2017-2018 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
hockeyfan1
New member
Applause to Andrew Ference for telling not only like it is, but what it is that the NHL needs to do to reach changing demographics.
This is not a subject that hasn't cropped up from time to time. Even here in Canada, people have debated about the future of our national sport, where many recent immigrant families and others simply do not have the financial feasibility to support their children -- be it their sons or daughters -- to engage their enthusiasm to play hockey.
Ference hits the nail on the head, so to speak, as per the issues he discussed. He comes across as astute, sharpminded, and intelligent in the process.
He definitely knows what he's talking about.
This is not a subject that hasn't cropped up from time to time. Even here in Canada, people have debated about the future of our national sport, where many recent immigrant families and others simply do not have the financial feasibility to support their children -- be it their sons or daughters -- to engage their enthusiasm to play hockey.
Ference hits the nail on the head, so to speak, as per the issues he discussed. He comes across as astute, sharpminded, and intelligent in the process.
He definitely knows what he's talking about.
Frank E said:
I think you meant "I is just a better person than you guys is".
herman
Well-known member
Bullfrog said:
The point of the tactic is not to spend time in your own zone, it?s to have the puck. Behind their own net just happens to be where they have the most space and natural shelter. They smartly changed out players while trying to bait McDavid into overextending.
Counterintuitively, playing it that deep in your own zone means McDavid doesn?t get to weaponize his speed as much.
Bullfrog
Active member
I understand the tactic quite clearly; it's not particularly complicated, nor do I think it's counter-intuitive as you've suggested (taking away McDavid's transition game is obvious). I just disagree with it. Yes, it worked that time, but Getzlaf's zone exit wasn't exactly clean and they almost lost the puck a couple of times.
In OT, the team has already earned the point for a tie. When there's only 5 minutes to gain the 2nd point, you go for it.
In OT, the team has already earned the point for a tie. When there's only 5 minutes to gain the 2nd point, you go for it.
herman
Well-known member
Bullfrog said:
When the other team has McDavid, why would you open yourself to multiple McDavid chances by forcing forays? The shootout only lets McDavid get one crack at the net.
Yes, Anaheim found some luck there because McClellan didn't get his guys off the ice (fresh not-as-good players are almost always better than tired really good players). If they had just sat on it without the opening afforded to them, that still makes sense to me.
A couple of interesting notes on McDavid's case for the Hart:
https://twitter.com/EdmontonJack/status/978386053189877760
https://twitter.com/EdmontonJack/status/978396368141103105
https://twitter.com/EdmontonJack/status/978386053189877760
https://twitter.com/EdmontonJack/status/978396368141103105
hockeyfan1
New member
Zee said:
Well, finally. A little bit more clarity on what constitutes a goal allowed and what constitutes a disallowed goal as per goalie interference.
It still doesn't address the root cause of all the confusion. Besides, goaltenders need protection from their crease being invaded. The NHL still needs to address crease protection closer to IIHF rules.
Kin
New member
Nik the Trik said:
If McDavid was truly deserving of the Hart he would have scored 8 points instead of 3.
cabber24 said:
When people ask him how the weather is up there.