Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

NHL Thread: Can Lidstrom Unretire? Please?

13334363839100

Posts

  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    Yet more proof that if you play the same way in the playoffs that you did in the regular season you get beat. Look at the rangers, and now the Canucks. Being top of the NHL gets you a big head and tells you "hey, our system is working, we're pretty good. Let's not change anything" and then an underrated team comes and shows you what the playoffs are.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Well, I think it mostly tells us that the Sedins and Jonathan Quick are really fucking good.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    We're not quite at the one year (I think the Edmonton to the finals year?) when the 8-7-6-5 seeds won in the West. Though that's obviously a possibility in the East.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SampsenSampsen Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Yet more proof that if you play the same way in the playoffs that you did in the regular season you get beat. Look at the rangers, and now the Canucks. Being top of the NHL gets you a big head and tells you "hey, our system is working, we're pretty good. Let's not change anything" and then an underrated team comes and shows you what the playoffs are.

    Na, the Canucks knew they were winning off goaltending alone a lot of nights. PP was failing and things just didn't look right.

    Kesler was hurt all year, Raymond is a scrub (to be fair his back was broken), Booth doesn't fit on any lines here, Kassian not ready to play big minutes yet (that trade will be up in the air for years), etc. Then losing Sedin for the first three games really destroyed us. I personally never thought we would do much this year, but didn't think we would go out in the first round. Hopefully Gillis can fill a couple holes with players that fit a bit better than Pahlsson, Booth, Raymond or Ballard. Ballard and Booth aren't bad players, they just don't fit the way Vigneault wants to play.

  • mr_michmr_mich Registered User regular
    Trade Fleury for Luongo! Pens/Nucks 2013!

    steam_sig-400.png
    GarageFridge on Twitch
  • RenaissanceDanRenaissanceDan Registered User
    Over/under on goals in the Blues/Kings series? Like 12 in 6 games?

    Geeze, I think you might be right on the money. Or within one. I'll say over 12. Just because playoff shutouts are a lot harder to come by, especially in the conference semi-finals.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    That game was brutal. Not dirty, but just lots and lots of hard hits. Now I'm just hoping the hawks wake up and pull this out. Otherwise that'll really kill the awesome shadenfrued buzz I have going .

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    One of the Blues, Preds, Coyotes, and Kings will make it to the finals. The last time any of those teams made it was 93 with the Kings. Before that? 1967-70 with the Blues. That's it.

    And it's still possible that 2 of them will.
    Barring some miraculous comebacks, in the NHL Western Conference, the Red Wings, Sharks, Blackhawks, and Canucks will all be eliminated in the quarterfinals.

    In 2010, the Western quarterfinals winners were these four teams.

    The last time that none of these teams appeared in the Western semifinals was 2001. Only the Blackhawks had missed the playoffs that year.

    The last time before that was 1991. The Sharks franchise did not exist until the following season.

    The last time before that was 1986. 1986 was the last year of 5-game series quarterfinals.

    The last time before that was 1984. That year, the Red Wings, Blackhawks, and Canucks all lost in the quarterfinals. (Sharks were still nonexistent.)

    The last time before that was 1981.

    In 1979 and earlier there were only 12 playoff teams and four were automatically in the quarterfinals. 1980 and on have had 16.

    The last time before the next was 1977.

    In 1974 and earlier, there were only 8 playoff teams, putting each of them automatically in the semifinals.

    The Canucks joined the NHL for the season of the 1971 playoffs.

    In 1969, the Red Wings and Blackhawks missed the playoffs. This was the first time in the history of the Stanley Cup playoffs that this had happened.

    (In 1968, the NHL had expanded from 6 to 12 teams. From 1943-1968, 4 of 6 teams made the playoffs, meaning that they started in what we would consider conference finals today. Previous to 1943, all six teams entered the playoffs.)

    TL;DR: In the history of the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, these four teams were only not present in the semifinals (or later if they didn't exist) eight times. In the 21 seasons that these four teams have existed together, they have only all missed the semifinals two times.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HardtargetHardtarget Registered User regular
    oh canucks, you can't do anything can you. sadly I called vancouver out in round 1 and it's a damn shame.

    camo_sig2.png
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Would you look at that. If you pick enough teams, at least one of them usually does well!

    I'm really not a fan of all this random stat mumbo-jumbo. People toss around numbers like they mean way more than they really do.

    Also, that goal for the Kings was just brutal. What a terrible call.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    The OT winner where hamhuis grabbed onto the kings stick after being bodied off the puck?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Would you look at that. If you pick enough teams, at least one of them usually does well!

    I'm really not a fan of all this random stat mumbo-jumbo. People toss around numbers like they mean way more than they really do.

    Also, that goal for the Kings was just brutal. What a terrible call.

    Well, I mean... Detroit by themselves has made the playoffs every year the Sharks have existed, and made the semis like 12 of those years.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    The OT winner where hamhuis grabbed onto the kings stick after being bodied off the puck?

    I'm not sure what hockey game you were watching, but it doesn't seem to have taken place on the planet Earth. Where do you get your alien television from?

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    I just watched it again several times. Commentators on 2 networks, including CBC didn't see a penalty and neither do I.
    Hamhuis is hit by the LA player, starts to lose his footing, grabs the LA stick and holds it to his body (you can see him grab it in every replay) and he falls down. It wasn't a hook.

  • KPCKPC Registered User regular
    I was absolutely sure the Kings would blow it in OT. So elated when Stoll roofed that puck. Hamhuis grabbed the stick as he lost his balance and fell. No penalty.

  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    Sampsen wrote: »
    That wasn't a penalty at all, it was a bad play by Hamhuis. He should have gotten rid of it instead of going east to west on the ice.

    Yeah, up the boards for sure in OT. No heroes.

  • SampsenSampsen Registered User regular
    That wasn't a penalty at all, it was a bad play by Hamhuis. He should have gotten rid of it instead of going east to west on the ice.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    If the Flyers don't win another game this post-season I'll still be satisfied (not happy, but satisfied) that they sent those dirty pieces of crap on early vacations. Enjoy the golf course! I know it'll go against every instinct you have, but try not to throw an elbow into anyone head while they're lining up a putt.

  • HawkstoneHawkstone Registered User regular
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    We are not low.
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.



    At 27 seconds you get the best angle that shows Hartnell hits puck into net first, before making contact with Fleury.

    I've been looking for a clip of the Neal no goal, but I've not had any luck. What I recall was that Bryz, unlike Fleury, was on the puck. Neal didn't poke it through, he pushed Bryz into the net.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • kilroydoskilroydos Registered User regular
    And as usual, the Puck Daddy eulogy for the Wings combined incredibly bland and cliched jokes about Detroit with incredibly tasteless jokes. Including one the editors eventually spiked about Konstantinov!

    Yeah that was a pretty bleh eulogy. Then again I don't know if anything will touch the one for vancover last year, the images were just...amazing. like this one.

    eulogy_remembering_the_vancouver_canucks.jpg
    "Take the fall!" "Act hurt!" "Get indignant!"

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    But it really is that cut and dry. Hartnell didn't make contact with MAF until after the puck was in the net, while the only reason Cooke's puck ended up in the net was because he pushed Bryzgalov into the net first. I'm shocked that they got both calls right, but they were the right calls.

    I'm having trouble finding video of the interference, but here's Hartnell's goal. The best look is at 1:15. It's clear as day. The puck is in the net before Hartnell ever makes contact.

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Approve of thread title!

    I don't follow any other sport - what happened?

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Metta World Peace(Ron Artest) threw a haymaker with his elbow.



    looks like a clean hockey play to me.

    tinwhiskers on
  • quovadis13quovadis13 Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Approve of thread title!

    I don't follow any other sport - what happened?

    Metta World Peace (Lakers) elbowed James Harden (OKC Thunder) in the head in a weird celebration/attack in an NBA game yesterday. Harden has a concussion and his status is uncertain at this time.

    It's got all the makings of a typical Tuesday night in the NHL!!

  • redfield85redfield85 Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    But it really is that cut and dry. Hartnell didn't make contact with MAF until after the puck was in the net, while the only reason Cooke's puck ended up in the net was because he pushed Bryzgalov into the net first. I'm shocked that they got both calls right, but they were the right calls.

    I'm having trouble finding video of the interference, but here's Hartnell's goal. The best look is at 1:15. It's clear as day. The puck is in the net before Hartnell ever makes contact.

    Yea, wtf. That is such a clean goal. If you are a Flyers fan and saying that isn't, you need to learn hockey a bit. Sorry.

    And yes, Neal pushed the goalie (from my memory).

    [3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [360/Steam/One] Redfield85 | [PS3] Recchi85
    [Pinny Arcade] Looking for: Giraffey, Rayman
    Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Metta World Peace(Ron Artest) threw a haymaker with his elbow.

    snip

    looks like a clean hockey play to me.

    Well that's sure to be atleast a $2500 fine. And my favorite part of that clip is that I just learned that Ron Artest changed his name to Metta World Peace. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    redfield85 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    But it really is that cut and dry. Hartnell didn't make contact with MAF until after the puck was in the net, while the only reason Cooke's puck ended up in the net was because he pushed Bryzgalov into the net first. I'm shocked that they got both calls right, but they were the right calls.

    I'm having trouble finding video of the interference, but here's Hartnell's goal. The best look is at 1:15. It's clear as day. The puck is in the net before Hartnell ever makes contact.

    Yea, wtf. That is such a clean goal. If you are a Flyers fan and saying that isn't, you need to learn hockey a bit. Sorry.

    And yes, Neal pushed the goalie (from my memory).

    NHL.com has Cooke listed as the recipient of the interference penalty. But regardless of who it was (damn I wish a video of this was easier to find), I remember the replay pretty clearly showing that Bryzgalov had the puck stopped and then he and the puck were pushed into the net.

    It's fairly remarkable that the refs actually got both plays right. Both of them are the kind of thing that isn't a surprise when they're called wrong in real-time. I'm also surprised that they correctly didn't give Giroux a penalty shot when (I believe it was) he and Letang got tangled on a Giroux (shorthanded?) breakaway. When they went down I was screaming for a penalty shot (mostly because it would have been awesome), but as soon as they showed the replay it was fairly obviously not penalty at all.

    TheCanMan on
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Metta World Peace(Ron Artest) threw a haymaker with his elbow.

    snip

    looks like a clean hockey play to me.

    Well that's sure to be atleast a $2500 fine. And my favorite part of that clip is that I just learned that Ron Artest changed his name to Metta World Peace. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    The NBA actually dishes out punishments that make sense. He'll be gone at least the first round of the playoffs.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
  • redfield85redfield85 Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    redfield85 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    But it really is that cut and dry. Hartnell didn't make contact with MAF until after the puck was in the net, while the only reason Cooke's puck ended up in the net was because he pushed Bryzgalov into the net first. I'm shocked that they got both calls right, but they were the right calls.

    I'm having trouble finding video of the interference, but here's Hartnell's goal. The best look is at 1:15. It's clear as day. The puck is in the net before Hartnell ever makes contact.

    Yea, wtf. That is such a clean goal. If you are a Flyers fan and saying that isn't, you need to learn hockey a bit. Sorry.

    And yes, Neal pushed the goalie (from my memory).

    NHL.com has Cooke listed as the recipient of the interference penalty. But regardless of who it was (damn I wish a video of this was easier to find), I remember the replay pretty clearly showing that Bryzgalov had the puck stopped and then he and the puck were pushed into the net.

    It's fairly remarkable that the refs actually got both plays right. Both of them are the kind of thing that isn't a surprise when they're called wrong in real-time. I'm also surprised that they correctly didn't give Giroux a penalty shot when (I believe it was) he and Letang got tangled on a Giroux (shorthanded?) breakaway. When they went down I was screaming for a penalty shot (mostly because it would have been awesome), but as soon as they showed the replay it was fairly obviously not penalty at all.

    Oh, I was upset at that Giroux play, but I 100% knew it wasn't a PS when it happened. Letang didn't do shit to him and Giroux tried drawing it.

    [3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [360/Steam/One] Redfield85 | [PS3] Recchi85
    [Pinny Arcade] Looking for: Giraffey, Rayman
    Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
  • HawkstoneHawkstone Registered User regular
    redfield85 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Hawkstone wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    It was called a goal on the ice.

    Ref behind the net pointed it in, like, five times.

    Yes, neal was pushed into the goalie.


    It wouldn't have changed the outcome...but if Hartnell's was a goal...Neal's was too.

    Except that's not the case. The circumstances differed. Hartnell led with stick and pushed the puck in. Neal led with body and pushed the goalie in.

    Anyways, I'm glad to see the Kings proceed. This is the year for upsets. Its been quite entertaining so far.

    Look, I am a Flyers guy all the way, but if you really think it was that cut and dried your as bad as they guys you rail against.

    But it really is that cut and dry. Hartnell didn't make contact with MAF until after the puck was in the net, while the only reason Cooke's puck ended up in the net was because he pushed Bryzgalov into the net first. I'm shocked that they got both calls right, but they were the right calls.

    I'm having trouble finding video of the interference, but here's Hartnell's goal. The best look is at 1:15. It's clear as day. The puck is in the net before Hartnell ever makes contact.

    Yea, wtf. That is such a clean goal. If you are a Flyers fan and saying that isn't, you need to learn hockey a bit. Sorry.

    And yes, Neal pushed the goalie (from my memory).

    For the record I never said that I thought they were both Goals or both not goals, I just said that the plays were very similar and that if you allowed one it didnt look good to overturn the other... And thanks for the condisention. It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and white, and nobody knows anything but you.

    I know hockey quite well thanks, and my status as fan has nothing to do with making an honest call.

    We are not low.
  • KPCKPC Registered User regular
    I think it's slowly settling in that the Kings are moving on the second round. I'll admit that I didn't give the Kings a chance to win this series, but oddly enough I knew that if the Kings could play their game, they could dominate. Which surprised me when the Kings actually did this series. I also never thought of it as a #1 vs. #8 match up. Also odd.

  • y2jake215y2jake215 The style is radiation leak at mile island Also known as Chernobyl talk, listen for the sirensRegistered User regular
    126182_v1.jpg

    y7dKgGy.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
  • mr_michmr_mich Registered User regular
    I think the gripe a lot of people have with the Pens goal that was called off was that it was waved a goal on the ice, then all of the refs suddenly decided to call it a no-goal without consulting the war room. It was like "GOAL! No goal? No goal." Without any video replay.

    That being said, the Pens certainly got outplayed enough that one goal in either direction wouldn't have saved them.

    steam_sig-400.png
    GarageFridge on Twitch
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Different officials have different angles. Dude behind the net is not focused on the Bryzgalov/Neal interaction, he is focused on "where's the puck?"

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • mr_michmr_mich Registered User regular
    And how close was the next-nearest ref that he could see the puck going in during that collision, so sure that they didn't even need to consult the war room?

    I'm not saying they didn't make the right call, I just think that's what ruffled people's feathers a bit.

    steam_sig-400.png
    GarageFridge on Twitch
Sign In or Register to comment.