NHL Hockey 2009-10 Season
- Thread starter Ramy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 276
- Views 24K
Unbelievable! I'm surprised the NHL didn't pull this dolts franchise...Actually that WAS mentioned
Just think, they start the next season on Oct. 1st !
Anyway, things are looking up in HockeyTown but the Wings still don't look like a Top Contender for the Cup.
They are still bouncing around the 7,8 and 9th spots though.
Hoping they pick it up and move up to at least the 6th spot soon, if not it will be a very short playoff or possibly none this year.
It's been a VERY VERY long time since we didn't have Playoff hockey in Hockeytown ....
However I do remember many year floundering right around where they are now, of course that was well before Mr I got involved.
I would think we can expect much better situation this time next year.
It's time to bury the NHL's stale gimmicky shootouts
fwiw, I agree, never liked it from day one.
It's time to bury NHL's gimmicky, stale shootouts
Vancouver, British Columbia -- Forgive me for tromping on a tired old bit here, but if a shootout isn't the dumbest, most anti-climactic way to decide the outcome of a sporting event, I don't know what is.
It's a rip-off. Two teams play their hearts out for 65 minutes and you settle it with a gimmick. Seriously, it leaves me feeling empty and unsatisfied every single time.
I know what you are going to say. "Oh, I bet you wouldn't feel that way if the Red Wings were 9-4 in shootouts instead of 4-9."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I would feel exactly the same way. Win or lose, it's a dumb way to decide games. The only shootout this year that I didn't completely hate was the one the Wings lost to Chicago at Joe Louis Arena back on Jan. 17. That was the one that Pavel Datsyuk did his stop-and-pop move, Todd Bertuzzi did his spin-a-rama and Marian Hossa got the winner with a quick move and a blistering, perfectly-placed shot.
But it still felt wrong to decide the outcome of that game, which was so exciting, so well played and fiercely contested, with a shootout.
What other sport does this? Can you imagine the NBA deciding games by having a player from each team play HORSE? Or, how about they have a guy from each team play half-court, one-on-one, first one to five wins?
I can't believe the majority of true hockey fans still love shootouts. Maybe at first it was intriguing. But after so many years, it's gotten stale. It's just like a dunk contest in the NBA; once you get past the first couple of dazzling moves, it's all the same. You get an occasional jaw-dropping move in a shootout, but the majority of them are pretty mundane.
Play five minutes of overtime, or 10 minutes of overtime and then if the game is still tied, give each team a point and move on. What's wrong with that?
These three-point games (two points for a win, one point for losing in overtime or shootout) are a farce anyway. Not only does it water down regular-season victories, it messes up the bookkeeping. Team A wins three shootouts and it claimed to be 3-0. Team B loses three shootouts and it is 0-0-3. I guess Team B gets to feel good about itself for not being a complete loser, but who are they kidding?
I wish the NHL would go back to Win-Loss-Tie system -- two points for a win, one point for a tie. But that's not going to happen, certainly not in time to rescue the Red Wings.
fwiw, I agree, never liked it from day one.
It's time to bury NHL's gimmicky, stale shootouts
Vancouver, British Columbia -- Forgive me for tromping on a tired old bit here, but if a shootout isn't the dumbest, most anti-climactic way to decide the outcome of a sporting event, I don't know what is.
It's a rip-off. Two teams play their hearts out for 65 minutes and you settle it with a gimmick. Seriously, it leaves me feeling empty and unsatisfied every single time.
I know what you are going to say. "Oh, I bet you wouldn't feel that way if the Red Wings were 9-4 in shootouts instead of 4-9."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I would feel exactly the same way. Win or lose, it's a dumb way to decide games. The only shootout this year that I didn't completely hate was the one the Wings lost to Chicago at Joe Louis Arena back on Jan. 17. That was the one that Pavel Datsyuk did his stop-and-pop move, Todd Bertuzzi did his spin-a-rama and Marian Hossa got the winner with a quick move and a blistering, perfectly-placed shot.
But it still felt wrong to decide the outcome of that game, which was so exciting, so well played and fiercely contested, with a shootout.
What other sport does this? Can you imagine the NBA deciding games by having a player from each team play HORSE? Or, how about they have a guy from each team play half-court, one-on-one, first one to five wins?
I can't believe the majority of true hockey fans still love shootouts. Maybe at first it was intriguing. But after so many years, it's gotten stale. It's just like a dunk contest in the NBA; once you get past the first couple of dazzling moves, it's all the same. You get an occasional jaw-dropping move in a shootout, but the majority of them are pretty mundane.
Play five minutes of overtime, or 10 minutes of overtime and then if the game is still tied, give each team a point and move on. What's wrong with that?
These three-point games (two points for a win, one point for losing in overtime or shootout) are a farce anyway. Not only does it water down regular-season victories, it messes up the bookkeeping. Team A wins three shootouts and it claimed to be 3-0. Team B loses three shootouts and it is 0-0-3. I guess Team B gets to feel good about itself for not being a complete loser, but who are they kidding?
I wish the NHL would go back to Win-Loss-Tie system -- two points for a win, one point for a tie. But that's not going to happen, certainly not in time to rescue the Red Wings.
I have to disagree with this article.
As a hockey fan, there was nothing I hated more than the tie.
It solves nothing- I remember a game where my Sabres and the Devils were tied 8-8- it felt so anticlimactic.
I LIKE the shootout and I never want to see hockey ties again.
What's next- is he going to wish we went back to the pre-lockout dead-puck-era clutch-and-grab-and-trap ways of old?
As a hockey fan, there was nothing I hated more than the tie.
It solves nothing- I remember a game where my Sabres and the Devils were tied 8-8- it felt so anticlimactic.
I LIKE the shootout and I never want to see hockey ties again.
What's next- is he going to wish we went back to the pre-lockout dead-puck-era clutch-and-grab-and-trap ways of old?
I want them to go back to the way it SHOULD be.
Keep playing till the tie is broken, this Shoot out stuff is just stupid.
Lets play football and end games that are tied with a kicking contest.
Get back to playing the whole game.
While they are at it, get rid of the point for a tie when you go to OT for each team.
Way to many teams playing for a tie when the game gets late, knowing they both get a extra point.
I agree with Jimbo...I hate the shootout; there is no place for it in hockey! I'm perfectly happy with a tie game during the regular season...and sudden-death overtime during the playoffs. The only thing I would do differently is extending the OT period to 5 to 10 minutes.
I agree with a lot of this, especially the farce of some games handing out two points and some handing out three. The casual fan (which the NHL needs a lot more of) cannot even follow the standings.
While I agree in general the shootout is not the best way to decide a game, the game needs to be decided. American sports fans simply are not satisified with ties, unless they are few and far between.
Unfortunately there is no good alternative. You cannot let OT drag on and on in the regular season, there are just too many games.
While I don't think the shootout is the best way to decide a game, I certainly do not think it's the worst either. The dediciding factor for me is that you never see an arena empty out when the final buzzer goes off and the game goes to a shootout.
The crowd loves it.
Sandra
Thats something else I would definitely do, make the OT period 10 minutes, if they can't be man enough to play the whole period.
Sure there is, let the teams know that NEITHER team gets a point if it ends in a TIE.
The way it is now you can watch the games slow down about halfway thru the 3rd when the games are tied as both teams know they have the 2 points and a potential for a third.
So the game slows and no one really gives a damn.
Fwiw, the Red Wings played a GREAT game tonight beating the Pens 3-1 and had control of the game thruout.
The Wings had just played back to back nights in Edmonton and Calgary and came home and had to play the Pens.
Wings are 8-3 since the Olympic break :up
The Wings had just played back to back nights in Edmonton and Calgary and came home and had to play the Pens.
Wings are 8-3 since the Olympic break :up
Yep, they are playing much better - like they're getting ready for the Playoffs. BTW, one of the losses was in OT so they are 8-2-1.
Yep, they are playing much better - like they're getting ready for the Playoffs. BTW, one of the losses was in OT so they are 8-2-1.
I saw that, but just didn't go back to change it ..... lazy
Coincidentally they are getting healthy now !
Too many people hate ties. That's just not an option.
I agree the games tend to slow down in the last five minutes of the third period when the game is tied, but a way around that is to not give the team that loses in OT or a shootout the extra loser's point.
Two points for a victory, zero points for a loss, no matter how you lose. Teams will have nothing to gain by holding on for OT. Baseball teams do not get anything for losing in extra innings.
Sandra
I agree...the loser should get nodda, zip, nil, nothing for a loss in regulation, OT or SO. If anything, perhaps the winner should be awarded the only point (1-point) for a SO win.
Wow, first time I've heard that, and while I don't like the idea of a different amount of points being handed out in each game (it messes up the standings), this isn't a bad thought. :up
Sandra
Similar threads
