Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
poum

2017-2018 NHL Catch-All

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, poum said:

Not terrible. But I would disagree. Washington won't be that good to win Division. I expect BB to make Minnesota better than they are. And as much as I hate to say this, Nashville at 3rd seems a bit low. Such a stupid team. I'm glad they punished Neal to Vegas.

The Pacific Division is the one I'm curious about. I think it's Anaheim, Calgary or Edmonton's to lose. I would say those three will take the top three spots. San Jose downgraded. Losing Patty Marleau will be a huge hit for them. It's the Kings that worry me. If they stood pat, then yeah LOL Kings. Where does that team go now, what direction does Rob Blake take? Go more offensive than the years of defensive Sutter. Anyway, Quick is probably gonna be exposed. Their new coach is TERRIBLE. What was it, posted the worst record of something while coach of Philly. Still... Not counting them out yet. Even if I should.

Also. LOL Vancouver. They might be Avalanche bad. That special kind of bad.

I think Washington should be able to Boudreau their way to another division title. I don't think they'll finish 1st overall for a third year but this is Washington so it's possible. Gotta keep those playoff collapses spectacular yknow? I'm also thinking this is the year the Rangers take a step back and finally stop pretending they are somehow a contender instead of just those post-lockout Calgary teams. Pittsburgh is always mangled by injuries so despite being the best team in the division by far, I don't see them winning it. The rest of the Metro kinda sucks. Philly, Jersey & Brooklyn are all still awful teams with a couple of bright spots. I'm high on Carolina's defense though so I have them taking the biggest step forward.

Speaking of Boudreau, Minnesota finishing first in the Central feels so right. Also, a lot of people are sleeping on Chicago. Losing Panerin's offence will hurt their place in the standings but I would not want to play them in the playoffs more than any other team out west now that Top 100 Toews has his two partners in clutch crime back. Dallas and Nashville can both go to hell/winnipeg and that's all I have to say about those two.

Part of me hopes Edmonton wins the Pacific. Any time we can ruin Canada's dreams of an all Alberta series again is good with me. One of the Sharks and Flames should make it. Both could finish near the top or bottom of the standings and it wouldn't be a shock. The kings will suck. The rest of that division will also suck but the kings will suck.

 

Edit: lmao how did I forget about Columbus??? Both times!?!? Eek. Yeah they should round out the Metro even with that orangutan running their bench. Seth Jones and Werenski are studs.

Edited by PetrSykora
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chicago will be taking a step back this year. Loss of Panarin and Hossa. That's what, close to 120 or so points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Looking a pictures of Getz on media day, looks like he slimmed down.

Right? I was thinking the same thing. He looks off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some new rule changes!

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/new-rule-adds-pressure-nhl-coaches-asking-offside-challenge/

If a coach challenges a delayed offsides and doesn't go in their favor, they receive a two minute minor. I gotta say, I like it. The offsides challenge is basically a delay of game anyhow. It really needs to be removed but this new rule might make the offsides challenge tolerable. 

A team who ices the puck will no longer be available to use a time out after icing. Not sure how I feel about that one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both rules are terrible. So now I'm going to be piddleed because not only did the refs blow the damn call because they are viewing it on a 6" tablet and/or their generally stupidity, but now the Ducks have to kill a penalty to top it off. Or the Ducks will have a good goal taken away and not get a derserved PP. 

Adding a potential penalty on top of it all when replay isn't 100% perfect is dumb. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Spencer_12 said:

Both rules are terrible. So now I'm going to be piddleed because not only did the refs blow the damn call because they are viewing it on a 6" tablet and/or their generally stupidity, but now the Ducks have to kill a penalty to top it off. Or the Ducks will have a good goal taken away and not get a derserved PP. 

Adding a potential penalty on top of it all when replay isn't 100% perfect is dumb. 

I felt like RC never used his challenge as much. It was the opposing team using them against the Ducks. Which yes, sometimes a Duck was millimeters off (such a stupid rule). But if it punishes teams trying to get a delay of game, I'm all for it. 

The offsides call is usually only used after a goal. That has to make coaches think twice on the challenge. A bad challenge means they are scored on and get fudged with a PK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL needs to invest in R&D to create goaline and blueline technology that can be placed in every arena uniformly like tennis and now soccer is starting to use everywhere. If tennis can spot whether or not a ball going 125mph touched even a mm of a line then the NHL should be able to come up with something. It takes those sports 5 seconds to determine whether the ball crossed the line. In hockey you could use it to spot offsides and goals. Then you wouldn't have to deal with any potential BS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spencer_12 said:

The NHL needs to invest in R&D to create goaline and blueline technology that can be placed in every arena uniformly like tennis and now soccer is starting to use everywhere. If tennis can spot whether or not a ball going 125mph touched even a mm of a line then the NHL should be able to come up with something. It takes those sports 5 seconds to determine whether the ball crossed the line. In hockey you could use it to spot offsides and goals. Then you wouldn't have to deal with any potential BS.

I agree, the really befuddling part is that they even done that for soccer. I mean football where you really kick it with your foot all the time. The soccer world is so slow to adapt, it's like dinosaur when it comes to rules and politics, and even they have the tech now and video reviews. I dunno, plant a microchip inside a puck and sensors on the goalposts to detect 100% if it's in or not. Hockey has so much potential to be a high-tech sport and yet it isn't.

Conspiracy theory: NHL wants to keep their stranglehold on deciding the game's outcome? They can influence the refs and tell them what to do, but they can't influence a silicon chip.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No timeouts after an icing is sooooooo dumb and pointless. Teams only have one to use in the entire game, why should it matter when they use it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PetrSykora said:

I think Washington should be able to Boudreau their way to another division title. I don't think they'll finish 1st overall for a third year but this is Washington so it's possible. Gotta keep those playoff collapses spectacular yknow? I'm also thinking this is the year the Rangers take a step back and finally stop pretending they are somehow a contender instead of just those post-lockout Calgary teams. Pittsburgh is always mangled by injuries so despite being the best team in the division by far, I don't see them winning it. The rest of the Metro kinda sucks. Philly, Jersey & Brooklyn are all still awful teams with a couple of bright spots. I'm high on Carolina's defense though so I have them taking the biggest step forward.

Speaking of Boudreau, Minnesota finishing first in the Central feels so right. Also, a lot of people are sleeping on Chicago. Losing Panerin's offence will hurt their place in the standings but I would not want to play them in the playoffs more than any other team out west now that Top 100 Toews has his two partners in clutch crime back. Dallas and Nashville can both go to hell/winnipeg and that's all I have to say about those two.

Part of me hopes Edmonton wins the Pacific. Any time we can ruin Canada's dreams of an all Alberta series again is good with me. One of the Sharks and Flames should make it. Both could finish near the top or bottom of the standings and it wouldn't be a shock. The kings will suck. The rest of that division will also suck but the kings will suck.

 

Edit: lmao how did I forget about Columbus??? Both times!?!? Eek. Yeah they should round out the Metro even with that orangutan running their bench. Seth Jones and Werenski are studs.

LOL,

LOL,

LOL Kings.

Edit: News just out that Ryan Ellis will miss 4-6 months for Nashville. Puts a little dent in their deep blue line.

Edited by nieder
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, poum said:

Some new rule changes!

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/new-rule-adds-pressure-nhl-coaches-asking-offside-challenge/

If a coach challenges a delayed offsides and doesn't go in their favor, they receive a two minute minor. I gotta say, I like it. The offsides challenge is basically a delay of game anyhow. It really needs to be removed but this new rule might make the offsides challenge tolerable. 

A team who ices the puck will no longer be available to use a time out after icing. Not sure how I feel about that one. 

If a challenged offsides doesn't go in your favor and you get a 2 minute penalty, the review should go to Toronto. You have the potential for a linesman who doesn't want to admit they made a mistake screw a team over twice with one call. Imagine if this was the case if it was that call with Toews last year against the Avs I think it was.

I don't think I like the no time out after icing rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PetrSykora said:

No timeouts after an icing is sooooooo dumb and pointless. Teams only have one to use in the entire game, why should it matter when they use it? 

Yeah I don't see the point. It's part of a team's strategy on when to use it. This just means that both teams will basically always save their timeout until the last minute of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BiolaRunner said:

If a challenged offsides doesn't go in your favor and you get a 2 minute penalty, the review should go to Toronto. You have the potential for a linesman who doesn't want to admit they made a mistake screw a team over twice with one call. Imagine if this was the case if it was that call with Toews last year against the Avs I think it was.

I don't think I like the no time out after icing rule. 

They've had offside challenges that have taken like 10 minutes to decide. Is it really fair that such a 50/50 call could result in a 2min penalty? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nieder said:

LOL,

LOL,

LOL Kings.

Edit: News just out that Ryan Ellis will miss 4-6 months for Nashville. Puts a little dent in their deep blue line.

Knee surgery huh? Dang, that stick he almost took to the visor must've done a real number on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nieder said:

They've had offside challenges that have taken like 10 minutes to decide. Is it really fair that such a 50/50 call could result in a 2min penalty? I don't think so.

Now that offsides call hopefully won't be challenged because a coach won't want to risk a power play.  I'm hoping now that the only plays coaches decide to have reviewed are the completely obvious ones.  The 50/50 call reviews are a huge waste of time.  If it takes 10 minutes to decide whether a player was offside, then the difference between offside and onside must be so minute as to not have an impact on the play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gorbachav5 said:

Now that offsides call hopefully won't be challenged because a coach won't want to risk a power play.  I'm hoping now that the only plays coaches decide to have reviewed are the completely obvious ones.  The 50/50 call reviews are a huge waste of time.  If it takes 10 minutes to decide whether a player was offside, then the difference between offside and onside must be so minute as to not have an impact on the play.

Hopefully that's what happens. It should only really be used when the play is a mile offside. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol that Horvat contract is brutal. I still don't understand how we locked up Rakell for six years under 4 million. He's better than so many of these guys that have signed huge extensions over the past few months. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PetrSykora said:

Lol that Horvat contract is brutal. I still don't understand how we locked up Rakell for six years under 4 million. He's better than so many of these guys that have signed huge extensions over the past few months. 

Praise be to Murray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nieder said:

Hopefully that's what happens. It should only really be used when the play is a mile offside

You mean like when Kane was offside and the call after review was that he wasn't?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 11:15 PM, poum said:

Some new rule changes!

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/new-rule-adds-pressure-nhl-coaches-asking-offside-challenge/

If a coach challenges a delayed offsides and doesn't go in their favor, they receive a two minute minor. I gotta say, I like it. The offsides challenge is basically a delay of game anyhow. It really needs to be removed but this new rule might make the offsides challenge tolerable. 

A team who ices the puck will no longer be available to use a time out after icing. Not sure how I feel about that one. 

I'm all for it. I'm tired of teams playing games trying to delay the faceoff and give their players time to rest. If I had my way, if team A is called for an icing then the puck should be dropped as soon as team B is ready in the faceoff circle. If team A isn't in position for ANY reason then they should get a delay of game penalty. If a player has a broken stick.. TOO BAD. It's all BS theatrics anyway.

Edited by Shadowduck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2017 at 0:12 AM, Shadowduck said:

I'm all for it. I'm tired of teams playing games trying to delay the faceoff and give their players time to rest. If I had my way, if team A is called for an icing then the puck should be dropped as soon as team B is ready in the faceoff circle. If team A isn't in position for ANY reason then they should get a delay of game penalty. If a player has a broken stick.. TOO BAD. It's all BS theatrics anyway.

This is going to be interesting if you ask me. However this is another thing for teams to get use to.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 9:35 PM, gorbachav5 said:

Now that offsides call hopefully won't be challenged because a coach won't want to risk a power play.  I'm hoping now that the only plays coaches decide to have reviewed are the completely obvious ones.  The 50/50 call reviews are a huge waste of time.  If it takes 10 minutes to decide whether a player was offside, then the difference between offside and onside must be so minute as to not have an impact on the play.

I'm still of the strong opinion the only fix to the off-sides review is the ELIMINATION of off-sides review. It's the hockey equal of MLB's balls and strikes and it's not broken. If you want to mitigate against insane mistakes, then have a off ice official make the determination as all goals are reviewed anyway.

The BEST use of review past goals IMHO would be high sticking penalties. All high sticks should be reviewed for embellishment. If a player embellishes a non-contact high stick (sells the call) he shall receive a double minor penalty the same way that a high stick that draws blood. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hey imagine that, the Colorado Avalanche are retiring yet another sweater this season. Your move Vancouver! 

Let's go ahead and retire Rob Neidermayer's 44 just so we can sit at the cool kids table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PetrSykora said:

Oh hey imagine that, the Colorado Avalanche are retiring yet another sweater this season. Your move Vancouver! 

Let's go ahead and retire Rob Neidermayer's 44 just so we can sit at the cool kids table. 

At least Hejduk makes sense. 

On the other hand, we could retire our own Bork. Retired Bourques for everyone!

Edit: I forgot Bork played for Colorado last. They could one up us with two Bourques.

Edited by poum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was a terrific goal scorer at the start of the millennium but I think retiring his sweater is taking it a bit too far. Feels almost like they're doing this to save some face after Sakic and Roy have tarnished their own image and reel some fans back in for what's bound to be another miserable year. They can do whatever they want in Colorado either way. I just think it cheapens the significance a bit when your franchise makes a point to retire so many numbers from one era. It's not like they were some dominant dynasty in those days either. They were an extremely fun team to root for though, especially whenever they went up against Detroilet I'll give them that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Hejduk he did play for the one team his entire career. Sits 2nd or 3rd in most statistical categories for the Avs. For a number retirement in Colorado, it's fine. It's not like trying to sneak him into the HHoF. Though that seemingly is getting less exclusive too.

I would agree that Colorado has gone a little insane with retiring numbers. Trying to manufacture history or piggy back on to the Nordiques for a little more longevity, either one. Adam Foote? I like the guy but a SAH defenseman? C'mon son. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...