919 replies to this topic

[Nightfall]

I'm not sure what your point is in regards to my post.  I wasn't questioning Kane's skill.  He takes the rules to the limit and uses his skill to score.  

 

When in a hockey game would you be able to come to an almost complete stop for that much time to make that many moves?  Never.  Someone would bury you.  

 

My point was using an artificially constructed event to decide a hockey game, and Kane's near stops highlights the absurdity of it. 

 

I guess it depends on if you like the shootout or not.  I like them.  I am assuming you don't like them by your statement.

 

I would much rather have a game ending with a winner/loser in a shootout than a tie.  I thought the amount of ties in hockey before the shootout were absurd.

[Andy Pred 48]

Outplayed in the first 20 when it looked like boys against men, but due credit to the guys for picking it up and playing much

better the last 40. What some on here fail to realise or admit is that the Hawks are a very good side and we stayed with them.

The shotout is just a who gets lucky day. If Mule hadnt have hit the post its all over at 2-0 with 4 min to play. I just hope we either

get some forward back on Pavs line wholl help him more, or trade for one. Abs and Cleary are grinders doing a good job shutting

down the opp line but not creating as much going forward as youd want one of your top 2 lines to do. Point in the bag thou.

[LeftWinger]

regarding the loser point....I would accept the rule IF the teams made it to a shootout, then the loser can have a point, but if a team loses in OT, there should be no point....

 

just to be clear, I am not for the loser point at all, or the shootout, but if there has to be a loser point it should only be awarded if you earned your way to the shootout...

[metalkorn]

Kane's shootout goal is not against the rules of a shootout, but it most certainly is contrary to the spiritt of what the shootout is supposed to be. If someone in detroit did it we would say they are amazing, just a lot of moaning in here cos we lost on what was a goal that made howard look stupid.

[brett]

yeah i really dont know why babs sticks with abs dats clears. obv not working abs has no points with datsyuk and cleary is a turnover machine. then you see franzen isnt helping z and brunner just slowing them down so swap some people around

 

s*** i never thought id miss flip but  he played good with z and brunner

[Nightfall]

Totally agree!!!! these shootouts and points for losing in the 5 min OT have ruined NHL records--you cant compare the Blackhawks run with the 1980 Flyers, the Flyers had no shootouts and OT's and even in the beginning of the OT era (1983) you didnt get any points for losing in the OT.

 

The Blackhawks haven't lost in OT.  They have lost in SO three times..  So even if they were going against the Flyers run in 1980, they would have still gotten a point for getting through OT and it ending in a tie.

[GMRwings1983]

I guess it depends on if you like the shootout or not.  I like them.  I am assuming you don't like them by your statement.
 
I would much rather have a game ending with a winner/loser in a shootout than a tie.  I thought the amount of ties in hockey before the shootout were absurd.

 
What if nobody deserves to win a particular game?  Hence a tie.  
 
Nothing wrong with that.  Just means neither team was good enough to win. In neither team is good enough to win, neither deserves a W.  

Instead, we have to manufacture wins, just so casual morons at bars are entertained.  Bring back the pre 1999 point scoring system.

Edited by GMRwings1983, 03 March 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[b.shanafan14]

Datsyuk needs someone who can shoot, and Zetterberg and Brunner need someone to get out of the way. Move Franzen to Pavel's wing. Demote Cleary and Abdelkader, promote Tatar.

[Wing-in-avs-town]

We have 3 goals in three games and none of them are from our top 2 lines.  In fact 2 of them are from Tatar's line.  What's up Babcock?

 

esteef

You would think that being the coaching genius that he is,    Babcock would figure that out. He's got to give Pasha some help.

[GMRwings1983]

The Blackhawks haven't lost in OT.  They have lost in SO three times..  So even if they were going against the Flyers run in 1980, they would have still gotten a point for getting through OT and it ending in a tie.

 
Remember that Montreal played before you even had OT's, let alone shootouts. Not sure about Philly.  
 
All these records are misleading nowadays.  Just like Brodeur supposedly breaking Paren't record for 48 wins, a few years ago.  

Edited by GMRwings1983, 03 March 2013 - 03:26 PM.

[haroldsnepsts]

I guess it depends on if you like the shootout or not.  I like them.  I am assuming you don't like them by your statement.

 

I would much rather have a game ending with a winner/loser in a shootout than a tie.  I thought the amount of ties in hockey before the shootout were absurd.

I'm  not just reacting to Kane and the shootout loss.  I've always hated the it. 

 

It's a terrible way to decide a game and by its artificial nature requires keeping the loser point.  I'd much rather have ten minutes of 4 on 4 OT, then just call it a tie if no one scores and both teams get a point.  

 

If someone does score then two points to the winner, no points for losing. Ever. 

 

I grew up watching hockey in the 80s so there were ties.  It really only got bad in the clutch and grab era.  Watching a slow boring hockey game ending in a tie.  

[Nightfall]

What if nobody deserves to win a particular game?  Hence a tie.  

 

Nothing wrong with that.  Just means neither team was good enough to win.  

 

Instead, we have to manufacture wins, just so casual morons at bars are entertained.  Bring back the pre 1999 point scoring system.

 

Damn, I need to visit a bar soon so I can join the rest of my "casual moron" friends. 

[lacrossekid2]

The Blackhawks haven't lost in OT.  They have lost in SO three times..  So even if they were going against the Flyers run in 1980, they would have still gotten a point for getting through OT and it ending in a tie.

Plus going by this we should give back our 23 game home winning streak last year

[MibJab]

Datsyuk showing once again that he's only down to 2 shootout moves in his arsenal. 

 

There was alot of good things to come from this game, unfortunately untimely mistakes and lack of overall offense (missed chances, very little sustained pressure) cause the negatives to once again outweigh the positives. This is a good lineup we have right here. My question is whats going to happen once Fillpula, Helm, Sammuelsson, and Bertuzzi come back? Tatar and Andersson have had more impact than all of them so far (Helm not included). Can't drop Miller, Tootoo. Wont drop Cleary or Emmerton and Abdelkader might get the short end of the stick. Alot of options, hopefully the wrong decisions aren't made...which seem to have been of great impact as of the last handful of years (Lang for Fleischmann, Bertuzzi for Mathias, Franzen over Hossa, letting Quincy get claimed and then giving up a 1st rounder to get him back) 

[GMRwings1983]

I'm  not just reacting to Kane and the shootout loss.  I've always hated the it. 

 

It's a terrible way to decide a game and by its artificial nature requires keeping the loser point.  I'd much rather have ten minutes of 4 on 4 OT, then just call it a tie if no one scores and both teams get a point.  

 

If someone does score then two points to the winner, no points for losing. Ever. 

 

I'm not sure if 10 minutes of 4 on 4 is realistic either, though.  How often does that happen in a game?

 

Someone needs to look up the stats for how many OT goals were scored 5 on 5 (pre 1999), versus how many have been scored since OT's went 4 on 4.  I don't remember there being much of a difference.  

[Nightfall]

I'm  not just reacting to Kane and the shootout loss.  I've always hated the it. 

 

It's a terrible way to decide a game and by its artificial nature requires keeping the loser point.  I'd much rather have ten minutes of 4 on 4 OT, then just call it a tie if no one scores and both teams get a point.  

 

If someone does score then two points to the winner, no points for losing. Ever. 

 

I grew up watching hockey in the 80s so there were ties.  It really only got bad in the clutch and grab era.  Watching a slow boring hockey game ending in a tie.  

 

I like the finality of it personally.  I would never accept it in a playoff game, but in the regular season, its fun.  I really enjoy it.

[lacrossekid2]

I believe you should get no points for losing in OT, but one if you lose in a shootout

[metalkorn]

regarding the loser point....I would accept the rule IF the teams made it to a shootout, then the loser can have a point, but if a team loses in OT, there should be no point....

 

just to be clear, I am not for the loser point at all, or the shootout, but if there has to be a loser point it should only be awarded if you earned your way to the shootout...

I understand where you are going here but it would suck. It would be the most boring period of 5 minute shutdown hockey you have ever seen as they would all want the point. As it is it's more open and teams attack more to try and earn that extra point.

 

Best solution is 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for OT win, 2 points for S/O win 1 point for OT or S/O loss.

As it is you get max points for winning a game in a shootout which to me is just wrong.

[GoalieManPat]

What if nobody deserves to win a particular game?  Hence a tie.  

 

Nothing wrong with that.  Just means neither team was good enough to win.  

 

Instead, we have to manufacture wins, just so casual morons at bars are entertained.  Bring back the pre 1999 point scoring system.

 

I agree and disagree. I hate the shootout but I hate ties just a little more. The problem with pre 4 on 4 OT and shootouts were that they were useless. Teams played to not lose instead of to win. Most of the time you might as well have not even played the OT. Id rather they play the 4 on 4. If nobody scores go to 3 on 3. Now you figure the time it takes them to scrape the ice and then do the shootout is what maybe 10-15 minutes. Go straight to 3 on 3 and Id put money down on games not lasting more than 3 more minutes. And then it would still have a team aspect winning the game. Not a skills comp.

[GMRwings1983]

I agree and disagree. I hate the shootout but I hate ties just a little more. The problem with pre 4 on 4 OT and shootouts were that they were useless. Teams played to not lose instead of to win. Most of the time you might as well have not even played the OT. Id rather they play the 4 on 4. If nobody scores go to 3 on 3. Now you figure the time it takes them to scrape the ice and then do the shootout is what maybe 10-15 minutes. Go straight to 3 on 3 and Id put money down on games not lasting more than 3 more minutes. And then it would still have a team aspect winning the game. Not a skills comp.

 

But like my last argument, that's not very realistic hockey either.  3 on 3 hardly ever happens.  Why let it decide games.

 

I honestly remember plenty of OT goals being scored before shootouts, and for that matter, before 4 on 4 was introduced.  Maybe it's my memory, but I saw nothing wrong with it.  Good teams still went for wins.