Official Hockey discussion thread

The pens stop a four game skid, won in OT against Atlanta and in a shootout against Washington. They play philly tonight which has been easy pickin's for them this season.
 
It's the only way to exist.  No matter who wins the cup this year it'll mark a great moment - 40 years without in Toronto.
 
haha :lol:  Mybe they'll win the cup when the NHL gos back to 6 teams. :P It seems like the only Canadian teams that have a good chance at the cup are the Habs and Oilers but you never know there’s a good chunk of the season left.
 
Yeah, you never know. Once a team makes the playoffs it's anybody's game. Long gone are the days of making the playoffs with an under .500 record.
 
Calgary has the best chance.

Reason 1) Miikka Kiprusoff.  He's the next showing of Brodeur, mark my words.
Reason 2) Dion Phaneuf.  In 3-4 years he'll be the best defenseman in the NHL.
Reason 3) Jarome Iginla.  The guy scores big goals, he's got balls, and generally makes every player on the ice better.
Reason 4) Alex Tanguay.  Wait for him to settle with the Flames.  He's already putting up big numbers, but as always, the news isn't raving about him.  He's got 28 points in 28 games - and the Flames desperately needed another point-per-game player.  Now the Tanguay-Leopold trade makes Sutter look brilliant.
 
Calgary seems to be struggling right now, but again the whole NW division is tight.  Minnesota which was kicking so much butt early on is slowing down and like P.O.M. said it is still too early.
 
They're in 8th... if they can hold it or climb they'll have a chance.
My picks (though early) are
EAST:
Buffalo (duh)
New Jersey (Brodeur 'nuff said)
Atlanta
WEST:
Edmonton (wishful thinking, but I'd like them to repeat)
Anaheim (they've been dominant since getting to the final in 03.)
Calgary (LC has said why)
 
The only way the Ducks or Buffalo won't win the cup this year is if Calgary or Montreal bumps their respective conference rival off.  The Habs are the only team with a hope in hell of unseating Buffalo this year - it comes down to Huet playing better hockey than Miller and being able to shut down Buffalo's many, many guns.

Calgary is the only team that can play defense with Anaheim.  However, their goaltending is better than Anaheim's.  So Anaheim's massive amount of point producing players might be marginalized more.  It would be a close series.
 
LOL, you beat me to it LC, I came specifically because of that. At first I was pretty bummed out that they will most likely leave Pittsburgh, but the statement says they will still work with local leaders to stay there. Also, it just hit me, Quebec or Winnipeg could get a team again! How cool would it be to have Sidney, Malkin and Fleury in either of those cities?! If that happens it would be awesome, if they go to yet another U.S city I'll be pissed and disappointed and most likely write them an angry letter :D
 
Just a thought, but as one who does not follow Hockey on any surface, I still couldn't help but notice a news article on Sky Sports about a recent New York Rangers v Washington Capitals.

The article focused a lot on the fighting that went on on the ice (pitch?). Seemingly, some of this went unchallenged by the officials at the game and one fight lasted a few minutes (apparently). I can't find too much about this on the 'net, but I did find this report that has some video highlights that, again, concentrated on the fights. The commentators almost passed this off as "one of those things" and laughed it off.

OK, I know my sports (Football, Rugby and Cricket) are not whiter than white, but fighting is scorned upon in these sports (you will quite possibly not find any evidence of fighting on a Cricket field, but this Mike Gatting/Shakoor Rana incident is the closest they have come to it). As an hockey outsider, I seemed to have formed an opinion that Hockey nearly always descends into a brawl. Is this the case? Does Hockey get a bad press by talking only of the fights rather than the games? Do Hockey fans like to see the brawls or would they rather not see it happen? Is it just a storm in a teacup?

Be interesting to read a Hockey fans perspective on this.
 
Albie said:
As an hockey outsider, I seemed to have formed an opinion that Hockey nearly always descends into a brawl.
Click to expand...
games rarely go in to brawls it only happens once in awhile but there’s always trash talking and pushing.

Albie said:
Does Hockey get a bad press by talking only of the fights rather than the games?
Click to expand...
Fighting never really has gotten bad press on  sports new and it hasn’t overshadowed the game but stupid cheep shots like this have (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsRjyfecMw0&mode=related&search=)

Albie said:
Do Hockey fans like to see the brawls or would they rather not see it happen
Click to expand...
Most fans welcoming fighting and brawls as long as no one gets badly injured it gets the fans and the teams more pumped. It might be unusual to see fighting in a professional sports but that’s what make hockey unique.

I think that some people that don’t know the sport over react about the fighting but as I said early it always been part of the game and it lets players express there emotions. Im sure that LC Onhell or G.K. will be able to explain better.
 
There are previous posts about this very topic albie, you don't have to go too far back to find them either. But to restate what I said on mine: Fighting is one of the major components that makes hockey the great sport it is. All other sports scorn it and I think it is BS, specially in other contact sports like say... American Football. When you are pushing and shoving and checking and who knows what else; someone is bound to get annoyed/pissed/flat out angry and what better way to let of some steam than a condoned fight?

When fighting you have the following rules: The refs MUST allow the fight to happen until one or both players hit the ice or they get tired. The only penalty? 5 minutes in the box. Other sports fine players thousands of dollars and suspend them... I love my hockey :D
 
Thanks for that Onhell - and forgive me for not searching for posts on this subject that may have occurred. In fairness I rarely tend to read the hockey threads at all.

So it there is a valid reason why the fighting went unchallenged by the officials (refs). I guess it makes it a bit of a spectacle, but been a professional sportsmen, they should be able to control their temper. I can imagine that tensions do run high and passions do over-boil a tad - we see it in football, a game built on passion - but they should have the ability to control their aggression and take it out on the game itself.

We see something along these lines in Rugby - if two players "square up", the ref will intervene and, a major difference here than in a lot of other sports, the ref is King. What (s)he says goes - end of story. The player who might of felt aggrieved, will (later in the game) thump the other player with a crunching tackle and may send him crashing into the advertising boards. Now that gets the crowd going. :D
 
I hope I don't bore anyone here, but:

Essentially, there are two schools (social vs biological, basically) of scientific thought on sport violence.  The social school believes it is all cultured.  Budding hockey fans in Canada (girls too) are tought by their peers and coaches to be tough, push, shove, etc. while (from what I've learned) Scandinavian hockey is much less violent.  I've seen a few games of 13 year-old girls playing hockey.  Head's smashed against boards, girl falls down, and her head is stepped on (with shoes -- it was on a carpet).  No one complains; she gets up and plays. 

The biological school, stemming from Aristotle, thinks that sport violence is just natures way of sharpening our natural instincts and serves as a catharsis for emotions that would otherwise be buried and stifled or used in more anti-social ways.

The third and truly correct school of thought comes from a hockey fan, former hockey player, coach and commentator -- Don Cherry.  The Canadian cultural and hockey icon Don Cherry exemplifies this behaviour.  He is always telling kids on national television in between games (Coach's Corner) to stick up for themselves, their team, and has on occasion or two or three called anti-fight camps as sissies, "French and European soft style" of hockey and urges young players to play like good old-fashioned Canadian boys, i.e. if you've got a problem on ice that a goal won't solve, use fists  :D. 
 
:yey: :yey: Canada did great in the first period the were  putting the pressure on Russia but in the second they started to slack and I was thinking that Russia might catch up. I had to go to work so I missed the third but ill be sure to watch the highlights.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I hope I don't bore anyone here, but:

Essentially, there are two schools (social vs biological, basically) of scientific thought on sport violence.  The social school believes it is all cultured.  Budding hockey fans in Canada (girls too) are tought by their peers and coaches to be tough, push, shove, etc. while (from what I've learned) Scandinavian hockey is much less violent.  I've seen a few games of 13 year-old girls playing hockey.  Head's smashed against boards, girl falls down, and her head is stepped on (with shoes -- it was on a carpet).  No one complains; she gets up and plays. 

The biological school, stemming from Aristotle, thinks that sport violence is just natures way of sharpening our natural instincts and serves as a catharsis for emotions that would otherwise be buried and stifled or used in more anti-social ways.

The third and truly correct school of thought comes from a hockey fan, former hockey player, coach and commentator -- Don Cherry.  The Canadian cultural and hockey icon Don Cherry exemplifies this behaviour.  He is always telling kids on national television in between games (Coach's Corner) to stick up for themselves, their team, and has on occasion or two or three called anti-fight camps as sissies, "French and European soft style" of hockey and urges young players to play like good old-fashioned Canadian boys, i.e. if you've got a problem on ice that a goal won't solve, use fists  :D. 
Click to expand...

That is all very interesting and most probably true, but I think the answer is much simpler. You have 10 guys pushing and shoving carryng a weapon: a hockey stick. And to prevent incidents like the Marty McSorely one it is better to let them fight it out the old fashion way.

I am NOT saying Marty McSorely intentionally injured... who was it? Carter? Can't remember. I believe it was an accident. But still, that is why hooking, spearing etc, are also penalties, but so people don't wield their sticks in anger, it is good they are allowed to punch each other out.
 
I'm really worried the way that the Canadians are playing.  A 8:3 loss against Ottawa, who is breathing down their neck.  Montreal lost 4/5 of their last games.  :(

Gotta go back!  Flames vs Oilers is about to start!  I've been waiting for these 3 games today for quite a while.
 
I watched the All-Stars game last night.  It was typical of such games -- a lot of talent, no rough play and a lot of goals.  I particularly like the first goals by Martin St. Louis and Teemu Sellane.  The way Teemu snuck his goal was well calculated and neat to watch.  The passing before St. Louis scored was impressive to me.  This kind of slow, methodical, highly calculated passing does not happen too often, or ever, outside of power plays, in typical games because most of the passers would have been blocked or roughed up.  I was happy that Joe Sakic scored again.

Did anybody else see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top