I guess Todd Richards absolutely lit into the Wild on Sunday at practice after Saturday night's 3-2 loss to Columbus. Apparently he didn't like their effort level. Several players had to be separated from each other and then they had a 20-minute straight bag skate. Jesus. Vancouver at home tonight. We'll see if they got the message.
The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I guess Todd Richards absolutely lit into the Wild on Sunday at practice after Saturday night's 3-2 loss to Columbus. Apparently he didn't like their effort level. Several players had to be separated from each other and then they had a 20-minute straight bag skate. Jesus. Vancouver at home tonight. We'll see if they got the message. -
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
1. Fans/media/team officials still use point totals as (false) yardsticks. How many variations of "Washington's season was historic -- they had 121 points!" or "Nashville's a better team than you thought -- they had a 100-point season!" did we hear last season, as if those milestones still have meaning in an era where 11 teams have 100+ points and 23 out of 30 teams are "over .500". If the 3-point system comes into being, we'll be subjected to the Brian Burkes of the world angrily claim that the Leafs had an excellent season, because they had 110 points (even though they finished 10th in the East).
2. Everyone assumes that teams will go all-out for regulation wins, and they will...against teams outside their own conference. Let's say it's a mid-season game, Dallas and Phoenix are tied 2-2, 5 minutes to play in the 3rd: Are the coaches thinking, "Gotta go for it, if we score here we gain 3 points on the other team!", or "If we take a chance and the other team scores, we lose 3 points to them in the standings! Maybe we'll play conservatively and see what happens..." Knowing NHL coaches, it's gonna be the latter, I'm afraid.
3. It does nothing at all to encourage teams to score in OT rather than wait for the shootout.
4. It doesn't get rid of the ****ING LOSER POINT!!!Last edited by DrJones; 10-19-2010, 01:20 PM.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
BTW, Ken Holland's idea to reduce shootouts by making OT four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by four minutes of 3-on-3 is stupid.
It doesn't address the reason why so many are going to the shootout instead of being settled in overtime: many teams are playing conservatively 4-on-4 and are actively TRYING to reach the shootout. The answer is simple: reduce the value of shootout wins. The GM's already feel this way; that's why they removed shootout wins from the playoff tiebreakers but NOT overtime wins. If they had any balls, they'd make it official: 2 pts for regulation/OT wins, 1 pt for shootout wins, 0 pts for ANY loss.
I don't like 1 pt for a shootout win. So basically you're saying that a team that battles for 65 minutes and then loses the equivalent of a lottery scratch-off contest doesn't deserve anything? I hate, hate, hate the shootout. And the loser point for that matter. They are the bastard twins of the NHL.Last edited by ImTellinTim; 10-19-2010, 01:21 PM.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I guess Todd Richards absolutely lit into the Wild on Sunday at practice after Saturday night's 3-2 loss to Columbus. Apparently he didn't like their effort level. Several players had to be separated from each other and then they had a 20-minute straight bag skate. Jesus. Vancouver at home tonight. We'll see if they got the message.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
Clearly, Richards thinks his job is on the line if he doesn't get results. He's already hitting the panic button 4 games in.
I didn't watch the game on Saturday, but by all accounts it was a pitiful display of losing just about every battle for a loose puck. You can be "out-talented", but to be out-hustled is something that can't happen with this team.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I don't like 1 pt for a shootout win. So basically you're saying that a team that battles for 65 minutes and then loses the equivalent of a lottery scratch-off contest doesn't deserve anything? I hate, hate, hate the shootout. And the loser point for that matter. They are the bastard twins of the NHL.NHL - Philadelphia Flyers
NFL - Buffalo Bills
MLB - Cincinnati Reds
Originally posted by Money99And how does one levy a check that will result in only a slight concussion? Do they set their shoulder-pads to 'stun'?Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I feel the same way, that's why I don't know why you'd disagree with my idea. It eliminates the loser point and would dramatically reduce the number of shootouts. Tied games near the end of regulation and in OT would be frantic, end-to-end action, as both teams realize that there's nothing to gain whatsoever from reaching a shootout. Yes, because of stellar goaltending, etc., there will still be a few shootouts here or there, but they'll be infrequent at best, while the excitement/tension level of close games will be ramped considerably. Win-win for fans of offensive hockey.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I'll sign off on this. 10 minutes of 4-on-4, knowing that if you don't score, you'll receive a point at best? Hello, end-to-end action. Bye-bye, shootouts. They'd become so rare that they'd be kinda novel when they did occur.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I feel the same way, that's why I don't know why you'd disagree with my idea. It eliminates the loser point and would dramatically reduce the number of shootouts. Tied games near the end of regulation and in OT would be frantic, end-to-end action, as both teams realize that there's nothing to gain whatsoever from reaching a shootout. Yes, because of stellar goaltending, etc., there will still be a few shootouts here or there, but they'll be infrequent at best, while the excitement/tension level of close games will be ramped considerably. Win-win for fans of offensive hockey.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
Because it still includes a shootout. I don't understand the North American obsession with having to crown a winner of every single regular season game. If a coach wants to play for a tie, that's his choice. It's part of the strategy. I don't know why they can't just skate to a tie after OT, agree that neither team was better, share the points, and move on. I guess I just see it differently than the casual fan. When I buy tickets to college hockey game here, I don't think to myself, "boy I hope this doesn't end in a tie". I go to watch the game because I love the sport. I think true NHL fans look at it the same way instead of whining that no one won the game. What the hell is wrong with a defensive battle? Those games can be more entertaining at times because goals are more meaningful. But ESPN has trained everyone that we need HIGHLIGHTS and SPECTACULAR GAME WINNERS - WIN WIN WIN!!!
I really hope by "defensive battles", you're not defending the Dead Puck Era, because I'm sick of it being romanticized. 1-0 games with shot totals of 19-15 and icings every 30 seconds were not compelling to me. I dare anyone to rewatch all 7 games of the 2003 Stanley Cup Final and try to defend it as entertainment. Or as hockey, for that matter.
I also don't believe that actively playing for a tie should be a valid strategy. If teams were legitimately trying to win and stalemated after 60 (or 65) minutes, than so be it. But that's not what was happening. Why bother playing the game at all if you're not going to try to win? Why not draw straws at the beginning of the game instead?
NHL coaches are by-and-large an extremely conservative lot, and need lots of prodding to change. Regular-season OT was first introduced in 1983 because too many teams were playing for ties. The loser point and 4-on-4 format was first introduced in 1999 because too few teams were trying were trying to score in OT. The shootout was first introduced in 2005 because STILL too few teams were trying to score in OT. As long as there's a safety net, teams will gravitate towards it, and that's bad for fans, both hardcore and casual. My solution: eliminate the safety net!Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I can't imagine why anybody would ever romanticize the Dead Puck Era. It almost killed the game and was about as exciting to watch as a Golden Girls marathon. There was literally nothing good about it.
I like the shootout just fine.Last edited by metallicatz; 10-19-2010, 05:38 PM.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
I really hope by "defensive battles", you're not defending the Dead Puck Era, because I'm sick of it being romanticized. 1-0 games with shot totals of 19-15 and icings every 30 seconds were not compelling to me. I dare anyone to rewatch all 7 games of the 2003 Stanley Cup Final and try to defend it as entertainment. Or as hockey, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong, your idea is better than it is now, but I cannot support the idea of the shootout. I think it's manufactured garbage.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
The whole "we need a winner" thing is just to have a conclusion. I don't know, for me, having one winner is great.
I agree with the 10 min, 4 on 4 setup. It'll be quicker, more likely to score within that time frame, and it will be less likely a game goes to shootout. I don't care for the loser point, but I don't know, it DOES suck to go all that way then not get anything because you lose on a shootout.Comment
-
Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread
Wild went down 1 minute in, but have responded with 2 goals in 1:20 and are outshooting Vancouver 7-2. Good response.Comment
Comment