Others here alluded to Murph's possible alcohol consumption while at work for FSD...Is there any proof, or is it all speculation?
The reason why I ask is that I myself never really noticed him under the influence while broadcasting, or "UIB"...Then again I'm usually having a few drinks myself while watching the game
As far as I know it is all unfounded speculation.
Murph stumbled on his words a lot and people seemed to take that as drunkeness when really I think he just wasn't very good as a broadcaster.
I've heard no substantiated incidents about his drinking. It just became a running joke because of his constantly mangling words. But the reality is, being an on air broadcaster isn't easy. Think of how most hockey players sound in interviews.
The mid-season firing is unusual but until I hear otherwise I'm giving Murph the benefit of the doubt.
Ahhh that was a fun game to watch. Usually I hate to say I told you so to people but man.. I really nailed it on the head with the Parise/Suter signings and I think that based on what I saw from Detroit tonight, I was right about the western conf. playoff picture not including the motor city. I also should point out that the Wild don't play the trap (1-3-1) they play the 1-2-2. Same as most teams in the league. We are just very good at limiting a teams quality chances. Even if the refs got that call wrong, which I am not entirely sure Millers stick doesn't make contact with the puck as I was not on the ice and couldn't see what the ref saw, Backy gave it back to Miller there at the end. That was generous of him right?
You don't hate to say I told you so. Seeing as how usually only show up here after a Wings loss, it's exactly what you hope for. Apparently you didn't get all the taunting out of your system over on hfboards.
If you have a point to make about the game, make it. Keep appearing just to stir things up however, and your stay will be short lived.
A pre-emptive warning, let's everyone just stay on topic about the game.
There's the keyword. Adequate. Ericsson is finally worth his ice time and I love seeing it. I'd be thrilled if this kid fulfills his potential. I've just watched his look like a deer in the headlights for almost five years and I was literally blown away we gave him that contract. Wings don't usually overpay for uselessness. That said, if he keeps this up, were better off for it. Keep it coming Big E.
Ericsson is logging more ice time than anyone not named Kronwall and is the #1 PK defenseman. He's not the #4 guy.
I wasn't sure he'd earn his contract but the Wings are getting their money's worth out of him already.
And I never really understood why people think his potential was so high. He's a converted defenseman taken dead last in the draft. Great size. Booming but slow slapshot. Great first pass. But he's mostly a stay at home guy, not some offensive juggernaut. Ericsson is already a win for the Wings. Kindl is the one who is well below his potential.
Riiiiiiiight! The LA Kings were considered the best team on paper last year? Thats hilarious.
Im sure most of the analyists and experts never saw LA as the team to beat. Give me a break. 8 of 12 ESPN hockey analyists had them ousted in the 1st round by Vancouver. They werent even favored when they ramrodded everyone to get to the SCF's as nhl.com has the Devils in 6. So the answer to my question is not last year.
It's becoming an oft repeated falsehood here when anyone says "look at the Kings last year. Just get in and anything can happen" as if they came out of nowhere.
At the beginning of the season they were absolutely considered to be one of the best teams in the west. More than once I read about the chances for them to win the Pacific and make the conference Finals. Then they dogged it for two-thirds of the season because they couldn't score goals and close out games. So headed to the playoffs it's not surprising people picked Vancouver, the #1 seed in the West that also made it to the conference finals the previous season.
People also forget that unlike Holland, the Kings GM made bold moves during the season to improve the team, calling up rookies like King and Nolan to add even more size and energy. They traded for Carter and Richards. And because of the teams constant underachieving, they fired their coach.
The Kings didn't just get hot at the right time. They were a good team that underachieved, then made bold moves and finally started living up to their potential.
They aren't an example of "anything can happen" if you look at their lineup last year and compare it to Detroit's current roster.
And I am saying I don't think it necessarily will be, because you not only have to make contact with the head (principal point), but you also have to target the head. I don't believe the head was targeted. He could get suspended for interference though, that was actually the call on the play, not an illegal check to the head.
That's where it gets weird with the league.
By their definition of "targeted" it doesn't have to mean the the player is clearly trying to hit a guy in the head. There were cases where because of what they deemed was a recklessly thrown hit by the player, the head was essentially targeted. Unintentional but reckless, so still targeted.
Here's the NHL explanation video. Talk of the hits starts about 3 mins in. They show examples of illegal and legal hits to the head.
I was gonna mention the Kane thing too. Look ma, I can skate 1/4 mph and stick handle! When I play NHL 13, if I take too long, they blow the play down. Why don't they do that in real life? Is there supposed to be a time limit?
And that Canucks SO goal was bogus.
The league apparently has language specifically saying the spin-o-rama is legal for shootouts, but that Canucks goal it was so clear he came to a complete stop and was actually moving away from the goalie when he scored. Neither the player nor the puck were moving forward when he scored.
I'd love to think that if there's enough players scoring in ways that make it even less about hockey, eventually they'll get rid of the shootout. I know it's a pipe dream though.
Zucker was admiring his pass but Perry's hit looks late, and he sort of throws his upper body up to try and catch more of him, which ends up just contacting more of his head.
Aside from looking late, that's a tough angle to throw a hit. Given the distance Zucker was from the boards, there's little chance this hit would end well. If Perry had hit more of his body he likely would've sent Zucker flying head first into the boards.
I don't think it was a malicious elbow or anything but it was a bad decision by Perry.
I can't remember who said it but pointed out that the loss of Lidstrom and Detroit's generally less talented blueline not only affects the defense. The forwards will struggle because the puck is not being moved up ice as effectively.
It's definitely true. Defensively they've looked better, but they're still struggling to break out of their own zone and establish themselves in the offensive zone effectively.
Lidstrom is obviously a huge loss in that department, but I think the loss of Rafalski was a huge blow that's now more visible since Lids is no longer there to pick up the slack.
To add to this... anybody watch Boston vs Ottawa... I would have to lose the game on a move such as that...
I thought for sure that's what this thread was about.
there's no way that move should be legal. Not because of the way he puts his stick on the puck, that part only highlights how stupid the event is because guys can take their time and do whatever weird thing they want since they have all the time in the world. It has little to do with hockey and should not decide a game.
But it, and most spin-o-ramas I've seen should be illegal because he clearly comes to a complete stop right at the goalie and tries to jam it home. He's no longer moving forward in any way.
And what's with the "may be?" The shootout is definitely a bad thing.