Echolalia

Seen Stamkos('s goal)? http://www.nhl.tv/team/console.jsp?hlp=847...mp;event=ANA283

One of the coolest things about LGW is the diversity of fans that we have here. Off the top of my head I can recall members from Australia, Ireland, Sweden, the UK, Canada, New Jersey, Texas, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and California. I can promise you there are much more than that. Anyway, the majority of Wings' games are played exclusively on FSN, which is limited primarily to Michigan. As such, most of the out-of-towners have to rely on alternative means to watch hockey games live, whether it include Center-Ice, VS, yahoo sports, or free online streams through unaffiliated mediums, with a great deal of folks preferring the latter. As most of us know, the NHL has gone to great lengths to prevent free streams from popping up online, forcing those who don't have local access to invest in an NHL affiliated program to catch games on a regular basis. Obviously the NHL wants to capitalize on what they are marketing so their reasoning is pretty straight-forward. However, the NHL has also expressed an interest in expanding their fanbase beyond the confines of Canada and the northern US, and free streaming certainly allows the convenient propagation of North American Hockey throughout the world. So my question to each of you is this: As the NHL is a business (and so are the teams it represents), is it in their best interest to continue to shut down free streams online, or should they allow or promote free streams to improve fanbases?

He is 17th in the league in point per game ratio, 7th in goals scored. Not bad at all.

Was Helm ever projected to be a top 6 scorer? From what I remember, the Wings brass always had him penned in as a solid checker, and he's doing that just fine.

The first and fourth are correct. While he hasn't been a steamroller, he hasn't been afraid to use his body, and he hasn't floated around that much either. I mentioned this in another thread, but my biggest issue with him is he seems to be isolated from his teammates, and what I mean by that is that he seems to prefer taking a low-probably shot from a bad angle or into way too much traffic, or he tries to make his way around defenders without the help of teammates rather than pass around effectively and generate scoring chances as a unit of 5. And as you and others have stated, when he does pass around, they're often high-risk passes that lead to interceptions.

Gotta love the palm trees.

Same type of play as last night, different results. Oh and Howard? Show Ozzie how its done.

Eaves and Helm hands down.

Interesting. I'll definitely take a closer look at him tonight. Maybe I'm only seeing the selfish aspect of his play.

The issue that I have with Bertuzzi is that he isn't playing a team game right now. If he gets the puck in the offensive zone, he is focused only on putting it on the net, not necessarily passing it to a player who may have a better opportunity, or set up to pull a defensman out of position. Also, how is Williams a bad signing? 7 points in 15 games isn't necessarily good, but its certainly not bad considering he isn't a top six forward to begin with.

Isn't Ryno another one of those "I wanted to play for the Wings, but now I just want to be in Sweden/Russia?" players?

There was no intent to blow the whistle. Even stretching the concept of intent to blow in this situation wouldn't explain why there was such a long pause between the goal being scored and the whistle going. If the ref blew the whistle just after the puck went into the net, then maybe I could buy the intent to blow the whistle thing, but the puck was clearly in the net for a good 2.5 seconds before any whistle was blown. The intent to blow the whistle rule is just a way for refs to cover up potential mistakes and they abuse that rule. Edit: Also a little proof that there was no intent to blow the whistle until the puck was already in the net. You can see the ref's head follow the puck throughout the play, and once the puck is in the net the ref skates to the net and blows the whistle. Notice that the whistle was already at his mouth the entire time, so all it would take to blow the whistle would be a change from breathing through the nose to breathing through the mouth. That takes about two tenths of a millisecond. The only possible explanation for this is that the ref incorrectly assumed that the puck was slowly trickling into the net and during that imagined process the ref also assumed that he thought of blowing whistle before the puck went in. Except the puck was already in the net the entire time. Then he states, "No goal, intent to blow the whistle. What Toronto says and what any instant replay says is now officially irrelevant."

By the way has anyone seen the Dallas feed of the non-goal? The commentators actually laugh out loud at the call.

That's total bulls***. if there was intent to blow the whistle to blow the play dead it would have had to occur before the shot was taken (so the whistle could be blown as late as just after the goal was scored). Otherwise the intent to blow wouldn't occur until after the goal was already scored. Instead the whistle goes off a full 2.5 seconds after the puck is in the net. Do me a favor and count that out in your head. Anybody. Mississippi, one. Mississippi two. Mississ. It doesn't take Michael J Fox 2.5 seconds to get his hand to his mouth. There's no reason a perfectly fit referee shouldn't be able to do it. Furthermore, this is the NHL, not kiddie-pool water polo for autistic kids. The refs are a part of the game too, and they are expected to show reflexes and athletics worthy of the NHL. A 2.5 second delay on an intent to blow the whistle is far from athletic. Its far from average.

Don't think too much about nhl officiating or your head might explode.

If only Stevie Wonder was reffing. He would've made the right call.

There was no intent to blow the whistle, though. The puck was in the net for a good three seconds while everyone was standing around, refs included, assuming the goalie had the puck covered. The refs, after "seeing" the goalie had the puck blew the whistle to kill the play. Then they see its in the net.

I literally do not see how this is possible. Seriously. The whistle blew a good three seconds after the puck was shot AND went into the net. There was clearly no intent to blow the whistle before the puck went it. What's the deal?

You bring up an interesting point saying that because of streams you were able to get back into hockey, buy merchandise, tickets, etc. I wonder whether streaming could be looked at as an investment, possibly with some additional tweaks such as the stream with commercials idea a couple posts back. I feel most local fans would stick to the television so local money wouldn't be lost, but income could be brought in from other areas.

Lilja is practicing?? Edit: I guess its old news, but Lilja may have a bit of a setback: http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/11/an...omewhat_cl.html

Go to Giordano's before the game.

I like the shootout rule. The way I see it is if you don't want to lose a point to a skill competition, bring your skill to the 65 minutes preceding the shootout.

Are you saying that when everyone is the building is standing from their seats and cheering their heads off during every single shootout attempt and hanging on who gets the extra point the crowd isn't entertained?

I don't get it.

Functionally its absolutely terrible, but its entertainment value is close to unbeatable.