eva unit zero

I'd settle for a sober Steve Chiasson.

Not really. It's about touch vs no-touch vs hybrid.

I always considered Purinton to be a heavyweight. Not one of the better ones, but a heavy. He always reminded me of a Kocur type...not the highest profile enforcer, but he's got a huge right. That Quincey was willing to go with him may have been more due to the fact that Purinton has been pretty rough with Griffins players this season, but it shows he'll step up against heavies.

The problem with a 1v16 format is travel. If you match 1v16, 2v15, and so on...sometimes the higher seed will have a horrible travel situation, not unlike what the Wings face every year in the Western Conference. I had an interesting thought on this topic actually. The six division winners and two at-large teams are the "Top Eight." The next eight highest teams are the "Bottom eight." The Top Eight are seeded 1-8 on points, and are then allowed to select their opponent from the Bottom Eight, in seed order. This would provide the teams that finish well the ability to choose a favorable playoff matchup, but allows teams that do well but do not finish first in a strong division to still achieve the same reward. For example, it's conceivable that the top three seeds could be from the same division in a year where that division's teams dominate everyone else.

It depends on what the rule change is. As I have stated my argument is against the kind of no-touch used in some amateur and minor leagues where there is an automatic whistle even if the attacking player is obviously goign to get there first. If the rule requires the defensive player to be ahead, such as the 'imaginary line' rule, then I have no problem because it takes out the parts of the rule change that harm the flow of the game. Why have I had to say this so many times?

My preference for the second PP right point is... Jiri Fischer. Sadly, there is only a very slim chance of that happening.

Lidstrom is FAR more important to the Wings' success than Datsyuk is.

The goaltender argument is mine, and I have repeatedly stated that my only opposition to no-touch is if it is th etype of no-touch used in the CCHA where it is the same rule, except the whistle is blown once the puck crosses the goal line. The hybrid rule that has been suggested would be a palatable alternative, as that obviously would not harm the flow of the game. But if you watch a CCHA game...there are many occurences of icing that would have been negated if they used the NHL rule, either through the attacking player touching up or the goaltender coming out to play the puck. Just blowing the whistle on those plays? This harms the flow of the game.

He was as of the end of last season. This season has been sort of a down year for him.

That's based on the numbers posted earlier where there were 20 icings where either the attacking player touched or the defending player touched, not including the goaltender coming out, in two games played. You're saying you don't see the goalie come out for an iced puck a few times per game?

Legends club sounds neat. I was lucky enough a few years ago to have the opportunity to watch the Wings play the Avs in the final regular season game from a suite owned (at the time, anyway) by Kraft. Some people say the boxes are too far away...I thought the view was great. But then again, I was one of only two of the 25 or people in the suite who actually used the balcony and watched the game...the other being the friend who got the tickets.

Here's a test for you. Take the top 20 rookies from that class, and stack them up against the top 20 rookies from any two consecutive seasons. The comparison should be much closer, as the 05-06 class was basically two rookie classes in the same season. Let's look at the combination of 83-84 and 84-85, for example...that two-year span features Steve Yzerman, Tom Barrasso, Sergio Momesso, Adam Creighton, Sylvain Turgeon, Brian Lawton, Bob Rouse, Jamie Macoun, Jon Casey, Doug Gilmour, Gary Leeman, Russ Courtnall, Ken Wregget, Pat LaFontaine, Pat Flatley, Petr Svoboda, Claude Lemieux, Stephane Richer, Mario Lemieux, Patrick Roy, John Vanbiesbrouck, Ray Ferraro, Sylvain Cote, Ulf Samuelsson, Eddie Olczyk, Marc Bergevin, and many more rookies who went on to have good or even great careers.

Because as we all know, the only good hockey players to ever come from the US played for Shattuck. You do realize that the only player who as of yet has been able to claim elite player status, who has also played for Shattuck-St.Mary's, is Sidney Crosby? The other notable alumni, hockey-wise: Zach Parise Jack Johnson Jonathan Toews Ryan Malone Joe Corvo Beyond that, there are a coupld highly touted prospects but nobody who has made an impact at the NHL level. Certainly seems like the place is a requirement for any potential hockey star, right? Hell, the University of Michigan has had on its roster more impact NHLers in the past fifteen years than Shattuck has in its HISTORY. Mike Comrie, Mike Cammalleri, Mike Van Ryn, Marty Turco, Mike Komisarek (wow, a lot of Mikes in this list), Steve Shields, Brendan Morrison, Mike Knuble, and more. Nobody acts like playing for UM is some sort of guarantee or any kind of requirement for future hockey success.

Which has better flow? A game where 10 of 30 of all potential icings are negated, be it through the attacking player reaching first or the goalie leaving the crease... OR A game where 0 of 30 potential icings are negated, because the whistle was blown automatically? That is the argument. I'm not saying touch icing leads to better flow on every play, simply for the overall game. And as I said, I would be open to a sort of hybrid rule as has been suggested, provided the flow of the game is not harmed or is harmed minimally.

Kevin is 14. Adam is 12. Even if they ARE the next 'Greatest player ever' they wouldn't be on the US U18 team at that age. I repeat; Lidstrom's oldest son has just ENTERED high school. His kids are not 'about to finish high school' as you have been saying.

I would argue that there are many players who could challenge Scott for the title of best skater. Hell, Bret Hedican might be the best skating defenseman. Jay Bouwmeester could stake a claim to that title as well. If you go by what some posters on LGW say, though, Brett Lebda is easily the best skater in the league.

I would not necessarily be opposed to the 'imaginary line' rule. But when I say I am opposed to no-touch icing, I am referring to the rule used in most youth leagues and the NCAA. While I can't speak for how the hybrid affects the flow of the game, straight no touch ABSOLUTELY harms the flow of the game, which is my main concern on this topic.

The solution is simple. The Wings will carry eight defensemen next season. One of them will be Derek Meech. Jonathan Ericsson will be in Grand Rapids, as he does not have to clear waivers like the other eight.

Personally, I am not in this debate because of the 'excitement' factor. I don't think there is realistically much 'excitement' to be gleaned from occasional 100 foot sprints because not much comes from most of them. My issue with switching to no-touch icing has to do with the icings that are negated because of the goaltender. It's also why I am against the trapezoid. The majority of icing calls that get negated are negated because the goaltender plays the puck. This keeps the play going and often creates transition offense. I am in favor of calling penalties as they are written on icing plays (any contact=penalty call) and removing the trapezoid. But maybe those are my positions because I prefer continuous play.

Eva, I never expected these ludicrous comparisons from you. I'm actually embarrassed for you. I love the ridiculousness of your comparisons. Like you can't fathom that ice skates are integral to playing ice hockey. The game of ice hockey cannot be played without ice skates (you know what i'm saying). The game of ice hockey has proven that it can be played just fine without touch icing. What's wrong with some of the minor leagues and college hockey? Are they not playing "hockey"? Have they gotten rid of the doors and sticks and skates altogether? Nope, they've just gotten rid of touch icing and yet, lo and behold they still manage to play the game of ice hockey. Seriously eva, the lunacy of your post has brought you to an all new low. Normally I would agree. Except I made those comparisons for one not-so-simple reason. They are no more ludicrous than the idea that injuries sustained on icing plays are somehow a result of the fact that it is touch icing and that the hits causing the injuries are perfectly legal plays and not vicious boarding infractions or other forms of illegal contact. The no-touch crowd is acting like it's some obvious change that needs to happen to combat a rash of injuries that is depleting rosters and maiming countless players, when the reality is that illegal and dangerous hits sometimes occur on ALL types of plays, including icing. Think about it. What is different between Torrey Mitchell's hit on Kurtis Foster and Randy Jones' hit on Patrice Bergeron? Very little. Only one of those plays 'goes away' if you implement no-touch icing. And who's to say that the Sharks player doesn't take the extra stride before he lets the puck go, and we end up with the same play because it was at that point just a dump-in? It's foolish to suggest that icing is the only situation, or even the most common situation, where you have two players racing for the puck. That's why I came out with those ludicrous situations. Because they are just as realistic as the notion that switching to touch icing will have any sort of significant effect in reducing injuries. And as far as full shields/cages and neckguards go...I would not be opposed to that change actually being implemented. I have the feeling I am one of the few and far between in that opinion, but hey. Whatcha gonna do.

What about the times a player gets hit legally right as someone opens the door? We should eliminate doors altogether to prevent that. What about those skate injuries to the head and neck? Better wear ice shoes instead. What about the times a shot puck hits someone in the face or throat? Full shields and neckguards for all! What about players who suffer career impairing or ending injuries because they went down oddly from a legal hit? Better outlaw contact altogether. In fact, hockey is pretty dangerous. We shouldn't let anyone play it since there is so much danger involved. Robots only from now on. Well, robots and Igor Grigorenko.

Just to bring a little perspective...Mitchell's hit on Foster was a dangerous play that was well outside the rules. The fact that he wasn't suspended for what he did only underlines the point that the NHL is not enforcing its own rules and disciplining players who break them consistently. If the NHL called the contact the way the rule says, dangerous contact on icing plays would go away.

What if his kids are as good as him at hockey? Realistically, that would mean they can make more than that...with inflation and all.

The only time I can find 'battle for the puck' in the NHL rulebook is in the 'pick' provision you posted. That is referring specifically to instances where two players are not moving the same direction, or at all. On an icing call, the two players would presumably be moving the same direction, which brings me back to: Rule 67, Note 1 Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check. A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check. That is the only part of the interference rule that deals with the situation of two players without the puck moving in the same direction, such as they do in a race for the puck on an icing play. The 'pick' provision is stating that using part or all of your body to block an opponent without establishing position or moving the same direction is interference. A 'legal battle for the puck' in this case would mean where both players' contact occurs as a RESULT of attempts to acquire the puck, not as a MEANS to acquire the puck. Incidental contact is a term often used for this. A bodycheck is still not allowed on a player without the puck; the pick provision is geared more towards preventing a penalty call for interference when two or more players battle along the boards for the puck. On an icing play, there is no battle for the puck unless the offensive player touches first. There is NEVER a legal instance where an attacking player can hit a defensive player on an icing play. EVER. If it ever happens, and is not penalized, that is the wrong call as the rule is written.

I always liked PJ Stock. He seemed to be a bit better of a skater and defensive player than most 'goons' and I always thought he would have been a good fit for the Wings.