Jump to content

Nightfall's Photo


Member Since 10 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:23 PM

#2432013 Pierre McGuire's past that NBC doesn't want you to know about

Posted by Nightfall on 30 July 2013 - 08:12 PM


He's not respected by the players, even today. I think that says it all. 




He is more respected than you think.


Uh...OK.  That statements not hypocritical at all, lol.  Who here would even care if he had a drug problem in his past.  I'd probably rather someone who used to have a drug problem than someone who used to be (and may still be)  a complete nut and threw temper tantrums all the time.


Only hypocritical if you actually believe it.  I am just saying that I would at least understand if people hated Mcguire if he did those things.  Personally, I don't give a crap.  Its easy to judge people and I don't spend time doing that.

#2431954 Pierre McGuire's past that NBC doesn't want you to know about

Posted by Nightfall on 30 July 2013 - 12:45 PM

I think the thing to take away from this was that he was a bad coach, or that it was a bad fit for him from the Whalers.  How many of us have been in a job where we were not respected or where the management or employees didn't like us?  I think all of us have been in a situation like that at least once if you have been in the workforce.  Pierre is now a respected analyst who is on TSN, NHL Network, and has a gig on NBC.  Sure, not everyone likes him but I think he does a decent job.  Hell, I think that he is less biased than Eddie.  The fans who want homer announcers aren't going to like him.


As for his past, who cares.  So he did a bad job as a coach, or it wasn't a good fit.  Its not like he had a drug problem or raped someone.

#2431876 Rule 48: not working as planned.

Posted by Nightfall on 29 July 2013 - 09:52 PM

After reading four pages of discussion, I can say that I agree with some points here.  They should be penalizing the hits, not the result of the hits.  They should be reviewing these hits after every game, and make the penalties stiffer.  At the same time though, I go back to my refereeing experience and say that its not that easy.  As fans of the games, we love the big bone crushing hits.  We love to see Kronwalled players fall on their asses after being hit.  With the speed of the game as it is now, we aren't going to see a reduction in the amount of concussions unless we change the game.


Case in point, as a USA Hockey ref that has refereed up to AAA hockey, there is a hit to the head rule there as well.  In the course of a game, without review there seem to be 2-3 contact to the head penalties called per game.  That is just what the referee sees.  Now imagine how many there could be with video.  Point is that there are many hits that go to the head in every game in the NHL as well.  Some go called, and others don't.  If they are going to start calling every game more strict, then the game is going to change.


Players will be more hesitant before hitting.  Checking is going to be a lot more cautious.  We won't see as many checks because of the fear of being suspended.  I have zero problem with going that route.  You see that in youth hockey when players are starting to hit.  None of them are charging all over the ice hitting everything because there is a certain sense of being careful that they still have.


I think better helmets would help matters out a lot.  Mandatory visors and mouthguards are also huge too.  The owners want to protect their million dollar investment?  What about investing in better equipment that all players have to wear?  No more wearing pads they have had for 20 years.


Just my .02 cents.....


Yep, it does.  And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently.  Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry. 


All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons.  It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment.  If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not.  Do they miss one occasionally?  Sure.  But there is no "star bias". 




Agreed.  Just last season alone they hit a good number of "star players" with suspensions.

#2427803 Brunner Contract Talks

Posted by Nightfall on 05 July 2013 - 09:43 PM

Keep telling yourself that.....you'll be a #1 center someday too. So you're saying talent means nothing, as long as you get along with your teammates?


I don't think anyone is in a position to say if a change of scenery will make Flip a better player or not.  Chemistry is just as important as talent.  I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other.  If I was a betting man though, I would say that Flip doesn't do well in Tampa Bay.  

#2427600 is anyone happy right now?

Posted by Nightfall on 05 July 2013 - 05:36 PM

Ryan is a goal scorer. But I don't think we should freak out that we didn't overpay to get him. We would have had to BEAT the offer that OTT made.


At that price, I agree.  I wouldn't have made that deal.


How about something like this instead?


Red Wings still talking to Daniel Cleary. Wouldn't be surprised if deal gets done today.


Just read that.  Thanks!  I am surprised at this though.  They should be trying to resign their RFAs.

I would have rather had Billins resigned.  It was a mistake to let him walk.

#2422101 Hawks new model franchise?

Posted by Nightfall on 25 June 2013 - 08:10 AM

I guess it depends on what you call a model franchise.  Every franchise has high points and low points.  If you think about it, the Hawks fans have had to endure just as much turmoil as the long time Wings fans have.  The Wings had their low point back from 67 to 83 when the Wings only made the playoffs 2 times.  Bruce Norris really did run the team into the ground.  It took Illitch years to dig out from that hole and get a cup contending team in Detroit.  Even then, i twas a full 15 years before they won the cup.


I wouldn't call Chicago a "model franchise" to be honest.  They are on the upswing though with the ownership investing in the team, Bowman at the helm, and Joel is a great coach.  IMHO, a model franchise is one that has had 20+ years of success.  It has less to do with cup wins and more on player development, community service, making the playoffs, being profitable, and so on.  The thing is that no franchise is a model franchise forever.  Teams change hands.  Ownership doesn't invest in the team like they used to.  The focus of ownership shifts.  I could go on and on here.....


The point is that I consider the Wings to be a model franchise more than Chicago.  It has nothing to do with their cup runs, but more with the years of success they have had.  Just keep in mind that nothing is forever.  In another 20 years, the Wings could be back to the "Dead Things" while Chicago has made the playoffs for 20+ consecutive seasons.  Chicago would then be a model franchise.

#2421732 Gary Bettman Stanley Cup Presentations

Posted by Nightfall on 24 June 2013 - 11:00 AM


The Stanley Cup will be in the building tonight in Boston, with the Chicago Blackhawks one win away from claiming the championship. And that means it’s time to get excited about one of the highlights of the NHL season: Watching commissioner Gary Bettman struggle through presenting the Cup.


In the years since Bettman’s debut as the Stanley Cup presenter, the ceremony has evolved into one of the most awkward traditions in all of sports. Bettman fidgets, the crowd boos, the posed photo takes way too long, and the winning captain fakes a smile while he waits for Bettman to just let go of the Cup and hit the bricks.





I thought this article was really good.  I love the analysis.  I thought the most awkward was indeed correct.  I love how Rod just grabs the cup and lifts it over his head with no photo op.


#2421263 Grand Rapids Griffins Win Calder Cup! 5-2 win in game 6

Posted by Nightfall on 21 June 2013 - 06:54 PM

Blashill is expecting to be with the Griffins next year.  To that I say, thank god.  He is the best coach Grand Rapids has had in years.  I fully expect our prospects to be better so long as we have a good coach and good developmental people such as Chelios, Maltby, Draper, and Osgood at the helm.

#2420667 Grand Rapids Griffins Win Calder Cup! 5-2 win in game 6

Posted by Nightfall on 18 June 2013 - 08:14 PM

These announcers suck


Turn on WoodRadio streaming like I did.  I hear the future and then watch the past as another poster here is doing.  :)


Griffins in front 3-2 on a screened shot from the point.  Looked like a similar shot that beat Mrazek to tie the game.

#2420268 Visors Required - New NHL Players in '13-'14

Posted by Nightfall on 17 June 2013 - 01:47 PM


because we are talking about perfectly trained adults here, they are the players and I would guess that they now exactly what is best for them and what is not.


This is just like people saying that they want a no helmet law when it comes to riding a motorcycle.  These perfectly intelligent and trained adults know the risks.  So there should a no helmet law right?  If someone gets into an accident and has a head injury which puts them in a care facility for the rest of their lives, they will be going after the insurance company, the driver, the state, and everyone else they can get money from.


The problem is that these hockey players are going to be fine with it until one of them takes a stick to the eye and then their career comes to an abrupt end.  Like Manny Malhotra who has played in 9 games since his eye injury and it looks like his career is finished.  He is going to get as much from NHL disability as he can.


There are times when people must be protected from themselves.  Just like people should be forced to wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle, players should be told to wear visors.  They aren't growing eyeballs in petri dishes, and all it takes is one stick to end your career.  I think that visors, like helmets in the past, should be grandfathered in.

#2405610 WCSF Game 1 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Blackhawks 4, (CHI leads series 1-0)

Posted by Nightfall on 15 May 2013 - 09:30 PM

Wings are getting outshot 40-17.  Hawks the hungrier team by far.

#2405333 WCSF Game 1 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Blackhawks 4, (CHI leads series 1-0)

Posted by Nightfall on 15 May 2013 - 08:26 PM

Griffins win to take a 2-1 series lead over Toronto.


Griffins have 4 and 5 at home on Friday and Saturday.

#2404119 Any tips on ways to tolerate the NBC media?

Posted by Nightfall on 13 May 2013 - 07:19 PM

It's the fans listening that are biased, not the announcers. 


By and large, I think the NBC crew does a nice job.  Ken Kal sounds like a cartoon character and why Paul uh, Woods, uh, has uh, a job, uh in broadcasting, uh, is beyond me.


There is some truth to this, but I know that Eddie is pretty badly for the Hawks and has a hard time being impartial.

#2403824 WCSF - (1) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (7) Detroit Red Wings

Posted by Nightfall on 13 May 2013 - 07:52 AM

Hawks take this one pretty easily in 5 games.


Well, after you called the series over when the Ducks went up 3-2, I can definitely say you are no Nostradamus.  :D


I am picking the Hawks in 7, but that is because they are rolling right now.  The Wings will get a couple wins just from sheer will and determination.  In the end though, Chicago is just that good.

The Blackhawks don't scare me.  I think we could take them under most circumstances, but the deck is severely stacked against us considering how the first round went for both teams.  Chicago had virtually no travel, won in 5 games and is going to be well rested.  Oh yeah, they have home ice and the best record in the league too.  Meanwhile, we've been flying back and forth across the country over and over again in a hard fought, OT filled, 7 game series against the Ducks.  


It would make my season if we knocked out the Hawks, but I have a hard time seeing it happen.


This right here!

#2400757 Alberta Peewee Hockey Bans Body Checking

Posted by Nightfall on 09 May 2013 - 08:35 PM

I have been refereeing for a number of years now and I have done everything from Peewee all the way up to Varsity hockey in West Michigan.  In that time, I have seen a number of rule changes.  When they announced that they were removing checking from Peewee hockey, I was a supporter and still am today.  For a number of PW teams and players, they are still learning the fundamentals of hockey.  You had a number of players who were just out to hit and didn't have the basic skills down.  Eliminating checking in PW hockey really helped the development of these kids.  Now, two years after the rule was put in place, it really has improved the passing and chemistry of these games.  Bantam hockey is a much better product because the kids are not only able to pass and shoot better, but the hitting is still there in that aspect of the game.


Now, some people think that no hitting means no contact.  There is still contact, but its all about intent.  For instance, if you have to players going shoulder to shoulder into the corner to play the puck, using your size and strength to get the puck is allowed.  You can't body check someone out of the way, but you can contact the other player and use your size and strength for body positioning.


I know some people here are saying "No hit league" and that the rule sucks, but this is something that most hockey parents, refs, and coaches really like.