eva unit zero

I would love to see Philly come back and take it to seven. Even if they don't win, Pittsburgh relies too heavily on their top three forwards to have success early in a round with no rest like that. Especially if they get a little banged up in the process, which is bound to happen in a seven gamer against a team like Philly that would rather put you through the glass than put the puck in the net.

Terrible plan. I understand your motivation, but the divisions are the way they are in baseball due to historical alignment with either the National League or the American League. That's the same reason for the division in the NFL. It works in the NFL because you see a team play two games against their own division, which makes up half their schedule, plus a handful of conference opponents and non-conference opponents. As the NFL schedule is not a complete sampling of teams (32 teams playing 16 games) they can avoid scheduling unreasonable travel. Tt works in baseball because baseball is the only major sport that uses a series schedule in regular season play, where the team will play in the same city for 2-4 games in a row, before moving on to the nextcity and doing the same thing, or going home and having a few teams come in for 2-4 games in a row each. Baseball probably has actually less arduous travel than the NHL despite having more games and more widespread teams over a shorter period. A better plan would be the one I have been pushing for years. Using current teams only, we would see six divisions of five teams each, but they would instead be divided into THREE conferences of two divisions. Playoff seeding would see all division champions guaranteed a spot, but either no guaranteed seeding, or at most a guaranteed top eight seed rather than top six. Teams would play two games, home and away, vs all non-conference opponents (40 games) Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs all non-division opponents within the conference (20 games) Teams would play six games, three home and three away, vs all divisional opponents (24 games) Total 84 game schedule. The other option is to add two teams to the league and realign to something similar to this; eight divisions of four teams, in two conferences. Divisions would be tied together in pairs for scheduling purposes This would require expansion, of course. Scheduling would be as follows: Teams would play two games, home and away, vs all non-conference opponents (32 games) Teams would play three games, two home and one away, vs one specific division within their conference on a two-year rotation (12 games) Teams would play three games, one home and two away, vs one specific division within their conference on a two-year rotation (12 games) Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs their 'paired' division within their conference (16 games) Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs divisional opponents (12 games) Total 84 game schedule. For example, we'll say the Western conference has divisions A,B,C, and D. Divisions A and B would contain the eight westernmost team, and would be 'paired' together. Divisions C and D would contain the next eight westernmost teams, and would be paired. Division A would play two home games against Division C, while Division B would play two home games against Division D. Division C would play two home games against Division B, and Division D would play two home games against Division A. The next season, the relationship would reverse, with each team seeing more homes against a certain division now playing more on the road against that division. Teams in Division A would play four games against seven other teams; the other three members of Division A as well as the four teams in Division B. Yes, this schedule does somewhat tone down the direct divisional competition...but the other option was to play two games against a conference rival, or to have four conferences and play two games each against 24 teams. Which, based on recent optionon, would NOT be popular.

As I have waited to express an opinion until I could actually see a video... There is absolutely no freakin way that is goalie interference. Turco was able to establish position well before the shot, and was not impeded in his attempt to make a save. I know I am only saying what everyone else has been bitching about, but I didn't feel comfortable committing to a position without seeing the play.

He's talking about Jonathan Ericsson, who is also a lefty.

Yashin would be a good fit in most markets if he still has the kind of skill he had two years ago. Why? He's a big, strong, skilled centerman capable of using his strength to create scoring opportunities. That would be useful anywhere. Think Robert Lang, but closer to his peak, and with a higher peak to begin with. Yashin would fit well on most NHL teams if a reasonable contract could be worked out.

If the ref felt that Homer's positioning impeded Turco's ability to attempt to save the puck, then it ws goaltender interference. as I was unable to watch more than the first period, I missed pretty much every interesting moment. However, the argument that 'Turco didn't ***** about it' doesn't prove it wasn't goaltender interference. Ultimately, there are two ways this goal can be waved off. If Datsyuk's contact is what caused Turco to fall into his own net, even indirectly, then no goal on goaltender interference if it was intentional, and no goal on dead puck if it wasn't. Bad calls happen. What hurts the integrity of the game is not that they happen, nor that some calls are not reviewable via video. It is that in the NHL, we never see what happens in football sometimes, where one ref goes to call a penalty, but after a discussion the officials choose not to call a penalty. Admittedly, it is easier o do so in football because the play was going to stop at that point anyway; but there are rules in the NHL about 'accidental' play stoppages and how they should be handled. As far as refereeing goes...referees have been more consistent from ref to ref and period to period in recent years than ever before, so anyone sitting there saying 'Man I hate Bettman, he ruined the game' over occasional arguable calls are really just looking for an excuse to *****, not providing any real thought or insight into problems the league may have.

Wow, someone with the username Satan81 complaining about the 1999 Hull goal? Let me guess, Buffalo deserved the 1999 Cup, even though if you take away the Hull goal they still have only won two games and are a goal away from elimination?

McCreary: Well that's a...OH MY GOD WTF?

Fixed.

No, it really can't.

Interesting fact; both teams that have given up 3-0 series leads to lose currently hold such a lead in the 2008 playoffs. However, in both instances that it has occurred, there are important factors that must be considered. The 1942 Red Wings used an unpopular cherry-picking style that led to great success, and a 3-0 lead on Toronto before the more skilled Toronto team decided to play that way and won the next four. Toronto coach Hap day said (paraphrased) 'We played their way, but we didn't like it' and after the season, the NHL instituted the two-line pass offsides rule. Despite this, Detroit would win the 1943 Stanley Cup, a run that included a 6-game first round victory over the Maple Leafs. However, that was right in the middle of a 20-year span from 1932 to 1951 that saw the Leafs go to the Cup finals 13 times and win seven Cups. 1975 was start of a ten-season span that saw the Islanders win four championships, make five Cup finals, and play in a total of nine conference final rounds. On the opposite side, 1975 was the closest the Penguins would come to winning two playoff rounds until Mario Lemieux led the team to two Stanley Cup championships in 1991 and 1992. The team has since only won the second round two other times (1996 and 2001), both years failing to advance to the finals. So the circumstances are not at all similar with regard to the Dallas/Detroit series, and in the Pittsburgh/Philadelphia series the leading team was one top of the conference much of the regular season and ADDED a superstar forward, while the team with no wins has already played well above their level just to make it to this point. We are not talking about either an established league power or a budding league power that would be making the comeback; but rather the top team in each conference dominating the challenger. There will be no comeback this round. Perhaps Dallas or Philadelphia pulls out one game, but neither will take the series.

I only stated it was possible. When you consider that it's a guy like Ted Lindsay making the statement, someone who worked out regularly with Konstantinov and knew his physical conditioning, that brings a little more credibility to the possibility. I was simply explaining how the statement 'possibly the best ever if he were healthy' was not as ridiculous as some suggested. If Konstantinov remained healthy, and was able to maintain his level of play consistently, he would have won several Norris trophies. Stevens, Chelios, Bourque, Pronger are some guys who have enjoyed long careers of playing physical hockey with relatively little time missed due to injury. The argument that 'he played physical, he'd have retired by 35 because of injury' is NOT an infallible statement. And my whole argument was based on the premise of Vladdy remaining HEALTHY..which makes the 'he'd have been injured' statement invalid as far as a counterargument. He wasn't guaranteed to suffer major injury, as evidenced by many other top defensemen who played physical styles and have not suffered major injuries that caused them to retire. So, assuming he remaing healthy, we can say that it was just as likely he would remain better than Lidstrom as not, correct? So while eight or nine might be unlikely, it is not an impossible situation and saying it could have happened if he avoided major injury is not far fetched. Admittedly, it could be compared to saying 'If Ayrton Senna hadn't crashed into the wall at full speed, he could be the winningest F1 driver ever' because we don't know that he would have continued being among the best...but to say 'No, Senna couldn't possibly have more victories than Schumacher does' is silly because we don't know how those races Schumacher won would have changed had Senna still been around.

If the Wings win the Cup, and Ozzie keeps up his stats, and he doesn't win the Conn Smythe? It will be because of a lack of respect, as he will be the only goaltender in recent history to post those kinds of numbers on a Cup winning team and NOT win the Smythe. Hell, his numbers from the 98 team were as good as or better than many Smythe winners who won it in more goaltender-friendly postseasons.

Lidstrom has won five Norrises and was the top vote-getter among defensemen for the postseason all-star team seven times since the accident. Konstantinov had been fourth in Norris voting in 1995-96 and second in 1996-97. IMHO he should have won it both years, but did not for the same reason Lidstrom would lose the 98 and 99 Norrises; he's European. Konstantinov finished top-four in Norris voting for the first time at age 29. Lidstrom did so for the first time at age 29. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Konstantinov COULD have remained the better defenseman for several years, as he was better at the time of his accident. As Lidstrom could be considered to have been named the best defenseman in the league by one measure six times in nine seasons since the accident, and never was considered outside the top five, only once dropping below #2, it is not far-fetched to suggest that Konstantinov could have won quite a few Norris trophies had he remained better than Lidstrom. In fact, had he remained better than Lidstrom for the entire period from 1997 to 2007, he would have won at least five Norris trophies. As Rob Blake only narrowly stole the 1998 Norris from Nick, and Nick was second the next two years as well, it is not far fetch at all to suggest that a defenseman who was better than Nick Lidstrom over that time period could have won more. You have to remember, my statement started with the hypothetical based on Vladdy's maximum potential as judged by his ability at the end of his career and how Nick Lidstrom has consistently remained the league's top defenseman since Konstantinov's injury.

Mike Vernon faced 30+ shots three times in the 1997 playoffs. In two of those games, the game lasted more than 97 minutes. Vernon won the Conn Smythe that year. Osgood has faced 30+ shots twice in nine games. He has won nine games. His GAA and Sv Pct are considerably better than Vernon's were, his record is better, and his defense is worse. Osgood for Conn Smythe.

The truth? I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome in the mid 1980s. Follow the link for ome more information on that.

He also broke a tie with Terry Sawchuk for most playoff victories in a Detroit sweater. Ozzie now holds the record at 47, one ahead of Sawchuk's 46.

I have been asking since Fox used the glow puck... Why can't we use this technology for the goal light instead? I mean seriously...if you place sensors inside the puck, and a corresponding set of sensors inside the goal frame, you could very easily and with existing technology build a system that determines conclusively if a puck enters the net. Won't have any say on the validity of the goal, other than that the puck entered the net. But that is often a major point of contention in goal reviews.

Then you need to try thinking again, because you are wrong. The manufacturer is NOT being sued. Ford is not being sued. A Ford DEALER is being sued. The argument is that Findlay FLM is liable because they provided the vehicle for modification when it was turned into a limousine, and they failed to ensure that the seat belts in the rear compartment were properly accessible and functioned correctly. If this is proven to be the case, Findlay FLM is absolutely liable for any injury resulting from the defect of modification if it can be shown that they could have caught the error and thusly had the vehicle fixed or replaced, ensuring safety of the occupants could be preserved.

Lidstrom is generally accepted as one of the all-time greats. Many on this board rank him as a no-brainer for #2. That he is in the top five is without question. Konstantinov was better than Lidstrom at the time of his accident, and is the same age. He was the best in the world, and getting better. His conditioning was, and is still, phenomenal. It's quite possible that Vladdy would be the owner of eight or nine consecutive Norris trophies had he not been in that limo. That is a pretty compelling argument to be considered to have 'potential to have been the greatest of all-time.'

Even if Yzerman is the all-time leading scorer for Canada in IIHF competition?

Everyone here is saying 'that's absolutely a goal.' I disagree. Honestly, it is unclear even from that photo whether the ENTIRE puck has crossed the line. The right edge of the puck looks as if it may still be over the goal line. And the fact that we don't have CONCLUSIVE, INDISPUTABLE evidence (the NHL standard for such things) then we have to accept the ruling on the ice as correct. It's not whether or not we think the puck probably went in (or didn't). It's whether it can be proven conclusively. If not, as in this case, the goal doesn't count. Or as in the case in the 2001 playoffs, when Mark Faucette called a goal on the ice in favor of Jozef Stumpel and the LA Kings. Even though replays showed that the puck PROBABLY didn't cross the line, they didn't show that conclusively, as the puck was obscured and MIGHT have crossed the line while under Chris Osgood's pads. As it was called a goal on the ice, the ruling of 'it probably didn't go in, but we aren't sure' meant the goal counted. For a referee to be overruled by video review, there must be CONCLUSIVE and INDISPUTABLE evidence of the correct call. That is often not the case, regardless of what 'probably' happened.

I hope that story is at least legit at its base. Nine inch pads are something I have been asking for for years, although I would like to see the length based on the goalie's size; based on height in relation to the knee or something like that. But absolutely, nine inches should be the maximum width, and hopefully at least this portion of that story is true.

If Hudler had Sammy's body, he'd be Sergei Fedorov.

Blocking with the stick is NOT a butt-end. That is the point you COMPLETELY missed. What Osgood did may have been high sticking (if there was actual contact, which is questionable) but it was nowhere near a butt-end.