Echolalia

I don't want to see a bunch of arrows and graphics cluttering up the screen when I'm just trying to watch the game, but this technology could open the door for a lot of real-time (or near enough) stats that commentators could utilize. It would be cool to know if Shea Weber just broke 100mph on that shot that Glendening just blocked. The trajectory thing could also help in determining if a puck was deflected before it went in the net. I can definitely see uses to this, but let's not travel back down the same road that led us to the glow-puck.

I suspect Detroit was called, and Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Tatar/whoever probably turned them down, opting for their tropical vacation plans and relaxation instead.

So Mantha packs his hockey equipment and gets really excited, but then Kenny takes him to Starbucks.

That's you in the video isn't it. Don't lie.

Given how saturated the Wings are on forward, and the alleged price of a top four defensman these days, frankly I'd be surprised if the Wings traded anybody.

lol Mantha doesn't realize who our GM is

He still seems to struggle with the pace of the game. There were times when he waited too long to make a play and the puck was stripped from him before he realized he was in trouble, or he would hold onto the puck too long and his options would be cut off and he'd be forced into turning it over. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there were occasions when he had more time and space to settle the puck down and find an open man, but he felt pressured and just tried clearing the zone or dumping it in deep. I'm not to worried about this because the speed of the NHL is something I don't expect him to adapt to in his first 10 games. Pulkkinen does, however, need to work on is board play. He is atrocious in the corners and along the boards. Poor positioning, weak on the puck, poor decisions, etc. Other than that, and his shot, obviously, I didn't notice anything else that really stood out in a positive or negative way. I think he has the potential to be a sold NHL player.

I would like to see a Philly v Pittsburgh WC. Islanders v Pens or Rangers might also be fun. Or a WC involving two of the Ducks, Sharks, or Kings. If Colorado and Minnesota were playing good hockey, that could be a good WC to watch, but unfortunately both teams are really struggling. A potentialy cool idea to involve some warmer climate teams in the WC is to have it take place in the northern US/Canada. Say Tampa Bay v Anaheim, two markets where having an outdoor game may be difficult, but have it played in Detroit, or LA vs Nashville could take place in Philly. I'm not sure what the demand would be to watch two teams that you don't necessarily cheer for, but if there was some connection ie Yzerman and Filpulla with Tampa Bay, how much Detroit fans have hated the Ducks from recent years, Shea Weber and the Flyers scenario, or some underlying storyline to help market it, people might be willing to buy tickets to watch some team they hate lose, or some team they feel connected to win. The WC location might also be a way to gauge potential markets, if we're talking about expanding to Seattle or something. Anyway, overall it doesn't really have the pizazz that it used to. I didn't watch the WC this year. And I didn't feel like I missed out on anything.

I think as far as animosity goes, the Ducks and the Sharks were both bigger rivals than the Blackhawks.

I'm fine with standing pat for the time being. I'm not GM, but given the talent that we have coming through the pipeline, I'd be pretty gunshy too, right now.

lol hmm lets see, well team game is actually two words, so thats kind of hard to find in a dictionary, so I'm gonna look up "team" instead. If the forums implode because I screwed up looking for the definition of "team game" I take solice knowing that you're to blame as well, as part of the LGW team. ANYWAY, noun noun: team; plural noun: teams 1. a group of players forming one side in a competitive game or sport. verb verb: team; 3rd person present: teams; past tense: teamed; past participle: teamed; gerund or present participle: teaming 1. come together as a team to achieve a common goal. 2. match or coordinate a garment with (another)."a pinstripe suit teamed with a crisp white shirt I'm not sure how these definitions pass blame onto Mrazek or Smith for Ericsson's screw up. They're all on the same side of a competitive sport, so we've established that they're a "team". Great! They certainly didn't come together to acheive a common goal in that play (the goal being, you know, get the puck out of the zone), but that still doesn't help your case. I saw Ericsson not act as part of a team. Smith was in position to help his teammate should he decided to take the safe pass. Very teamly of him. Mrazek was in position for the eventual turnover (in fact he stopped the first shot). Very teamly of him as well. The only non-team element I see is Ericsson giving the puck away.

I think Mrazek did all he was capable of doing, and frankly with Parise in front of the net, with the puck, time, and space (all kindly provided by your boy Ericsson), I'm suprised that Mrazek was even able to make the first save. So again: I'm not blaming Mrazek for that goal. And again, if you want to deflect blame from Ericsson and pass it on to Mrazek, or Smith, or the ref, or the taxi driver, or whoever, fine. As you said, "its an interesting view" for you to take.

Ok my issue here is that I don't care how good or bad Ericsson is at passing, and I don't care how good or bad Parise is at intercepting passes, or how common or rare it is (and I'm under the impression that this actually happens more than you realize, but that's neither here nor there). What I care about, and what this whole play boils down to, is that Ericsson gave Parise the chance to intercept the pass. Which is stupid at any point in the game, with anyone right in front of the net. But well into the third, with Parise on the other side of the net, very, very, stupid. And its also why that goal rests entirely on Ericsson's shoulders. No Smith's. Not Mrazek's. Ericsson. Because he was the one to make a stupid decision which resulted in putting his teammates in a bind, and ultimately the puck in the net. Now if you're willing to look at the play as some freak accident, that's all fine and dandy. But personally, I get more out of the game when I can break down plays and understand exactly what went wrong, why, and what players can do and should do to prevent it from happening in the future. Its how I assess whether players are difference-makers on the team, or whether they're holding the team back. Thankfully most coaches share my philosophy, and prefer to identify responsibility and preach what can be improved instead of tossing their shoulders and saying "oh well Parise is elite. I bet he can't do that again next time we play them."

Nonono we got it wrong. Ericsson's blame is marginal in this case. Parise used his L33T skillz to overwhelm our mortal and innocent defensman. But Smith should have known better than to stand in the corner. Also Mrazek did something. I think. edit: I'm sorry for bustin your chops Ekmanc. I sincerely have no idea why Ericcson is getting any repreive from blame in this case. It is honestly baffling to me. I'm equally as baffled at how this is somehow also Smith's fault, but given his reputation on this forum I understand a little more.

Please, by all means, break it down for us slow folk. Clearly I don't understand the sophisticated low-risk art of passing the puck up the slot

Ok lemme summarize just to make sure I got your logic: Ericsson isn't really THAT much to blame because Parise is elite, and Ericsson has no way of knowing that an elite player might pick of his pass right up the gut (which by the way most of us learned to avoid in, i don't know, Peewee hockey?) Mrazek is to blame because he should have known that Parise is elite and should have been ready for the interception Smith is to blame because because he should have known that Parise is elite and not provided the safe outlet pass for Ericcson but instead anticipated that the puck was going to get intercepted and should have got a head start on skating to the front of the net to cover for Ericsson. Let me know if I missed anything.

You know what guarantees that an elite NHL player isn't going to intercept a pass right in front of my net? Not passing it right in front of my net when I have options on either side of me that are wide open and waiting for the puck. I'm have no idea why you're defending Ericsson in this case. Its pretty cut and dry a stupid decision by him, especially nursing a one-goal lead deep in the third, and one of several unforced turnovers that he's committed in this game.

I'm sure Parise thought the pass wasn't bad at all.

Providing an outlet pass per standard hockey protocol that Ericsson for whatever reason decided to not utilize.

leave it to LGW to pass blame to the classic whooping boy on a goal that he had nothing to do with. Maybe we can also blame Smith for goals that are scored against us when he's on the bench because he isn't filling up Kronwall's water bottle and keeping his superiors properly hydrated.

Ericsson again

goal downstream of an unforced turnover by Ericsson

oh Kronwall

how is it that helm is suddenly deking out everyone

Mrazek is having his best game this season if we're talking rebound control.