• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

492 Excellent

About Sojourn

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I don't think most would agree he can at least play until the age of Jagr, and certainly not well, because what Jagr is doing is extraordinary. You're basically suggesting Ovechkin should have no problem doing something that no one else can do. Admittedly, Ovechkin is the best goal scorer of his generation, but there is no guarantee he ages well, and he'd have to age unbelievably well for him to do what Jagr is.
  2. But how much of that is a product of a stronger presence in front of the net? The difference between a long range shot being dangerous, and being easily handled by the goaltender, typically comes down to traffic.
  3. I think our defensemen are the smallest change of the skaters. The exception being Lindholm, who started the season quite craptastically, but has been terrific of late. We're getting more support from the forwards, not the defensemen. There is less perimeter play, more driving to the net, more quality scoring opportunities, and as a result the defensemen are also producing more because that's what happens when the forwards start scoring. When your forwards aren't scoring or, as was the case early in the season, aren't scoring at a historically bad rate, of course your D is going to struggle to produce. Defensemen are heavily reliant on the forwards actually putting opportunities away.
  4. I agree with xxreact. There's more to it. A lot more.
  5. I'd go a step further and say that Boudreau needs to make sure he gets a better read on which players are playing well, and which ones aren't, as well. Beauchemin, for example, really struggled at times, and yet he continued to be out there at every available opportunity. Vatanen and Stoner struggled against Chicago in the defensive zone, but continued to be thrown out there in those situations. Better adjustments, Bruce. You need to see what is working, and what isn't.
  6. I haven't been all that pleased with Getzlaf's play in those must win type elimination games, but the bigger issue to me has been Boudreau's inability to adjust to the opposing coach. Both Chicago and Los Angeles made adjustments in their respective series, and, in my opinion, Boudreau failed to respond accordingly. Match ups are huge in the playoffs, and the team was victimized by not getting the match ups they wanted(needed). Boudreau needs to do a better job of getting the right players out against the opposing players, or making sure the opposing team can't get the players they want against ours. It feels like he just has this mentality of playing them through it, and that just isn't going to work when the teams are evenly matched. You aren't always going to get the match ups you want, but you need to do a better job of putting your players into a position to succeed and making it harder on the opponent to do the same.
  7. Yeah, I actually found that approach pretty questionable too. That seems pretty insane to me. Neither the NHLPA or Wideman were apparently willing to accept responsibility at all.
  8. This is the decision from Bettman. It's actually a pretty interesting read, if anyone wants to see how the process went.
  9. He may just not be particularly intelligent. I mean that sincerely, and not as an attack on him. He just may not be the sharpest knife in the block.
  10. I don't see any reason why a player couldn't be traded. The suspension would still be upheld, of course.
  11. Hah! Yeah, shedding some baby fat might help.
  12. Confidence may be a bit of an issue here too. I don't really feel like Ritchie is 100% sure he belongs just yet. That's just my impression, mind you, but I think confidence is a big deal for a player like Ritchie.
  13. I think some patience is necessary here. Power forward type players typically take a little longer. He's a big body, who still needs to grow into that frame, and find that balance in strength and power, without sacrificing mobility.
  14. Sounds like Wideman's suspension stays at 20. Good. That was nonsense from him. Edit: Adding link - I have to say... Wideman's response to all of this is really inappropriate.
  15. So your argument is one of coincidence. The linesman just -happened- to get a concussion in the very same game that he was shoved from behind by Wideman? You really think that's going to convince anyone? This isn't a murder trial, so the NHL doesn't need to defend against reasonable doubt. If the arbiter feels that Wideman intended to hit him, the resulting injury could certainly be enough. Remember that this isn't similar to hitting a player. Hits can go wrong then, and just because an injury results doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure. This is on an individual that Wideman had no business hitting. Had no business even touching. If this were on a player, I'd say you're right, but it isn't. It's on an official. As for the concussion protocols, the Calgary Flames are the ones responsible for their own players. It's up to them to make sure that proper protocol is followed. In the case of an official, I actually have no idea what the protocol is, if there is a protocol at all. The player protocol is still fairly recently. The NHL may actually not have similar measures in place for the officials. It's stupid that this could actually be the case, but it wouldn't be the first time something so obvious was missed. I'm not going to defend the league if that is the case, but even if it is the case it's still a separate issue from the Wideman incident. Just like any punishment against the Calgary organization would be. The attorney can make as much of a stink as he wants, but how does that impact the decision? It may not make the NHL look clean, but it doesn't make what Wideman did any more appropriate. In Carcillo's incident, I don't think it's nearly as bad as Wideman's. Yes, Carcillo makes contact with the official. More than once. But the magnitude of it was far less. To me, this incident reinforces that Wideman deserves more than 10 games. I won't try to predict what the result of the appeal will be, but if they use this as a precedent, I think it favors the NHL. It's deliberate contact, but is there really any doubt that Carcillo could have injured the official if he had intended to? In Wideman's case, the best you can say he could have hurt the linesman worse. That's not really the best defense.