dmann422 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Stated perfectly. The press needs a narrative. Its even worse now that you have people who couldn't tell you what offsides is, trying to add to the narrative. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I was doing a face palm watching al michaels interview tretiak and larionov seperately and the first three questions he asked both of them were about that game... I mean I'm sure both of those guys aren't really thinking about one game that happened 3 decades ago, they're focusing on winning now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I think the format they use now is horrendous. Every team advancing makes the round robin almost meaningless, and the seeding for the qualification and quarterfinals is more complicated than it needs to be. Having three pools forces them to give the fourth bye to a wild card team, which to me isn't fair because it is difficult to compare second place teams in three different pools after playing just three games with no opponents in common. If they insist on having twelve teams, the most sensible way would seem to have two pools of six and then have the top two to four in each pool advance. In order to fit a round robin that long, they would have to start the tournament sooner rather than waiting a few days after the Olympics begin, so the NHL probably wouldn't be too happy about that.I don't like the everyone makes the knockout round thing either but you know why they do it, so that the non-NHL All Star teams get at least one knockout round game instead of just having the last spot or two be more or less randomized based on who gets the weaker pool and everyone else show up to be eliminated in 2-3 games.And I'm not sure basing anything on seven games with All-Star merc's over two weeks is going to be any more fair to begin with, especially with the shootout factor. Not to mention there isn't enough time to play every team regardless. Edited February 17, 2014 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 They basically give every team 4 games in the Olympics minimum. I don't have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I think it's apples and oranges when comparing international sports to pro sports. The NHL is designed to create parity and result in rotating success by having the less successful teams draft higher and allowing struggling teams to trade valuable current players for picks and prospects. All teams are much closer to each other skillwise than in international competition, where you can not rely on a draft, trades, or free agency to construct a roster. Nah, I agree, but as a true hockey fan, I shake my head during some of these "remember 1980" moments, or when they interview someone and that's the question they ask (like retired Russian players can't stop thinking about the Miracle On Ice; I'm sure they got over it next Olympics when they won gold again). As a pragmatic fan, it just reminds me of the whole Rangers/1994 coverage we're always making fun of lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Nah, I agree, but as a true hockey fan, I shake my head during some of these "remember 1980" moments, or when they interview someone and that's the question they ask (like retired Russian players can't stop thinking about the Miracle On Ice; I'm sure they got over it next Olympics when they won gold again). As a pragmatic fan, it just reminds me of the whole Rangers/1994 coverage we're always making fun of lol... Yea I cringe every time they refer to 1980 every chance they get. This year it made sense though in a way. Just imagine a US vs Russia gold medal game though. 1980 will be all they talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) Nah, I agree, but as a true hockey fan, I shake my head during some of these "remember 1980" moments, or when they interview someone and that's the question they ask (like retired Russian players can't stop thinking about the Miracle On Ice; I'm sure they got over it next Olympics when they won gold again). As a pragmatic fan, it just reminds me of the whole Rangers/1994 coverage we're always making fun of lol... The funny thing, is when you look at that game from a strictly pragmatic/forensic standpoint, it wasn't like the Americans' game plan really worked wonders. The US only managed 16 shots on goal to Russia's 40...the Russian team was getting its opportunities, just couldn't finish enough...and Russian players from that team said that they were so used to getting so many scoring opportunities against their opponents, that they often didn't try to make the very most of them, as they figured they'd just keep getting more as the game went on. Tretiak hadn't really been playing all that well leading up to the Olympics and didn't really play terribly well in the Olympics either. That's not to take anything at all away from the US in winning that game (Jim Craig was terrific in shutting the Russians down after he gave up the third goal), but that Russian squad wasn't playing its finest hockey in that tournament either...both Finland and Canada showed that team to be vulnerable and not quite on top of their game. Edited February 17, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) The funny thing, is when you look at that game from a strictly pragmatic/forensic standpoint, it wasn't like the Americans' game plan really worked wonders. The US only managed 16 shots on goal to Russia's 40...the Russian team was getting its opportunities, just couldn't finish enough...and Russian players from that team said that they were so used to getting so many scoring opportunities against their opponents, that they often didn't try to make the very most of them, as they figured they'd just keep getting more as the game went on. Tretiak hadn't really been playing all that well leading up to the Olympics and didn't really play terribly well in the Olympics either. That's not to take anything at all away from the US in winning that game (Jim Craig was terrific in shutting that Russians down after he gave up the third goal), but that Russian squad wasn't playing its finest hockey in that tournament either...both Finland and Canada showed that team to be vulnerable and not quite on top of their game. Oh I agree completely. Maybe I have the unpopular opinion here but I think we stole that win; there were loooong moments throughout the 1st and 2nd where they were in our zone and we weren't generating anything. Their defense was way more sound than I thought it would be and they shut us down. They made Patrick Kane look bad, he was coughing up pucks left and right. We found a way to win, which is good, but not ideal moving forward. I wouldn't look forward to playing Russia again, I can tell you that. I knew if we someone squeezed out a win, most people would forget all of the complains people had about the American roster, but I think a lot of the things and shortcomings we thought the American roster would have still hold true. A whole lot of grit, but not enough players like Phil Kessel (or Ovechkin, Semin, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, etc.)... Edited February 17, 2014 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Oh I agree completely. Maybe I have the unpopular opinion here but I think we stole that win; there were loooong moments throughout the 1st and 2nd where they were in our zone and we weren't generating anything. Their defense was way more sound than I thought it would be and they shut us down. They made Patrick Kane look bad, he was coughing up pucks left and right. We found a way to win, which is good, but not ideal moving forward. I wouldn't look forward to playing Russia again, I can tell you that. I knew if we someone squeezed out a win, most people would forget all of the complains people had about the American roster, but I think a lot of the things and shortcomings we thought the American roster would have still hold true. A whole lot of grit, but not enough players like Phil Kessel (or Ovechkin, Semin, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, etc.)... Not sure if you read my post right...I was talking about the '80 win against the Russians, not the '14 win, which is what you are referring to. I wasn't able to see that game, don't know many details about that game other than shootout shooters getting multiple attempts, and the disallowed Russian goal due to the net being off its moorings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Nah, I agree, but as a true hockey fan, I shake my head during some of these "remember 1980" moments, or when they interview someone and that's the question they ask (like retired Russian players can't stop thinking about the Miracle On Ice; I'm sure they got over it next Olympics when they won gold again). As a pragmatic fan, it just reminds me of the whole Rangers/1994 coverage we're always making fun of lol... Yeah the interviews are kind of ridiculous and I agree there probably aren't any Russians that are still bummed about it, but it was such a big upset that it for us it should be bigger than the Rangers 94 Cup should be to them since every NHL team should theoretically have equal footing, so every Stanley Cup championship is equal to the prior and following one. I think the fact that the 1980 US team was a bunch of college kids that hated each other months prior taking down the best professional hockey team in the world makes it more acceptable to be brought up still today, especially when you consider that the Olympics attract mainstream people that otherwise don't care for hockey and the Miracle on Ice was a hockey moment that non-hockey fans can relate to. I think they are just trying to make the current games more compelling for those people whereas the Rangers' ongoing 94 celebration has more of a "look how good we were that time" vibe to it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIP72 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Next month's Brooks article: "Why Devils can never avenge 'The Guarantee'" I think the national media has already read that article and bought into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I think the national media has already read that article and bought into it. I've been playing NHL 14 on X-Box the past month since my girlfriend got it for me for Christmas. While the "commentators" do acknowledge our playoff run from a few years ago at some point during most games, when you play the Rangers they talk about all the "chapters" in the rivalry and Gary Thorne says something like, he remembers the 1994 chapter very well, and then ends it there, doesn't mention 2012; blew me away first time I heard it last week. It doesn't come up everytime Devils play the Rangers but it does sometimes. Edited February 18, 2014 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.