What's funny is people in Canada even agree that was a bad call. U.S didn't play there best besides Larkin of course. We will get you next game even though, hopefully there isn't gong show of calls everywhere.
I not once said it was a good call. I said it was iffy at best. Whether it counted or not would not have surprised me. And I hope they do meet again. It will be good hockey if they do. At least then Canada can win without a controversial goal so you will have to find excuses elsewhere. It was a meaningless round robin game. Russia has been playing like s***. Should be an easy Quarter finals win for you guys.
Edit: Also, the thing I am most excited about in this tournament is how good Larkin and Homer 2 have been.
Game 2-2, that BS goal for Canada makes it 3-2. If that goal never counted. U.S would be up 3-2 and your 2 empty net goals never happen either because we wouldn't of pulled our goalie.
But good try buddy, you won because the game is in Canada LOL
Ahh, so the game would have played out exactly the same had the goal not counted? Please. Enough with the excuses. The better team won. If the US put up a better effort instead of being outshot 10-2 at one point in the 3rd, they wouldn't have ended up in that situation to begin with. But please, continue to blame bad calls on being completely outplayed when down 2-1.
We are in a 3 game losing streak, where 2 of the 3 losses were in the shootout and the team we lost to twice is the hottest team in hockey in their last 10 games. It happens. If a 3 game losing streak is the worst of our problems, this is a pretty damn good season!
I think every poster on this board would take the position we are in right now if it was told to them before the season. We cant go 82-0, losing streaks will happen. As long as the winning streaks out way the losing streaks, we will be okay.
Exactly. Not to mention the Wings absolutely dominated the first shootout loss, and it was just more bad luck than anything. Not like they played bad against Florida either. As for last night, I chalk that up to being the 3rd of 3 games in 4 nights. It happens. The team will be fine.
So why using facts now please. Why is it in the offseason (not now but back in the offseason) we had reason to believe this would randomly be the year we would be healthy and do better? After two years straight I finishing 8th and having injury concerns?
An actually I think it's safe to at we really do still have the injury bug. Franzen dat Weiss smith Howard monster an others have all missed time. I just think the kids progressed more than we would've thought. They haven't been in a sophomore slump and are continuing to carry this team.
Also with the kronwall note I believe the reason why is because he doesn't kronwall near as much any more. He is saving his body now and think more about defense instead of a huge hit. Just my opinion obviously but I believe the lack of kronwalleds is why he has been staying healthier.
Franzen has always been oft injured. Datsyuk had an unlucky injury in preseason that lingered. Smith had a freak infection. Weiss had a sore groin which happens when you barely play any hockey in 2 years.
In the off season, Datsyuk got healthy, Zetterberg had already had his back surgery and was healthy, Weiss got healthy, Howard got healthy. Last season players were banged up out of the gate. That was not the case this year. There was bound to be more optimism, paired with the experience the youth on the team has gotten.
How long do you have to see a player or team doing something before you put a label on them?
Like for example I've seen people call Franzen a 30 goal a year scorer even though he has done it once.
I'm just curious what peoples timelines are for putting a label on someone.
For me it's 2-3 years.
That's why I've personally given Weiss the injury prone tag cause that's how his last few years have been. But if he stays healthy for the rest of this year and next then I'll remove that injury prone label and pencil him in as a reliable second line player(hopefully center).
I only ask because people call me negative by using this method. But I feel that usin a 2-3 year rule is the best way to form an educated guess.
The last two years the wings finished 8th. So my educated guess was they'll finish in the 6th-10th range just because that's been the trend.
If Tatar scores 30 goals this year some people will consider that enough to label him a 30 goal a year guy? I want to see it for two years back to back or two out of three.
Some people jumped on the helm bandwagon last year when he scored at a higher rate than he ever did. I was called negative for saying that won't continue because of several years of stats showing that.
Would people consider nyquist and Tatar proven NHLers yet?
The problem with Weiss is that he has been the player he has been for the last 10 games or so pretty well all his career. And you tend to base him off of a couple seasons of terrible luck. So in his case, he has shown enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he had one good season, got his payday, then s*** the bed after the fact.
With young players, I hope they keep it up. I understand they are going to go through growing pains. I understand that they are going to make mistakes. But this franchise has been great at developing players. There have been very few one and done players on this team over the years.
Guys like Goose and Tatar are definitely proven at this level. They are still young, and might slump here and there. There is no reason to think that they will suddenly start to struggle big time. If Tatar is able to pot 30 this year, I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again. So yes, I would call him a 30 goal scorer. If he were to never do it again, I'd call him a former 30 goal scorer. Unlike Franzen, Tatar has always been a go to guy for scoring. Franzen's scoring just suddenly came out of nowhere. So when he goes through his scoring slumps I see no reason to be surprised. But scoring is what Tatar does. It's what he is on this team to do.
As for the standings the last 2 years, those two years vs this one were very different circumstances. Without the injuries that hit last season, this team we are seeing right now could have very well been last year. So the only way to expect another 8th place finish this year is to either be riddled with injuries again, or just have the older players on the team regress and the young players have zero improvement. Hardly a cause for concern.
I simply don't put labels on players. I see no point really. Kronwall used to be brutally unlucky with injuries. But things have changed. Helm had his rough luck as well. And of course most recently Weiss. But in neither case did this scream 'injury prone' to me. Just tough luck.
Hank has always had his stretches during the season of not scoring a whole lot. He seems to step it up the more important the game is. Definitely seems to just be pacing himself with the team playing great. I have no doubt he will turn it up when the games start meaning more.
He's perfectly fine defensively. He's no worse than any other puck moving d-man. It's just a tag he got stuck with because he broke into the league when he was like 20, and wasn't great. Since then he's played 20+ minutes a night, on a defense first team, with a defense first coach.
It's just like how Franzen can have an almost identical ppg average year to year and be inconsistent, or how "Osgood lets in the occasional floater" 15 years after he let in the occasional floater. It's just something people say because that's what other people say, and they said it because somebody else once said it too.
If Yandle played here every single person on this forum would absolutely cream themselves. He's REALLY good.