but he doesn't do it except for in the distant past. He'll definitely not sign a Peluso, but I still want him to. People frequently want what they can't have. I know this is all a pipe dream being a Wings fan. The word "pylon" is hard to define. To me Andersson is a pylon that doesn't fight. To you Peluso is a pylon that fights. There are others here who think that Andersson has some use, because he can take faceoffs and be our 10th PK man when the other 9 penalty killers need a breather. I don't share this view. I'd love to see a big forward that can hit playing with Glendenning and Miller. That would be a fun line to watch. Worrell was awesome. I always wanted us to get him because of his connections with Lilja.

It could be worse. I could associate myself with Kip Winger.

I just don't see it. I don't know why. I just don't have that gut feeling about those guys. Then again, I'm not a scout. Maybe it's my "pessimism bleeding through". Please don't make me post pictures of Nietzsche and George Costanza again.

I hope he doesn't turn out like Tardif.

Well, there's only so much you can say about Anthony Peluso that hasn't already been mentioned.

I didn't say we haven't been drafting well. I just don't see any comparison or potential comparison between our young players and guys like Toews, Kane and Keith, who were stars as soon as they hit the league. That's the benefit of drafting high. We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but we don't monopolize scouting overseas like we once did. Teams are more cognizant now of young European players and draft there more frequently. Yes, it's possible Nyquist and Tatar will be the next Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but I don't see it.

And that was how long ago? What were your comments about fighters?

He won't sign any of those players you listed either.

The 2000 Devils would go a lot deeper than the simulation. I do think the 2001 Avs and 2002 Wings were the best teams, so it's ironic a simulation had them in the Finals. I wonder how "simulated" this was?

I would love those players on the Wings, but I have no faith that Holland would ever sign any such player. His track record shows he doesn't like it. He's never actively pursued these types of players before. Yeah, he signed Tootoo, but then Tootoo couldn't ever get on the ice. You can blame that on Babcock, but the pro Babcock crowd blamed Holland. I guess we'll find out whose fault it was in the future.

Name some who you think we actually have a chance to sign, with Kenny "I faint at the sign of blood" Holland at the helm?